12 Annual Integrated Report

12 Annual Integrated
th
Rating and Ranking of

Power Distribution Utilities
March 2024
This report captures the outcomes and insights
from the Twelfth (12th) Integrated Rating and Ranking
Acknowledgements
Exercise, as per the framework approved by the
Ministry of Power, with Power Finance Corporation
Limited (PFC) as the nodal agency.
REC Limited provided feedback and inputs on

the exercise. The utilities across states were also
forthcoming with sharing data and other important
inputs during the exercise.
Detailed analysis for the Twelfth Integrated Rating

and Ranking of the Power Distribution Utilities,
based on audited and provisional accounts of
power distribution utilities, has been carried out by
McKinsey & Company Inc. McKinsey was supported
by Feedback Infra Private Limited which was
subcontracted for data analysis and utility outreach.
The Committee constituted for the 12th Integrated

Rating Exercise – with Member (E&C), Central
Electricity Authority (CEA), Director, National Institute
of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), Director
(Commercial), PFC and Director (Technical), REC
– also contributed to the recommendations for
the report. The Twelfth (12th) Integrated Rating and
Ranking of the Power Distribution Utilities has been
approved by the Ministry of Power.
Except where otherwise stated, all data in this report

is sourced from audited and provisional annual
accounts of 67 power distribution utilities, tariff
and true-up orders issued by various regulatory
commissions, RDSS plans, other supporting
information submitted by the power distribution
utilities for the rating exercise.
Bara Bagh, Jaisalmer
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Background and Introduction
2.1 Introduction to 12th Integrated Rating Exercise
2.2 Summary of the 12 Integrated Rating methodology
th
1
17
18
20
Ratings and results of the 12th Integrated Rating Exercise 25
3.1 State & Private Utilities 26
3.2 Power Departments 28
3.3 Performance of Discoms on rating metrics 29
State of India Sector 33
4.1 Rise in power demand and supply 34
4.2 Increase in power purchase costs 36
4.3 Improvement in Aggregate Technical and
Commercial (AT&C) losses 39
4.4 Regulatory Environment 42
4.5 Absolute Cash-adjusted Gap 44
4.6 Legacy issues in the power distribution sector 49
4.7 Improving performance of targeted utilities 57
4.8 Policy Initiatives to support the sector 59
Comparison with 11th IR 67
5.1 12th vs 11th ratings: Grade and score snapshot 69
5.2 Cash-adjusted ACS-ARR movement b/w 11th and 12th Ratings 72
Best practices for the Power Distribution Sector 75
APPENDIX 83
Important updates in the 12 Rating Exercise
th
84
Key findings by Discom 86
Scoring methodology 353
Definitions 363
Glossary of terms 365
Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi
01
Executive Summary
The Indian power sector has made significant FY23 was an unprecedented year for the power
strides in improving power availability while distribution sector. Electricity demand grew
meeting the rapid increase in power demand by 8-9 percent for the second consecutive
driven by robust economic growth. Over the year, necessitating the government to invoke
past decade, electricity generation has nearly Section 11 of the Electricity Act to mandate coal
doubled, surpassing 1,624 BU1 in FY23. India blending to ensure sufficient electricity supply.
has emerged as the largest integrated grid in The escalation in imported coal usage, coupled
the world by implementing One Nation-One with a surge in international coal prices, drove
Grid. Moreover, India achieved its Nationally up power purchase costs substantially. This
Determined Contributions target set in 2015, posed a financial challenge for the Discoms,
well ahead of the 2030 deadline. Building on many of whom were unable to automatically
this success, India has set even higher targets, pass through cost increases. While utilities
aiming to reduce emission intensity by 45 managed to reduce their Aggregate Technical
percent over 2005 levels and increase the share and Commercial (AT&C) losses, the sectoral
of non-fossil fuel power capacity to 50 percent 2. debt increased substantially to meet
operational expenditure.
To achieve these ambitious targets, the
government has taken multiple initiatives, The government has launched several
including the launch of the PM Suryoday Yojana ambitious reforms to address challenges faced
to accelerate the adoption of rooftop solar to 1 in the power distribution sector. This includes
crore households, the announcement of the the launch of flagship Revamped Distribution
National Green Hydrogen Mission, viability gap Sector Scheme (RDSS), the introduction
funding for Battery Energy Storage Systems of Late Payment Surcharge Rules 2022,
(BESS), incentives for Pumped Hydro Storage Electricity Amendment Rules 2022, Electricity
(PSH), promotion of green open access Amendment Rules 2023, Electricity (Right
among others.
1
Ministry of Power
2
PIB
12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 1

of Consumers) Rules 2020, and Green Open Access Rules 2022, which, inter-alia, provide
regulations for subsidy accounting, pass-through of fuel costs, access to green energy, resource
adequacy, energy storage, and time-of-day tariffs.
The Annual Integrated Rating Exercise, conducted under the approval and guidance of the
Ministry of Power since 2012, plays an important role in addressing these challenges. It serves as
a transparent, authentic source 3 for utilities to assess their performance and provides a blueprint
for stakeholders to develop their policies, redressal solutions, measure impact, etc. This report
publishes results and insights from the 12th edition of this annual exercise, conducted by the
Power Finance Corporation Limited as the nodal agency, covering 72 power distribution utilities
comprising 44 state discoms, 15 private discoms, and 13 power departments across India.
Findings from this year’s exercise

Power demand continued to grow at 8-9 percent
Historically, power demand grew at 4.3 percent CAGR between FY14 and FY20, in contrast to 8.9
percent CAGR between FY21 and FY23 4 . This considerable rise can be attributed to sustained
economic growth, strong emphasis on domestic manufacturing sector, higher infrastructure
spending and rising incomes leading to higher domestic power consumption. This trend was also
noticeable in Commercial & Industrial (C&I) sector, where electricity sales surged by over 18 percent
CAGR over FY21 to FY23.
Exhibit 1
Total electricity demand

BUs
+8.9% p.a.
1,512
+4.3% p.a.
1,380
1,275 1,291 1,276

1,213
1,143
1,114
1,069
1,002
FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
Source: Ministry of Power
3
Except where otherwise stated, all data in this report is sourced from audited and provisional annual accounts of 67 participating
power distribution utilities, tariff and true-up orders issued by various regulatory commissions, RDSS plans, other supporting
information submitted by the power distribution utilities or obtained from Ministry of Power and its agencies.
4
Ministry of Power
2 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities

This rise in demand was particularly noticeable in the first quarter of the year, with a year-on-year
increase of up to 24 percent5 .
The sale of electricity increased by more than 10 percent in 9 states: Haryana, Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Odisha. In order to ensure
uninterrupted power supply, the government issued directives under Section 11 of the Electricity Act
to the generation utilities.
Exhibit 2
Monthly electricity demand FY22 v/s FY23
BUs Y-o-Y Growth FY22 FY23
24%
140 25%
130 20%
17%
120 14% 15%

15% 12%
11% 12%
10%
110 10%
100 4% 5%
2%
0%
90 -2% 0%
80 -5%
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Higher increase in
peak demand months
of summer
Source: CEA
Power purchase costs increased by 71 paise per unit

The growth in power demand and global geo-political challenges resulted in an unprecedented
increase in national power purchase costs of 71 paise per unit in FY23. This rise in power purchase
costs was driven by:
• Increase in imported coal volume: With coal stock depleting at power plants, the government
had to take steps to meet the growing power demand, resulting in significant increase in coal
imports. Coal imports in FY23 reached 56 MTPA, which was more than double the 27 MTPA
imported in FY22 6 .
• Rise in prices of imported coal: The coal price in international market increased substantially
during FY22 and FY23, driven by Russia-Ukraine war and demand surge in countries like India,
China. The average cost of imported coal for India7 rose to over INR 12,500 per ton in FY23 from
INR 8,300 in FY22 and INR 4,300 in FY21, primarily driven by a rise in Indonesian coal prices that
constitutes majority of the imports.
5
CEA
6
CEA
7
India Climate & Energy Dashboard, NITI Aayog

Exhibit 3
Power purchase costs

(INR / kWh)
FY20 4.68
FY21 4.74 +1.1% p.a.
FY22 4.78
+15.0% p.a.
FY23 5.49
• Surge in power exchange prices: As demand grew, utilities were compelled to procure power
from the exchanges. Consequently, exchange prices reached as high and INR 18 to 20 per unit
as more and more Discoms bid for power and the exchange transitioned from predominantly
buyers’ markets to a sellers’ market. Average exchange prices rose from INR 4.69 per unit in
FY22 to INR 6.06 per unit in FY23. The rise was much more prevalent in summer months with Q1
prices rising from INR 3.14 per unit in FY22 to INR 7.86 per unit in FY23 8 .
11 Discoms saw an increase in power purchase of more than a rupee: APCPDCL, APDCL,
Torrent Power Ahmedabad, UHBVNL, DHBVNL, MSPDCL, TANGEDCO, TSSPDCL, TSNPDCL,
DVVNL and UPCL. The increase in power purchase costs varied among utilities due to differences
in electricity-mix across thermal, gas, hydro, RE etc. For example, Assam has a much higher
reliance on gas-based power than national average. Additionally, variations in the quantum of
power purchased from exchanges further contributed to this difference. For instance, Uttarakhand
purchased significantly higher share of its power demand from the exchange as compared to the
national average.
8
IEX
City Palace, Udaipur

Billing Efficiency increased by 1 percent as AT&C improved further to 15.4 percent,
reaching closer to the national goal of 12-15 percent
• AT&C losses during the year fell from 16.2 percent to 15.4 percent, driven by a one percentage
point increase in billing efficiency.
• 43 out of 67 utilities saw an improvement in their AT&C losses, with 13 utilities recording
a greater than 5 percent improvement. These utilities were Ladakh PD, MSPDCL,
PuVVNL, MVVNL, TPCODL, TPWODL, Mizoram PD, TCED, TPNODL, SBPDCL, DVVNL, NBPDCL
and APSPDCL.
• Billing efficiency improved in 52 utilities, with eight improving by over 3 percent. These utilities
were Ladakh PD, UHBVNL, NBPDCL, DVVNL, MePDCL, MSPDCL, Mizoram PD and PVVNL.
• Billing efficiency improvement was primarily driven by replacement of defective meters,
improved vigilance in the prevention of theft, and segregation of agriculture feeders.
Exhibit 4
Trends in AT&C losses, Billing efficiency and Collection efficiency for FY21 to FY23
Percent
AT&C losses Billing efficiency

+2.2%
-5.8%
84.8% 86.1% 87.0%

21.2%
16.2% FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

15.4%
Collection efficiency
+4.5%
92.9% 97.3% 97.3%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Collection efficiency continued to remain high at 97 percent
• Aggregate Tariff subsidy disbursement by state governments was more than 100% of booked
tariff subsidies. Further, past tariff subsidy arrears were also cleared in some states. Utilities
also focused on improving customer collections, through digital payments, rural awareness
drives etc.
• 23 out of 67 utilities recorded collection efficiency of 100 percent.
• Better consumer collections, coupled with provisioning of aged receivables in some states
helped to improve the days receivable from 138 in FY22 to 119 in FY23.
• Nine Discoms reduced their days receivable by over 30 days. These were HESCOM,
MPMKVVCL, MPPoKVVCL, SBPDCL and 5 Uttar Pradesh Discoms.
• State Discoms from three states, namely Uttar Pradesh (406 days), Maharashtra (196 days) and
Telangana (182 days) contributed to over 60 percent of the national trade receivables.
Exhibit 5
Timeliness of Tariff Orders
Not Issued Delayed Timely
FY 2022 14 13 9
FY 2023 22 11 3
FY 2024 26 8 2
Timely tariff orders and automatic pass-through of fuel costs raised ARR
• Regulatory support in terms of timely tariff orders, automatic pass-through in some states and
general increase in tariffs through the regulatory process helped increase the National Average
Revenue Realized (ARR) per unit energy.
• Regulators issued timely tariff orders for 26 states and union territories for FY24, up from 20 in
FY23 and only 14 in FY22.
• 7 states / union territories which didn’t have tariff orders in FY22 were issued orders for FY23:
Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Ladakh, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Telangana.
• 8 states / union territories which had delayed tariff orders in FY22 were issued timely orders
for FY23: Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Punjab,
Puducherry and Uttarakhand.
• 15 state regulators implemented automatic pass-through of fuel costs which allowed these
states’ Discoms to pass on the rise in power purchase costs during the year. These were Assam,
Chhattisgarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Mizoram, Puducherry, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal.
• Substantial regulatory assets persisted in Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Kerala and Delhi totaling
INR 152,500 crore at the end of FY23. Only Maharashtra has liquidated regulatory assets,
reducing them from INR 12,000 crore in FY21 to INR 4,000 crore in FY23.

Subsidy disbursals crossed 100 percent for the second consecutive year
The state governments continued to disburse 100 percent of tariff subsidy booked in FY23,
with some also clearing part of past arrears. Among the 24 states providing tariff subsidies to
consumers, 21 states disbursed 100 percent or more of the booked amounts. On an aggregate
national level, state governments disbursed 108 percent of the tariff subsidy booked during the year.
Some state governments also disbursed loss-takeover subsidies (primarily Tamil Nadu, Telangana,
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh). The total amount of such grants disbursed
during the year was over INR 43,600 crore vs INR 23,200 crore in FY22. This improvement helped
increase the National ARR by 14 paise per unit.
Days Payable reduced to 126 days driven by LPS Rules

• LPS Rules drove liquidation of INR 48,000 crore in FY23, and is expected to drive further
liquidation in coming years as well.
• This helped bring down Days Payable (to GenCos & TransCos) from 166 in FY22 to 126 in FY23
despite a 24% rise in power purchase expenses.
• 16 Discoms reduced their Days Payable by more than 50 days. These were APSPDCL, AVVNL,
BRPL, BYPL, CSPDCL, JBVNL, JdVVNL, JVVNL, KESCO, MPMKVVCL, MSEDCL, PVVNL,
SBPDCL, TANGEDCO, TSNPDCL and TSSPDCL
• State Utilities from 4 states, namely Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Telangana
accounted for 48 percent of the national trade payables.
Exhibit 6
Trend in Trade Payables
Payables to GenCos & TransCos

(INR ‘000 crores)
275 289 274
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Power purchase costs (INR ‘000 Cr) Days payable (Days)
+24.3% -23.7%
791 175 166

573 636 126
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Gross input
energy (BUs) 1,210 1,332 1,440

Exhibit 7
Drivers for change in cash-adjusted ACS-ARR Gap from FY22 – FY23
INR / kWh
0.10 0.14
0.46
0.71
0.55
0.01
0.33
FY22 cash- Increase Increase Increase in Increase Improvement FY23 cash-

adjusted in power in other excess subsidy in revenue in change adjusted
ACS-ARR gap purchase costs expenses realization booked in receivables ACS-ARR gap
Consequently, ACS-ARR Gap widened by 22 paise per unit, from 33 paise in FY22 to
55 paise in FY23 pushing the absolute cash gap to over INR 79,000 crore
• The absolute cash gap increased from INR 44,000 crore in FY22 to over INR 79,000 crore
in FY23, driven by widening ACS-ARR gap and approximately 8 percent growth in gross
input energy.
• 6 utilities: MSEDCL (28 percent), TANGEDCO (11 percent), PuVVNL (10 percent),
MVVNL (8 percent) and TSSPDCL (7 percent) and DVVNL (7 percent) contributed over 70
percent of the positive national gap while accounting for 28 percent of the national input energy.
• However, the following state Discoms showed considerable improvement during the year with
total improvement amounting to almost INR 19,000 crore.
Exhibit 8
Utility State Improvement in cash adjusted gap (INR Cr)
MPMKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 3,802
SBPDCL Bihar 3,380
APSPDCL Andhra Pradesh 3,243
PVVNL Uttar Pradesh 2,115
MPPaKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 1,836
TSSPDCL Telangana 1,340
MPPoKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 1,179
NBPDCL Bihar 918
APCPDCL Andhra Pradesh 892
TSNPDCL Telangana 724

Exhibit 9
Trend in national debt, gross capex and additional working capital requirement of Discoms
Sources of Capital Investment of Capital
INR ‘000 crores INR ‘000 crores
113
Operational losses (excl. receivables & payables)
22
11
FY 2022 FY 2023
74 70
Gross CAPEX deployment3
Debt 70
38 57
Equity (excl. retained
earnings)1
Other sources 2
12 FY 2022 FY 2023
18
WC requirement for receivables & payables
31
22
18
7
FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2022 FY 2023
Based on the annual audited and provisional accounts of 55 Discoms

1 Equity (excl. Retained Earnings) = Share Capital, Share Application Money Pending Allotment
2 Includes Security Deposits and Government & Consumer contribution towards capital assets
3 Includes Gross Fixed Assets, Intangible Assets, CWIP, Capital Advances and Assets not in Use
Total debt rose by INR 70,000 crore for funding of Capex, working capital
requirement and operational losses
• 5 states (Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Telangana) accounted for
over 89 percent of the debt increase for the nation. It is key to note, only Tamil Nadu and Andhra
Pradesh were also among the top 5 contributors for capex.
• Uttar Pradesh State Discoms were the largest recipient of equity infusion of over
INR 6,500 crore.
• Higher debt raised in a high interest rate environment pushed up the average interest rates. Given
the fall in ACS-ARR as well, DSCR fell from 0.44 in FY22 to 0.26 in FY23.
• Discoms from four states: Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, accounted
for close to 55 percent of the total sector’s debt, with Tamil Nadu alone accounting for
23 percent of the total sector’s debt.
• 5 Discoms reduced their total debt by over INR 1,000 crore. These were KSEBL, DVVNL,
MPPaKVVCL, MPPoKVVCL and PuVVNL.

The challenges of this year highlighted the scope for further
improvement
Planning for securing power supply: One of the major highlights from this year’s exercise, has been
an unprecedented rise in power demand especially during the summer months of FY23. This trend
continued in FY24, with power demand for first three quarters growing by 8 percent as compared to
the same period in FY23 9. According to the 20th Electric Power Survey, India’s energy consumption
is expected to grow at over 7 percent over the till FY27 and 5.8 percent thereafter. Consequently, it
becomes important to plan ahead to meet this growing demand. While long term power contracting
has been carried out minimally in recent years due to high variability in generation costs, Discoms
may need to reconsider their medium term and short-term power contracting strategy to ensure
power availability. The government has also issued resource adequacy framework to emphasize
balancing long, medium, and short-term power contracting solutions. This underscores
the importance for utilities to develop data-backed, granular and detailed power demand
projections, whilst considering the evolution of load curves due to the addition of substantial solar
rooftops, electric vehicles, air-conditioning loads in the network.
Developing smart infrastructure: India is behind developed nations in terms of power quality,
such as SAIDI and SAIFI parameters. Several government schemes, including R-APDRP, IPDS,
and now RDSS, have allocated funds to improve network quality. Smart interventions such
as implementation of SCADA, DMS, OMS, equipment health monitoring, condition-based
maintenance of transformers, GIS mapping of assets, adoption of ERP & CRM software,
comprehensive customer app etc. can significantly enhance power quality, operational efficiency
and customer experience. The installation pace of smart meters at all levels, including customer,
feeder, and transformer, could be accelerated to reduce losses, and improve working capital cycle of
the utilities.
Utility led initiatives: Demand flexibility represents an efficient mechanism for addressing the
increasing peak power demand. Time-of-day tariffs is a cost effective and efficient way to
build system flexibility and can be facilitated smoothly with installation of smart meters. It would
incentivize consumption during non-peak hours and can be customized on a state or utility basis.
With the anticipated rise in smart metering due to the implementation of RDSS, it is imperative to
capitalize on the huge influx of data, enhance capabilities, and develop data-based analytical
tools. These tools can be instrumental in reducing Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C)
losses, enhancing power procurement planning, and improving customer service.
The central government has also pushed for certain process reforms in the sector. It has
established subsidy accounting on per unit basis, aiming to transition from provisional and lump
sum subsidy calculation to an approach of per unit subsidy calculated based on metered supply to
subsidized customers. Smart metering and feeder segregation would be key enablers for transition
to this approach. Additionally, the government has established distribution utilities to undertake
energy accounting, which would enable utilities to identify losses, and account for tariff subsidy
accurately. Furthermore, many utilities have Days Receivable of more than a year and could take
steps to streamline their accounts. Utilities could provision off receivables beyond a certain age as
per prudential accounting practices.
Support from regulators: While Discoms are encouraged to pursue planning, infrastructure, and
process improvements, they would require support from a proactive external environment as well.
State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) support the sector's health by ensuring the
timely implementation of automatic pass-through of fuel costs and tariff orders. Automatic
pass-through of fuel costs would help cushion Discoms against power price shocks, similar to
those witnessed in FY23 when power procurement costs increased by 71 paise per unit at the
national level. The Ministry of Power, had established automatic power purchase costs adjustment
on monthly basis in the Electricity Amendment Rules 2022, but is yet to be implemented for some
of the states. It would help in improving the liquidity and financial performance of the utilities.
Power price adjustment of any month is to be claimed by Discoms within the next two months, to
9
CEA

avoid forfeiture of recovery right. Further, while tariff orders are being issued timely for almost all
states, issues still persist in UP, Jharkhand, Delhi, Kerala which in turn adversely affect the financials
of utilities.
Support from state governments: Some states, particularly Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Delhi, and
Kerala, have significant Regulatory Assets. State governments could collaborate with regulators
to develop solutions for liquidating these regulatory assets, which could alleviate the financial
strain on utilities in these states. It is worth noting that government dues account for approximately
a third of the entire sector's trade receivables. This issue could be addressed with the support of
state governments by ensuring timely payment of government dues and transitioning to pre-paid
metering for government consumption. States with substantial financial losses in their utilities
have begun providing support in the form of loss-takeover grants. This support could be continued
until utilities are able to improve their financial performance.
Best Practices for the Utilities

During the 12th Integrated Exercise, several best practices have been proposed from interactions
with utilities that Discoms could consider to improve their billing and collection efficiencies and
manage working capital more effectively. These include:
• Advanced meter reading capabilities: Leveraging AI-based mobile apps and Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) readers to record meter readings, reducing errors associated with manual
readings and providing readily available proofs to address billing-related complaints.
• GIS Mapping of Assets: Utilizing Geographical Information Systems (GIS) solutions to map
all assets such as transformers, network lines, and customer meters to create an up-to-date
network map. This enables optimized deployment of field workforce, faster fault identification
and outage management.
• ERP and CRM tools: Deploying ERP tools to manage operations effectively, optimize employee
KPIs, automate repetitive tasks through robotic process automation, and implementing CRM
tools to enhance customer engagement and reduce response and resolution times.
• Self-service payment kiosks: Installing self-service kiosks in place of manned billing counters
to accommodate customers preferring non-digital payment methods. These kiosks can
offer 24x7 operations, multiple payment options (cash, card, cheques, online payment), and
easy accessibility.
• Real time power usage monitoring: Providing customers the facility to monitor power
consumption in real-time thus enabling them to understand and optimize usage.
• Integrated Customer application: Developing a single application for customers to track bills,
payments, prepaid balance, lodge and track complaints, raise requests, and receive alerts,
providing a seamless customer experience.
• Rural programs: Focusing on improving rural collections by partnering with local agents for
collections, conducting awareness drives, and leveraging mass media to educate customers.
• Improve Accounting practices: Adhering to accounting standards (IND-AS) as prescribed under
the Companies Accounting Standard Rules, maintaining records of aging trade receivables in
quarterly or annual accounts, consistently classifying consumer security deposits as either
current or non-current liabilities, and capturing information on electricity duty and cess income
and receivables.

About the 12th Integrated Rating Exercise
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise methodology comprises 15 base rating metrics and nine
disincentives, culminating in a comprehensive score out of 100 to evaluate each Discom’s
performance holistically10 . Subsequently, Discoms are assigned grades (A+, A, B, B-, C, C- and D)
based on these scores and specific overriding conditions11.
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise maintains the same rating framework as the 10th and 11th, thus
allowing stakeholders to easily compare their performance with that from the previous 2 years,
identify key trends and gauge the impact of measures taken. It also brings forth persistent areas of
concern that need resolution.
10
For Power Departments, a subset of metrics is being used, in view of their non-corporatized nature of operations. This subset of
metrics has been detailed in Section 2.2.2
11
Overriding conditions are cash adjusted ACS-ARR gap, red card metrics, and increase in regulatory assets
Exhibit 10
Summary of the 12th integrated rating methodology for State & Private Discoms
15 Base Metrics and 9 Specific Disincentives
Red card metric
Integrated Rating
Performance External
Financial Sustainability 75% 13% 12%
Excellence Environment
Overall ACS – ARR Gap 35 Billing Efficiency 5 Subsidy Realized 4

Profitability and (cash adjusted) (Last 3 FYs)
Cash Position Collection
Days Receivable 3 5
Efficiency Loss Takeover by 3
State Government
GenCo, TransCo & Days Payable to 10 Distribution Loss 2
Operational GenCos & TransCos (SERC approved) Government Dues 3
Obligations (Last 3 FYs)
Adjusted Quick Ratio 10
Corporate 1
Governance Tariff Cycle 1
Lender Debt Service Coverage 10 Timelines
Obligations Ratio (cash adjusted)
Auto Pass Through 1
Leverage (Debt/EBITDA) 7
of Fuel Costs
(cash adjusted)
Specific Disincentives1,2
Auditor’s -15 Audit Qualifications -4 Tariff Independent -1

Adverse Opinion of Subsidy
Availability of -15 Governance (Audit Committee, -3 Uncovered Revenue -4

Audited Accounts Exclusive MD & DF, Quarterly Accounts) Gap (Current Year)
Default to -15 Tariff Cycle Delays -4.5 Regulatory Assets3 -5

Banks/FIs
1 The cumulative impact on the integrated score from all Specific Disincentives will be capped at -10 points, except in the case of Red card metrics
2 Red card metrics carry a heavy disincentive score which is not capped under the limit for Specific Disincentives and results in ineligibility for A+, A grades
3 Increase in regulatory assets balance will result in ineligibility for A+, A and B grades

The Integrated rating framework had been comprehensively reviewed and revised, with the
following major changes:
• Replacing metrics based on accrual accounting with cash-adjusted metrics: This was done to
surface the true, on-ground financial position of the sector.
• Increasing focus on quantitative metrics: This data was derived from audited accounts and
regulatory filings and provided greater authenticity and information than the qualitative ones.
• Forming a committee (constituted by MoP) to review discom ratings and factor in impact of
events of significance. This was done basis key events, such as regulatory developments and
new defaults to banks and financial institutions, during the year.
Results from the 12th Integrated Rating Exercise

The scores and grades of Discoms have shown improvement in the 12th Ratings, as compared to the
previous 11th Ratings
• Among the 55 discoms covered in 12th Integrated Ratings, 30 saw improved scores
• Despite a challenging year, 17 Discoms saw grades improve, whereas 14 discoms have
been downgraded.
• The number of Discoms awarded C or lesser grade (C-, D) have reduced from 32 in FY21 to
17 in FY23
Exhibit 11
Split of state and private Discoms by grade
No. of Discoms
14 4 7 13 11 6 0
Grade A+ A B B- C C- D
Note: Excludes Power Departments (grades assigned to them are available in Section 3.2)
Split of Discoms by performance trajectory
20 17 18
39 10 8
Integrated score
trajectory
Improving Stable Declining
Note:
Improving: Integrated Score of 12th Ratings increased by 5% or more than 11th Ratings
Declining: Integrated Score of 12th Ratings decreased by 5% or more than 11th Ratings
Stable: Integrated Score of 12th Ratings increased/decreased by less than 5% than 11th Ratings

Overview of metric performance
• Out of the 72 Utilities covered in the 12th Integrated Rating, 66 have been rated with the exception
of JPDCL, KPDCL, Lakshadweep PD, and Chandigarh PD, as audited accounts were not
available, and CESC and TPML who did not participated in the exercise.
• 32 out of 55 Discoms rated and 7 out of 11 PDs rated showed an improvement in the score in 12th
Integrated Ratings.
• 22 utilities showed an improvement in cash-adjusted ACS-ARR gap, with MPMKVVCL, SBPDCL
and KESCO improving by more than INR 1 per unit. 22 utilities had a surplus gap.
• Billing efficiency continued to increase reaching 87 percent in FY23. 18 utilities had billing
efficiency higher than 92 percent, while 16 reported less than 82 percent. These utilities
contributed 17 percent and 14 percent of aggregate gross input energy, respectively.
• 31 out of 67 utilities were not able to meet the distribution loss targets set SERC.
• Collection efficiency remained high at 97 percent with 23 utilities having 100 percent Collection
Efficiency and 45 utilities having CE of 97 percent or higher.
• 45 utilities had a positive Cash-adjusted DSCR with 25 having DSCR > 1. 30 utilities had a positive
Leverage lower than 5. 19 utilities had an AQR > 1.
• 34 utilities had Days Receivable of less than 60 while 55 reported an improvement.
• 15 Discoms had Days Payable under 45 days with 39 Discoms showing an improvement.
• 17 Discoms scored more than 10 marks out of 13 marks in the performance excellence
dimension (i.e. billing efficiency, collection efficiency, corporate governance, distribution
loss -SERC Approved).
• 23 Discoms scored more than 10 marks out of maximum of 12 marks in the external
environment dimension (i.e., subsidy realized, loss takeover by state government, government
dues, tariff cycle timelines, auto-pass through of fuel costs).
• Tariff orders for FY24 were issued for 65 of 72 utilities in the country. Three State/UT regulators
did not issue them, including West Bengal (for IPCL and CESC), Delhi and Jharkhand. Among the
65 orders received, regulators issued 50 orders on a timely basis with 15 delayed orders. Delayed
orders were issued in Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Uttar Pradesh, J&K, Kerala,
Ladakh, Punjab, and Tripura.
• FY22 true-up orders were issued for 59 out of 72 utilities. The ones yet to be issued were utilities
from the State / UTs of West Bengal (for IPCL and CESC), Delhi, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, J&K,
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Chandigarh. Of the 59 orders issued, 16 were
delayed. Delayed orders were issued in Arunachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Kerala, Ladakh,
Meghalaya, Nagaland, Punjab. Tripura and West Bengal (for WBSEDCL).
• Automatic pass through of fuel costs was implemented for 39 out of 72 utilities in FY23.
States which did not implement the same were Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh,
Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Chandigarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, J&K, Ladakh,
Lakshadweep, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura,
Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh.

Transmission tower in Munnar, Kerala
Bandra Worli Sea Link, Mumbai
02
Background and
Introduction
The power sector is a key enabler of the Indian as of November 2023.12 The government also
economy. The sector has made substantial announced a Viability Gap Funding scheme
progress over the past few years, transitioning for Battery Energy Storage Solutions (‘BESS’)
from a historically generation-deficit system with an outlay of over INR 9,400 crore. Another
to one where capacity addition has kept pace significant announcement during the year was
with rising demand. Notably, the power deficit the launch of the National Green Hydrogen
in FY23 has reduced to only -0.2 percent Mission with an outlay of over INR 19,744 crore.13
from -10.1 percent in FY10. The inter-state
As energy demand rose and domestic coal
transmission system (ISTS) has witnessed
reserves depleted, the government issued
improvements in both reach and reliability, with
various advisories to increase imported
power transmission capacity now standing at
coal blending. This can be attributed to two
112,250 MW across various directions. This
consecutive years of substantial power
development has culminated in the realization
generation growth, with FY23 being the first full
of “One Nation–One Grid–One Frequency”,
year since the pandemic without lockdowns,
establishing the Indian grid as one of the world’s
resulting in an 8-9 percent increase in power
largest integrated grids.
demand. The situation required immediate
The past decade has been transformational action, wherein government invoked Section 11
for the sector, with key initiatives taken of the Electricity Act. This ensured that power
towards increased green energy, launching supply was not hampered and demand was
power markets to ease load management adequately met. However, increased blending of
and improving the overall financial health of imported coal led to higher imports, resulting in
the sector. The nation continued to accelerate a considerable rise in power purchase costs.
renewable energy adoption, reaching 44 percent
of non-fossil fuel generation capacity at 187 GW
12
Ministry of Power
13
PIB

Over the past few years, the government has implemented key initiatives to support the power
distribution sector, including the following:
• RDSS – The implementation of RDSS has incentivized utilities to comply with improvement
trajectories to avail grants under the INR 3 lakh crore scheme. The scheme aims to reduce
the AT&C losses to pan-India levels of 12-15 percent and the ACS-ARR gap to zero by FY25.
Considerable investment is to be made in improvement of infrastructure, increased penetration
of smart metering and capacity building.
• Additional Borrowing Scheme – Additional Borrowing Space is allowed to state governments
of 0.5 percent of GSDP conditional on them undertaking and sustaining reforms in the power
sector. This provides greater incentives to states to ensure viability of state of Discoms.
• Additional prudential lending norms were implemented to target financial stressed state
utilities. Utilities not meeting defined trajectories are not eligible for additional borrowings from
PFC & REC.
• Automatic Pass-through of fuel costs – The central government has established
implementation of Automatic pass-through of variation in fuel & power purchase costs to help
ensure the financial viability of the Discoms. Several states implemented the same in FY23.
• Late Payment Surcharge Rules – In order to enforce financial discipline, the Electricity
(Late Payment Surcharge and Related Matters) Rules, 2022 (LPS Rules 2022) were issued.
The Annual Integrated Rating Exercise is a key tool, capturing the status of the power distribution
utilities looking at various financial and non-financial parameters of the utilities.
2.1 Introduction to 12th
Integrated Rating Exercise

Since 2012, Integrated Rating Exercise has been executed annually under the aegis of Ministry of
Power (MoP) with the aim of evaluating performance of power distribution utilities. MoP has tasked
Power Finance Corporation (PFC) to co-ordinate the rating exercise. So far, eleven integrated rating
exercises have been completed with the last, i.e., the 11th Integrated Ratings released by MoP on 10th
April 2023 covering utility performance over FY 2021-22.
The framework adopted for the rating exercise is approved by the MoP and has evolved over the
years to reflect the changes in the power sector and national priorities. The rating framework
underwent a significant overhaul during the 10th Integrated Rating Exercise – wherein the rating
framework was significantly expanded to comprehensively evaluate utility performance. The new
evaluation metrics were sourced from mix of key metrics being used in RDSS evaluation, global
benchmarks in power distribution sector and through extensive stakeholder engagement including
MoP, Discom executives, global energy experts, PFC, REC.
The salient features of the revised methodology adopted for 10th Integrated Rating Exercise have
been detailed below:
Ratings that reflect the true picture

• All calculations based on actual cash received instead of accruals, to factor in the impact
of realization of cash from consumer dues, government dues, and tariff subsidies. Metrics
that have improved due to this change include the ACS-ARR gap, debt service coverage ratio,
and leverage.
• Increased weightage of quantitative metrics (derived from audited accounts and regulatory
filings and orders), to improve the accuracy and transparency of ratings.

• Negative scoring for non-compliance with specific metrics to promote adoption of best
practices, such as unavailability of audited accounts and defaults to banks and financial
institutions. For power departments, a subset of metrics relevant to them has been used.
• Captured impact of external environment on the Discoms’ financials, through metrics such as
subsidy realization (received / booked), loss takeover by state government, tariff cycle timelines,
implementation of auto-pass through of fuel costs
• Establishment of protocols and a Committee for a trigger-based review of ratings, to factor in
the impact of events of significance and to ensure that ratings reflect the latest performance
of Discoms. A ratings review can be triggered by new payment defaults, publication of audited
accounts, issuance of tariff orders, etc.
A robust analytical approach

• Usage of three years of weighted average performance to calculate scores for specific
metrics, to factor in the impact of fluctuations and anomalies and reflect a long-term view of
Discoms’ performance.
• Trajectory-based scoring for specific metrics to promote positive trends and improvements.
• Performance benchmarks and best practices used to determine scoring boundaries.
Insights for all stakeholders:

• A digital dashboard (accessible at www.urjadrishti.com) has been developed to enable
participants and stakeholders in the exercise to view key performance metrics and comparisons
between Discoms.
• Deeper performance analyses and insights have been enabled for individual Discoms by
benchmarking performance using important metrics and analyses of trends and drivers.
Every Discom will be provided with a detailed report benchmarking their performance on each
parameters with peers. It also highlights their strengths, improvement areas and potential
actions they can take to improve performance.
The 10th Integrated Rating Exercise was also the first time in the Integrated Ratings, that the Private
Distribution Utilities and Power Departments were also included in the exercise to provide complete
sectoral coverage. The same has been continued for the 12th Integrated Rating Exercise as well.

2.2 Summary of the 12th
Integrated Rating methodology
The 12th Integrated Rating methodology evaluates Discoms performance against three
main parameters:
• Financial Sustainability (75 percent weightage): Includes metrics such as ACS-ARR gap (cash
adjusted), days receivable, days payable to GenCos and TransCos, adjusted quick ratio, debt
service coverage ratio (cash adjusted) and leverage (cash adjusted).
• Performance Excellence (13 percent weightage): Includes metrics focusing on operational
performance, such as distribution loss (SERC approved), billing efficiency, collection efficiency
and corporate governance.
• External Environment (12 percent weightage): Includes metrics to cover the impact of state
government action and regulator action, such as subsidy realized, loss takeover, government
dues, auto pass through of fuel and adherence to tariff cycle timelines.
For certain parameters, evaluation covers three years of performance as well as improvements
from year to year. For Power Departments, a subset of metrics is being used, in view of their non-
corporatized nature of operations. This subset of metrics has been detailed in Section 2.2.2.
2.2.1 Evaluation parameters for State and private utilities1

S.No. Parameter Max. Score
A Financial Sustainability 75
1 ACS-ARR Gap (cash adjusted) 35
2 Days Receivable 3
3 Days Payable to Gencos and Transcos 10
4 Adjusted Quick Ratio 10
5 Debt Service Coverage Ratio (cash adjusted) 10
6 Leverage (Debt/EBITDA; cash adjusted) 7
B Performance Excellence 13
1 Distribution Loss (SERC approved) 2
2 Billing Efficiency 5
3 Collection Efficiency 5
4 Corporate Governance 1
C External Environment 12
1 Subsidy Realized (Last 3 FYs) 4
2 Loss Takeover by State Government 3
3 Government Dues (Last 3 FYs) 3
4 Tariff Cycle Timelines 1
5 Auto Pass-through of Fuel Costs 1

Note:
1 Appendix 3 provides details each rating parameter

D Specific Disincentives
1 Auditor’s Adverse Opinion 0, -15
2 Availability of Audited Accounts 0, -15
3 Default to Banks/Financial Institutions 0, -15
4 Audit Qualifications 0, -4
5 Governance 0, -3
6 Tariff Cycle Delays 0, -4.5
7 Tariff Independent of Subsidy 0, -1
8 Uncovered Revenue Gap (Current Year) 0, -4
9 Regulatory Assets1 0, -5
Red card metrics2
Note:
2 Red card metrics are those that substantially affect financial performance of Discoms and therefore carry a higher negative score. They are not
included in the -10 capping limit that applies to other Specific Disincentives as well as result in ineligibility for A+ and A grades. For more details,
please see Appendix 3
2.2.2 Evaluation parameters for Power Departments
3 Auto Pass-through of Fuel Costs 2
1 Tariff Cycle Delays 0, -4.5
2 Tariff Independent of Subsidy 0, -1
3 Uncovered Revenue Gap (Current Year) 0, -4
4 Regulatory Assets 0, -5

2.2.3 Grading and Performance
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise assigns a grade based on rating score and performance
trajectory to every Discom similar to the 10th and 11th Integrated Rating Exercise. The change is
limited to basis of determining performance trajectory.
Grading Scale
Grading for state and private Discoms takes into account both the integrated rating score and the
ACS-ARR gap performance. For power departments, grades are based only on the rating score.
Grading and performance
Grade Rating score Additional overriding Grading definitions

ACS-ARR gap condition
A+ Greater than or Should be in surplus (Gap Exceptionally strong financial

equal to 85 should be less than or equal to and operational performance
0 paisa/kWh, i.e., surplus)
A Greater than or ACS-ARR Gap should be less Very high financial and
equal to 65 and than or equal to 15 paisa/kWh operational performance
less than 85
B Greater than or ACS-ARR Gap should be less High financial and operational
equal to 50 and than or equal to 50 paisa/kWh performance
less than 65
B- Greater than or ACS-ARR Gap should be less Moderate financial and

equal to 35 and than Rs. 1.0/kWh operational performance
less than 50
C Greater than or ACS-ARR Gap should be less Below average financial and
equal to 15 and than Rs. 1.25/kWh operational performance
less than 35
C- Less than 15 Low financial and operational

performance
D Utilities under Very low financial and

SMA-2 operational performance
Performance Trajectory
This year, performance trajectory is assigned to Discoms, based on the trend in Integrated Score
(as detailed below) vs the scores assigned in the 11th IR.
Trajectory Definition
Improving Integrated Score of 12th Ratings increased by 5% or more than 11th Ratings
Declining Integrated Score of 12th Ratings decreased by 5% or more than 11th Ratings
Integrated Score of 12th Ratings increased / decreased by less than 5%

Stable
than 11th Ratings

Tehri Dam, Uttarakhand
Ahmedabad at Night
10th Integrated rating of power distribution utilities

03
Ratings and results
of the 12 Integrated
th
Rating Exercise
Based on the methodology approved by the Ministry of Power and elaborated in
the previous chapter, the Discoms have been given a ranking and rating for the
12th Integrated Rating Exercise in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

3.1 State & Private Utilities
Grade
Rank Name of Utility State Ownership Movement Grade
1 Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (AEML) Maharashtra Private - A+
2 Torrent Power Surat (Torrent Power Surat) Gujarat Private - A+
3 Torrent Power Ahmedabad (Torrent Power Gujarat Private - A+

Ahmedabad)
4 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) Gujarat State - A+
4 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL) Gujarat State - A+
6 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited (MGVCL) Gujarat State - A+
7 Noida Power Company Limited (NPCL) Uttar Pradesh Private - A+
8 Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) Gujarat State - A+
9 TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL) Odisha Private Upgrade A+
10 TP Western Odisha Distribution Limited (TPWODL) Odisha Private - A+
11 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) Haryana State - A+
12 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) Haryana State - A+
13 Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Karnataka State - A

(MESCOM)
14 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) Delhi Private - A
15 Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Madhya Pradesh State Upgrade A
Company Limited (MPPaKVVCL)
16 Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Andhra Pradesh State Upgrade A
Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL)
17 Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) Rajasthan State - B
18 Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Karnataka State - B

Limited (CHESCOM)
19 TP Southern Odisha Distribution Limited (TPSODL) Odisha Private Downgrade B
20 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) Punjab State Downgrade B
21 Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) Uttar Pradesh State Upgrade B
22 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Madhya Pradesh State Upgrade B
Company Limited (MPMKVVCL)
23 Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) Rajasthan State Upgrade B
24 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) Delhi Private - B-
25 BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) Delhi Private - B-

26 India Power Corporation Limited (IPCL) West Bengal Private Downgrade B-
27 Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) Assam State Downgrade B-
28 Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Andhra Pradesh State Upgrade B-
Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL)
29 West Bengal State Electricity Distribution West Bengal State Downgrade B-
Company Limited (WBSEDCL)

Grade
Rank Name of Utility State Ownership Movement Grade
30 Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) Uttarakhand State Downgrade B-
31 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Andhra Pradesh State Upgrade B-

Company Limited (APCPDCL)
32 Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL) Kerala State Downgrade B-
33 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Chhattisgarh State Upgrade B-

Limited (CSPDCL)
34 Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited (KESCO) Uttar Pradesh State Upgrade B-
35 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JDVVNL) Rajasthan State Upgrade B-
36 Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Madhya Pradesh State Upgrade B-
Company Limited (MPPoKVVCL)
37 North Bihar Power Distribution Company Bihar State Upgrade C
Ltd (NBPDCL)
38 South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited Bihar State Upgrade C
(SBPDCL)
39 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) Tripura State Downgrade C
40 Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Karnataka State Downgrade C

Limited (GESCOM)
41 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Himachal State Downgrade C
Limited (HPSEBL) Pradesh
42 Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited Manipur State - C
(MSPDCL)
43 Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Karnataka State Downgrade C
Limited (BESCOM)
44 Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Telangana State Upgrade C
Limited (TSSPDCL)
45 Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) Karnataka State Downgrade C
46 Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Telangana State Upgrade C

Limited (TSNPDCL)
47 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Maharashtra State Downgrade C
Limited (MSEDCL)
48 Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (DVVNL) Uttar Pradesh State - C-
49 Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PuVVNL) Uttar Pradesh State - C-
50 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Tamil Nadu State - C-

Limited (TANGEDCO)
51 Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (MVVNL) Uttar Pradesh State - C-
52 Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) Jharkhand State - C-
53 Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited Meghalaya State Downgrade C-

(MePDCL)

The following 2 utilities have not been included in the main ranking list because they have not
completed three full years of operations yet.
Name State Ownership Grade Movement Grade

TPNODL Odisha Private Upgrade A+
DNHDDPDCL Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Private - A+

Daman & Diu
The financial statements of JPDCL and KPDCL are not representative of the financial condition of
the Discoms given the nature of the transactions. CESC and TPML expressed their unwillingness to
participate in this year’s exercise. Accordingly, these utilities have not been graded or ranked.
3.2 Power Departments

Rank Utility State / UT Grade Movement Grading
1 TCED Kerala - A
2 NDMC Delhi - B
3 Puducherry PD Puducherry Downgrade B
4 Goa PD Goa Upgrade B
5 Nagaland PD Nagaland Upgrade B
6 Sikkim PD Sikkim - B-
7 BEST Maharashtra - B-
8 Mizoram PD Mizoram Upgrade C
9 Arunachal PD Arunachal Pradesh Upgrade C
10 Andaman & Nicobar PD Andaman & Nicobar Islands Upgrade C
NA Ladakh PD Ladakh - C

3.3 Performance of Discoms
on rating metrics
The grades indicate the overall performance of the discoms utilizing the weightage of individual
metrics and various overriding criteria. A deeper look at the individual metrics indicates that while
most of the top performing discoms have performed consistently well across metrics, there is some
variation in the bottom performers by metric. Some discoms feature in the bottom performers
across large number of metrics. Dissecting the performance of discoms by dimensions reveals
2 key insights a) Discoms in select states are consistently performing well on financial sustainability
metrics b) the trend has shifted from majorly private discoms in most of the top performers on
performance excellence metrics to a mix of State and private discoms.
Financial Sustainability
Bottom Performers Top Performers
Metric Metric value distribution
Bottom Top
ACS – ARR Gap

(cash adjusted) PuVVNL, JBVNL, MVVNL, NPCL, TP Ahmedabad,
(INR/kWh) DVVNL MESCOM, TPWODL
2.50 -0.96
35 marks
Days Receivable
PuVVNL, MVVNL, DVVNL, DGVCL, UHBVNL,
3 marks JBVNL, TPDDL, AVVNL
700 2
Days Payable
to GenCos & BYPL, MPMKVVCL, DGVCL, MGVCL,
TransCos MPPoKVVCL, JBVNL UGVCL, PGVCL
569 0
10 marks
Adjusted
Quick Ratio PGVCL, UGVCL, MGVCL,
BYPL, BRPL, UPCL, DVVNL
DGVCL
10 marks
0.10 3.33
Debt Service
Coverage Ratio TSECL, TSNPDCL, NPCL, PGVCL,
(cash adjusted) TSSPDCL, JBVNL TPWODL, DGVCL
10 marks -4.16 26.6
Leverage
(Debt/EBITDA) TANGEDCO, PuVVNL, DNHPDCL,
(cash adjusted) MVVNL, DVVNL NPCL, DGVCL, UGVCL
40.72 0.0
7 marks

Performance Excellence
Bottom Top
Distribution Loss
(SERC approved)
JBVNL, MPPoKVVCL, DGVCL, TP Ahmedabad,
2 marks DVVNL, PuVVNL IPCL, DNHDDPDCL
2.33 0.25
Billing
Efficiency (%)
JBVNL, TPSODL, DNHPDCL, DGVCL,
5 marks MPPoKVVCL, TSECL TP Surat, IPCL
69.7% 98.4%
Collection
Efficiency (%)
PuVVNL, TSNPDCL, DGVCL, HPSEBL, APDCL,
5 marks MVVNL, SBPDCL KSEBL
84.5% 100%
Corporate
Governance
35 Discoms do not have 20 Discoms have 1/3rd
1 mark 1/3rd directors on board directors on board

External Environment
Bottom Top
Subsidy Realized
(Last 3 FYs)
APEPDCL, APSPDCL, TSECL, CHESCOM, APDCL,
4 marks APCPDCL, NBPDCL HESCOM
79% 142%
Loss Takeover by
State Govt. 13 Discoms did not receive
PVVNL, APEPDCL, KESCO,
loss takeover support even
3 marks SBPDCL
with negative PBTs
0% 167%
Government Dues
(Last 3 FYs)
MVVNL, TSNPDCL, 22 Discoms had less than
3 marks GESCOM, APSPDCL 1% government dues
72% 1%
Tariff Cycle
Timelines
18 Discoms did not have 37 Discoms had tariff &
tariff / true-up orders true-up orders before 1st
1 mark before 1st April ‘23 April ‘23
Auto Pass
Through of Fuel 24 Discoms have not 31 Discoms have
Costs
implemented auto pass implemented auto pass
through of fuel costs through of fuel costs
1 mark

India Gate, New Delhi
04
State of India Sector
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise brings forth critical insights into the overall performance of
the power distribution sector. Overall, the sector witnessed continued improvements in various
parameters driven by collective efforts of utilities, states and regulators. At the same time however,
FY23 presented significant challenges, particularly due to unprecedented increase in power
purchase costs, which significantly impacted the sector financials.
Sectoral analysis presented herein is based on data of 67 utilities. FY23 data was not available for
three discoms and two power departments – JPDCL, KPDCL, TPML, Lakshadweep Islands ED, and
Chandigarh PD.

4.1 Rise in power demand
and supply
On the national level, India recorded second consecutive year of around 8 to 9 percent annual
growth in the power demand. This was in sharp contrast to the historical trend, wherein power
demand grew at only 4.3% p.a. CAGR between FY14 and FY2014 .
Exhibit 1
Total electricity demand
BUs
+8.9% p.a.
+4.3% p.a. 1,512

1,380
1,275 1,291 1,276
1,213
1,114 1,143
1,069
1,002
FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
Source: Ministry of Power
Even within FY23, there was a notable spike in power demand during the summer months. In
April, May, and June of FY23, the power demand surged by 15 percent, 24 percent, and 17 percent
respectively compared to the previous year. This unprecedented growth posed significant
challenges for the power sector, affecting both generation and distribution. GenCos struggled to
ramp up production, while Discoms faced difficulties in fulfilling demand with contracted capacities.
14
Ministry of Power

Exhibit 2
Monthly electricity demand FY22 v/s FY23
BUs Y-o-Y Growth FY22 FY23
24%
140 25%
130 17% 20%

14%
120 15% 12% 12% 15%
11% 10%
110 10%
4%
100 2% 5%
0%
90 -2% 0%
80 -5%
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Higher increase in
peak demand months
of summer
Source: CEA
The demand growth has been fueled by sustained economic growth, focus on domestic
manufacturing sector, increase in infrastructure developments, and rising domestic consumption
driven by higher income levels. Consequently, there has been substantial growth in power demand
from the Commercial & Industrial (C&I) sector, which has seen a CAGR of 18 percent since FY21.
Exhibit 3
Category-wise sale of energy
BUs FY21 FY22 FY23
+18.3% p.a.
+4.5% p.a. +3.1% p.a.
439 +11.0% p.a.

379
314 291 296 317
215 219 228
128 157 157
C&I Domestic Agriculture Others
Based on data provided by 56 utilities
The sale of electricity increased by more than 10 percent over previous year in 9 states: Haryana,
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Odisha. This high
growth prompted the government to issue advisories, directives under Section 11 of the Electricity
Act to power plants to operate to meet the increased demand.

4.2 Increase in power
purchase costs
This surge in power demand directly contributed to increase in power purchase costs for the
distribution sector. As a result, the average power purchase costs during FY23 rose by 71 paise /
kWh v/s FY22, as compared to the marginal increase of 4 paise / kWh in FY22 v/s FY21. This rise in
power purchase costs was primarily driven by the following sections:
Rise in volume of imported coal: As the power demand Exhibit 4

increased in the past 2 years, coal reserves at thermal Price of Non-coking Imported
plants also began to deplete. Between June and Coal for India, INR per Tonne
September 2021, coal stocks at thermal power plants
came down from 28.7 MT to 8.1 MT15 . As a result, the
+71.4% p.a.
MoP issued multiple advisories and invoked Section 11
of the Electricity Act mandating power plants to operate
at full capacity and procure imported coal if needed.
Section 11 of the Act allows the government to direct
generation companies to operate in accordance with
directives issued by the Ministry under extraordinary
circumstances. Coal imports in FY23 reached 56 MTPA,
compared to 27 MTPA in FY22.
Rise in prices of imported coal: The coal price in 12,651
international market grew substantially during FY22
and FY23, driven by Russia-Ukraine war which led to 8,285
increased in gas prices and certain power production
shifting to coal. Further, energy demand also grew in 4,308
countries like India, China which led to further pressure
on global coal supply chains. As a result, the average
price of non-coking coal imported in India rose from FY21 FY22 FY23
INR 4,308 in FY21 to INR 8,285 in FY22 and INR 12,651
Source: India Climate and Energy Dashboard by NITI Aayog
in FY2316 .
Surge in power exchange prices: As power demand rose, particularly during the summer months
of FY23, many utilities turned to power exchanges to procure electricity. Consequently, energy
exchanges in India, which had previously been predominantly a buyer's market, transitioned into a
seller's market during FY23. For instance, in the Day Ahead Market, the total bids for purchase were
1.5 times higher than the total bids for sale during the first quarter of FY23. In contrast, this ratio was
0.65 times during the first quarter of FY22. This shift led to power trading prices reaching as high
as INR 18 to 20 per unit before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) intervened,
capping it at INR 12 per unit. Throughout FY23, a total of 85 billion units of power were traded, with
an average price of INR 6.1/kWh, representing a INR 1.4/kWh increase compared to FY2217.
15
PIB
16
India Climate & Energy Dashboard, NITI Aayog
17
IEX

Exhibit 5
Change in IEX DAM prices between FY21 and FY23
Average Clearing Price Bids for Purchase Bids for Sale
Number of bids (Million) Average clearing price (INR / kWh)
As bids for purchase cross

40 bids for sale, prices in the 8
exchange rose drastically
30 6
20 4
10 2
0 0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Source: IEX
In December 2022, the Ministry of Power issued the Electricity Amendment Rules, mandating the
implementation of automatic pass-through of fuel and power purchase costs by regulators. Many
states have since adopted these rules, enabling them to pass on increases in power purchase costs
to consumers within the same year, rather than awaiting true-up orders. Prior to the implementation
of these new rules, only a few state regulators had provisions for passing through power purchase
cost adjustments, either through automatic mechanisms or with regulatory approvals, often
with price caps. Consequently, despite a substantial increase in power purchase costs during
FY23, consumer tariffs did not adequately reflect these changes. This discrepancy substantially
contributed to the widening of the ACS-ARR Gap for many utilities.
Arunachalesvara Temple, Annamalai

The graph below illustrates a comparison between the Increase in power purchase costs and the
increase in revenues on a per-unit basis. Ideally, the increase in revenue should be higher than rise in
power purchase costs to cover not only these costs but also other expenses. However, as evident,
this was not the case for the majority of states. Only five states—Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar—exhibited a higher increase in revenue compared to
power purchase costs during FY23.
Exhibit 6
Increase in power purchase costs
INR per kWh
1.7
Assam
Haryana
1.2 Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu
Tamil Nadu
1.1 Uttarakhand
Telangana
1.0
Andhra Pradesh
0.9
Delhi
Maharashtra West Bengal
0.8 Kerala
Jharkhand
0.7 Gujarat
0.6 Karnataka
Punjab
0.5 Rajasthan Himachal Pradesh
Uttar 0.4
Pradesh
0.3 Chhattisgarh
Bihar
Odisha
0.2
Madhya Pradesh
0.1
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Increase in revenue booked
(Excl. Other Subsidy, Regulatory Income) INR per kWh
1 Only major states / UTs have been shown, with Revenue booked > INR 5,000 crore in FY23
38
4.3 Improvement in Aggregate
Technical and Commercial
(AT&C) losses
AT&C losses have reduced to 15.4 percent in FY23; almost 6 percent lower than
21.2 percent in FY21 and 1 percent lower than FY22.
The breakdown of AT&C trends shows that between FY21 and FY22, AT&C improvement was driven
by an increase in both billing efficiency (by 1.3 percent) and collection efficiency (by 4.4 percent).
The notable increase in collection efficiency was driven by better tariff subsidy disbursal by states
and improved customer collection process. During FY23, the AT&C losses further improved to 15.4
percent, driven by improvement in billing efficiency to 87.0 percent, whereas collection efficiency
remained high at 97.3 percent.
Exhibit 7
Trends in AT&C losses, Billing efficiency and Collection efficiency for FY21 to FY23
Percent
AT&C losses Billing efficiency

+2.2%
-5.8%
84.8% 86.1% 87.0%

21.2%
16.2% FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

15.4%
Collection efficiency
+4.5%
92.9% 97.3% 97.3%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
39
Exhibit 8
State-wise AT&C losses for FY23
Percent
<10%
10–15%
15–20%
20–25%
>25%
Data unavailable
During FY23, 39 Discoms and four power departments demonstrated an improvement in AT&C
losses. Among these, six utilities achieved an AT&C improvement of over 10 percent compared to
FY22 levels: MSPDCL, MVVNL, PuVVNL, TPCODL, TPWODL, and Ladakh PD. Billing efficiency also
saw a significant improvement of more than 3 percent over FY22-FY23 for eight utilities: MePDCL,
NBPDCL, UHBVNL, DVVNL, PVVNL, MSPDCL, Ladakh PD, and Mizoram PD. Moreover, collection
efficiency rose by over 10 percent during the same period for six utilities: MSPDCL, TPCODL,
PuVVNL, MVVNL, Ladakh PD, and TCED. Notably, collection efficiency of three Discoms declined by
approximately 10 percent during FY23 - TSNPDCL and TSSPDCL due to poor customer collection,
and GESCOM due to a combination of subsidy and customer collection shortfall.
40
Top 10 Utilities with highest improvement in AT&C losses as compared to FY22 levels
FY22 FY23
Billing Collection Billing Collection AT&C%
AT&C% AT&C%
Utility State Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Improvement
Ladakh PD Ladakh 59% 87% 48% 70% 100% 30% 18%
MSPDCL Manipur 83% 84% 31% 86% 100% 14% 17%
PuVVNL Uttar Pradesh 80% 75% 40% 83% 88% 27% 13%
MVVNL Uttar Pradesh 83% 78% 36% 85% 89% 24% 11%
TPCODL Odisha 76% 87% 34% 77% 100% 23% 11%
TPWODL Odisha 79% 88% 31% 82% 97% 20% 10%
Mizoram PD Mizoram 71% 90% 36% 74% 100% 26% 10%
TCED Kerala 93% 90% 16% 93% 100% 7% 9%
TPNODL Odisha 82% 89% 26% 84% 99% 17% 9%
SBPDCL Bihar 78% 83% 35% 78% 92% 28% 7%
Discoms in five states contributed to about 51 percent of national AT&C losses: Uttar Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Telangana. Of these, only Uttar Pradesh discoms
have shown significant improvement during FY22-FY23. However, aggregate AT&C losses of Uttar
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh discoms remained high at over 20 percent during the same period.
Various government initiatives including RDSS with focus on prepaid smart metering, separation of
agricultural feeders, energy accounting along with adoption of best practices such as adoption of
CRM tools, digital payments, analytics based collection strategy, vigilance staff, rural awareness etc.
would further help to reduce AT&C losses.
Drivers for Billing Efficiency

Billing efficiency improved driven by operational enhancements
Billing Efficiency improved by approximately 1 percent from 86.1 percent in FY22 to 87.0 percent in
FY23. Large states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Bihar increased their billing efficiencies
by around 2-3 percent, whereas there was a decline in billing efficiency in West Bengal (at 85.3
percent) and Jharkhand (at 69.7 percent). Billing efficiency improvement was primarily driven by
replacement of defective meters, improved vigilance in the prevention of theft, and segregation of
agriculture feeders. This is an encouraging trend as utilities continue to enhance Billing Efficiency.
41
Scope for improvement in Billing efficiency
Despite the progress, there remains significant scope for improvement in billing efficiency. In FY23,
31 utilities recoded distribution losses higher than billing efficiency targets approved by respective
SERCs. Achieving these targets could have reduced the sectoral loss by 20 percent to INR 63,000
crore, resulting in ACS-ARR gap of 0.44 INR / kWh in FY23 (assuming complete collection of the
increased billed amounts). Further analysis shows that achieving benchmark billing efficiency
of 92 percent could narrow the sectoral gap from 0.55 INR/kWh to 0.19 INR/kWh. Improvement
in billing efficiency can be affected through steps such as increasing metering (consumer, feeder,
DT), installing smart meters, improving power factor to curb line losses, reducing electricity theft,
deploying automated or tech-driven meter reading tools, and improving billing coverage etc. To
incentivize such improvements, the government has implemented major initiatives, such as linking
performance for RDSS grants, and mandating energy audit & accounting, etc.
4.4 Regulatory Environment

The power distribution is a heavily regulated sector. Thus, decisions taken by regulators can have a
significant impact on the overall financial viability of the power sector.
Issuance of Tariff Orders – The timely issuance of tariff orders by the State Electricity Regulatory
Commissions (SERCs), which establish the schedule of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and
associated tariff revision for sale of electricity in the forthcoming financial year, is crucial for the
operational and financial well-being of a utility.
Exhibit 9
Timeliness of tariff orders
Not Issued Delayed Timely
FY 2022 14 13 9
FY 2023 22 11 3
FY 2024 26 8 2
Some key highlights related to issuance of tariff orders are as below:

• Regulators issued timely tariff orders for 26 states / UTs for FY24, up from 20 in
FY23 and only 14 in FY22.
• 7 states / UTs which didn’t have tariff orders in FY22 were issued orders for FY23: Tamil Nadu,
Telangana, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Nagaland, and Tripura. This enabled needed
tariff revisions for these utilities, and helped improve their revenues and ACS-ARR Gaps. Tariff
revisions of large states like Tamil Nadu and Telangana also had considerable impact on national
ACS-ARR as well.
• 8 states / UTs which had delayed tariff orders in FY22 were issued timely orders for FY23:
Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Punjab, Puducherry and
Uttarakhand. Delay in tariffs order impact cash availability of the utilities as they are unable to
recover tariff revisions for the entire year, and only receive compensatory benefit in subsequent
tariff and true up orders.

Automatic Pass through of Fuel Costs – Automatic pass-through of fuel & power purchase
costs allows the distribution utilities to regularly adjust the consumer tariff determined in the
tariff order, to account for any increase or decrease in costs of power purchase. Ideally the pass
through mechanism would require minimal involvement of Regulators, and implemented on at least
quarterly or even monthly basis. This would enable the utilities to quickly react to changes in power
purchase costs.
During FY23, many utilities did not implement pass through of power purchase costs within the
year – either due to lack of regulatory provisions or operational issues in filling such petitions.
Further, in some cases, regulators had enforced caps on quantum of tariff increase allowable for
adjusting increase in power purchases. Such varied implementation adversely impacted the
financials of such utilities, given the power purchase increased by unprecedented levels during
FY23 across the board. 13 Regulators had implemented pass-through of fuel costs in FY23: Assam,
Chhattisgarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram,
Puducherry, Uttarakhand, Punjab and West Bengal. The pass-through mechanism was also
implemented in Kerala, and Maharashtra, but the petition / orders were delayed in their case.
Exhibit 10
Status of implementation of automatic pass-through of fuel costs (FY23)
Automatic (without regulatory approval)

Quarterly FPPCA1 orders passed – Timely
Quarterly FPPCA orders passed – Delayed
Utility has significantly delayed petitions for FPPCA
FPPCA not implemented
1. Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment

Note: Based on orders pertaining to FPPCA for the financial year ended 31st March 2023

Distribution Loss Targets
When a utility falls short of the distribution loss targets set by the SERCs, it leads to a shortfall in the
Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) and financial losses. In the cases of the following discoms,
the targets set by the regulator were substantially lower than what the discoms could achieve and
even lower than targets set under governmental schemes. Thus, there may be a need to revise
these targets to align them with achievable benchmarks and ensure appropriate cost recovery.
Such divergence is observed in few of the Discoms as shown below:
Exhibit 11
Distribution Loss: SERC Target v/s Actual (FY23)

Percent
Actual SERC Target
30.3%
27.4%
22.9%
21.6% 21.9%
17.4%
16.8%
15.8%
15.0%
13.0%
10.9% 10.9%
JBVNL MPPoKVVCL MPMKVVCL DVVNL PuVVNL SBPDCL
4.5 Absolute Cash-adjusted Gap

Financial deficit in power distribution sector widened to INR 79,000 crore, primarily
driven by 8% increase in gross input energy and substantial rise in power purchase
costs during the year
The sectoral absolute financial gap is a direct culmination of various driving factors, such as
cost recovery, tariff revisions, operational AT&C losses, regulatory environment etc. As a result, it
remains one of the most important indicator of the distribution sector’s health.
The absolute gap is calculated herein on a cash adjusted basis, taking into account actual cash
receipt of all subsidies and financial assistance from the government, along with actual cash
collection against the revenue booked.

The unprecedented increase in power purchase costs in FY23 resulted in the absolute gap widening
from INR 44,000 crore in FY22 to over INR 79,000 crore in FY23. Part of this increase by also driven
by 8 percent increase in Gross Input Energy. On a per unit basis, the ACS-ARR Gap increased from
33 paise per unit in FY22 to 55 paise per unit in FY23.
Exhibit 12
Trend in national cash adjusted gap for FY21 to FY23
Absolute cash adjusted gap Gross input energy

INR ‘000 crores BUs
-21.2%
+19.0%
1,332 1,440
101 1,210
79
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
44 ACS-ARR Gap
INR/kWh
-33.8%
0.83
0.55
0.33
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
While ACS-ARR gap widened at a national level, some states were actually able to improve their
gaps. State Discoms from five states: Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Telangana and
Odisha showed the most improvement in absolute cash-adjusted gap largely due to higher
subsidies disbursement by state governments (except Odisha) and better cash collections (except
Telangana). Together, their collective absolute cash-adjusted gap reduced by INR 19,000 crore from
last year.
Five states improved their cash-adjusted gap by INR 19,000 Cr over FY21-FY23
Cash adjusted
Cash adjusted Cash adjusted gap improvement
State gap FY23 (INR Cr) gap FY22 (INR Cr) (FY23-FY22) (INR Cr)
Madhya Pradesh -4,180 2,637 6,817
Andhra Pradesh 838 5,136 4,298
Bihar 41 4,162 4,121
Telangana 8,685 10,749 2,063
Odisha -623 716 1,338

ACS-ARR (cash-adjusted) gap improved by more than 0.50 INR/kWh for 11 Discoms
over FY22-FY23
Cash Adjusted Gap (INR Cr) ACS-ARR (cash adjusted) (INR/kWh)
Utility State FY22 FY23 FY22 FY23 FY23-FY22
SBPDCL Bihar 3,316 -64 1.50 -0.02 -1.53
MPMKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 933 -2,868 0.33 -0.94 -1.27
KESCO Uttar Pradesh 394 20 1.05 0.05 -1.00
APSPDCL Andhra Pradesh 3,368 125 0.96 0.04 -0.92
PVVNL Uttar Pradesh 1,874 -241 0.54 -0.06 -0.61
MPPaKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 1,021 -815 0.35 -0.25 -0.60
APCPDCL Andhra Pradesh 999 107 0.64 0.07 -0.57
TPCODL Odisha 412 -103 0.47 -0.10 -0.57
NBPDCL Bihar 1,820 902 0.97 0.43 -0.55
TPWODL Odisha -20 -711 -0.02 -0.55 -0.53
TPNODL Odisha 174 -122 0.33 -0.19 -0.51
The bulk of absolute cash-adjusted gap (excluding utilities with surplus) in FY23 was concentrated
with 6 utilities. TANGEDCO, TSSPDCL, MVVNL, PuVVNL, DVVNL, and MSEDCL together accounted
for over 70 percent of the total positive cash-adjusted gap in the country in FY23.
Exhibit 13
Drivers for change in cash-adjusted ACS-ARR Gap
INR / kWh
0.10 0.14
0.46
0.71
0.55
0.01
0.33
FY22 cash- Increase Increase Increase in Increase Improvement FY23 cash-

adjusted in power in other excess subsidy in revenue in change adjusted
ACS-ARR gap purchase costs expenses realization booked in receivables ACS-ARR gap

The widening of the gap can be broken down into the following components:
Profit Before Tax (PBT) widened by 34 paise per unit – driven by higher increase in
power purchase costs than revenue
The overall revenue booked increased by 46 paise per unit, as opposed to 71 paise increase in power
procurement cost. Despite being inadequate, the revenue increase was still substantial in absolute
terms – driven by improvements in billing efficiency, issuance of overdue tariff orders for some
major states, and pass through of increased costs by some utilities.
Notably, expenses other than power purchase also increased as well driven by the following
exceptional cases:
• MSEDCL faced an adverse outcome in an ongoing litigation. As a result, it was required to pay
substantial late payment surcharges (part of finance costs). This contributed substantially to
aggregate finance costs rising by 5 paise per unit at national level.
• Uttar Pradesh state Discoms adopted a revised provisioning policy, wherein significantly
higher proportion of legacy trade receivables are being provisioned off in a bid to streamline the
account books. This contributed substantially to aggregate other expenses rising by 2 paise per
unit at the national level.
State government support in disbursal of tariff subsidy, and loss takeover grants
A major positive from FY23 was disbursement of loss takeover grants by state governments.
It refers to financial support provided by states to financially struggling discoms, either under
prominent schemes such as UDAY or through other mechanisms. During FY22, various states
booked INR 32,000 crore of grants and disbursed the same, with the exception of Telangana. During
FY23, various states booked INR 33,000 crore of grants and disbursed the same. Telangana booked
grants worth INR 8,925 crore in FY22, but the disbursal was made in FY23 only. Overall, this resulted
in disbursal shortfall of 7 paise per unit in FY22, and conversely a 7 paise per unit surplus in FY23
on the national level. Notably 6 states primarily account for grant disbursals: Tamil Nadu, Uttar
Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Exhibit 14
Trend in subsidy disbursement for FY21 to FY23

Subsidy booked Subsidy received Subsidy received/booked (%)
Total subsidy Tariff subsidy

84% 103% 112% 84% 109% 108%

183
158 170
227
144
132
203 111
177 181
150
127 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Non-Tariff subsidy
INR ‘000 crores
86% 72% 132%
32 33 44
18 16 23
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

State government support continued with regards to disbursement of Tariff Subsidy as well. Tariff
subsidy represents the state governments’ reimbursements to the discoms in lieu of subsidized
tariffs offered for certain end-customers (for e.g., farmers, low-income groups), and forms an
intrinsic part of the state Discom financials. At aggregate national level, utilities booked INR 170,000
crore of tariff subsidy in FY23, against with the state governments disbursed INR 183,000 crore
during the year, thus clearing off past arrears in some cases. This improvement in subsidy disbursal
discipline during the past 2 years remains a major positive highlight of the sector. This is significant
considering that the tariff subsidy disbursal rate was only 95 percent and 84 percent in FY20
and FY21 respectively and that states have historically fallen short in clearing their tariff subsidy
payments. In comparison, aggregate tariff subsidy disbursement rate by state government was 109
percent in FY22 and 108 percent in FY23.
Exhibit 15
State-wise tariff subsidy received / tariff subsidy booked for FY23
Percent
100%+
100%
80–100%
60–80%
<60%
Data unavailable/
Subsidy not applicable

4.6 Legacy issues in the power
distribution sector
The power distribution industry has made a number of notable advancements across important
metrics, although there are still challenges in several areas. It is important to emphasize that
these legacy problems have weighed on the industry for a while, and their resolution would require
additional government support, measures from the discoms themselves over a period of time.
• Debt – The debt in the sector has been steadily increasing over the years, primarily to meet
requirements of CAPEX, funding financial losses and addressing working capital shortage.
This issue is further compounded by increasing burden of financing costs. The central and
state governments have supported through several initiatives to reduce and takeover some of
the sector’s debt, most notably through the UDAY scheme. In addition, state governments are
supporting the state discoms by way of taking over the loans and losses in the form of equity
and subsidy, while the center is pushing for lending based on Additional Prudential Norms for the
sector to encourage better fiscal discipline amongst Discoms. However, improved financial and
operational discipline remains crucial for long-term reduction in sectoral debt.
• Payables to GenCos & TransCos/Days Payable – The power distribution sector grapples with
high quantum of trade payables due to GenCos & TransCos owing to stressed financials and
working capital cycles. FY23 was a landmark year in this respect, as trade payable improved
substantially from the past year, despite 24 percent increase in power purchase costs. A major
driver for this has been the LPS Rules instituted by the central government, wherein utilities are
required to timely clear their bills as well as convert their legacy dues to manageable EMIs for
liquidation. While Days Payable of the sector have improved substantially during FY23, there still
remains substantial gap to reach 45 days benchmark set in the LPS Rules.
• Trade receivables/days receivable – Trade receivables primarily comprise of customer dues
and electricity duty/cess (pass-through to government). Efficient collection processes by
utilities and consumer payment discipline govern the extent of trade receivables recorded.
Reducing them requires investment in infrastructure (metering coverage, agricultural feeder
billing) as well as billing awareness. Further, utilities with very high receivables have to be more
practical about the recoverability of highly aged dues and implement their provisioning policy
accordingly. Total trade receivables incresed minimally in FY23 despite a substantial increase in
revenues from utility operations.
• Regulatory assets, subsidy arrears – State government have exhibited remarkable tariff
subsidy disbursal discipline over the last 2 years, with aggregate subsidy disbursals exceeding
100 percent of the booked amounts. However, some states still have to clear substantial
subsidy arrears, accumulated over a long period. Further, some major states have built up
substantial regulatory assets, amounting to approximately INR 1.6 lakh crore. In these cases,
state government and regulators could work together to devise liquidation plans for the same.
Clearing the subsidy arrears and regulatory assets would have a huge impact of the financials of
affected utilities.

4.6.1 Sectoral Debt
Sector Debt increased to INR 6.87 lakh crore in FY23, however debt as percentage of booked
revenue reduced from 82 percent in FY21 to 73 percent in FY23
The total sectoral debt increased by 11 percent, from INR 6.17 lakh crore in FY22 to INR 6.87
lakh crore in FY23. Debt as a percentage of revenue, which was 82 percent in FY21, has shown
improvement, decreasing to 76 percent in FY22 and further to 73 percent in FY23. However, the
sector's Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR), which turned positive in FY22 and remained so in
FY23, declined from 0.44 in FY22 to 0.26 in FY23.
Exhibit 16
Trend in national Debt and DSCR for FY21 to FY23 Cash adjusted EBITDA
Immediate debt obligation1
Total debt DSCR

+70,000 Cr
DSCR: -0.04 DSCR:+0.44 DSCR: +0.26
687 181
+38,400 Cr
144
617
123
579
64
48
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 -5

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
1 Immediate debt obligation includes: Interest Costs + Current Maturities + Interest Accrued & Due
State Discoms from 4 states, namely Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan,
together accounted for around 55 percent of the sectoral debt while constituting 35 percent of the
national gross input energy.

Exhibit 17
State-wise debt as a % of Total Revenue booked for FY23
Percent
<10%
10-40%
40-80%
80-150%
>150%
Data unavailable
Further analysis of the fund flows at the national level shows that a substantial portion of the debt
raised during the year was used to fund capital expenditures and the liquidation of old creditors
(payables to GenCos & TransCos). Equity investments reduced during FY23, with the expiration of
major schemes like UDAY. Notably, substantial funds were sourced via government and consumer
grants towards capital assets. The following are some notable highlights regarding sectoral funding:
• Increase in debt: Five states (Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and
Telangana) accounted for over 89 percent of the total debt increase.
• Five states, namely Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh,
accounted for approximately 50 percent of the total sectoral capital expenditure.
• A substantial portion of equity infusion during FY23, almost INR 7,000 crore, was concentrated
in Uttar Pradesh Discoms alone.
• Considerable funds were also utilized for the liquidation of power purchase dues in FY23, which
reflected as an increase in the working capital requirement of the sector.

Exhibit 18
Trend in debt, gross CAPEX and additional working capital requirement of Discoms
Sources of Capital Investment of Capital

113 Operational losses (excl. receivables & payables)

22
11
FY 2022 FY 2023
74 70
Gross CAPEX deployment3
Debt 70
38 57
Equity (excl. retained
earnings)1
Other sources 2
12 FY 2022 FY 2023
18
WC requirement for receivables & payables
31
22
18
7
FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2022 FY 2023
Based on the annual audited and provisional accounts of 55 Discoms

1 Equity (excl. Retained Earnings) = Share Capital, Share Application Money Pending Allotment
2 Includes Security Deposits and Government & Consumer contribution towards capital assets
3 Includes Gross Fixed Assets, Intangible Assets, CWIP, Capital Advances and Assets not in Use
Night View of Jaipur from Nahargarh Fort

4.6.2 Trade payables
LPS norms drove significant reduction in Days Payable, from 166 days in FY22 to 126 days
in FY23
Trade payables to GenCos and TransCos reduced from INR 2.89 lakh crore in FY22 to 2.74 lakh
crore in FY23, despite 24 percent increase in power purchase costs from FY22 to FY23. The major
driver for this trend has been LPS Rules, which converted legacy dues to EMI installments. Through
this mechanism, trade payables of almost INR 48,000 crore were liquidated during FY23.
Despite this positive trend, days payables remain at much higher than desired levels, considering the
LPS Rules, 2022 specify a timeline of 45 days for clearing bills.
Exhibit 19
Trend in days payables and payables to GenCos and TransCos for FY21 to FY23
Days payable Payables to GenCos & TransCos

Days INR ‘000 crores
-5%
-24%
175
275 289 274
166
126 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Power purchase costs

INR ‘000 crores
+24%
791
573 636
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
1,210 1,332 1,440

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Gross input energy (BUs)
In FY23, 39 discoms improved their Days Payable with 16 discoms improving by more than 50 days
over FY22-FY23. These were APSPDCL, AVVNL, BRPL, BYPL, CSPDCL, JBVNL, JdVVNL, JVVNL,
KESCO, MPMKVVCL, MSEDCL, PVVNL, SBPDCL, TANGEDCO, TSNPDCL and TSSPDCL. Notably,
Days Payables increased by more than 10 days from FY22 to FY23 for only 7 discoms.
State Discoms from 4 states, namely Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Telangana
account for around 48 percent of the total sectoral trade payables The Days Payable for most of
these Discoms is over 100 days.

State Discoms from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh
contributed to 48 percent of country’s total payables to GenCos and TransCos
Total Payables for

Utility State Power Purchase (INR Cr) Share of India Days payable
MSEDCL Maharashtra 27,742 10.14% 113
TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu 28,937 10.57% 171
TSSPDCL Telangana 29,399 10.74% 302
TSNPDCL Telangana 11,637 4.25% 281
PuVVNL Uttar Pradesh 11,296 4.13% 257
DVVNL Uttar Pradesh 10,688 3.91% 256
MVVNL Uttar Pradesh 9,886 3.61% 220
PVVNL Uttar Pradesh 1,934 0.71% 33
Exhibit 20
State-wise days payable for FY22
Days
0-45
45-75
75-150
150-250
>250%
Data unavailable

4.6.3 Trade receivables
Days Receivables continued on improving trajectory, reducing from 153 days in FY21 to 138
days in FY22 to 119 days in FY23.
During FY21-FY23, trade receivables increased by 6.4 percent, from INR 2.28 lakh crore to
INR 2.43 lakh crore. In contrast, revenue from operations increased by 37.2 percent during the
period. As a result, Days Receivable improved from 153 days in FY21 to 119 days in FY23. The
sector has improved considerably over the last 2 years driven by improved collection processes by
discoms and some utilities (primarily from Uttar Pradesh) provisioning off significant accumulated
trade receivable.
In the efforts to strengthen billing cycles and to reduce trade receivables, the government has taken
initiatives for installation of smart & smart pre-paid meters. Additionally option for Discoms to
further improve their collection process and incentivize them with grants under the RDSS scheme
have been introduced.
Exhibit 21
Trend in days receivable and trade receivables for FY21 to FY23
Days receivables Net trade receivables

Days INR ‘000 crores
+2%
-14%
153 243
228 238
138
119
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Revenue from operations

INR ‘000 crores
+18%
747
630
544
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

State Discoms from 2 states, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh accounted for 53 percent of the net
sectoral receivables while accounting for 21 percent of the total gross input energy.
5 utilities contributed to 53 percent of India’s net trade receivables in FY23
Net Trade
Utility State Share of India Days Receivable
Receivables (INR Cr)
MSEDCL Maharashtra 50,255 21.1% 202
PuVVNL Uttar Pradesh 27,661 11.6% 700
MVVNL Uttar Pradesh 19,404 8.2% 494
DVVNL Uttar Pradesh 16,198 6.8% 450
PVVNL Uttar Pradesh 9,260 3.9% 149
Overdue from state government offices continue to contribute substantially to high trade
receivables in the sector. Government dues comprised around 35 percent of trade receivables at the
end of FY23, as compared to 30 percent in FY21. This warrants for better financial discipline among
government entities to service their payments to the distribution companies on time.
4.6.4 Regulatory Assets

Regulatory Assets refer to amounts recognized by the SERCs relating to expenses already incurred
by the Discom which are yet to be passed into consumer tariffs. Essentially, it represent a deferral
of the recovery of costs incurred by the utilities and has significant adverse implications on utility
financials. The sector’s regulatory assets stood at about INR 1.6 lakh crore, having remained
stagnant from the previous year. This highlights the pressing need for focused efforts to address
regulatory dues, necessitating either tariff adjustments or financial support from state authorities.
The entire regulatory assets quantum is concentrated in five states – Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Delhi,
West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Kerala.
States with Regulatory Assets, totaling INR 1.6 lakh crore
State Regulatory Assets (INR Cr) India Share
Tamil Nadu 89,375 57%
Rajasthan 47,832 30%
Delhi 9,063 6%
Kerala 6,281 4%
Maharashtra 4,460 3%

4.7 Improving performance of
targeted utilities
While the year presented significant challenges, many Discoms have been able to consistently
improve their performance. 25 of the 55 Discoms rated showed improving trajectories over past
2 years in ACS-ARR gap (cash-adjusted). These Discoms collectively accounted for 65 percent of
the debt and 54 percent of the trade payables in the sector. This is a significant shift from the 10th
Integrated Ratings, where only 15 utilities, holding 22 percent of sector’s payables and 29 percent of
sector’s debt, showed an improving trajectory.
In FY23, 27 utilities exhibited a declining ACS-ARR trajectory driven by the surge in power purchase
costs. These together held 32 percent of the sector’s debt and 42 percent of sector’s payables to
GenCos & TransCos. In contrast, in the 10th Integrated Ratings, 21 utilities, holding 61 percent of the
sector’s payables and 53 percent of the sector’s debt, exhibited a declining trajectory in FY21.
Exhibit 22
Mapping of Discoms by ACS-ARR gap bracket vs ACS-ARR gap trajectory
ACS-ARR2
% share in gross input energy % share in sector debt % share in trade payables
trajectory
2 19 4
TANGEDCO, TSSPDCL APCPDCL, APEPDCL, APSPDCL, AVVNL, AEML, CESC, MESCOM, MPMKVVCL
Improving BESCOM, CHESCOM, CSPDCL, GESCOM,
JdVVNL, JVVNL. KESCO, MPPaKVVCL,
49% | 65% | 54% MPPoKVVCL, NBPDCL, PVVNL, SBPDCL,
TPCODL, WBSEDCL, TPNODL
2-Yr CAGR < -5%
11% | 27% | 21% 34% | 34% | 28% 3% | 3% | 5%
- 1 2
Stable HESCOM Torrent Power Ahmedabad, TPDDL
3% | 2% | 3%
-5% <= 2-Yr
CAGR <= 5% - 1% | 1% | 3% 1% | 1% | 0%
8 11 8
Declining MSEDCL, DVVNL, MVVNL, PuVVNL, APDCL, HPSEBL, IPCL, KSEBL, MGVCL, BRPL, BYPL, DGVCL, DHBVNL, NPCL,
TSNPDCL, JBVNL, MSPDCL, MePDCL PGVCL, PSPCL, TPSODL, TSECL, Torrent Power Surat, TPWODL,
46% | 32% | 43% UGVCL, UPCL UHBVNL
2-Yr CAGR > 5%

20% | 23% | 30% 17% | 7% | 4% 10% | 2% | 8%
> 0.9 Between -0.05 and 0.9 <= -0.05

Total 31% | 50% | 51% 52% | 42% | 34% 15% | 8% | 14%
ACS-ARR1 gap
(cash adjusted)
Note: The above figures exclude Power Departments and DNHPDDCL, TPML, JPDCL and KPDCL.
1 ACS-ARR Gap (cash adjusted) – weighted average values have been used
2 ACS-ARR trajectory calculated as increase / decrease of ACS-ARR gap (cash-adjusted) between FY21 and FY23. For TPNODL, 1-year CAGR has been considered.

The following Discoms seems to be in a critical condition and could be focused for performance
improvement (figures indicated are for FY23):
• MSEDCL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 24,251 Cr / 1.56 per kWh), holds 8 percent of sector debt,
10 percent of sector payables
• TANGEDCO – ACS-ARR gap (INR 9,923 Cr / 0.96 per kWh), holds 23 percent of sector debt,
• DVVNL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 5,879 Cr / 2.08 per kWh), holds 3 percent of sector debt,
• MVVNL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 6,543 Cr / 2.39 per kWh), holds 3 percent of sector debt,
• PuVVNL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 9,091 Cr / 2.92 per kWh), holds 4 percent of sector debt,
• JBVNL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 3,578 Cr / 2.47 per kWh), holds 3 percent of sector debt,
• TSNPDCL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 2,723 Cr / 1.19 per kWh), holds 2 percent of sector debt,
• TSSPDCL – ACS-ARR gap (INR 5,962 Cr / 1.08 per kWh), holds 3 percent of sector debt,
Ennore Power Plant, Chennai

4.8 Policy Initiatives to support
the sector
The Indian power sector plays a crucial role in driving the country's economic growth and enhancing
the quality of life for its citizens. Power distribution serves as the foundation of the entire power
sector, and recognizing its significance, the government has initiated numerous reforms and
initiatives to support this sector and tackle its ongoing challenges.
Availability of Electricity
India is expected to witness a high growth in electricity demand in the coming years. To ensure
power availability, the government has extended the mandate on coal blending for FY2023-24.
Furthermore, there is a substantial push for expanding installed capacity in the long run to meet the
growing power demand. It is projected that by 2031-32, 322 GW of renewable capacity and 42 GW of
hydropower could be added, alongside a recognition of the need to add baseload thermal capacity,
with an expected addition of 93 GW by 2031-32.18 The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has issued
a detailed plan for integrating renewable energy capacity with the National Grid, identifying major
areas for upcoming capacity addition and planning of transmission systems. These efforts have
also been supplemented by a host of projects under the Green Energy Corridor (GEC).
Energy storage has emerged as a key focus area to ensure power availability during non-solar hours
and improve grid stability. To address this, the government has announced the Production Linked
Incentive (PLI) scheme for Advanced Chemistry Cells to promote the establishment of battery
manufacturing in India. Additionally, the government has announced the Viability Gap Funding
scheme to provide financial assistance for up to 4,000 MWh of battery energy storage system
projects by 2030. Incentives and guidelines have also been rolled out to promote pumped hydro
storage projects in the country.
Promotion of Green Energy

India has been taking steps to promote green energy and decarbonization, as demonstrated by
various schemes implemented by the government. Recent initiatives for promoting solar energy
include the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for solar PV manufacturing, the PM-KUSUM
program aimed at promoting solar PV in agricultural fields and installing solar pumps, the Grid-
connected Rooftop Solar Program with a target of installing 40 GW of rooftop solar, and the PM
Suryoday Yojana aimed at installing rooftop solar on 1 crore households. The National Green
Hydrogen Mission, announced with an outlay of INR 19,744 crore, aims to make India a global
hub for the production, utilization, and export of Green Hydrogen and its derivatives. There is also
a considerable push on biofuels with the formation of the Global Biofuel Alliance and multiple
schemes such as the National Bioenergy Programme, SATAT, SAMARTH mission, and biomass
co-firing policy.
The government has also announced the Green Energy Open Access Rules, allowing consumers
with smaller loads to purchase renewable energy directly through open access. Other initiatives
include higher Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPOs) for Discoms, waiver of inter-state
transmission charges, to ensure the pace of renewable capacity addition continues.
18
PIB

Operations of Discoms
The flagship scheme of the sector, the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS), has an outlay
of over INR 3,00,000 crore with a focus on smart metering, loss reduction works, and capacity
building. Its primary objectives include reducing the ACS-ARR gap to zero and bringing down
AT&C losses to 12 to 15 percent. The increased penetration of smart meters is expected to offer
considerable benefits to Discoms, leading to improvements in AT&C losses, availability of large
amounts of data to optimize operations, and easier implementation of initiatives such as Time-of-
Day tariffs and green tariffs.
Other reforms include the implementation of automatic pass-through of fuel and power purchase
costs, aimed at addressing delays in the regulatory process of true-ups. State governments have
been allowed an additional lending of 0.50 percent of the gross state domestic product, conditional
on the implementation of reforms in the power sector. Additional Prudential Lending norms
have also been implemented, linking the disbursal of new loans with improvements in various
performance obligations of the utilities.
The electricity rules were amended to put in place additional measures to improve the financial
health of Discoms by streamlining the process for accounting and claiming tariff subsidies.
The amendments require a shift from provisional and lump sum subsidy calculations to a per-
unit subsidy calculated based on metered supplies for subsidized customers. Furthermore,
the amendments prescribe that the AT&C loss trajectories approved by State Commissions for
tariff determination should align with the trajectories under National schemes. Energy audits
have also been established to provide better information on category-wise data on consumption
and transmission & distribution losses in various areas, enabling Discoms to target efforts more
effectively for loss reduction.
Exhibit 23
Break-up of sectoral challenges by top contributing utilities
Number of utilities vs % contribution to sectoral Absolute Gap (‘000 crores)
Improving: TANGEDCO; Declining: MSEDCL, PuVVNL

79
43
25
16
3 8
2023 55% of Gap 31% of Gap 21% of Gap 3% of Gap Surplus
Absolute Gap
# of utilities 3 5 16 21 22
Number of utilities vs % contribution to sectoral Payables (‘000 crores)
274 TSSPDCL, TANGEDCO, MSEDCL, MPMKVVCL, TSNPDCL, PuVVNL, DVVNL, MPPoKVVCL
142
87
35
10
2023 Payables 52% of Payables 32% of Payables 13% of Payables 3% of Payables
# of utilities 8 12 13 34
Number of utilities vs % contribution to sectoral liquidity Gap (‘000 crores)
389 TANGEDCO, MSEDCL, TSSPDCL, WBSEDCL
199
126
63 26
27
2023 Liquidity Gap 51% of 32% of 16% of 7% of Liquidity Surplus
Liquidity Gap Liquidity Gap Liquidity Gap Liquidity Gap
# of utilities 4 10 11 20 22

Continued
Break-up of sectoral challenges by top contributing utilities
Number of utilities vs % contribution to sectoral Energy Lost (‘000 MUs)
MSEDCL, TANGEDCO, TSSPDCL, PuVVNL, WBSEDCL, PGVCL, PSPCL, MPPoKVVCL,

205 DVVNL, JdVVNL, MPMKVVCL
105
75
21
4
2023 Energy Lost 51% of Energy 36% of Energy 10% of Energy 2% of Energy
Number of utilities vs % contribution to sectoral Debt (‘000 crores)
TANGEDCO, MSEDCL, JVVNL, APSPDCL, JdVVNL, PuVVNL, TSSPDCL

687
353
209
115
9
2023 Debt 51% of Debt 30% of Debt 17% of Debt 1% of Debt

Exhibit 24
Break-up of sectoral challenges by top contributing states
Number of states vs % contribution to sectoral Absolute Gap (‘000 crores)
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh

79
46
28
10 5
2023 58% of Gap 36% of Gap 13% of Gap Surplus
Absolute Gap
# of States/UTs 2 5 18 8
Number of states vs % contribution to sectoral Payables (‘000 crores)
274 Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh
157
96
21
2023 Payables 57% of Payables 35% of Payables 8% of Payables
# of States/UTs 5 8 20
Number of states vs % contribution to sectoral liquidity Gap (‘000 crores)
389 Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana
204
162
14
36
2023 Liquidity Gap 53% of 42% of 9% of Liquidity Surplus
Liquidity Gap Liquidity Gap Liquidity Gap

Continued
Break-up of sectoral challenges by top contributing states (2/2)
Number of states vs % contribution to sectoral Energy Lost (‘000 MUs)
Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana

205
104
83
14
4
2023 Energy Lost 51% of Energy 40% of Energy 7% of Energy 2% of Energy
Number of states vs % contribution to sectoral Debt (‘000 crores)
Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra

687
381
263
42
1
2023 Debt 55% of Debt 38% of Debt 6% of Debt 1% of Debt

Solar water pump in India
Mehrangarh Fort, Jodhpur
05
Comparison with
11 IR
th
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise uses the same rating framework as the past 2 years, allowing
stakeholders to easily compare overall sector and utilities’ performance and gain insight into major
drivers. The trend over the last 3 years has been encouraging. Some overarching highlights include:
• Of the 55 discoms covered in 12th Integrated Ratings, 30 saw improved scores
• Despite a challenging year, the number of discoms graded A+, A, B have reduced marginally from
28 in FY22 to 25 in FY23.
• 14 discoms saw grades improve, whereas 16 discoms has been downgraded.
The number of discoms awarded C or lesser grade (C-, D) have reduced from 35 in
FY21 to 17 in FY23.

State and Private Discoms: Comparison of 10th, 11th and 12th ratings
10th Integrated Ratings 11th Integrated Ratings 12th Integrated Ratings
A+ 12 11 14
A 4 8 4
B 3 9 7
B- 6 8 13
C 12 8 11
C- 20 12 6
D 3 1 -
Total 60 57 55
Note
10th Integrated Ratings: 60 utilities - including Ladakh
11th Integrated Ratings: 57 utilities - Ladakh treated as PD going forward. Torrent Ahd and Surat did not participate in 11th Ratings
12th Integrated Ratings: 55 utilities - JPDCL and KPDCL have not been rated due to unavailability of financials. CESC and TPML did not participate in the 12th Ratings
Power departments: Comparison of 10th, 11th and 12th ratings
10th Integrated Ratings 11th Integrated Ratings 12th Integrated Ratings
A+ - 1 -
A 3 1 1
B 1 1 4
B- 1 3 2
C 1 1 4
C- 5 5 -
D - - -
Total 11 12 11
Note
11th Integrated Ratings: Ladakh considered as PD
12th Integrated Ratings: Lakshadweep ED and Chandigarh PD not rated in 12th Ratings due to unavailability of financials. TCED and NDMC added as new PDs

5.1 12th vs 11th ratings: Grade and
score snapshot
A. State and Private Discoms
11th rank 12th rank Utility State Ownership 11th ratings score 12th ratings score
1 1 AEML Maharashtra Private 99.6 | A+ 99.9 | A+
- 2 Torrent Power Surat Gujarat Private - 99.6 | A+
- 3 Torrent Power Ahmedabad Gujarat Private - 99.5 | A+
6 4 DGVCL Gujarat State 93.8 | A+ 98.3 | A+
2 5 UGVCL Gujarat State 99.1 | A+ 97.4 | A+
3 6 MGVCL Gujarat State 97.6 | A+ 97.3 | A+
7 7 NPCL Uttar Pradesh Private 93.3 | A+ 95.1 | A+
5 8 PGVCL Gujarat State 94.0 | A+ 92.3 | A+
NA 9 TPCODL Odisha Private 51.8 | B 91.1 | A+
NA 10 TPWODL Odisha Private 87.2 | A+ 91.1 | A+
10 11 UHBVNL Haryana State 87.6 | A+ 88.0 | A+
9 12 DHBVNL Haryana State 89.3 | A+ 86.7 | A+
15 13 MESCOM Karnataka State 73.9 | A 84.0 | A
13 14 TPDDL Delhi Private 79.0 | A 80.2 | A
28 15 MPPaKVVCL Madhya Pradesh State 50.0 | B- 73.8 | A
22 16 APEPDCL Andhra Pradesh State 57.8 | B 71.2 | A
19 17 AVVNL Rajasthan State 62.1 | B 63.3 | B
18 18 CHESCOM Karnataka State 62.5 | B 62.5 | B
NA 19 TPSODL Odisha Private 79.3 | A 62.1 | B
11 20 PSPCL Punjab State 83.8 | A 61.6 | B
32 21 PVVNL Uttar Pradesh State 35.5 | B- 59.3 | B
37 22 MPMKVVCL Madhya Pradesh State 23.4 | C 50.9 | B
29 23 JVVNL Rajasthan State 42.8 | B- 50.8 | B
27 24 BRPL Delhi Private 68.8 | B- 70.8 | B-2
26 25 BYPL Delhi Private 69.1 | B- 70.8 | B-2
17 26 IPCL West Bengal Private 71.4 | A 49.7 | B-
14 27 APDCL Assam State 74.5 | A 48.9 | B-
41 28 APSPDCL Andhra Pradesh State 16.2 | C 47.8 | B-

11th rank 12th rank Utility State Ownership 11th ratings score 12th ratings score
24 29 WBSEDCL West Bengal State 50.5 | B 46.9 | B-
12 30 UPCL Uttarakhand State 81.7 | A 46.7 | B-
36 31 APCPDCL Andhra Pradesh State 25.9 | C 45.1 | B-
20 32 KSEBL Kerala State 60.8 | B 44.3 | B-
34 33 CSPDCL Chhattisgarh State 34.1 | C 43.8 | B-
42 34 KESCO Uttar Pradesh State 17.9 | C- 42.0 | B-
39 35 JDVVNL Rajasthan State 20.9 | C 40.6 | B-
38 36 MPPoKVVCL Madhya Pradesh State 22.0 | C 39.6 | B-
45 37 NBPDCL Bihar State 8.8 | C- 30.8 | C
47 38 SBPDCL Bihar State 7.2 | C- 29.7 | C
33 39 TSECL Tripura State 35.5 | B- 27.5 | C
21 40 GESCOM Karnataka State 59.9 | B 27.3 | C
23 41 HPSEBL Himachal Pradesh State 54.1 | B 23.8 | C
35 42 MSPDCL Manipur State 28.8 | C 21.8 | C
31 43 BESCOM Karnataka State 40.2 | B- 21.8 | C
44 44 TSSPDCL Telangana State 10.8 | C- 19.9 | C
25 45 HESCOM Karnataka State 50.3 | B 18.1 | C
48 46 TSNPDCL Telangana State 6.6 | C- 17.9 | C
30 47 MSEDCL Maharashtra State 40.6 | B- 15.5 | C
43 48 DVVNL Uttar Pradesh State 13.6 | C- 7.6 | C-
46 49 PuVVNL Uttar Pradesh State 8.3 | C- 5.4 | C-
50 50 TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu State -0.9 | C- 4.7 | C-
49 51 MVVNL Uttar Pradesh State 4.6 | C- 3.2 | C-
51 52 JBVNL Jharkhand State -16.1 | C- 1.6 | C-
40 53 MePDCL Meghalaya State 20.7 | C -8.3 | C-
NA NA TPNODL Odisha Private 55.9 | B 91.0 | A+3
NA NA DNHDDPDCL Dadra & Nagar Haveli Private - 96.9 | A+4
Notes:
1. Red card metrics attracted
2. Grade over-ride due to Regulatory Assets disincentive for BRPL, BYPL
3. For new Utility (with 2-year operations), weighted average metrics have been calculated assuming 60% weightage for FY23, and 40% for FY22.
This is applicable for TPNODL.
4. For new Utility (with 1-year operations), weighted average metrics have been calculated assuming 100% weightage for FY22.
This is applicable for DNHDDPDCL.
5. CESC, TPML, JPDCL, KPDCL have not been included in the 12th Integrated Ratings

B. Power Departments
11th rank 12th rank Utility State 11th ratings score 12th ratings score
- 1 TCED Kerala - 80.8 | A
- 2 NDMC Delhi - 64.8 | B
2 3 Puducherry PD Puducherry 83.6 | A 60.2 | B
5 4 Goa PD Goa 43.8 | B- 58.6 | B
7 5 Nagaland PD Nagaland 6.8 | C- 57.1 | B
4 6 Sikkim PD Sikkim 48.8 | B- 47.3 | B-
6 7 BEST Maharashtra 38.8 | B- 44.3 | B-
8 8 Mizoram PD Mizoram 6.5 | C- 34.8 | C
9 9 Arunachal PD Arunachal Pradesh 1.1 | C- 31.2 | C
11 10 Andaman & Nicobar PD Andaman & Nicobar -3.8 | C- 22.5 | C
NA NA Ladakh PD Ladakh 34.1 | C 18.3 | C
Notes:
1. TCED and NDMC have included in the Integrated Ratings for the first time. Daman and Diu PD has been merged in DNHDDPDCL since FY23.
2. FY23 financials were not received for Chandigarh PD, Lakshadweep PD. Consequently, they have not been included in the 12th Integrated Ratings

5.2 Cash-adjusted ACS-ARR
movement b/w 11th and 12th
Ratings
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise uses the same rating framework as the past 2 years, allowing
stakeholders to easily compare overall sector and utilities’ performance and gain insight into major
drivers. The trend over the last 3 years has been encouraging.
5.2.1 State discoms

The ACS-ARR gap for state discoms is driven by a combination of two factors:
• Cash adjusted PBT (operational performance): Majorly in control of the discoms and driven by
billing and collection efficiencies.
• Subsidy disbursal: Under direct control of the state governments. Any shortfall in
subsidy disbursal with respect to subsidy booked, directly impacts the cash adjustment in
ACS-ARR calculation.
Exhibit 1
Contributing factors to shift in state Discoms’ ACS-ARR Gap from FY22 to FY23
Decrease in ACS-ARR Gap Increase in ACS-ARR Gap Size of bubble represent the amount of
increase/decrease in ACS-ARR Gap
Increase in PBT1 + Receivables Cash adjustment
(as % of Revenue Booked)
35
30
SBPDCL
25
20
15
MPMKVVCL
HESCOM PVVNL
10
KESCO MPPoKVVCL
JdVVNL NBPDCL
CHESCOM
5 MPPaKVVCL
APSPDCL
CSPDCL APCPDCL
MESCOM
JVVNL 0
-32 -31 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 35 36 37 38 39 40
AVVNL TANGEDCO
GESCOM -5 DVVNL Increase in Excess Subsidy Disb.
BESCOM KSEBL (as % of Revenue Booked)
WBSEDCL APEPDCL
MePDCL HPSEBL
-10
JBVNL
PSPCL
-15
TSECL
PuVVNL
APDCL -20
UPCL MSEDCL
-25
-30
TSNPDCL TSSPDCL
-35
-40
Note
1 On accrual basis, excluding Regulatory Income

From FY22 to FY23, 15 out of 42 state discoms improved their ACS-ARR gap, helped by a
combination of both operational performance and subsidy disbursal. For the utilities, where ACS-
ARR fell it was because primarily because of increase in power purchase expenses higher than
revenue as seen earlier.
5.2.2 Private Discoms

Private discoms’ ACS-ARR gap is entirely influenced by their own operational performance since
outside of Delhi Discoms, they do not receive subsidies. Here, the ACS-ARR gap is assessed on the
basis of two components in operational performance: 1) PBT (accrual) and 2) cash adjustment due
to trade receivable (cash collections).
Four out of 13 private discoms improved their ACS-ARR gap in FY23. The primary reason was
improvement of receivable cash adjustment with Torrent Power Ahmedabad improving due to
better revenue increase than power purchase.
Exhibit 2
Contributing factors to shift in private Discoms’ ACS-ARR Gap from FY22 to FY23
Decrease in ACS-ARR Gap Increase in ACS-ARR Gap Size of bubble represent the amount of
increase/decrease in ACS-ARR Gap
Collections Movement
(as % of Revenue booked)
20%
18%
TPCODL
16%
14%
TPWODL
12%
10%
TPNODL
8%
TPSODL
6%
4%
Torrent Power Surat
2%
BRPL NPCL BYPL Torrent Power Ahmedabad
0%
-16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% AEML -4% -2% 0%
TPDDL 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
-2%
IPCL Increase in PBT1
DNHDDPDCL
-4% (as % of revenue booked)
CESC
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
Note
1 On accrual basis, excluding Regulatory Income

06
Best practices for the
Power Distribution
Sector
The power distribution sector has undergone significant evolution in the past decade. The focus
has shifted from overcoming power deficits to ensuring 100% electrification, meeting the growth
in power demand, and ensuring financial viability in the sector. Power distribution utilities,
state governments, and sector regulators have progressed significantly to address sectoral
challenges, technological advancements, and the changing dynamics of the power sector. There
is an opportunity for the utilities to adopt cross-learnings from other utilities and actively pursue
solutions to improve their operational efficiency.

Some best practices being currently implemented in India are outlined below. Further, illustrative
examples of implementing utilities have also been mentioned for reference.
1. Advanced meter reading capabilities: Many utilities are now leveraging AI-based mobile
applications and OCR readers to obtain meter readings from meter photos. This approach
reduces manual intervention in the metering process and minimizes billing errors. Additionally,
utilities benefit from having photo evidence of meter readings, which facilitates quicker
resolution of billing complaints. Some examples of such implementations include:
– APDCL has implemented an AI-based application that utilizes images captured by meter
readers to automatically fill in units.
– TPDDL has collaborated with an AI firm to implement OCR (optical character recognition)
technology, enabling the gathering of meter readings using mobile device cameras.
– Discoms in Madhya Pradesh have deployed OCR-based meter reading systems.
2. Self-service payment kiosks: Despite utilities’ efforts to promote digital bill payments, there
remains a segment of customers who prefer offline payment methods. To accommodate these
preferences, utilities can install self-service kiosks. For example, AEML has deployed Genius
kiosks in Mumbai. These ATM-like kiosks serve as replacements for manned billing counters,
offering extended operating hours (from 7 am to 11 pm), multiple payment options (cash, card,
cheques, online payment), and convenient accessibility for customers.
3. GIS Mapping of Assets: Some utilities, have utilized GIS technology to accurately map their
assets, creating detailed digital maps of their supply networks. This mapping encompasses
transformers, network lines, customer meters, and other critical network equipment. Additionally,
any new equipment replacements or installations are promptly digitally mapped as well. GIS
mapping enables utilities to quickly identify and locate system faults using SCADA systems,
allowing them to efficiently deploy their workforce to rectify faults and outages. Other utilities can
also conduct a one-time survey and mapping of their distribution network, including underground
lines, and leverage GIS maps to enhance field operations.
4. Enterprise resource planning (ERP): ERP solutions can seamlessly share data, manage and
track performance, automate repetitive tasks, maintain assets, and enforce staff KPIs, among
other functions. ERP solutions are important for achieving efficient operations and have already
been adopted by many well performing utilities in the country.
– MPMKVVCL has developed an IT Portal, Saral Sanyojan Portal, to streamline new LT
connections. This portal facilitates an effortless application process, incorporates a mobile
app and billing system, allowing the utility to process new connection requests within 3 days.
– It has also established an online portal to digitize the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and
Departmental Enquiry (DE) lifecycle. This initiative enables easy information retrieval,
enhances collaboration among stakeholders, and promotes transparency and
accountability in the system.
– Some utilities have implemented a Regulatory Information Management System (RIMS)
Portal, which facilitates the seamless periodic submission of MIS reports related to
the performance of distribution licensees and state GenCos to the Regulator on a
single platform.
5. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tools: CRM tools are effective for managing
customer-related processes such as billing, payments, customer outreach, complaint logging,
tracking, and resolution. Implementation of CRM tools encompasses solutions such as 24 x 7
call centers (with multi-lingual support), IVR facilities, AI-based chatbots, telephony integration,
integrated customer applications, etc., leading to improved customer experience, reduced
resolution times, and optimized internal staff operations.

– Madhya Pradesh Discoms have implemented a Natural Language Processing (NLP)-based
automated Telecaller/voice bot to record complaints regarding billing and distribution
transformers.
– NPCL conducts credit analysis of customers to identify the probability of default and takes
necessary actions to ensure high collection efficiency.
– TPDDL has developed the ‘My Tata Power’ app as a one-stop solution for consumers for
all power-related matters. It enables customers to manage and track billing, payments,
complaints, alerts, outages, etc.
– AEML has integrated CRM tools with their Outage Management System (OMS),
allowing them to identify affected customers during an outage and automatically send
them messages.
– Many utilities provide options, via app, IVRS, call center, website, or walk-in centers, for
customers to update their mobile numbers and email IDs to ensure reachability.
6. Real time power usage monitoring: With the implementation of smart meters and Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI), utilities can now provide detailed power consumption information
to their consumers. This empowers users to understand their power consumption, identify
solutions for optimizing power bills, and flag any billing issues. While many utilities have
implemented this facility for high load Commercial and Industrial (C&I) users, it can be extended
to Low Tension (LT) users as well. Additionally, energy audit services can be provided to high-
value electricity consumers to help them identify power wastage and suggest measures to
save power.
– Some utilities have launched the ‘Know Your Energy Consumption’ service, wherein
power demand, consumption, and power factor patterns are emailed daily to subscribed
customers, enabling them to optimize their usage.
7. Rural programs: Improving billing and collection efficiency in rural areas remains a challenge for
utilities, prompting focused efforts to improve awareness, accountability, and accessibility for
rural consumers. Collaborating with post offices and gram panchayats and deploying dedicated
agents has proven beneficial for discoms with extensive rural territories, leading to improved
collection efficiency.
– DHBVNL has launched the “Mhara Gaon Jagmag Gaon” initiative to ensure 24x7 electricity
and reduce line losses in rural areas. The utility makes conditional investments in rural areas
based on respective billing collections and improvements in AT&C levels.
– TPCODL conducts meetings with Gram Panchayats in villages to interact with consumers
regarding complaints, digital payments, energy conservation, safety awareness, and
unauthorized electricity use.
– TPML leads SAKHI initiative (Social Advancement for Knowledge and Household Income),
engaging women in electricity billing and recovery and providing multiple well-being
measures.
– TPWODL has deployed specialized software solution for implementing the One Time
Settlement Scheme (OTSS) for rural consumers with significant arrears.
– Many utilities utilize mass media channels to raise awareness about electricity theft, punitive
measures, payment-related information, and utility schemes.
8. Solutions to reduce theft, fraud: Utilities are adopting technological solutions, combined with
dedicated workforce, to mitigate power theft and fraud. Detailed energy accounting and audits
enable utilities to investigate areas with high losses. Moreover, utilities are developing specialized
analytics tools that utilize smart meter data from feeders to address issues in real-time.

– Many utilities have designated accountability for loss monitoring to dedicated substation
and feeder-level managers. These managers regularly monitor Management Information
System (MIS) reports and conduct various checks such as billing discrepancies, energy
supply to permanently disconnected customers, and investigation of areas with high losses
and low consumption.
– Utilities deploy dedicated inspection squads, drones, or utilize analytical tools to conduct
surveillance and identify potential cases of power theft.
– Odisha utilities have developed a mobile application to capture theft information and provide
leads to the enforcement team for load booking.
9. Installation of smart meters: The Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS) has
encouraged installation of smart meters across utilities. This initiative offers substantial
operational flexibility for utilities, enabling the implementation of pre-paid metering, time-of-
day tariffs, detailed energy accounting, and aiding in the reduction of Aggregate Technical and
Commercial (AT&C) losses.
– As an example, APDCL has undertaken initiatives to address challenges such as customer
apprehension regarding smart meters and educating the workforce. The installation of
smart meters has enabled APDCL to improve Billing Efficiency in smart smart meters areas
from 86 percent to 91 percent and Collection Efficiency from 95 percent to 100 percent.
Additionally, it has resulted in reduced consumption as customers become more aware of
their consumption patterns.
10. Improve Accounting practices: Below are certain accounting related best practices
which utilities could consider for standardization and better representation of utilities’ financial
performance in the accounts:
– Ensure consistent treatment of Regulatory income based on the issuance of approved
regulatory orders.
– Address long-pending customer receivables by gradually liquidating them through
provisions or write-offs to bring down Days Receivable within prudential limits.
– Adhere to accounting standards (IND-AS) as prescribed under the Companies Accounting
Standard Rules.
– Maintain records of aging of trade receivables in quarterly or annual accounts.
– Maintain records of total electricity duty and delayed payment surcharges, both booked and
collected, in quarterly or annual accounts.
– Provide adequate disclosures in notes to accounts with regard to operations of the utilities
that have impact on the financials.

Below are various best practices for improving the financial health of the power distribution sector,
based on the current focus areas in the sector and practices observed across global benchmarks.
Planning ahead to meet growth in power demand: This year’s exercise saw a significant rise in
electricity consumption, particularly during the summer months of FY23. During the summer
months of FY23, electricity consumption increased by 15-24 percent compared to FY22. In FY24,
the power demand increased by 8 percent over the first three quarters compared to FY23.19
For many utilities, contractual PPAs were insufficient to meet the surge in power demand. As
a result, utilities had to purchase power from exchange, leading to price hikes driven by demand.
CERC stepped to regulate power exchange rates at INR 12 per unit, which had previously gone up to
INR 18 per unit. Utilities have been hesitant to accept long-term contracts due to decreasing power
generating costs in the previous decade, fearing getting stuck into higher-priced PPAs. According
to the 20th Electric Power Survey, India’s energy consumption is expected to grow at over 7 percent
till FY27 and 5.8 percent thereafter. This presents a considerable challenge to the utilities. To
address this challenge, the government created an Adequacy Planning Framework that emphasizes
balancing long, medium, and short-term power contracting methods.
To achieve accuracy, power demand projections could take into consideration development of new
areas, variability in load curves (attributable to addition in solar, EVs, air conditioning loads, etc.). The
data collected from smart meters could help utilities to generate useful insights through data-based
analytical tools. Such tools could also help identify discrepancies, improve customer service, and
reduce Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) losses.
Leveraging Demand Flexibility solutions: One of the primary challenges associated with
increasing solar and wind installed capacity is ensuring round-the-clock power availability. While
there has been significant focus on creating hybrid power plants, and energy storage solutions,
demand flexibility could be an efficient solution to address this challenge, as seen in other countries.
Demand flexibility can help flatten peak load curves and can be implemented through Time of Day
(ToD) Tariffs.
ToD tariffs have the potential to increase power demand during solar hours and shift demand to
non-peak hours, thereby optimizing power consumption. ToD tariff implementation requires
regulatory supporting for publishing tariff and smart metering infrastructure at the consumer
end. The central government’s Electricity Amendment Rules 2023 establish the approach for
determining ToD tariffs.
Furthermore, many developed countries have also successfully implemented Demand Response
Management solutions, wherein customers are onboarded and incentivized to switch on / off
power demand based on the grid’s requirements for flexibility and stability. By leveraging demand
response initiatives, utilities can better manage peak demand and enhance grid reliability. Utilities
can pilot such solutions in the near-term, starting with large C&I consumers.
Improving quality of power distribution infrastructure: India’s power quality, as measured by
SAIDI and SAIFI metrics, is behind developed nations. For instance, India’s SAIDI during FY23 stood
at 131 hours in urban areas, considerably higher compared to less than 1 hour in developed nations.
Similarly, SAIFI in India’s urban areas was 202, compared to less than 1 in developed nations20 .
19
CEA
20
CEA, World Bank

Several central government schemes, including R-APDRP, IPDS, and now RDSS, have allocated
significant funds towards enhancing power distribution infrastructure such as implementing
SCADA, replacing conventional conductors with ABS conductors, augmenting transformer
capacity, establishing network redundancy, and deploying smart meters. Despite these efforts,
there is still room for improvement in power infrastructure to ensure reliable power supply
to customers.
Many well performing global utilities focus on implementing smart solutions such as SCADA,
Distribution Management Systems (DMS), Outage Management Systems (OMS), equipment
health monitoring, condition-based maintenance of transformers, GIS mapping of assets, and
adopting Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
software. Additionally, comprehensive mobile applications for consumers, could improve power
quality, operational efficiency, and overall customer experience. Further, installation of smart
meters at all levels, including for customers, feeders, and transformers, is important. It could help
to reduce losses, and improve the working capital cycle of utilities, contributing to overall efficiency
and sustainability.
Implementing Automatic pass through of fuel costs: Increase in power purchase costs for a
utility, over and beyond envisaged in the tariff order, can have substantial impact on working capital
requirement on the utility as power purchase costs constitute large majority of its total expenditure.
Any such price adjustments during the year often necessitate additional borrowing by the utilities to
meet their working capital needs. This, in turn, escalates financing costs, constrains the playability
to GenCos & TransCos, and compounds the operating costs of the utility.
Consequently, there has been a focus from the central government to facilitate utilities in recovering
fuel and power purchase cost adjustments during the year. In the Electricity Amendment Rules
2022, the government established automatic pass-through of power purchase costs on a
monthly basis along with the adjustment formula to be determined by the respective SERCs and
implemented by March 2023. Implementation of the same could help utilities to protect themselves
from substantial changes in power costs. Discoms also need to ensure that the power price
adjustment of any month is claimed within the next two months (n+2, i.e., cost adjustment for power
supply in April is passed on latest in June tariffs). The Electricity Amendment Rules 2022 specify
that in case of delay beyond this period, utilities could forfeit the right to claim such cost recovery
through automatic pass-through mechanisms or true-up orders.
Adjustment of fuel & power purchase costs became especially relevant during FY23, wherein power
purchase costs increased by 71 paise per unit at the national level. This unprecedented increase in
the sector was driven by a increase in power demand and rise in international coal prices. For some
utilities, the fuel and purchase costs increased by more than INR 1 per unit during the year. Utilities
with existing mechanisms for pass-through of power purchase costs were able to pass on the
increased costs to consumers during the year itself for maintaining financial viability. Conversely,
many utilities without such provisions were adversely impacted.

State support: Some states, like Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Kerala, have accumulated
substantial regulatory assets. State governments could collaborate with regulators to develop
solutions for liquidating these regulatory assets. Such efforts could improve the financial health of
the utilities. State governments could provide support by offering loss-takeover grants to financially
weaker discoms. Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, and Uttar
Pradesh, provided considerable loss takeover funds in FY23. This support could continue until
utilities are able to improve their financial performance.
Optimizing government dues: It is important to note that government dues, which are bills
submitted to the government as a consumer but not yet paid, account for around a third of the
overall sector’s trade receivables. At the end of FY23, utilities had a combined INR 85,000 crore
of government dues, with large contributions coming from states including Andhra Pradesh,
Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Maharashtra. This impacts utilities’ operating capital,
resulting in increased borrowing costs and liquidity issues. Addressing this issue would require
support from state governments to ensure the timely payment of dues and transition to pre-paid
metering for government consumption.
Ladakh, India
07
Appendix

APPENDIX
1. Important updates in the

12th Rating Exercise
The 12th Integrated Rating Exercise saw some changes in terms of classification, participation and
calculation methodology for utilities:
• Analysis was done basis data available from 56 discoms and 11 power departments. Ratings
have been done for 55 Discoms and 11 Power Departments.
– While data of CESC is available, they had expressed their unwillingness to participate in the
rating this year. TPML has not submitted their data. Therefore, they have not been rated in
this year’s exercise.
– For two discoms – Jammu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (JPDCL) and Kashmir
Power Distribution Corporation Limited (KPDCL) – revenue collection, power purchase was
managed/financed by the UT government. Given, that individual accounts did not capture
this critical financial information, they were not reflective of the true financial health of the
discom. Therefore, they have not been rated as well.
– Accordingly, 55 out of 59 Discoms have been rated in this year’s exercise.
– Chandigarh PD and Lakshadweep PD have not submitted their accounts. Therefore, they
have not been rated.
– Daman and Diu was a PD in the 11th Exercise whose operations have been merged with
Dadra & Nagar Haveli which has been privatized.
– Two new Power departments have been added in the rating exercise, viz. TCED (Kerala) and
NDMC (Delhi).
– Accordingly, 11 out of 13 Power Departments have been rated in this year’s exercise.
• New utilities with two completed years of operation –TPNODL, Ladakh PD
– Weighted average calculation: 40 percent weightage (FY 22), 60 percent weightage (FY 23).
– Scores: Combine score weightage for two-year CAGR metrics (ACS-ARR Gap, Collection
Efficiency, Efficiency) within the respective ‘absolute score’ metric.
• New utilities with one completed years of operation –Torrent DNHDDPDCL
– Weighted average calculation: 100 percent weightage (FY 22).
– Scores: Combine score weightage for two year, one year CAGR metrics (ACS-ARR Gap,
Collection Efficiency, Efficiency) within the respective ‘absolute score’ metric.
• Change in Leverage formula: Given the challenges for the year, several utilities had negative
cash adjusted EBITDA resulting in negative leverage. Negative leverage inherently has no
meaning. Where the same was considered across years for weighted average calculation, the
weighted average would not give a true measure as the negative leverage would push down the
average. Accordingly, in response to the representation thereto the Committee recommended
that in line with the objective of the metric, its scores be calculated for individual years based on
the respective leverage of those years and weighted average of such scores be the final score for
the exercise.

– Current Calculation
» Leverage = Total Debt / Cash Adjusted EBITDA
» Weighted Average Leverage of FY21, FY22 and FY23 calculated using 15%, 25% & 60% as
weights respectively
» Score (Max Score 7) is assigned based on Weighted Average: Full between 0-5,
proportionate between 5-15 and 0 above 15 or for negative values
– Revised Calculation
» Leverage = Total Debt / Cash Adjusted EBITDA
» Scores assigned to each year on year’s Leverage
» Weighted average of the scores for individual years is calculated to arrive at the
total score
• The ACS-ARR, Leverage and DSCR metrics incorporate a revenue cash adjustment based on
increase in trade receivables to reflect actual cash collected from consumers. As a utility’s
business and revenue grows, it results in a growth in its trade receivables as well. Therefore,
even where a utility may have actually improved collections (as reflected in improving Days
Receivable), it may still have a negative cash adjustment mainly due to its business growth.
Accordingly, the Committee decided to avoid negative consequences of growth for utilities
with already optimized level of receivables (i.e. Days Receivables < 60 days). Where the days
receivable for a utility are less than or equal to 60 days, negative cash adjustment would not
be done for calculating revenue figures for assigning scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Leverage
metrics. However, this adjustment would not be done for calculation of these metrics at national
level as well as for individual utilities.
• In the 12th Ratings exercise red card metrics were given to following utilities:
– Auditor’s Adverse Opinion: TANGEDCO, MePDCL, BESCOM
– Un-availability of audited accounts: HPSEBL
– Default to Banks/FIs: None
• Grade for following utilities were downgraded due to over-riding conditions:
– Loan Default: None
– Change in regulatory assets: BRPL, BYPL
– Overriding ACS-ARR condition: None
Solar water pump in India

APPENDIX
2. Key findings by Discom

A. State Discoms
S. No. State / UT Utility Name Full Name Page No.

Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company
1 Andhra Pradesh APCPDCL 89
Limited
Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh
2 Andhra Pradesh APEPDCL 93
Limited
Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra
3 Andhra Pradesh APSPDCL 97
Pradesh Limited
4 Assam APDCL Assam Power Distribution Company Limited 101
5 Bihar NBPDCL North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited 105
6 Bihar SBPDCL South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited 109
7 Chhattisgarh CSPDCL Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited 113
8 Gujarat DGVCL Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited 117
9 Gujarat MGVCL Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited 121
10 Gujarat PGVCL Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited 125
11 Gujarat UGVCL Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited 129
12 Haryana DHBVNL Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited 133
13 Haryana UHBVNL Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited 137
14 Himachal Pradesh HPSEBL Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited 141
15 Jharkhand JBVNL Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited 145
16 Karnataka BESCOM Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited 149
17 Karnataka CHESCOM Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited 153
18 Karnataka GESCOM Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Limited 157
19 Karnataka HESCOM Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited 161
20 Karnataka MESCOM Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited 165
21 Kerala KSEBL Kerala State Electricity Board Limited 169
22 Madhya Pradesh MPMKVVCL MP Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited 173
23 Madhya Pradesh MPPaKVVCL MP Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited 177
24 Madhya Pradesh MPPoKVVCL MP Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited 181
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
25 Maharashtra MSEDCL 185
Limited

26 Manipur MSPDCL Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited 189
27 Meghalaya MePDCL Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited 193
28 Punjab PSPCL Punjab State Power Corporation Limited 197
29 Rajasthan AVVNL Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 201
30 Rajasthan JDVVNL Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 205
31 Rajasthan JVVNL Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 209
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution

32 Tamil Nadu TANGEDCO 213
Corporation Limited
Northern Power Distribution Company of

33 Telangana TSNPDCL 217
Telangana Limited
Southern Power Distribution Company of

34 Telangana TSSPDCL 221
Telangana Limited
35 Tripura TSECL Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited 225
36 Uttar Pradesh DVVNL Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 229
37 Uttar Pradesh KESCO Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited 233
38 Uttar Pradesh MVVNL Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 237
39 Uttar Pradesh PVVNL Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 241
40 Uttar Pradesh PuVVNL Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 245
41 Uttarakhand UPCL Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited 249
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution

42 West Bengal WBSEDCL 253
Company Limited

B. Private Discoms
1 Delhi BRPL BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd 257
2 Delhi BYPL BSES Yamuna Power Ltd 261
3 Delhi TPDDL Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd 265

Dadra & Nagar Haveli,
4 DNHDDPDCL DNH & DD Power Distribution Corporation Limited 269
Daman & Diu
5 Gujarat TP Ahm Torrent Power Ahmedabad 273
6 Gujarat TP Surat Torrent Power Surat 277
7 Maharashtra AEML Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited 281
8 Odisha TPCODL Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Ltd 285
9 Odisha TPNODL Tata Power Northern Odisha Distribution Ltd 289
10 Odisha TPSODL Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Ltd 293
11 Odisha TPWODL Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd 297
12 Uttar Pradesh NPCL Noida Power Company Ltd. 301
13 West Bengal IPCL India Power Corporation Limited 305
C. Power Departments

Andaman & Andaman & Electricity Department, Andaman & Nicobar
1 309
Nicobar Islands Nicobar PD Administration
Arunachal Department of Power, Government of
2 Arunachal PD 313
Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh
3 Delhi NDMC New Delhi Municipal Council 317
4 Goa Goa PD Electricity Department, Government of Goa 321
5 Kerala TCED Thrissur Corporation Electricity Department 325
6 Ladakh Ladakh PD Ladakh Power Development Department 329

The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport
7 Maharashtra BEST 333
Undertaking
Power & Electricity Department, Government of
8 Mizoram Mizoram PD 337
Mizoram
9 Nagaland Nagaland PD Department of Power, Nagaland 341
10 Puducherry Puducherry PD Electricity Department, Government of Puducherry 345
11 Sikkim Sikkim PD Power Department, Government of Sikkim 349

A. State Discoms
Andhra Pradesh Central Power
31 B-
Distribution Company Limited
(APCPDCL) Rank
31 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of APCPDCL1
Ownership State Govt. PSU

Date of incorporation 24-Dec-2019
Nature of operations Distribution
Area of operations State of Andhra Pradesh in districts of Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam
Number of customers 5,054,193

% Agricultural customers 8.49%
% C&I customers 9.62%
Gross input energy 15,809 MU (+1%)3
Total energy sold 14,167 MU (+1%)3
Revenue booked2 INR 13,650 Cr (+39%)3
Profit after tax INR 483 Cr
1. Values are from the latest available data 2. Revenue booked does not include other regulatory income
3. Compared to FY 2022 Source: Audited Accounts
Relative Performance (w.r.t FY22)
12th Ratings B- 45.1 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

19.2 FY23 0.07 FY23 11.5%
11th Ratings C 25.9 FY22 0.64 FY22 10.0%
Decline in scores for AQR, Corporate governance metrics metrics in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Leverage, DSCR, Received Loss takeover subsidy, Collection Efficiency, Audit
qualification metrics in FY23
ACS-ARR Gap improved by 57 paise / kWh in FY23 v/s FY22
‒ PBT improved by 50 paise / kWh – driven by 172 paise increase in revenue booked vs 140 paise increase in
Power purchase cost. Further, also received 30 paise of loss takeover subsidy from GoAP
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 36 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization went upto 108%; Also received past
UDAY subsidy of 1,224 Cr
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection worsened by 29 paise, from -8 paise in FY22 to -37 paise in FY23

Performance in 12th Annual Rating Exercise
APCPDCL achieved Rank 31 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 45.1 out of 100.
Further, it exhibited an Improving Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
45.1 out of 100
Bottom 33rd %ile 67th %ile Top
Summary of Performance across Metrics
Integrated Score: 45.1 out of 100
Base Rating Score: 46.1
Financial Performance External

31.6 / out of 75 8.7 / out of 13 5.8 / out of 12
Sustainability Excellence Environment
ACS – ARR gap Distribution Loss Subsidy Realized (last

23.1 35 1.9 2 0.3 4
(cash adjusted) (SERC approved) 3 FYs)
Loss Takeover by
Days Receivable 1.6 3 Billing Efficiency 4.0 5 3.0 3
State Government
Days Payable to Government Dues

0.0 10 Collection Efficiency 2.8 5 1.5 3
GenCos & TransCos (Last 3 FYs)
Adjusted Quick Corporate

4.0 10 0.0 1 Tariff Cycle Timelines 1.0 1
Ratio Governance
Debt Service Coverage Auto Pass Through

0.0 10 0.0 1
Ratio (cash adjusted) of Fuel Costs
Leverage Debt/EBITDA
2.8 7
(cash adjusted)
Specific Disincentives: -1.0
Auditor’s Adverse Audit Tariff Independent of

NA -1.0 / out of -4 NA
Opinion Qualifications Subsidy
Availability of Uncovered Revenue

NA Governance NA NA
Audited Accounts Gap (Current Year)
Default to
NA Tariff Cycle Delays NA Regulatory Assets NA
Banks/FIs
Allotted score Top 33rd percentile Middle 33rd percentile Bottom 33rd percentile Red card metric

Key Improvement areas for Next Year
Continue improved performance: Significant jump in FY23 on the back off higher revenue booked and loss takeover
subsidy received. DSCR improved to 0.82 in FY23, but lost marks due to poor DSCR in FY21, 22. Leverage improved
to 8.27 in FY23, but still remains high
While Collection Efficiency is high at 96.3% in FY23, it fell from 97.9% in FY22 (For max expected is 99.5%)
Adjusted Quick Ratio fell from 0.73 to 0.60 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Payable to Gencos &
Transco – stood at 4380 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 158 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days)
Continue to improve Receivables Management – Currently at 87 days (For max score, expected is 60 days)
Press the AP government to clear past subsidy dues – Low realization in FY21
Appoint independent directors to the Board – Nominee directors of GoAP not considered independent
Adopt Ind-AS – Currently financials prepared as per Accounting Standards
High government department dues
Key Strengths
Turned PBT break-even in FY23 on the back of loss takeover subsidy
Tariff and True-up orders were issued on time
Analysis of AT&C Losses

97.9% 96.3%
91.7% 92.0% 92.0%
84.2%
Billing Efficiency 22.7%

Collection Efficiency 10.0% 11.5%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Input Energy (MUs) 13,864 15,236 15,076
Net Energy Sold (MUs) 12,720 14,010 13,866
Billing Efficiency 91.75% 91.95% 91.98%
Revenue Billed (INR Cr) 8,716 9,034 11,668
Revenue Collected (INR Cr) 7,342 8,839 11,232
Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -1,222 -77 168
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -153 -117 -604
Collection Efficiency 84.23% 97.85% 96.26%

Analysis of ACS-ARR Gap
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
INR INR / INR INR / INR INR / INR INR /
Cr kWh Cr kWh Cr kWh Cr kWh
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 9,313 6.61 9,812 6.29 12,6621 8.01 2,850 1.72
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 481 0.30 481 0.30
Power Purchase Cost 7,045 5.00 7,831 5.02 10,147 6.42 2,316 1.40
Other Expenses 2,264 1.61 2,782 1.78 3,020 1.91 238 0.13
Profit Before Tax 4 0.00 -801 -0.51 -24 -0.02 776 0.50
Excess Subsidy Realization -1,222 -0.87 -77 -0.05 498 0.31 575 0.36
Change in Receivables -227 -0.16 -120 -0.08 -580 -0.37 -460 -0.29
ACS-ARR Gap 1,445 1.03 999 0.64 107 0.07 -892 -0.57
ACS-ARR Gap – Weighted Average for 12th Ratings: 0.35 INR / kWh
ACS-ARR gap components for FY23 (Amount in INR ‘000 crores)
ACS - ARR gap Amount Amount Distribution of percentage share

Component INR ‘000 cr. INR / kWh of total revenue booked
Percentile
Bottom 33rd 67th Top
99%
Cash adjusted
13.14 0.08* 8.26
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
77%
Power purchase
10.15 6.42
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
12%
O&M expenses 1.54 0.97
44% 13% 9% 3%
7%
Interest 0.94 0.59
16% 7% 3% 0%
Other expenses 0.55 0.34
0.07
Gap / Surplus 0.11 0.07
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Note: Total revenue billed, and cash adjusted revenue has been derived and each cost component has been calculated as a % of billed revenue. Amounts in ‘000
Crores rounded off to 2 decimal places; % rounded off to nearest whole number; Other numbers rounded off to 2 decimal places; * Unrealized Revenue

Eastern Power Distribution
16 A
Company of Andhra Pradesh
Limited (APEPDCL) Rank
16 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of APEPDCL1

Date of incorporation 30-Mar-2000
Area of operations 5 districts in eastern Andhra Pradesh, namely, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram,

Visakhapatnam, East Godavari and West Godavari.

12th Ratings A 71.2 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

13.5 FY23 -0.07 FY23 5.9%
11th Ratings B 57.8 FY22 -0.08 FY22 7.8%
Decline in scores for Leverage metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
ACS-ARR Gap worsened by 1 paise / kWh in FY23 v/s FY22
‒ PBT worsened by 15 paise / kWh – Impact of order of State Regulator to return excess subsidy for past years
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 39 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization increased to 140%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection worsened by 26 paise, from 3 paise in FY22 to -23 paise in FY23
Higher Tariff Subsidy Realization offset cash adjustment for customer collection to increase Collection Efficiency to
100.0% in FY23 from 98.7% in FY22
To avoid negative consequences of growth for utilities with optimized level of receivables, threshold of 60 days has
been adopted. Where the days receivable for a utility are <= 60 days, for assigning scores to the ACS-ARR Gap,
Leverage and DSCR metrics, negative cash adjustment due to increase in debtors has not been considered.

APEPDCL achieved Rank 16 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A and Integrated Score of 71.2 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
71.2 out of 100


33.3 35 1.3 2 0.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

3.0 10 0.0 1
5.7 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance -1.0 / out of -3 NA
Default to
Banks/FIs

Continue improved performance: ACS-ARR Gap has significantly improved since FY21 (140 Paise to -7 paise) due to
better tariff subsidy realization in FY22 and FY23. Improved financial performance would also help in DSCR and
Leverage. DSCR improved to 0.88 in FY23, but lost marks due to poor DSCR in FY21. Debt increase in FY23 to 12,143
Cr from 9,107 Cr in FY22 – High Debt as a % of Revenue of 63% vs National Median of 47%
While Collection Efficiency is high at 100% in FY23, Lost marks due to low Collection Efficiency in FY21 due to low
tariff subsidy realization
Continue to work on reducing Payable to Gencos & Transco – Improved from 122 to 81 days (as against LPS norm of
45 days)
Appoint 1 more independent director to the Board – Currently 1 out of 7. Nominee directors of GoAP / Civil Servants
not considered independent
Currently appointed MD is not exclusive
Key Strengths
PBT positive in FY23 with PBT of 20Cr
Top 20%ile in Billing efficiency at 94.1%; Met Distribution Loss target set by regulator
Well managed short-term liquidity with AQR of 1.24
Optimum receivables management with Days Receivable at 45
98.8% 100.0%
93.4% 93.4% 94.1%
84.8%
Billing Efficiency
20.9%
Collection Efficiency
7.8% 5.9%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -2,291 -255 833
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) 173 68 -607

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 910 0.40 338 0.13 281 0.10 -57 -0.03
Other Expenses 4,160 1.83 2,771 1.09 2,780 0.98 9 -0.11
Profit Before Tax 33 0.01 397 0.16 20 0.01 -377 -0.15
Excess Subsidy Realization -3,201 -1.40 -255 -0.10 833 0.29 1,088 0.39
Change in Receivables -16 -0.01 63 0.03 -662 -0.23 -725 -0.26
ACS-ARR Gap 3,184 1.40 -205 -0.08 -191 -0.07 14 0.01

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
19.59 6.90
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
86%
Power purchase
16.61 5.86
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
7%
44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 1.12 0.40
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.07
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94

Southern Power Distribution
28 B-
Company of Andhra Pradesh
Limited (APSPDCL) Rank
28 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of APSPDCL1

Area of operations Tirupati, Kadapa, Nellore, Anatapur, Kurnool districts of Andhra Pradesh

Gross input energy 34,249 MU (-3%)3
Total energy sold 31,308 MU (-4%)3
Profit after tax INR 1,234 Cr

31.6 FY23 0.04 FY23 8.1%
11th Ratings C 16.2 FY22 0.96 FY22 13.6%
Decline in scores for Independent directors, Going Concern, Non-exclusive MD metrics in FY23
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Loss takeover, Leverage, Collection Efficiency, Days Payable, AQR metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 37 paise / kWh – driven by 86 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 35 paise increase in
Other expenses (mainly finance costs), 36 paise increased in additional subsidy grants, and 123 paise increase
in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 58 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization went up to 122%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection worsened marginally by 3 paise
Higher Tariff Subsidy Realization offset cash adjustment for customer collection to increase Collection Efficiency
to 100.0% in FY23 from 94.1% in FY22
Payables decreased from 8,788 Cr in FY22 to 2,769 Cr in FY23. Consequently, Adjusted Quick Ratio also improved
from 0.78 in FY22 to 1.02 in FY23.

APSPDCL achieved Rank 28 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 47.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
47.8 out of 100


21.1 35 0.8 2 0.8 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
1.6 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs

Continue improved performance: ACS-ARR Gap has significantly improved since FY22 (96 Paise to 4 paise) due to
better tariff subsidy realization in FY22 and FY23 and receipt of loss takeover subsidy. Improved financial
performance. DSCR improved to 0.88 in FY23, but lost marks due to poor DSCR in FY21, 22. Leverage, is high at
12.76 wghtd. Avg. (max score from 0 to 5)
While Collection Efficiency is high at 100% in FY23, Lost marks due to low Collection Efficiency in FY21 due to low
tariff subsidy realization
While AQR has improved to 1.02 in FY23, Lost marks due to low AQR in FY21,22. Continue to work on reducing
Payable to Gencos & Transco – Improved from 187 to 51 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days)
Continue to work on reducing Days Receivable – Improved from 154 to 134 days
Appoint independent directors to the Board – Currently 0 out of 9 Nominee directors of GoAP / Civil Servants not
considered independent
Press the AP government departmental dues
Non-exclusive MD. Address Audit Qualifications regarding going concern, delayed payment of statutory dues and
non-adoption of Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Well managed short-term liquidity with AQR of 1.02

100.0%
91.8% 88.6% 91.8% 94.1% 91.9%
Billing Efficiency
18.6%
Collection Efficiency 13.6%
8.1%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -3,425 196 936
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) 1,727 -1,023 -707

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,233 0.36 1,233 0.36
Other Expenses 4,571 1.44 4,643 1.32 5,727 1.67 1,084 0.35
Profit Before Tax 2 0.00 -2,054 -0.58 -721 -0.21 1,333 0.37
Excess Subsidy Realization -3,425 -1.08 196 0.06 2,160 0.63 1,964 0.58
Change in Receivables 50 0.02 -1,510 -0.43 -1,564 -0.46 -54 -0.03
ACS-ARR Gap 3,373 1.07 3,368 0.96 125 0.04 -3,243 -0.92

Percentile
102%
Cash adjusted
24.65 7.37
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
80%
Power purchase
19.64 5.74
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
13%
44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 1.53 0.45
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.04
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
27 B-
Assam Power Distribution
Company Limited (APDCL) Rank
27 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of APDCL1

Date of incorporation 23-Oct-2003
Area of operations State of Assam

Profit after tax INR -800 Cr

-25.7 FY23 0.61 FY23 16.2%
11th Ratings A 74.5 FY22 -0.52 FY22 17.0%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Leverage, DSCR, Days Payable, Loan Default metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Days Receivable, Automatic Pass through of Fuel costs metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 91 paise / kWh – driven by 167 paise increased in Power purchase cost, and 84 paise
increase in revenues. Increase in Power purchase costs was due to higher proportion of gas based energy
‒ Excess Subsidy realization fell by only 2 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization declined from 104% to 100%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined by 21 paise, from 22 paise in FY22 to 1 paise in FY23
Days receivable improved from 91 in FY22 to 70 days in FY23. However, Days Payable to GenCos & TransCos
worsened from 37 in FY22 to 59 days in FY23
Default against PFC term loan as identified by Auditor
Regulator implemented Automatic pass through of fuel costs in FY23
APDCL achieved Rank 27 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 48.9 out of 100.
Further, it exhibited a Declining Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
48.9 out of 100


17.8 35 1.2 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
2.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
-1.0 / out of -15 Tariff Cycle Delays NA Regulatory Assets NA
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – focusing on both customer collections and PBT (-1219 Cr in FY23 excluding other subsidy
booked)
DSCR and Leverage were negative in FY23, due to negative EBITDA. Lost marks
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.54 (max score at 1.00). Need to reduce current liabilities. Days Payable can be
slightly improved (current at 59 days v/s LPS norm of 45 days)
Billing Efficiency is low at 83.8% in FY23 – Need to considerably improve (for max. score expected is 92%)
Seek additional support from Govt for loss takeover – received grants of 419 Cr against loss of -800 Cr in FY23
Audit Qualification: comply with Ind-AS standards for accounts preparation
Governance: Appoint exclusive MD, fill up post of DF
Key Strengths
Tariff subsidy realization has been consistently 100%

Low debt levels – debt is 11% of Revenue booked (against National Median of ~47%)
Collection Efficiency of 100% - good in both government subsidy disbursals and customer cash collections
Government has been clearing its customer dues to the Utility
Automatic pass through of Fuel cost is implemented quarterly

99.8% 100.0% 100.0%
81.5% 83.0% 83.8%
Billing Efficiency
18.7% 17.0% 16.2%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) 186 20 1
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -198 284 77
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 473 0.43 463 0.39 419 0.33 -44 -0.06
Other Expenses 1,643 1.49 1,690 1.41 1,841 1.44 151 0.02
Profit Before Tax -292 -0.27 336 0.28 -800 -0.62 -1,137 -0.91
Excess Subsidy Realization 186 0.17 20 0.02 1 0.00 -20 -0.02
Change in Receivables -336 -0.31 266 0.22 15 0.01 -251 -0.21
ACS-ARR Gap 443 0.40 -623 -0.52 785 0.61 1,407 1.13

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
9.53 7.44
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
89%
Power purchase
8.48 6.62
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
13%
44% 13% 9% 3%
1%
Interest 0.14 0.11
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.61
Gap / Surplus -0.78 -0.61
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
37 C
North Bihar Power Distribution
Company Ltd (NBPDCL) Rank
37 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of NBPDCL1

Date of incorporation 6-Jul-2012
Area of operations 21 districts of North Bihar namely West Champaran, East Champaran,
Sitamadhi, Sheohar, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, Saran, Siwan, Gopalgunj, Mahubani,
Darbhanaga, Samastipur, Begusarai, Khagaria, Saharsa, Supaul, Medhepura,
Araria, Katihar, Purnea and Kishanganj

12th Ratings C 30.8 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

22.1 FY23 0.43 FY23 21.3%
11th Ratings C- 8.8 FY22 0.97 FY22 27.6%
Decline in scores for Non-adherence to Ind-AS metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR Gap, AQR, Billing efficiency, Distribution Loss target, No Uncovered Revenue Gap, Loss
Takeover by Government metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 38 paise / kWh – driven by 28 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 22 paise increase in
additional subsidy grants, and 55 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy realization was -18 paise in FY22 and -8 paise in FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved marginally by 6 paise, but remained negative: from -29 paise
in FY22 to -23 paise in FY23
Billing Efficiency improved from 79.9% in FY22 to 84.5% in FY23
No Uncovered Revenue Gap in FY24 tariff order
Received higher government grants to takeover losses in FY23
NBPDCL achieved Rank 37 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 30.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
30.8 out of 100


14.2 35 1.7 2 2.1 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
3.1 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR improved considerably in FY23 due to higher other subsidy disbursement and better tariff recovery.
However, PBT still remained negative in FY23 and needs to be improved. Lost marks in ACS-ARR gap,
DSCR and Leverage
Net Trade Receivables are high – 3,153 Cr in FY23, with Days Receivable of 143 days(for max. expected is 60). Need
to write-off old receivables
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.59 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Payable to GenCos & Transco
– stood at 2,647 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 83 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days) and reduce short term
debt
Billing Efficiency improved significantly from 79.9% in FY22 to 84.5% in FY23. Need to improve further (for max. score
expected is 92%)
State regulator does not allow automatic pass through of Fuel Costs
Audit qualification for non-adherence of Ind-AS
MD is not exclusive
Key Strengths
Government departments have been clearing their billed dues in last 3 years
Receiving state government support through yearly disbursement of subsidy for past losses; State government
disburses tariff subsidy in advance

94.7% 93.2%
90.6%
84.5%
79.9%
72.3%
31.5% 27.6%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -443 -343 -164
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) 87 -421 -476
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 452 0.29 499 0.27 1,024 0.48 525 0.22
Other Expenses 1,777 1.15 2,311 1.24 2,845 1.34 534 0.11
Profit Before Tax -1,212 -0.79 -926 -0.50 -243 -0.11 683 0.38
Excess Subsidy Realization -443 -0.29 -343 -0.18 -164 -0.08 179 0.11
Change in Receivables 26 0.02 -551 -0.29 -495 -0.23 56 0.06
ACS-ARR Gap 1,628 1.06 1,820 0.97 902 0.43 -918 -0.55

Percentile
95%
Cash adjusted
13.64 0.66* 6.43
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
82%
Power purchase
11.70 5.52
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
8%
44% 13% 9% 3%
5%
Interest 0.65 0.31
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.43
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
38 C
South Bihar Power Distribution
Company Limited (SBPDCL) Rank
38 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of SBPDCL1

Date of incorporation 29-Jun-2012
Area of operations 17 districts of Southern Bihar


22.5 FY23 -0.02 FY23 28.0%
11th Ratings C- 7.2 FY22 1.50 FY22 35.2%
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Leverage metrics in FY23

‒ PBT improved by 70 paise / kWh – driven by 79 paise increase in AT&C loss subsidy received
‒ Excess Subsidy realization was -3 paise in FY22 and -1 paise in FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection also improved significantly by 80 paise, but remained negative:
from -92 paise in FY22 to -13 paise in FY23
SBPDCL achieved Rank 38 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 29.7 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
29.7 out of 100


17.2 35 0.0 2 3.8 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
4.2 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR improved considerably in FY23 due to higher other subsidy disbursement and better tariff recovery leading
to a positive PBT. Lost marks in ACS-ARR gap, Leverage and DSCR metric due to poor values in
FY21 and FY22
Net Trade Receivables are high at 7,538 Cr in FY23, with Days Receivable of 280 days(for max. expected is 60). Need
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.38 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Payable to GenCos & Transco
– stood at 4,832 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 121 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days) and
reduce short term debt
Billing Efficiency improved significantly from 72% in FY21 to 78% in FY22 but no change in FY23. Needs to improve
further (for max. score expected is 92%) and meet SERC Distribution Loss Target (15% for FY23)
Audit qualification for non-adherence of Ind-AS; Non-payment of statutory dues
MD is not exclusive
Key Strengths
Became profitable in FY23 with PBT% of 2% of Revenue; Low Leverage at 4.35 for FY23
Government departments have been proactive in last 3 years in clearing dues
Receiving state government support through yearly disbursement of subsidy for past losses; State government
disburses tariff subsidy in advance

92.3%
87.5% 83.5%
77.6% 78.1%
72.4%
36.7% 35.2%
28.0%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) 0 -75 -27
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -1,105 -1,569 -828
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 814 0.43 959 0.43 3,255 1.23 2,296 0.79
Other Expenses 1,917 1.02 2,313 1.05 2,925 1.10 612 0.06
Profit Before Tax -1,312 -0.70 -1,202 -0.54 424 0.16 1,626 0.70
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 0.00 -75 -0.03 -27 -0.01 48 0.02
Change in Receivables -1,129 -0.60 -2,040 -0.92 -333 -0.13 1,706 0.80
ACS-ARR Gap 2,441 1.30 3,316 1.50 -64 -0.02 -3,380 -1.53

Percentile
98%
Cash adjusted
17.62 0.36* 6.65
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
81%
Power purchase
14.63 5.52
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
7%
44% 13% 9% 3%
5%
Interest 0.82 0.31
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.02
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Chhattisgarh State Power
33 B-
(CSPDCL) Rank
33 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of CSPDCL1

Date of incorporation 19-May-2003
Area of operations State of Chhattisgarh

Profit after tax INR -1,133 Cr

9.7 FY23 0.11 FY23 16.1%
11th Ratings C 34.1 FY22 0.25 FY22 18.1%
Decline in scores for Uncovered Revenue Gap metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Leverage, Days Receivable, Distribution Loss performance, Billing Efficiency,
Government Dues metrics in FY23
‒ Marginal PBT improvement of 3 paise / kWh
‒ Excess Subsidy realization declined by 8 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization came down from 109% to 102%
‒ Cash adjustment from Customer collection improved by 18 paise, from -3 paise in FY22 to 14 paise FY23
Billing Efficiency improved from 81.9% in FY22 to 83.9% in FY23. Achieved Distribution loss of 16.1% as against
SERC target of 15.7% for FY23
Pending dues from Government consumers reduced in FY23 – arrears of 144 Cr were cleared in FY23, over and
above full disbursement of FY23 bills
Regulator determined Uncovered Revenue Gap of 2,925 Cr in FY24 tariff order pertaining to true up of previous year
CSPDCL achieved Rank 33 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 43.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
43.8 out of 100


28.0 35 1.7 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
3.5 7
(cash adjusted)

NA -1.0 / out of -4 -1.0 / out of -1

NA Governance -1.0 / out of -3 -4.0 / out of -4
Default to
NA Tariff Cycle Delays -0.5 / out of -4.5 Regulatory Assets NA
Banks/FIs
Continue improvement trajectory in financial performance – with focus on PBT
DSCR improved to 0.82 in FY23 (max score at 1.1). Leverage improved to 6.59 in FY23 (max score b/w 0 to 5).
Lost Marks in Leverage & DSCR due to increase in FY23 debt levels. Further, lost marks in DSCR due to
poor values in FY21, 22
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.60 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Continue reduction trajectory in Payable
(reduced from 8k Cr in FY22 to 5.7k Cr in FY23. Days Payables need to be reduced (116 days against LPS
norm of 45 days)
Days Receivable came down from 127 days to 98 days. Need to reduce further (for max marks: 60 days)
Billing Efficiency improved from 81.9% to 83.9% (for max marks: 92%)
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (-1,132 Cr loss in FY23). The Utility has not received any subsidy
grants from Government
Audit Qualification: non-compliance of Ind-AS
Seek regulatory help to liquidate Uncovered Revenue Gap (2,925 Cr in FY24 tariff order)
Key Strengths
Automatic pass through of Fuel costs is implemented on bi-monthly basis
Collection Efficiency of 100% - good in both government subsidy disbursals and customer cash collections

98.6% 100.0% 100.0%
83.2% 81.9% 83.9%
Billing Efficiency
18.1% 18.1% 16.1%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -294 407 117
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 199 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,441 0.69 2,768 0.73 3,503 0.89 735 0.16
Profit Before Tax -420 -0.12 -1,214 -0.32 -1,133 -0.29 82 0.03
Excess Subsidy Realization -294 -0.08 407 0.11 117 0.03 -290 -0.08
Change in Receivables -627 -0.18 -123 -0.03 565 0.14 687 0.18
ACS-ARR Gap 1,340 0.38 930 0.25 451 0.11 -479 -0.13

Percentile
103%
Cash adjusted
21.03 5.35
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
88%
Power purchase
17.97 4.57
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
4%
Interest 0.78 0.20
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.11
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
4 A+
Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company
Limited (DGVCL) Rank
4 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of DGVCL1
Date of incorporation 15-Sep-2003
Area of operations 7 districts in the state of Gujarat namely Bharuch, Narmada, Surat
(except part of Surat City), Tapi, Dangs, Navsari and Valsad

12th Ratings A+ 98.3 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

4.5 FY23 -0.02 FY23 1.7%
11th Ratings A+ 93.8 FY22 -0.14 FY22 3.0%
Decline in scores for Audit qualification metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
ACS-ARR Gap deteriorated by 11 paise / kWh in FY23 v/s FY22
‒ PBT deteriorated marginally by 2 paise / kWh
‒ Excess Total Subsidy realization was NIL in both FY22 and FY23
‒ Cash collection from customers worsened by 10 paise
Audit Qualification received for non-adherence of Ind-AS
DGVCL achieved Rank 4 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 98.3 out of 100.
Further, it exhibited a Stable Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
98.3 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Only 2 Independent Director (out of 8) in the Board. Appoint 1 more
Comply with Ind-AS to remove audit qualification
Key Strengths
Profitable financials
0 Days payable to GenCos due to centralized power purchase management
Lowest Days Receivable across India at 2 days
Top 10%ile in AQR with 2.61
Top 15%ile in DSCR at 5.21
Almost debt free – debt of only 26 Cr
Highest Billing efficiency across India at 98.4%
Regulator supports automatic pass-through of fuel costs
Tariff and True-up Order were published timely
100.0% 97.0% 100.0% 98.4% 100.0%

92.6%
Billing Efficiency
7.4% 3.0%
AT&C Losses 1.7%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 1,054 0.53 1,157 0.43 1,197 0.39 39 -0.04
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Change in Receivables 271 0.14 247 0.09 -11 0.00 -258 -0.10
ACS-ARR Gap -420 -0.21 -365 -0.14 -65 -0.02 299 0.11
ACS-ARR Gap – Weighted Average for 12th Ratings: -0.08 INR / kWh

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
21.84 0.01* 7.12
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
94%
Power purchase
20.57 6.71
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
3%
44% 13% 9% 3%
0%
Interest 0.10 0.03
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.02
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
6 A+
Madhya Gujarat Vij Company
Limited (MGVCL) Rank
6 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of MGVCL1

Area of operations 7 District in the State of Gujarat i.e., Kheda, Panch Mahal, Dahod, Chhota udepur,
Vadodara, Mahisagar and Anand


-0.3 FY23 0.01 FY23 9.3%
11th Ratings A+ 97.6 FY22 -0.05 FY22 8.7%
Decline in scores for Government Dues metric in FY23

Gained marks in Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 5 paise / kWh
‒ Cash collection from customers was -5 paise in FY22 and -5 paise in FY23
MGVCL achieved Rank 6 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 97.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
97.3 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
State Govt should be requested to clear Government Dues
Billing efficiency fell marginally to 91.6% resulting in fall below threshold value for full marks –
should aim to reach 92% again
Only 2 Independent Director (out of 10) in the Board. Appoint 1 more.
Key Strengths
Top 20%ile Days Receivable at 17 days
Top 10%ile in AQR with 2.99
Verging on being debt free – only 33 Cr
100.0% 98.9% 99.0%

90.0% 92.3% 91.6%
Billing Efficiency
10.0% 8.7% 9.3%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00
Other Expenses 969 0.83 1,065 0.77 1,079 0.72 14 -0.05
Change in Receivables 26 0.02 -75 -0.05 -81 -0.05 -6 0.00
ACS-ARR Gap -152 -0.13 -64 -0.05 13 0.01 76 0.05

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
9.48 0.08* 6.34
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
88%
Power purchase
8.41 5.62
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
7%
44% 13% 9% 3%
1%
Interest 0.05 0.04
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.01
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
8 A+
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company
Limited (PGVCL) Rank
8 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of PGVCL1

Area of operations Saurashtra and Kutch regions


-1.7 FY23 0.05 FY23 18.3%
11th Ratings A+ 94.0 FY22 -0.04 FY22 16.7%
Decline in scores for Distribution Loss target and Audit Qualification metrics in FY23
ACS-ARR Gap declined by 8 paise / kWh in FY23 v/s FY22
‒ PBT worsened marginally by 5 paise / kWh
‒ Cash collection from customers worsened marginally by 4 paise
Billing Efficiency fell from 83.6% to 82.6% in FY23 v/s FY22
Audit Qualification received for non-adherence of Ind-AS
PGVCL achieved Rank 8 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 92.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
92.3 out of 100


35.0 35 1.1 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Distribution Loss ratio is 1.09 (should be 1 for max marks). Achieved distribution loss of 17.4% in FY23 v/s SERC
target of 16%
Billing Efficiency has deteriorated from 83.6% to 82.6%, and remains low (for max. score expected is 92%)
Comply with Ind-AS to remove audit qualification
Key Strengths
Very healthy AQR – at 3.50 in FY23
Top 10%ile in Debt to Revenue % at 1%
100.0% 99.6% 98.9%

82.1% 83.6% 82.6%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,255 0.62 2,941 0.72 2,654 0.60 -287 -0.12
Change in Receivables 586 0.16 -78 -0.02 -257 -0.06 -180 -0.04
ACS-ARR Gap -801 -0.22 -156 -0.04 204 0.05 360 0.08

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
24.86 0.26* 5.63
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
89%
Power purchase
22.41 5.08
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
6%
44% 13% 9% 3%
0%
Interest 0.12 0.03
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.05
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
5 A+
Uttar Gujarat Vij Company
Limited (UGVCL) Rank
5 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of UGVCL1

Area of operations Six full districts in northern region of Gujarat and three-part districts in
western and central areas


-1.6 FY23 0.09 FY23 9.3%
11th Ratings A+ 99.1 FY22 -0.01 FY22 6.7%
Decline in scores for SERC Distribution Loss target metric in FY23

‒ PBT worsened marginally by 3 paise / kWh
Distribution Loss Target was not met (actual 7.60% v/s Target of 7.0%)
UGVCL achieved Rank 5 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 97.4 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
97.4 out of 100


35.0 35 1.1 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improvement in ACS-ARR Gap marginally to reach threshold value of -5 paise
State Govt should be requested to clear Government Dues
Distribution Loss ratio is 1.09 (achieve 1.00 for full marks). Achieved distribution loss of 7.6% in
FY23 v/s SERC target of 7%
Key Strengths
Top 5%ile in AQR in India at 3.24
Lowest Debt to Revenue % with debt of 44 Crores
Tariff and True-up Order were published timely this year
100.0% 99.4% 98.1%

93.2% 93.9% 92.4%
Billing Efficiency
6.8% 6.7% 9.3%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 1,163 0.44 1,319 0.45 1,621 0.50 302 0.06
ACS-ARR Gap -615 -0.23 -35 -0.01 286 0.09 321 0.10

Percentile
98%
Cash adjusted
18.60 0.34* 5.79
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
91%
Power purchase
17.26 5.37
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
4%
44% 13% 9% 3%
0%
Interest 0.09 0.03
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.09
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
12 A+
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) Rank
12 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of DHBVNL1

Area of operations Southern part of the State of Haryana


-2.6 FY23 -0.01 FY23 13.2%
11th Ratings A+ 89.3 FY22 -0.11 FY22 13.6%
Major decline in scores for Collection Efficiency, Days Payable, Auto pass-through, non-exclusive MD metrics in
FY23
‒ PBT improved by 14 paise / kWh – driven by 17 paise fall in other expenses (mainly employee costs), and
comparable increase in power purchase costs and revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy realization was NIL in both FY22 and FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection also deteriorated significantly by 23 paise, from 6 paise in FY22 to -18
paise in FY23
Days payable to Gencos & Transco increased from 47 days to 64 days
Orders for auto pass-through of fuel costs were delayed
DHBVNL achieved Rank 12 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 86.7 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
86.7 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 0.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

Default to
Banks/FIs
Significant improvement in Billing efficiency of 2.2% to reach 88.6% (for max. score expected is 92%) – scope for
further improvement
Poor cash collections in FY23 led to fall in Collection Efficiency from 100% to 98% (for max. score expected is 99.5%)
Adjusted Quick Ratio has fallen from 0.88 at 0.81 (for max. score, expected is 1.00) driven by increase in short term
debt and Trade Payables. Need to pay-off Payable to Gencos & Transco – stood at 3960 Cr in FY23 with Days
Payable at 64 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days)
State regulator issued delayed orders for automatic pass through of Fuel Costs
Currently appointed MD is not exclusive
Key Strengths
Obtaining full marks in Days Receivable with Receivable days at 39
Meeting Distribution Loss target consistently on the back of improving Billing Efficiency
Government department are clearing dues on time
State government has been disbursing 100% tariff subsidy
Tariff and True-up orders were published on time
100.0% 100.0% 98.0%

86.4% 88.6%
83.1%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,301 0.74 2,579 0.78 2,284 0.61 -295 -0.17
Profit Before Tax 240 0.08 179 0.05 711 0.19 532 0.14
Change in Receivables 91 0.03 186 0.06 -662 -0.18 -848 -0.23
ACS-ARR Gap -331 -0.11 -365 -0.11 -49 -0.01 316 0.10

Percentile
97%
Cash adjusted
24.81 0.66* 6.62
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
88%
Power purchase
22.48 6.00
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
5%
44% 13% 9% 3%
1%
Interest 0.36 0.10
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.01
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
11 A+
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited (UHBVNL) Rank
11 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of UHBVNL1

Area of operations Northern region in the State of Haryana


0.3 FY23 -0.08 FY23 10.3%
11th Ratings A+ 87.6 FY22 -0.26 FY22 14.4%
Decline in scores for Days Payable, Auto pass-through, Audit qualification metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Billing Efficiency, AQR metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 18 paise / kWh – driven by marginally higher increase in power
purchase costs than in revenue
‒ Excess Subsidy realization was NIL in both FY22 and FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection also improved marginally by 1 paise
Billing efficiency improved significantly from 86.0% to 89.7%
Days payable to GenCos & Transco increased from 42 days to 60 days
Orders for auto pass-through of fuel costs were delayed
UHBVNL achieved Rank 11 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 88.0 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
88.0 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 0.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Despite, significant improvement in Billing efficiency of 86.0% to reach 89.7%, short of max. score expectation of 92%
Adjusted Quick Ratio has improved from 0.69 at 0.84 (for max. score, expected is 1.00)
Need to pay-off Payable to Gencos & Transco – stood at 2,570 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 60 days (as against
LPS norm of 45 days)
State regulator issued delayed orders for automatic pass through of Fuel Costs
Audit qualification for non-adherence to Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Negligible receivables – Days Receivable of only 4 days
Meeting Distribution Loss target consistently on the back of improving Billing Efficiency
Well managed debt with Debt as a % of Revenue low at 29% and getting full marks in Leverage and DSCR metric
Government department are largely clearing dues on time
98.8% 99.4% 100.0%

86.0% 89.7%
82.8%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -144 -75 28
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,300 1.02 2,094 0.88 2,467 0.96 372 0.07
Change in Receivables -137 -0.06 -62 -0.03 -53 -0.02 9 0.01
ACS-ARR Gap -260 -0.12 -608 -0.26 -211 -0.08 397 0.17

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
18.35 0.05* 7.11
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
85%
Power purchase
15.68 6.07
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
8%
44% 13% 9% 3%
2%
Interest 0.42 0.16
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.08
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Himachal Pradesh State
41 C
Electricity Board Limited
(HPSEBL) Rank
41 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of HPSEBL1
Ownership State Government Company

Nature of operations Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Area of operations State of Himachal Pradesh


-30.3 FY23 0.80 FY23 10.6%
11th Ratings B 54.1 FY22 0.09 FY22 12.9%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Leverage, Adjusted Quick Ratio, Provisional Financial Accounts, Loss
takeover by Government metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Days Payable, Billing Efficiency, Distribution Loss target metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 85 paise / kWh – driven by 55 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 73 paise increase in
Other expenses (mainly provisions for employee benefits created in compliance with Ind-AS), 6 paise decline in
other subsidy and 49 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 9 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization increased from 92% to 110%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved from 0 paise in FY22 to 6 paise in FY23
Payables to Gencos and Transco decreased substantially from 843 Cr in FY22 to 529 Cr to FY23
Billing Efficiency improved from 87.3% FY22 to 89.4% in FY23
Audited Accounts for FY23 are yet to be prepared and shared
HPSEBL achieved Rank 41 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 23.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
23.8 out of 100


11.8 35 1.1 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
2.2 7
(cash adjusted)

-15.0 / out of -15 NA NA

-7.0 / out of -15 Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve profitability – PBT worsened significantly in FY23, driven by high other expenses (mainly employee costs).
Lost marks in ACS-ARR, DSCR and Leverage metrics
Billing Efficiency is on improving trends – reached 89.41% in FY23. Can be improved further (max marks at 92%+)
Pay-off current liabilities to improve Adjusted quick ratio (was 0.41 in FY23 v/s max score at 1.0)
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (-1,437 Cr loss in FY23). The Utility has received negligible subsidy
grants from Government in FY23
Submit Audited Accounts for FY23. Address Adverse Opinion, which has been considered as a carry forward from
FY22 for FY23, as per methodology
Work with regulator for automatic pass through of fuel costs
Key Strengths
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in Days Payable at 34 days in FY23
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in Days Receivable at 15 days in FY23
Tariff subsidy realization improved from 92% in FY22 to 110% in FY23
Collection Efficiency is high at 100%
Government has cleared its billed dues in a timely manner
100.0% 99.8% 100.0%

86.0% 87.3% 89.4%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) 32 -37 97
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 24 0.02 94 0.06 2 0.00 -92 -0.06
Other Expenses 2,942 2.15 3,200 2.16 4,510 2.89 1,310 0.73
Profit Before Tax -185 -0.14 -104 -0.07 -1,437 -0.92 -1,333 -0.85
Excess Subsidy Realization 32 0.02 -37 -0.03 97 0.06 134 0.09
Change in Receivables 179 0.13 0 0.00 96 0.06 96 0.06
ACS-ARR Gap -26 -0.02 140 0.09 1,244 0.80 1,103 0.70

Percentile
102%
Cash adjusted
8.97 5.75
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
65%
Power purchase
5.70 3.66
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
40%
44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 0.48 0.31
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.80
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
52 C-
Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited (JBVNL) Rank
52 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of JBVNL1
Date of incorporation 23-Oct-2013
Area of operations State of Jharkhand

12th Ratings C- 1.6 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

17.7 FY23 2.47 FY23 30.3%
11th Ratings C- -16.1 FY22 1.61 FY22 30.8%

Gained marks in Collection Efficiency, Government dues, Addressing Adverse Opinion issued in FY22 and Audit
qualifications for statutory dues and Ind-AS compliance metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated by 108 paise / kWh – driven by 81 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 57 paise increase in
other expense (mainly finance costs), and 26 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy realization fell by 17 paise, from 22 paise in FY22 and 5 paise in FY23. Tariff Subsidy Realization
fell from 118% in FY22 to 104% in FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 39 paise, but remained negative: from -41 paise in FY22
to -2 paise in FY23
JBVNL achieved Rank 52 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C- and Integrated Score of 1.6 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
1.6 out of 100


0.0 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped drastically from -2,038 Cr in FY22 compared to -3620 Cr in FY23 resulting
in loss of marks across ACS-ARR Gap, Leverage, DSCR. Further, Debt as a % of Revenue is the highest in the country
at 290%
AQR is very low at 27% driven by highly aged receivables (Receivable days of 435) and high Trade Payables (Payable
days of 433)
Billing Efficiency uncharacteristically fell from 72.5% to 69.7% which is the lowest in the country
(for max. score expected is 92%). Lost further marks since did not meet Distribution Loss Target of 13%
Seek government support for loss takeover of Discom – received marginal additional grants despite consistently
heavy financial losses
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders – FY24 tariff order and FY22 True Up order has not been published since
Petition was filed in September 2023
Address Audit qualifications for unpaid statutory dues and non-compliance with Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Achieved Collection Efficiency of 100% in FY23
State government has been disbursing >100% Tariff subsidy for past 2 years

100.0%
95.4%
87.2%
72.5% 69.7%
65.3%
43.1%
30.8% 30.3%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 5,897 4.44 6,561 4.57 6,980 4.82 419 0.26
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 49 0.03 49 0.03
Other Expenses 2,142 1.61 2,124 1.48 2,958 2.04 834 0.57
Profit Before Tax -2,200 -1.66 -2,038 -1.42 -3,620 -2.50 -1,582 -1.08
ACS-ARR Gap 2,800 2.11 2,308 1.61 3,578 2.47 1,270 0.87

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
7.07 4.89
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
109%
Power purchase
7.69 5.32
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
13%
44% 13% 9% 3%
16%
Interest 1.15 0.80
16% 7% 3% 0%
2.47
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
43 C
Bangalore Electricity Supply
Company Limited (BESCOM) Rank
43 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of BESCOM1

Date of incorporation 30-Apr-2002
Area of operations In the districts of Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, Chikkaballapura, Kolar,
Davanagere, Tumkur, Chitradurga and Ramanagara in the State of Karnataka


-18.5 FY23 0.64 FY23 12.2%
11th Ratings B- 40.2 FY22 -0.09 FY22 11.2%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Auditor opinion metrics in FY23

Gained marks in Leverage, AQR metrics in FY23
‒ PBT decline of 19 paise / kWh due to increase in power purchase costs
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization worsened by 47 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization came down from 151% to 99%
Auditor adverse opinion in FY23
BESCOM achieved Rank 43 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 21.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
21.8 out of 100


15.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
1.6 7
(cash adjusted)

-15.0 / out of -15 NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 significantly due to lower excess subsidy realization and poor operating
financials
Lost marks in DSCR (0.08 in FY23 v/s max marks at 1.1), Leverage (96.2 in FY23 v/s max marks at <5) due to poor
EBITDA in FY23
Need to pay-off high Trade Payable to Gencos & Transcos (5,577 Cr in FY23). Days payable to GenCos & TransCos
remained high at 155 days despite improving Y-o-Y (v/s LPS norm of 45 days)
AQR can be improved, currently at 0.56 (for max. score, expected is 1.00) due to high debt and payables to GenCos
and TransCos
Push government to clear mounting Government Dues
Did not receive State Govt. support for help in loss takeover in FY23 (~1,700 Cr)
Finance function should be improved to avoid adverse opinion and qualification from auditors
Key Strengths
Karnataka government cleared significant subsidy dues in FY22 and has maintained a high subsidy disbursement
rate of 99% in FY23
Improved Billing Efficiency markedly to 91% to meet the distribution loss target of the regulator
100.0% 96.8%
95.2% 90.8%
88.3% 88.8%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -447 1,425 -42
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 61 0.02 80 0.02 19 0.00
Other Expenses 4,424 1.48 4,432 1.41 5,117 1.49 685 0.08
Profit Before Tax -1,629 -0.54 -296 -0.09 -985 -0.29 -689 -0.19
Excess Subsidy Realization -447 -0.15 1,425 0.45 -42 -0.01 -1,468 -0.47
Change in Receivables -904 -0.30 -848 -0.27 -1,167 -0.34 -320 -0.07
ACS-ARR Gap 2,980 0.99 -282 -0.09 2,195 0.64 2,477 0.73

Percentile
96%
Cash adjusted
26.08 1.21* 7.61
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
85%
Power purchase
23.16 6.76
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
5%
Interest 1.23 0.36
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.64
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Chamundeshwari Electricity
18 B
Supply Corporation Limited
(CHESCOM) Rank
18 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of CHESCOM1

Area of operations In the districts of Mysore, Chamarajanagar, Mandya, Hassan,

Kodagu in the State of Karnataka

12th Ratings B 62.5 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

0.0 FY23 0.01 FY23 10.2%
11th Ratings B 62.5 FY22 -0.88 FY22 11.3%
Decline in scores for ACS-ARR, AQR, Audit qualification metrics in FY23

Gained marks in Leverage, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 18 paise / kWh despite significant increase in costs supported by higher tariffs
AQR worsened due to decrease in Cash and Cash equivalents
3-year Weighted Average for leverage improved from 13.47 to 6.75
3-year Weighted Average of Collection Efficiency increased from 96% to 99%
CHESCOM achieved Rank 18 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 62.5 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
62.5 out of 100


30.9 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

9.1 10 1.0 1
5.8 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 significantly due to lower subsidy realization (v/s FY22). Continue improvement
in operating financials
Days receivable remain high at 150 (highest in Karnataka), despite improvement
AQR can be improved, currently at 0.36 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off high Trade Payable to
Gencos & Transcos (1,796 Cr in FY23). Days payable to GenCos & TransCos remained high at 160 despite improving
Y-o-Y (v/s LPS norm of 45 days)
Did not receive State Govt. support for help in loss takeover in FY23 (~200 Cr)
Address Audit qualifications received for unpaid statutory dues, non-compliance with Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Karnataka government cleared significant subsidy dues in FY22 and has maintained a high subsidy disbursement
rate of 116% in FY23
Improved Billing Efficiency markedly to 90% to meet the distribution loss target of the regulator
Maintained collection efficiency at 100%
100.0% 100.0%
87.3% 91.4% 88.7% 89.8%
Billing Efficiency
20.3%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -270 1,181 298
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Power Purchase Cost 3,707 4.91 4,028 4.80 4,102 5.44 74 0.64
Other Expenses 1,425 1.89 1,522 1.81 1,967 2.61 444 0.80
Profit Before Tax -540 -0.72 -383 -0.46 -211 -0.28 172 0.18
Excess Subsidy Realization -270 -0.36 1,181 1.41 298 0.39 -883 -1.01
ACS-ARR Gap 927 1.23 -740 -0.88 9 0.01 749 0.89

Percentile
103%
Cash adjusted
6.06 8.04
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
70%
Power purchase
4.10 5.44
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
22%
44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 0.33 0.44
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.01
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
40 C
Gulbarga Electricity Supply
Company Limited (GESCOM) Rank
40 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of GESCOM1

Area of operations Districts of Kalaburagi, Bidar, Yadgir, Raichur, Koppal, Bellari and Vijayanagar in
the State of Karnataka


-32.6 FY23 1.11 FY23 19.3%
11th Ratings B 59.9 FY22 -0.73 FY22 10.5%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Collection Efficiency, Loss takeover metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Leverage, Corporate Governance & Governance metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined by 39 paise
‒ Cash collection from customers worsened by 33 paise, from -25 paise in FY22 to -58 paise in FY23
GESCOM achieved Rank 40 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 27.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
27.3 out of 100


10.2 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
1.7 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 significantly due to lower subsidy realization. Lost marks in DSCR (-0.24 in FY23
v/s max marks at 1.1), Leverage (-23.04 in FY23 v/s max marks at <5) due to poor EBITDA
Days receivable remain high – 122. Need to liquidate old trade receivables
Days payable to GenCos & TransCos remain high at 126 despite improving Y-o-Y trend. Need to reduce to 45 days in
line with LPS norms
AQR can be improved, currently at 0.63 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off other current liabilities
Government should be pressed for subsidy disbursal and clearing of government dues to increase collection
efficiency currently at 90%
Address Audit qualification received for unpaid statutory dues and non-compliance with Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Karnataka government cleared significant subsidy dues in FY22
Met the regulator’s distribution loss target

100.0%
93.2% 89.5% 89.5% 90.2%
88.3%
Billing Efficiency
17.7% 19.3%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -160 738 -265
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 54 0.06 5 0.01 0 0.00 -5 -0.01
Other Expenses 1,616 1.85 1,657 1.89 2,010 2.03 354 0.14
Profit Before Tax -622 -0.71 118 0.13 -256 -0.26 -374 -0.39
Excess Subsidy Realization -160 -0.18 738 0.84 -265 -0.27 -1,003 -1.11
ACS-ARR Gap 1,111 1.27 -640 -0.73 1,095 1.11 1,736 1.84

Percentile
89%
Cash adjusted
7.02 0.84* 7.09
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
78%
Power purchase
6.10 6.16
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
14%
44% 13% 9% 3%
7%
Interest 0.55 0.56
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.11
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
45 C
Hubli Electricity Supply
Company Limited (HESCOM) Rank
45 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of HESCOM1

Area of operations In the districts of Dharwad, Haveri, Uttara Kannada, Gadag, Belagavi, Bagalkot,
Vijayapur in the State of Karnataka

-32.2 FY23 1.04 FY23 18.1%
11th Ratings B 50.3 FY22 -0.29 FY22 13.8%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Billing Efficiency, Distribution Loss target, Audit qualification
metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Leverage metric in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 64 paise – driven by 5 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 41 paise increase in other
expenses (mainly due to finance and employee costs), 111 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization declined by 192 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization came down from 159% to 100%
‒ Cash collection from customers marginally worsened by 4 paise
Fall in Billing Efficiency from 86.2% in FY22 to 84.3% in FY23
Audit Qualification for unpaid statutory dues (GST / IT dues), non-adherence to IND-AS and Going concern
HESCOM achieved Rank 45 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 18.1 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
18.1 out of 100


5.4 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
1.7 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 significantly due to lower subsidy realization despite improved financials. Lost
marks in DSCR, Leverage due to poor EBITDA and high Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is
significantly high at ~71% (~8,000 crore), as compared to National median of ~47%
Days receivable remain high – 146 marks, 2nd highest in Karnataka
AQR should be improved, currently at 0.31 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). High current liabilities driven by high
payable to GenCos & TransCos. Days payable were very high at 289 days in FY23
Billing Efficiency worsened from 86.2% in FY22 to 84.3% FY23. Need to reverse the trend and improve billing through
better metering
Did not receive State Govt. support for help in loss takeover in FY23 (~832 Cr)
Address Audit qualifications: received qualification for unpaid statutory dues, Ind-AS compliance and going concern
Key Strengths
Karnataka government cleared significant subsidy dues in FY22 and has maintained subsidy disbursement rate of
100% in FY23
99.0% 100.0% 97.2%

86.8% 86.2% 84.3%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) 23 2,730 -16
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,442 1.87 2,589 1.81 3,337 2.23 749 0.41
Profit Before Tax -1,352 -1.04 -2,091 -1.47 -1,233 -0.82 857 0.64
Excess Subsidy Realization 23 0.02 2,730 1.91 -16 -0.01 -2,746 -1.92
ACS-ARR Gap 1,445 1.11 -409 -0.29 1,553 1.04 1,962 1.32

Percentile
97%
Cash adjusted
10.90 0.32* 7.28
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
81%
Power purchase
9.12 6.09
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
14%
44% 13% 9% 3%
13%
Interest 1.44 0.96
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.04
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
13 A
Mangalore Electricity Supply
Company Limited (MESCOM) Rank
13 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of MESCOM1

Area of operations Districts of Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Shivamogga and Chikkamagalur in the
State of Karnataka


10.1 FY23 -0.55 FY23 9.2%
11th Ratings A 73.9 FY22 -1.52 FY22 9.0%
Gained marks in Leverage, Days Receivable, Billing & Collection Efficiency, Corporate Governance & Governance,
Audit qualification metrics in FY23
ACS-ARR Gap at -55 paise / kWh in FY23 v/s -152 paise / kWh in FY22
‒ PBT declined marginally by 3 paise
‒ Cash collection improved by 12 paise
Exclusive MD appointed to the Utility. Independent directors were appointed to the Board
MESCOM achieved Rank 13 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A and Integrated Score of 84.0 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
84.0 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
5.9 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Boost billing efficiency marginally to above threshold value of 92% (was 91.6% in FY23)
Days payable to GenCos & TransCos remain high at 98 despite improving Y-o-Y
Appoint more independent directors to reach 1/3rd (2/10 currently)
Address audit qualification for non-adherence to Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Top 5%ile in ACS-ARR in the nation with -55 paise in FY23; Lowest in Indian state utilities
Healthy debt levels – at 30% of revenue booked
Karnataka government cleared significant subsidy dues in FY22 and maintained a high disbursal rate of 97% in FY23
97.3% 100.0% 99.2%

90.1% 91.0% 91.6%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 12 0.02 2 0.00 0 0.00 -2 0.00
Other Expenses 1,000 1.71 1,117 1.88 1,251 1.95 134 0.06
Profit Before Tax -315 -0.54 381 0.64 394 0.61 13 -0.03
Excess Subsidy Realization -106 -0.18 594 1.00 -36 -0.06 -630 -1.06
Change in Receivables 21 0.04 -72 -0.12 -3 0.00 69 0.12
ACS-ARR Gap 401 0.68 -903 -1.52 -356 -0.55 547 0.97

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
4.70 0.04* 7.31
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
65%
Power purchase
3.10 4.82
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
18%
44% 13% 9% 3%
3%
Interest 0.13 0.20
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.55
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
32 B-
Kerala State Electricity Board
Limited (KSEBL) Rank
32 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of KSEBL1

Date of incorporation 14-Jan-2011
Nature of operations Generation, Transmission and Distribution
Area of operations State of Kerala


-16.5 FY23 0.35 FY23 7.0%
11th Ratings B 60.8 FY22 -0.07 FY22 7.7%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Loss takeover by Government, Regulatory Assets liquidation metrics in
FY23
Gained marks in Automatic Pass through of Fuel costs metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined by 37 paise / kWh – driven by 78 paise increase in Power purchase cost, and
42 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy realization remained NIL in FY22 and FY23. Tariff Subsidy Realization remained 100%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined marginally by 5 paise
Received no Government grants in FY23 despite significant financial losses (PBT of -1,024 Cr in FY23).
Have not received government grants in previous year as well
KSEBL achieved Rank 32 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 44.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
44.3 out of 100


21.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

2.5 10 1.0 1
6.2 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
NA Tariff Cycle Delays -2.0 / out of -4.5 Regulatory Assets -3.6 / out of -5
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped drastically from positive 98 Cr in in FY22 to -1,024 Cr in FY23
High Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is significantly high at ~89% (~16,800 crore), as compared
to National median of ~47%. DSCR at 0.63 (1.1 for max score) and Leverage at 6.53 (<5 for max score)
Reduce current liabilities to improve Adjusted Quick Ratio (at 0.27 v/s 1.00 for max score). Liquidate Payable to
Gencos & TransCos, given that Days Payable increased to 96 days in FY23
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (-1,023 Cr loss in FY23) and clearing its billed dues
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders – FY24 tariff orders were published in Nov, and FY23 were also delayed
(June) (should be published by March 31st)
Audit Qualification: comply with Ind-AS standards
Regulatory Assets of 6,281 Cr remain to be liquidated (for full marks 1/7 regulatory assets should be liquidated every
year)
Key Strengths
Healthy Receivables – Days Receivables at 45 days in FY23
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in Billing Efficiency – currently at 93.1%
Collection Efficiency of 99.8% - driven by good subsidy disbursement & customer collections

100.0% 100.0% 99.8%
92.2% 92.3% 93.1%
Billing Efficiency
7.8% 7.7% 7.0%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -6 20 -33
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 7,663 2.95 8,365 2.86 8,705 2.86 340 0.00
Profit Before Tax -475 -0.18 98 0.03 -1,024 -0.34 -1,121 -0.37
ACS-ARR Gap 90 0.03 -218 -0.07 1,062 0.35 1,280 0.42

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
18.88 0.04* 6.21
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
59%
Power purchase
11.24 3.70
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
27%
44% 13% 9% 3%
8%
Interest 1.51 0.50
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.35
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Madhya Pradesh Madhya
22 B
Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
Company Limited (MPMKVVCL) Rank
22 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of MPMKVVCL1

Area of operations Commissionaires of Bhopal, Hoshangabad, Gwalior, and Chambal


27.4 FY23 -0.94 FY23 22.9%
11th Ratings C 23.4 FY22 0.33 FY22 25.8%
Decline in scores for Loss takeover by government, Leverage metrics in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Tariff Subsidy Realization, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined marginally by 6 paise / kWh
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 52 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization improved from 104% to 125%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 81 paise: from -26 paise in FY22 to 54 paise in FY23
Collection Efficiency improved from 96.6% in FY22 to 100% in FY23
Received negligible government grants to takeover FY23 loss (PBT of -659 Cr in FY23)
MPMKVVCL achieved Rank 22 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 50.9 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
50.9 out of 100


35.0 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
5.1 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Trade Receivables are high – 4,800 Cr in FY23, with Days Receivable of 194 days(for max. expected is 60).
Need to write-off old receivables
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.32 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Payable to Gencos & Transco –
stood at 12,274 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 323 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days)
Billing Efficiency improved marginally from 76.9% in FY22 to 77.1% in FY23. Need to considerably improve
(for max. score expected is 92%)
Collection Efficiency improved to 100% in FY23 – driven by excess subsidy disbursement. But ended up losing marks
due to low efficiency in FY21, FY22
Seek support from Govt for loss takeover – received no grants loss in FY23
Key Strengths

96.6% 100.0%
76.9% 77.1%
71.3% 70.5%
49.8%
Billing Efficiency 25.8% 22.9%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -2,018 279 1,878
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -1,867 -760 -411
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 324 0.11 830 0.29 0 0.00 -830 -0.29
Other Expenses 4,049 1.43 4,447 1.55 3,933 1.29 -514 -0.26
Profit Before Tax -1,450 -0.51 -453 -0.16 -659 -0.22 -206 -0.06
Change in Receivables -1,490 -0.53 -759 -0.26 1,650 0.54 2,408 0.81
ACS-ARR Gap 4,958 1.75 933 0.33 -2,868 -0.94 -3,802 -1.27
ACS-ARR Gap – Weighted Average for 12th Ratings: -22% INR / kWh

Percentile
121%
Cash adjusted
20.66 6.77
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
81%
Power purchase
13.86 4.54
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
9%
44% 13% 9% 3%
8%
Interest 1.35 0.44
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.94
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra
15 A
Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited
(MPPaKVVCL) Rank
15 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of MPPaKVVCL1

Area of operations Commissionaires of Indore and Ujjain


23.8 FY23 -0.25 FY23 12.6%
11th Ratings B- 50.0 FY22 0.35 FY22 11.6%
Decline in scores for Audit Qualifications due to non-compliance with Ind-AS metric in FY23
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Leverage, Tariff Subsidy Realization, Days Receivable metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 49 paise / kWh – driven by 4 paise decrease in Power purchase cost,
23 paise decrease in other costs (mainly bad debt written off) and 23 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 32 paise. Tariff subsidy realization improved from 105% in
FY22 to 117% in FY23.
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined by 20 paise, from 0.28 paise in FY22 to 0.08 paise FY23
Trade Receivables improved from 2,245 Cr in FY22 to 1,997 Cr in FY23. Hence, Days Receivable improved from
90 in FY22 to 66 days in FY23
Auditor had mentioned cases of non-compliance with Ind-AS in FY23 Audit Report
MPPaKVVCL achieved Rank 15 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A and Integrated Score of 73.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
73.8 out of 100


30.5 35 2.0 2 3.8 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
3.7 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Continue improvement trajectory in financial performance with focus on PBT. Lost marks due to poor ACS-ARR in
FY21, 22
High Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is significantly high at ~70% (~14,000 crore), as compared
to National median of ~47%. While DSCR improved from 0.14 in FY22 to 0.38 in FY23, it is still very low (max score at
1.1). Leverage improved from 18.71 in FY22 to 6.10 in FY23, still remains high (max score from 0 to 5)
Billing Efficiency is low at 87.4% in FY23 – Need to considerably improve (for max. score expected is 92%)
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (-904 Cr loss in FY23). The Utility has not received any subsidy
Comply with Ind-AS standards
Key Strengths
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in ACS-ARR gap in FY23 – helped by improved PBT and excess subsidy
disbursement
Amongst top 20%ile performers in Days Payable – at ~37 days v/s LPS norm of 45 days
Healthy Adjusted Quick Ratio at 115%, driven by low payables and significant govt. subsidy receivables
Collection Efficiency of 100% - driven by good subsidy disbursement, customer collections
100.0% 100.0%
87.3% 88.4% 87.4%
79.9%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -1,037 260 112
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 3 0.00 21 0.01 0 0.00 -21 -0.01
Power Purchase Cost 13,614 4.93 16,096 5.51 17,638 5.48 1,541 -0.04
Other Expenses 2,763 1.00 3,499 1.20 3,122 0.97 -378 -0.23
Profit Before Tax 52 0.02 -2,244 -0.77 -904 -0.28 1,340 0.49
Change in Receivables -1,037 -0.38 820 0.28 247 0.08 -573 -0.20
ACS-ARR Gap 3,093 1.12 1,021 0.35 -815 -0.25 -1,836 -0.60

Percentile
109%
Cash adjusted
21.57 6.70
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
89%
Power purchase
17.64 5.48
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
8%
44% 13% 9% 3%
5%
Interest 1.00 0.31
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.25
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra
36 B-
Vidyut Vitaran Company
Limited (MPPoKVVCL) Rank
36 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of MPPoKVVCL1

Area of operations Commissionaires of Jabalpur, Sagar and Rewa


17.6 FY23 -0.18 FY23 27.4%
11th Ratings C 22.0 FY22 0.27 FY22 27.7%
Decline in scores for Leverage, Loss takeover by government, Audit Qualification metrics in FY23
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Tariff Subsidy Realization, and Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined by 17 paise / kWh – driven by 10 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 15 paise decline in other
expenses, 35 paise increase in revenues and 56 paise decline in additional subsidy grants
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 32 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization improved from 105% to 119%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 30 paise: from -14 paise in FY22 to 16 paise in FY23
Collection Efficiency improved from 99.4% in FY22 to 100.00% in FY23
Received negligible Government grants, despite significant losses (PBT of -1,122 Cr in FY23)
MPPoKVVCL achieved Rank 36 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 39.6 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
39.6 out of 100


25.3 35 0.0 2 3.8 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
3.9 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Continue improvement trajectory in financial performance – with focus on PBT. Lost marks due to poor ACS-ARR in
FY21, 22
High Debt levels (poor DSCR, Leverage) – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is high at ~119% (~17,000 crore),
as compared to National median of ~47%
Adjusted Quick Ratio is very low at 0.3 (for max. score, expected is 1.00) due to very high Payables to GenCos &
TransCos. Need to liquidate at priority, given Days Payable remained very high at 322 days in FY23
Net Trade Receivables remained similar at ~4,000 Cr in FY22 and FY23. Days Receivable remained very high at
183 days in FY23(for max. expected is 60). Need to write-off old receivables
Improve Billing Efficiency – remained 72.6% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 92%). Distribution loss was 27.4%
v/s SERC target of 15.75% in FY23
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (-1,120 Cr loss in FY23). The Utility has not received any subsidy
Audit Qualifications: Comply with Ind-AS, address Going Concern qualification
Key Strengths
Collection Efficiency of 100% - driven by good subsidy disbursement, customer collections

99.4% 100.0%
77.1%
70.8% 72.7% 72.6%
45.4%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 393 0.16 1,419 0.56 2 0.00 -1,417 -0.56
Other Expenses 3,211 1.30 3,587 1.42 3,469 1.27 -118 -0.15
Profit Before Tax -2,754 -1.12 -618 -0.24 -1,120 -0.41 -502 -0.17
Excess Subsidy Realization -1,606 -0.65 278 0.11 1,175 0.43 897 0.32
ACS-ARR Gap 5,252 2.13 683 0.27 -497 -0.18 -1,179 -0.45

Percentile
111%
Cash adjusted
15.76 5.79
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
83%
Power purchase
11.79 4.33
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
12%
44% 13% 9% 3%
8%
Interest 1.11 0.41
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.18
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Maharashtra State Electricity
47 C
(MSEDCL) Rank
47 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of MSEDCL1
Area of operations State of Maharashtra except for some parts of Mumbai city


-25.2 FY23 1.56 FY23 19.0%
11th Ratings B- 40.6 FY22 0.17 FY22 16.8%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Leverage, Loss takeover by government metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Audit Qualifications metric in FY23
‒ PBT worsened considerably by 122 paise / kWh – driven by 88 paise increase in Power purchase cost,
40 paise increase in other expense (mainly finance costs) but 6 only paise increase in revenues. Increase in costs
was driven by adverse outcome of ongoing litigation
‒ Excess Subsidy realization increased to 20 paise in FY23 v/s 15 paise in both FY22. Tariff Subsidy realization
increased from 127% in FY22 to 131% in FY23
‒ Cash collection from customers worsened by 22 paise, from -14 paise in FY22 to -35 paise in FY23
Reduced Audit Qualifications in FY23 v/s FY22
MSEDCL achieved Rank 47 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 15.5 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
15.5 out of 100


0.0 35 1.2 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
1.7 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped drastically in FY23 resulting in loss of marks across ACS-ARR Gap. Lost
marks in DSCR and Leverage as EBITDA turned negative in FY23. Regulator needs to be pushed to increase tariffs to
compensate for increase in power purchase costs
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.44 in FY23 (max marks at 1.00). Need to clear off current financial liabilities. Trade
Payables to Genco & TransCos are also high (~24k Cr in FY23) with Days Payable at 113 days v/s LPS norm of 45
days
Days Receivable remain very high at 202 days (50,000 Cr) in FY23. Need to liquidate aged and old receivable
(max marks at 60 days). Billing Efficiency is low at 84.9% in FY23 – Need to considerably improve (for max. score
expected is 92%)
Appoint more independent directors to reach 1/3rd (1/11 currently)
Audit Qualifications: comply with Ind-AS standard for account preparation
Seek government support for help in loss takeover (high negative PBT in FY23)
Key Strengths
Tariff subsidy realization has been consistently high – was 131% in FY23
Automatic pass-through fuel costs has been allowed by the Regulator
98.2% 95.3%
84.4% 84.9% 84.8% 84.9%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -1,299 2,214 3,057
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -9,762 -3,743 -7,426
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 20,777 1.57 20,363 1.41 28,139 1.81 7,775 0.40
Excess Subsidy Realization -1,299 -0.10 2,214 0.15 3,057 0.20 844 0.04
Change in Receivables -8,870 -0.67 -1,949 -0.14 -5,496 -0.35 -3,547 -0.22
ACS-ARR Gap 15,824 1.19 2,487 0.17 24,251 1.56 21,764 1.39

Percentile
97%
Cash adjusted
93.88 2.44* 6.05
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
93%
Power purchase
89.99 5.80
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
9%
44% 13% 9% 3%
12%
Interest 11.83 0.76
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.56
Gap / Surplus -24.25 -1.56
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Manipur State Power
42 C
(MSPDCL) Rank
42 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of MSPDCL1

Area of operations State of Manipur
Number of customers 517,892

Total energy sold 904 MU (-13%)3
Revenue booked2 INR 820 Cr (-10%)3

-7.1 FY23 1.02 FY23 13.8%
11th Ratings C 28.8 FY22 0.82 FY22 30.6%
Decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR metrics in FY23

Gained marks in AQR, Collection Efficiency, Received Loss takeover by State metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated significantly of 90 paise / kWh – driven by 126 paise increase in power purchase costs
‒ Excess Subsidy realization declined by 10 paise
MSPDCL achieved Rank 42 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 21.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
21.8 out of 100


0.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
1.5 7
(cash adjusted)


-0.5 / out of -15 Governance -2.0 / out of -3 NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Improve utility financials – PBT dipped even further to -132 Cr in FY23 (compared to -33 Cr in FY22). Lost
marks in DSCR and Leverage due to poor EBITDA and high Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is
significantly high at ~76%, v/s National median of ~47%
Billing Efficiency remained low at 86.2% (for max. score expected is 92%)
Governance: no information regarding operational audit committee and exclusive MD/DF
Key Strengths
Collection efficiency is high with 100%
Nearly 65% of the loss is taken over by state government.
Around 106% of subsidy received again the booked subsidy
100.0%
86.1% 87.7% 83.1% 83.5% 86.2%

24.6%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Input Energy (MUs) 870 937 969
Net Energy Sold (MUs) 748 778 835
Revenue Billed (INR Cr) 406 460 465
Revenue Collected (INR Cr) 356 384 498
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 452 4.16 639 4.87 551 4.78 -88 -0.09
Other Subsidy 269 2.47 261 1.99 252 2.18 -3 0.19
Power Purchase Cost 621 5.70 681 5.19 744 6.45 62 1.26
Other Expenses 108 1.00 263 2.00 209 1.81 -54 -0.19
Profit Before Tax -8 -0.07 -43 -0.33 -150 -1.30 -100 -0.97
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 0.00 11 0.08 -1 -0.01 -13 -0.10
ACS-ARR Gap 58 0.54 108 0.82 118 1.02 4 0.20

Percentile
102%
Cash adjusted
0.83 7.24
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
91%
Power purchase
0.74 6.45
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
14%
44% 13% 9% 3%
2%
Interest 0.02 0.16
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.02
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
53 C-
Meghalaya Power Distribution
Corporation Limited (MePDCL) Rank
53 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of MePDCL1
Area of operations State of Meghalaya

12th Ratings C- -8.3 ACS-ARR GAP AT&C LOSSES

-29.1 FY23 1.41 FY23 24.0%
11th Ratings C 20.7 FY22 0.09 FY22 25.5%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Leverage, Collection Efficiency, Loss takeover by Government, Opinion from
Auditor, Uncovered revenue gap in FY23
Gained marks in Billing Efficiency, FY23 Audited Accounts, Quarterly Accounts metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined marginally by 3 paise / kWh
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization declined by 80 paise
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined by 49 paise, but remained negative: from -25 paise in FY22 to
-74 paise in FY23
Billing Efficiency improved from 78.9% to 87.9%. Collection Efficiency declined from 94.4% in FY22 to 86.4% in FY23
due to poor customer cash collections.
Default against REC term loan as identified by Auditor
Audited Accounts for FY23 were published timely
MePDCL achieved Rank 53 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C- and Integrated Score of -8.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
-8.3 out of 100
Integrated Score: -8.3 out of 100


0.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.8 7
(cash adjusted)

-15.0 / out of -15 NA -1.0 / out of -1

NA Governance -1.0 / out of -3 -4.0 / out of -4
Default to
-1.0 / out of -15 Tariff Cycle Delays -1.5 / out of -4.5 Regulatory Assets NA
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – focusing on both customer collections and PBT (-293 Cr in FY23 excluding other subsidy
booked)
DSCR and Leverage were negative, due to negative EBITDA. High debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue
booked is ~122% (~1,733 crore)
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.22 (max score at 1.00). Need to reduce current liabilities. Also reduce Days Payable
(current at 273 days v/s LPS norm of 45 days)
Liquidate Receivables. Were 905 Cr in FY23, with Days Receivable at 272 days
Billing Efficiency improved from 78.9% in FY22 to 87.9% in FY23. Need to considerably improve (for max. score
expected is 92%)
Collection Efficiency worsened from 94.4% to 86.4% due to poor cash collections
Seek support from Govt for loss takeover – received 100 Cr subsidy in FY23
Government Dues at 79.51 Cr
Seek Regulator support for implementation of auto pass through of Fuel costs
Address Adverse Opinion from Auditor
Governance : Appoint exclusive MD and DF
Key Strengths

100.0%
94.4%
88.0% 86.4%
76.6% 78.9%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Revenue Billed (INR Cr) 846 942 1,127
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 989 3.94 1,184 4.81 1,321 4.55 137 -0.26
Other Subsidy 197 0.78 20 0.08 100 0.34 80 0.26
Power Purchase Cost 912 3.63 927 3.77 1,113 3.83 187 0.07
Other Expenses 375 1.49 434 1.76 501 1.72 67 -0.04
ACS-ARR Gap 313 1.24 21 0.09 409 1.41 388 1.32

Percentile
85%
Cash adjusted
1.21 0.22* 4.15
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
78%
Power purchase
1.11 3.83
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
18%
44% 13% 9% 3%
12%
Interest 0.17 0.58
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.41
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
20 B
Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited (PSPCL) Rank
20 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of PSPCL1
Ownership State Government Company

Nature of operations Generation & Distribution
Area of operations State of Punjab


-22.2 FY23 0.18 FY23 11.3%
11th Ratings A 83.8 FY22 -0.18 FY22 11.7%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Leverage and Loss-Takeover metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Audit Qualification and Governance
‒ PBT deteriorated by 86 paise / kWh – driven by 61 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 11 paise increase in
other costs (mainly employee costs) but 14 paise decline in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization improved by 39 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization increased to 122% in FY23 from
105% in FY22
PSPCL achieved Rank 20 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 61.6 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
61.6 out of 100


24.3 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

1.3 10 1.0 1
4.4 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped drastically from 1,069 Cr in FY22 compared to -4,776 Cr in FY23 resulting in
loss of marks across ACS-ARR Gap, Leverage, DSCR and Loss Takeover. Regulator needs to be pushed to increase
tariffs to compensate for increase in power purchase costs
Reduce short term borrowings - AQR worsened significantly in FY23 to 0.64 from 1.04
Very marginal improvement in Billing efficiency for 2 years – Currently at 88.7% (for max. score expected is 92%)
Appoint one more independent director – Only 1 out of 7 currently
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders – FY24 tariff orders were published in May (should be published by
March 31st)
Address Audit qualification regarding non-compliance with Ind-AS
Key Strengths
Tariff subsidy realization has been greater than 100% for past 2 years
Good receivables and payables management with Days Receivable consistently at ~88 and Days Payable at 55 –
Scope for further improvement however
Consistently meeting Distribution Loss Targets set be Regulator; Collection Efficiency has been improving and
reached 100% in FY23
State regulator allows auto pass-through of fuel costs, however utility did not file any increase
100.0% 100.0%
88.5% 92.0% 88.4% 88.7%
Billing Efficiency
11.7% 11.3%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -1,133 -620 -78
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 33,704 5.80 36,115 5.81 39,314 5.68 3,199 -0.14
Other Subsidy 579 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 8,765 1.51 8,675 1.40 10,462 1.51 1,787 0.11
Profit Before Tax 1,446 0.25 1,069 0.17 -4,776 -0.69 -5,845 -0.86
ACS-ARR Gap 484 0.08 -1,095 -0.18 1,250 0.18 2,345 0.36

Percentile
109%
Cash adjusted
42.84 6.18
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
86%
Power purchase
33.63 4.85
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
19%
44% 13% 9% 3%
4%
Interest 1.47 0.21
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.18
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
17 B
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (AVVNL) Rank
17 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of AVVNL1

Area of operations 11 districts of Rajasthan, namely Ajmer, Bhilwara, Nagaur, Sikar, Jhunjhunu,
Udaipur, Banswara, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand, Dungarpur and Pratapgarh


1.2 FY23 0.18 FY23 10.0%
11th Ratings B 62.1 FY22 -0.58 FY22 12.7%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Loss takeover, Leverage, DSCR metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Days Payable, Subsidy received, Billing Efficiency, Tariff cycle timelines metrics in FY23
‒ PBT decline of 47 paise / kWh – driven by 45 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 23 paise decline in
additional subsidy grants, and 22 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization declined by 31 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization came down from 122% to 102%;
negligible additional Govt subsidy grant
‒ Cash collection from customers increased marginally by 2 paise
Trade Payable almost halved in FY23 (reduced from 5.4k Cr to 2.6k Cr)
Billing Efficiency improved significantly from 87.3% in FY22 to 90.0% in FY23
Tariff and True-up order were published timely this year (in March v/s in September last year)
AVVNL achieved Rank 17 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 63.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
63.3 out of 100


29.5 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

3.3 10 0.0 1
5.7 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
NA Tariff Cycle Delays NA Regulatory Assets -3.6 / out of -5
Banks/FIs
Need to improve PBT (turned significantly negative in FY23). Lost marks in ACS-ARR metric
High Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is significantly high at ~112% (~22,000 crore), as
compared to National median of ~47%. Lost marks in DSCR and Leverage metric due to high debt levels and
insufficient EBITDA margins
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.58 (for max. score, expected is 1.00).
Accounts are prepared under AS, which leads to Audit Qualification
Only 1 Independent Director (out of 11) in the Board. Appoint 3 more.
Did not received State Govt. support for help in loss takeover in FY23 (-766 Cr loss in FY23)
Slow pace of regulatory assets liquidation – have only reduced marginally from ~13k Cr in FY21 to ~11.5k Cr in
FY23. Further liquidation is required
Key Strengths
Amongst the top 10%ile performers in Days Receivable – currently at ~12 days
Reached healthy Days Payables of 62 days in FY23 – can be improved further
Collection Efficiency remained at 100% - good subsidy realization, customer collections
Billing efficiency improved markedly to 90% in FY23
100.0% 100.0%
92.6% 90.0%
84.9% 87.3%
Billing Efficiency
21.4%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -1,016 884 107
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 537 0.23 603 0.24 16 0.01 -587 -0.23
Other Expenses 4,662 2.01 4,542 1.78 5,342 1.79 800 0.01
Profit Before Tax 176 0.08 558 0.22 -766 -0.26 -1,324 -0.47
Excess Subsidy Realization -1,016 -0.44 884 0.35 107 0.04 -777 -0.31
Change in Receivables -39 -0.02 51 0.02 118 0.04 66 0.02
ACS-ARR Gap 879 0.38 -1,493 -0.58 542 0.18 2,035 0.77

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
20.14 6.75
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
77%
Power purchase
15.34 5.14
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
9%
44% 13% 9% 3%
11%
Interest 2.21 0.74
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.18
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
35 B-
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (JDVVNL) Rank
35 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of JDVVNL1

Area of operations 10 districts of Rajasthan, namely Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Sirohi, Pali, Barmer,
Bikaner, Churu, Sriganganagar and Hanumangarh

19.7 FY23 0.12 FY23 21.0%
11th Ratings C 20.9 FY22 0.18 FY22 21.9%

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Collection Efficiency, Tariff Subsidy Realization and Regulatory orders metrics in FY23
‒ PBT remained flat at -44 paise
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization declined by 16 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization came down from 113% to 106%
‒ Cash collection from customers increased by 21 paise, from -4 paise in FY22 to 17 paise in FY23
Leverage deteriorated from 6.1 in FY22 to 10.5 in FY23
Aggregate 3-year tariff subsidy realization increased from 83% to 99% in FY23 v/s FY22
JDVVNL achieved Rank 35 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 40.6 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
40.6 out of 100


24.9 35 0.0 2 3.7 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
2.7 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
High Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is significantly high at ~131% (~27,800 crore), as
compared to National median of ~47%. Lost marks in DSCR and Leverage metric due to high debt levels and
insufficient EBITDA margins
Further improve ACS-ARR metric to improve multiple metrics including Leverage and DSCR
Days payable to GenCos & TransCos remain high - 100 despite improving Y-o-Y
AQR can be improved, currently at 0.51 (for max. score, expected is 1.00)
Need to improve Billing efficiency considerably (significantly low at 79.0% in FY23). Distribution loss is much higher
than SERC target of 15%
Adoption of Ind-AS; Clearing undisputed statutory & employee dues on time
Slow pace of regulatory assets liquidation – have only reduced marginally from ~18.6k Cr in FY21 to ~18.5k Cr.
Should have been liquidated more
Key Strengths
Government customers are proactive in clearing government dues over last 3 years
Reached healthy Days Receivable of 41 days in FY23 to get full marks
Collection Efficiency has remained at 100% - full tariff subsidy disbursement and full customer collections
Tariff and True-up Order were published timely this year

100.0% 100.0%
89.0%
77.5% 78.1% 79.0%
31.0%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -1,875 1,008 525
Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) 24 -120 618
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 18,109 5.98 18,454 5.59 19,485 5.56 1,031 -0.03
Other Subsidy 388 0.13 1,288 0.39 1,770 0.50 482 0.11
Other Expenses 5,754 1.90 5,914 1.79 4,477 1.28 -1,437 -0.51
Profit Before Tax -1,732 -0.57 -1,465 -0.44 -1,526 -0.44 -61 0.01
Excess Subsidy Realization -1,875 -0.62 1,008 0.31 525 0.15 -483 -0.16
Change in Receivables 34 0.01 -136 -0.04 593 0.17 729 0.21
ACS-ARR Gap 3,572 1.18 593 0.18 408 0.12 -185 -0.06

Percentile
105%
Cash adjusted
22.37 6.38
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
86%
Power purchase
18.30 5.22
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
7%
44% 13% 9% 3%
13%
Interest 2.72 0.77
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.12
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
23 B
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (JVVNL) Rank
23 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of JVVNL1

Area of operations 12 districts of Rajasthan, namely, Jaipur, Dausa, Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur,
Sawaimadhopur, Tonk, Karauli, Kota, Jhalawar, Baran & Bundi


7.9 FY23 0.14 FY23 15.8%
11th Ratings B- 42.8 FY22 -0.36 FY22 16.8%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Slow liquidation of regulatory assets metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Leverage, Distribution Loss target, Billing Efficiency, AQR, Regulatory orders metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated by 18 paise / kWh (due to fall in other subsidy of 24 paise)
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization deteriorated by 30 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization fell from 119% to 98%
‒ Cash collection from customers decreased marginally by 2 paise
Billing Efficiency improved from 83.2% in FY22 TO 85.4% in FY23
AQR improved significantly from 0.5 in FY22 to 0.67 in FY23
JVVNL achieved Rank 23 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 50.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
50.8 out of 100


28.4 35 2.0 2 3.9 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

1.1 10 0.0 1
4.3 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 due to lower additional government grant and lower tariff subsidy realization.
PBT improved but was still negative
High Debt levels (poor DSCR, Leverage metric) – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is high at ~119%
(~29,400 crore), v/s National median of 47%
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.67 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to liquidate other current liabilities.
Days payable to GenCos & TransCos remain high - 96 despite improving Y-o-Y
Billing Efficiency has improved from 83.2% to 85.4%, but still remains very low (for max. score expected is 92%)
Slow pace of regulatory assets liquidation – have only reduced marginally from ~17.9k Cr in FY21 to ~17.8k Cr.
Should have been liquidated more
Accounts are prepared under AS, which leads to Audit Qualification
Key Strengths
Government customers are is clearing government dues over last 3 years
Reached healthy Days Receivable of 45 days in FY23 to get full marks

100.0% 98.6%
93.0%
83.2% 85.4%
80.6%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 518 0.15 938 0.26 83 0.02 -855 -0.24
Other Expenses 6,107 1.82 5,724 1.60 4,929 1.27 -795 -0.33
Excess Subsidy Realization -887 -0.26 953 0.27 -142 -0.04 -1,095 -0.30
ACS-ARR Gap 2,026 0.60 -1,299 -0.36 556 0.14 1,855 0.51

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
24.34 0.33* 6.28
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
81%
Power purchase
19.96 5.15
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
8%
44% 13% 9% 3%
11%
Interest 2.78 0.72
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.14
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Tamil Nadu Generation and
50 C-
Distribution Corporation
Limited (TANGEDCO) Rank
50 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of TANGEDCO1
Nature of operations Generation & Distribution
Area of operations State of Tamil Nadu


5.6 FY23 0.96 FY23 10.3%
11th Ratings C- -0.9 FY22 1.01 FY22 11.4%
Decline in scores for Adjusted Quick Ratio, Governance metrics in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Loss takeover from Government metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improvement of 4 paise / kWh – driven by 115 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 39 paise increase in
other expense (mainly finance and employee costs), 54 paise increase in additional subsidy grants, and 103
paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy realization increased by 4 paise
Adjusted Quick Ratio fell to 0.26 in FY23
TANGEDCO achieved Rank 50 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C- and Integrated Score of 4.7 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
4.7 out of 100


7.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)

-15.0 / out of -15 NA NA

Default to
-1.0 / out of -15 Tariff Cycle Delays -1.5 / out of -4.5 Regulatory Assets -5.0 / out of -5
Banks/FIs
Improve profitability – PBT has been persistently very negative. Lost marks in ACS-ARR metric. Lost marks in DSCR
and Leverage metrics due to negative EBITDA margins and very High debt level – 193% of revenue booked v/s
National median of 47%
Pay-off current liabilities to improve Adjusted quick ratio (was 0.26 in FY23 v/s max score at 1.0).
Reduce Payables to GenCos and TransCos (~39,000 Cr in FY23) and improve Days Payable from 231 days to
meet LPS norms of 45 days
Billing Efficiency improving Y-o-Y: reached 90.8% in FY23 (max marks > 92%)
Work towards timely issue of true-up order
MD and DF is not exclusive. Appoint independent directors in Board to score marks in Corp. governance
Address Adverse Opinion metric
Seek external support for liquidation of huge Regulatory assets (~90k Cr)
Key Strengths
Good customer collections – Healthy Days Received at 55 days and High collection efficiency at 98.7%
Has been meeting SERC set distribution loss targets
Significant government support – 100% Tariff subsidy disbursement, high grant amounts

98.6% 99.0% 98.8%
89.5% 89.5% 90.8%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 6,002 0.68 6,719 0.69 12,688 1.23 5,970 0.54
Other Expenses 23,274 2.64 24,689 2.52 29,979 2.90 5,290 0.39
Profit Before Tax -13,066 -1.48 -9,130 -0.93 -9,192 -0.89 -62 0.04
Excess Subsidy Realization -19 0.00 -376 -0.04 0 0.00 376 0.04
ACS-ARR Gap 13,750 1.56 9,917 1.01 9,923 0.96 6 -0.05

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
81.67 0.73* 7.91
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
75%
Power purchase
61.61 5.97
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
16%
44% 13% 9% 3%
16%
Interest 13.45 1.30
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.96
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Northern Power Distribution
46 C
Company of Telangana Limited
(TSNPDCL) Rank
46 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of TSNPDCL1
Area of operations 17 districts of North Telangana


11.3 FY23 1.19 FY23 22.2%
11th Ratings C- 6.6 FY22 1.52 FY22 14.1%
Decline in scores for Collection Efficiency, AQR metrics in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Loss Takeover by Govt., Billing Efficiency, 3-year tariff subsidy realized / booked turned
100%, True up order metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated by 120 paise / kWh – driven by 115 paise fall in loss takeover subsidy booked
(However, the same was received in FY23) and thus total subsidy realization improved by 237 paise
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection also deteriorated significantly by 83 paise, from -24 paise in
FY22 to -107 paise in FY23
True-up order was published timely this year (was not published last year)
TSNPDCL achieved Rank 46 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 17.9 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
17.9 out of 100


3.5 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR improved considerably in FY23 due to higher other subsidy disbursement but still remains high at 119
paise. Bad financial performance led to further loss of marks across Leverage as well as DSCR metrics
Cash collection of debtors was significant in FY23 at -2460 Crores and needs to be optimized as led to loss of marks
in Collection Efficiency (83.8% in FY23)
Net Trade Receivables are high – 8,255 Cr in FY23, with Days Receivable of 326 days(for max. expected is 60). Need
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.37 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Payable to Gencos & Transco –
stood at 11,649 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 281 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days)
Push government to clear their billed dues of past years (arrears of ~10,000 Cr)
Audit qualification for non-adherence of Ind-AS
Key Strengths
While further support is required, state government disbursed substantial loss takeover subsidy in FY23
In the Top 20%ile for Billing efficiency at 92.8%
100.0%
91.0% 91.2% 94.2% 92.8%
83.8%
Billing Efficiency
22.2%
9.0%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) 943 -674 -2,424
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 2,697 1.19 102 0.04 -2,595 -1.15
Other Expenses 3,029 1.38 3,301 1.46 3,720 1.62 419 0.16
Profit Before Tax -2,441 -1.11 -204 -0.09 -2,956 -1.29 -2,752 -1.20
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 0.00 -2,697 -1.19 2,697 1.17 5,394 2.37
Change in Receivables 937 0.43 -546 -0.24 -2,464 -1.07 -1,918 -0.83
ACS-ARR Gap 1,503 0.68 3,447 1.52 2,723 1.19 -724 -0.34

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
16.11 7.02
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
95%
Power purchase
15.12 6.58
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
15%
44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 0.97 0.42
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.19
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
Southern Power Distribution
44 C
Company of Telangana Limited
(TSSPDCL) Rank
44 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of TSSPDCL1

Area of operations 15 districts of South Telangana

% C&I customers 11.94

9.1 FY23 1.08 FY23 17.2%
11th Ratings C- 10.8 FY22 1.40 FY22 9.1%
Decline in scores for Collection Efficiency metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Received Loss Takeover subsidy, 3-year tariff subsidy realized / booked turned 100%,
true up order metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated by 137 paise / kWh – driven by 114 paise fall in loss takeover subsidy booked
(However, the same was received in FY23) and thus total subsidy realization improved by 233 paise
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection also deteriorated significantly by 64 paise, from -13 paise in
True-up order was published timely this year (was not published last year)
TSSPDCL achieved Rank 44 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 19.9 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
19.9 out of 100


7.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR improved in FY23 due to higher other subsidy disbursement but still remains high at 108 paise. Bad
financial performance led to further loss of marks across Leverage as well as DSCR metrics
Cash collection of debtors was significant in FY23 at -4,199 Crores and needs to be optimized as led to loss of marks
in Collection Efficiency (90.5% in FY23)
Net Trade Receivables are high – 16,044 Cr in FY23, with Days Receivable of 138 days(for max. expected is 60).
Need to write-off old receivables
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.23 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Payable to Gencos & Transco
of 29,398 Cr in FY23 with Days Payable at 302 days (as against LPS norm of 45 days)
Push government to clear their billed dues of past years (arrears of ~16,000 Cr)
Qualification for Ind-AS & non-payment of statutory dues
Key Strengths
While further support is required, state government disbursed substantial loss takeover subsidy in FY23
High Billing efficiency of 91.5%; Only marginal improvement needed for full marks
100.0%
92.8% 91.1% 90.9% 91.5% 90.5%
Billing Efficiency
9.1%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -1,853 373 -2,901
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 6,228 1.20 313 0.06 -5,915 -1.14
Other Expenses 5,064 1.14 5,666 1.09 6,734 1.22 1,068 0.13
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 0.00 -6,228 -1.20 6,228 1.13 12,456 2.33
Change in Receivables -2,483 -0.56 -655 -0.13 -4,200 -0.76 -3,545 -0.64
ACS-ARR Gap 7,105 1.60 7,302 1.40 5,962 1.08 -1,340 -0.32

Percentile
106%
Cash adjusted
36.28 6.58
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
104%
Power purchase
35.51 6.44
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
7%
Interest 2.50 0.45
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.08
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
39 C
Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Limited (TSECL) Rank
39 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of TSECL1

Nature of operations Generation, Transmission, and Distribution
Area of operations State of Tripura


-7.9 FY23 1.00 FY23 28.2%
11th Ratings B- 35.5 FY22 0.53 FY22 31.2%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, AQR, Audit Qualification, Governance metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Collection Efficiency, Subsidy Recd. (past 3 yrs) metrics in FY23
‒ PBT decline of 51 paise / kWh – driven by 85 paise increase in Power purchase cost, and 39 paise
increase in revenues
‒ Excess Subsidy realization increased by 31 paise: was -2 paise in FY22 and +29 paise in FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection worsened by 26 paise: -13 paise in FY22 to -39 paise in FY23
AQR declined from 1.33 in FY22 to 0.75 in FY23- due to higher current liabilities in FY23
TSECL achieved Rank 39 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 27.5 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
27.5 out of 100


4.2 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve Billing Efficiency – very low at 75.3% in FY23 (max marks at 92%+). Strive to meet Distribution loss targets
set by SERC (20.21% in FY23)
Pay-off current liabilities to improve Adjusted quick ratio (was 0.75 in FY23 v/s max score at 1.0). Payables to
GenCos and TransCos were good, but can be slightly improved from 54 days in FY23 to meet LPS norms of 45 days
Liquidate old Receivables and improve customer collection efficiency. Days Receivable increased from 81 days in
FY22 to 103 days in FY23
While Collection Efficiency improved in FY23, it was due to excess tariff subsidy disbursement
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (-284 Cr loss in FY23). The Utility has not received any subsidy
Work towards timely issue of Tariff, True-up Orders – FY24 orders published in Oct, and FY23 were also delayed
(Sep) (should be published by March 31st)
Address Audit qualifications regarding unpaid statutory dues, Ind-AS non-compliance.
Work with regulator for automatic pass through of fuel costs
Key Strengths

91.5% 95.4%
87.6%
71.5% 75.3% 75.3%
37.4%
31.2% 28.2%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Energy Sold (MUs) 982 1,099 1,150
Excess Subsidy coll. (in Cr) -14 -7 92
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 279 0.93 288 0.90 307 0.96 19 0.06
Profit Before Tax 19 0.06 -120 -0.37 -284 -0.89 -165 -0.51
Excess Subsidy Realization -14 -0.05 -7 -0.02 92 0.29 99 0.31
ACS-ARR Gap 55 0.18 170 0.53 319 1.00 149 0.47

Percentile
98%
Cash adjusted
1.68 0.03* 5.25
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
99%
Power purchase
1.69 5.29
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
15%
44% 13% 9% 3%
1%
Interest 0.02 0.07
16% 7% 3% 0%
1.00
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
48 C-
Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited (DVVNL) Rank
48 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of DVVNL1
Area of operations In the Districts of Agra, Mathura, Mainpuri, Aligarh, Hathras, Etawah, Etah,
Farrukhabad, Firozabad, Kanpur City, Kanpur rural, Banda, Jhansi, Kannauj,
Auraiya, Jalaun Urai, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Lalitpur, Chitrakoot, Kanshiram Nagar
in the State of Uttar Pradesh

-6.0 FY23 2.08 FY23 24.0%
11th Ratings C- 13.6 FY22 1.63 FY22 31.0%
Major decline in scores for Leverage, Governance, Audit qualification metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Collection Efficiency, Loss takeover by State Government metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened considerably by 64 paise / kWh – driven by 113 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 25 paise
increase in additional subsidy grants and 14 paise increase in revenues
to -28 paise / kWh in FY23
Director Finance held position in KESCO
Received Government grants of 1,165 Cr in FY23, which helped takeover some of year’s loss
The utility’s ACS has increased due to creation of provision for doubtful debts in line with Ind-AS. Excluding such
provisioning costs, the utility’s per unit ACS-ARR Gap is INR 1.29 for FY21, INR 0.77 for FY22 and INR 1.13 for FY23
DVVNL achieved Rank 48 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C- and Integrated Score of 7.6 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
7.6 out of 100


0.0 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped even further from (-3)k Cr in FY22 to (-5)k Cr in FY23. Lost marks in DSCR,
Leverage due to poor EBITDA and high Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is significantly high at
~114% (~20,000 crore), as compared to National median of ~47%
TransCos. Need to liquidate at priority, given Days Payable remained sky high in FY22 and continued to remain high
at 256 days in FY23
Net Trade Receivables remain very high at about 16,200 Cr, with Days Receivable metric of 450 days (for max.
expected is 60). Need to write-off old receivables.
Received inadequate State Govt. support for loss takeover in FY23 (1,165 Cr grant subsidy v/s loss of -5,074 Cr in
FY23) (50% expected for max. score)
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders – FY24 tariff orders were published in May, and FY23 were also delayed
(July) (should be published by March 31st)
Key Strengths
Have been receiving sizeable Government grants – for loss takeover and under Atmanirbhar. However, given the
quantum of financial losses, Utility should push for higher Government support.
Collection Efficiency has improved to 96.9%, but has scope for further improvement
92.6% 92.7% 96.9%
74.1% 74.4% 78.4%

24.0%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) -897 -1,029 -502
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 825 0.32 427 0.17 1,165 0.41 738 0.25
Other Expenses 3,484 1.35 6,864 2.67 7,260 2.56 395 -0.10
Change in Receivables -1,157 -0.45 -1,228 -0.48 -805 -0.28 423 0.19
ACS-ARR Gap 3,409 1.32 4,188 1.63 5,879 2.08 1,691 0.45

Percentile
95%
Cash adjusted
16.59 0.80* 5.86
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
87%
Power purchase
15.21 5.37
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
12%
Interest 2.08 0.73
16% 7% 3% 0%
2.08
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
34 B-
Kanpur Electricity Supply
Company Limited (KESCO) Rank
34 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of KESCO1

Area of operations Kanpur City (Urban)


24.1 FY23 0.05 FY23 11.3%
11th Ratings C- 17.9 FY22 1.05 FY22 15.5%
Decline in scores for Audit qualification, Non-exclusive DF metrics in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, Leverage, Collection Efficiency, Government Dues and Days Payable metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 57 paise / kWh – driven by 93 paise decrease in Power purchase cost, 86 paise increase in
other costs (mainly provisioning of bad debt), 30 paise increase in additional subsidy grant and 20 paise
‒ Excess Total Subsidy realization was 14 paise FY22 v/s 12 paise in FY23
to -17 paise in FY23

DF has additional charge of DVVNL. Additional Audit qualifications received for statutory dues and non-adherence
to IND-AS
provisioning costs, the utility’s per unit ACS-ARR Gap is INR 2.31 for FY21, INR 1.31 for FY22 and INR -0.88 for FY23
KESCO achieved Rank 34 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 42.0 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No.
No. of Utilities
Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
42.0 out of 100


14.7 35 0.6 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
4.2 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Continue improved financial performance of FY23 – PBT improved from (-214) Cr in FY22 to 1 Cr in FY23. Lost
marks due to poor ACS-ARR in FY21, 22
DSCR improved to 1.09 in FY23. Leverage improved to 4.12 in FY23. However, lost marks in DSCR due to high debt
levels
Net Trade Receivables reduced marginally to 3,058 Cr in FY23. Days Receivable still remain high (333 days in FY23;
for max. expected is 60). Need to write-off old receivables
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.11 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off financial liabilities
Audit Qualification: clear statutory dues, adopt Ind-AS
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders – FY24 tariff orders were published in May, and FY23 were also
delayed (July) (should be published by March 31st)
Key Strengths
Received substantial Subsidy Grant of 428 Cr in FY23
Collection efficiency improved from 93.4% in FY22 to 97.8% in FY23
Days Payable at 0

97.8% 97.8%
89.6% 90.4% 93.4% 90.7%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 515 1.52 220 0.59 376 0.89 156 0.30
Power Purchase Cost 2,630 7.78 2,541 6.76 2,466 5.83 -75 -0.93
Other Expenses 611 1.81 685 1.82 1,135 2.69 451 0.86
Profit Before Tax -172 -0.51 -214 -0.57 1 0.00 215 0.57
Excess Subsidy Realization -514 -1.52 52 0.14 52 0.12 0 -0.02
ACS-ARR Gap 788 2.33 394 1.05 20 0.05 -374 -1.00

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
3.58 0.02* 8.47
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
68%
Power purchase
2.47 5.83
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
11%
44% 13% 9% 3%
8%
Interest 0.28 0.67
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.05
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
51 C-
Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited (MVVNL) Rank
51 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of MVVNL1
Area of operations Districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh: Budaun, Bareilly, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur,
Lakhimpur, Hardoi, Sitapur, Unnao, Bahraich, Shrawasti, Balrampur, Gonda,
Barabanki, Rae Bareli, Ayodhya, Sultanpur, Ambedkarnagar, Lucknow and
Amethi.

-1.4 FY23 2.39 FY23 24.2%
11th Ratings C- 4.6 FY22 2.51 FY22 35.6%
Major decline in scores for AQR, Non-exclusive DF, Loss takeover by Government metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Billing Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined considerably by 93 paise / kWh – driven by 33 paise increase in power purchase cost, 42 paise
increase in other expense (mainly provisioning of bad debt), increase of 29 paise in additional subsidy, decline
of 46 paise in revenue
‒ Excess Total Subsidy realization was marginal in both FY22 and FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 105 paise, but remained negative: from -172 paise in
Adjusted Quick Ratio worsened from 42.2% (FY21) TO 38.0% (FY22) TO 22.9% (FY23)
Received significant Government grants of 2,400 Cr in FY23 which helped takeover some of year’s loss, but were
significantly less than the quantum of losses (PBT of -7,227 Cr in FY23 before loss-takeover)
DF held additional charge of PuVVNL during FY23
MVVNL achieved Rank 51 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C- and Integrated Score of 3.2 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
3.2 out of 100


0.0 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped even further to (-4.8)k Cr in FY23 (compared to (-2)k Cr in FY22). Lost marks in
DSCR and Leverage due to poor EBITDA and high Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is
significantly high at ~88% (~18,000 crore), v/s National median of ~47%
Net Trade Receivables remain very high at 19,404 Cr, with Days Receivable metric of 494 days (for max. expected is
60). Need to write-off old receivables
Collection Efficiency has improved from 77.9% to 89.2%, but still remains very low (for max. score expected is 99.5%)
Key Strengths
85.2% 82.6% 84.9% 89.2%

79.8% 77.9%
32.0% 35.6%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 14,435 6.14 17,012 6.99 17,834 6.52 822 -0.46
Other Subsidy 1,409 0.60 1,440 0.59 2,407 0.88 966 0.29
Other Expenses 3,219 1.37 6,704 2.75 8,691 3.18 1,986 0.42
Profit Before Tax -896 -0.38 -2,032 -0.83 -4,820 -1.76 -2,788 -0.93
Excess Subsidy Realization -978 -0.42 93 0.04 93 0.03 0 0.00
Change in Receivables -2,341 -1.00 -4,178 -1.72 -1,817 -0.66 2,362 1.05
ACS-ARR Gap 4,215 1.79 6,117 2.51 6,543 2.39 426 -0.12

Percentile
91%
Cash adjusted
18.52 1.72* 6.77
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
81%
Power purchase
16.37 5.99
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
9%
44% 13% 9% 3%
9%
Interest 1.81 0.66
16% 7% 3% 0%
2.39
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
21 B
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited (PVVNL) Rank
21 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of PVVNL1

Area of operations Areas of District Meerut, Baghpat, Ghaziabad, Gautambudh Nagar,

Bulandshahar, Hapur, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Shamli, Bijnor, Moradabad,
Sambhal, J.P. Nagar and Rampur

23.7 FY23 -0.06 FY23 17.0%
11th Ratings B- 35.5 FY22 0.54 FY22 21.9%
Decline in scores for Adjusted Quick Ratio, Audit qualification metrics in FY23
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, DSCR, Days Payable, Billing & Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 46 paise / kWh – driven by 33 paise decrease in Power purchase cost, 16 paise increase in
other costs (mainly provisioning of bad debt) and 30 paise increase in revenues
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 15 paise, but remained negative: from -34 paise in FY22 to
-19 paise in FY23
Trade Payable improved significantly from 5,390 in FY22 to 1,934 Cr in FY 23. Adjusted Quick Ratio also improved
in FY23, but 3-year weighted average has declined
Billing Efficiency improved from 82.3% in FY22 to 85.6% in FY23. Collection Efficiency improved from 94.8% in FY22
to 96.9% in FY23
provisioning costs, the utility’s per unit ACS-ARR Gap is INR 1.02 for FY21, INR 0.42 for FY22 and INR -0.63 for FY23
PVVNL achieved Rank 21 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 59.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
59.3 out of 100


26.1 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

4.4 10 0.0 1
5.1 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Continue improved financial performance of FY23 – PBT improved from (-700) Cr in FY22 to +1,000 Cr in FY23. Lost
marks due to poor ACS-ARR in FY21, FY22
DSCR improved to 1.38 in FY23, but lost marks due to poor DSCR in FY21, FY22
Net Trade Receivables reduced from 10.7k Cr in FY22 to 9.3k Cr in FY23. However, Days Receivable still remain high
(149 days in FY23; for max. expected is 60). Need to write-off old receivables
Adjusted Quick Ratio is low at 0.53 (for max. score, expected is 1.00). Need to pay-off Electricity duty and other
financial liabilities
Billing Efficiency improved from 82.3% in FY22 to 85.6% in FY23, but still low (for max. score expected is 92%)
Audit Qualifications: Clear statutory dues, adhere to Ind-AS standards, and improve financials to remove Going
Concern qualification
Key Strengths
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in Days Payable – currently at ~33 days as against LPS norm of 45 days
Healthy Debt levels – currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is ~37% (~10,000 crore), as compared to National
median of ~47%
Received substantial Subsidy Grant of 2,465 Cr in FY23

100.0% 96.9%
94.8%
82.2% 82.3% 85.6%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Excess Customer coll. (in Cr) 402 -1,112 -796
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 705 0.21 2,218 0.64 2,465 0.63 247 -0.01
Power Purchase Cost 20,533 6.14 20,102 5.84 21,514 5.51 1,412 -0.33
Other Expenses 3,495 1.04 4,618 1.34 5,844 1.50 1,226 0.16
Profit Before Tax -3,736 -1.12 -699 -0.20 992 0.25 1,691 0.46
Change in Receivables 338 0.10 -1,174 -0.34 -751 -0.19 424 0.15
ACS-ARR Gap 3,422 1.02 1,874 0.54 -241 -0.06 -2,115 -0.61

Percentile
97%
Cash adjusted
27.60 0.75* 7.07
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
76%
Power purchase
21.51 5.51
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
6%
44% 13% 9% 3%
4%
Interest 1.15 0.30
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.06
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
49 C-
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (PuVVNL) Rank
49 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of PuVVNL1
Area of operations Eastern UP including districts of Varanasi, Ghazipur, Chandauli, Jaunpur, Sant
Rabidas Nagar(Bhadohi), Mirzapur, Sonbhadra, Mau, Azamgarh, Ballia, Deoria,
Kushi Nagar, Gorakhpur, Maharajganj, Sant Kabir Nagar, Basti, Sidharth Nagar,
Allahabad, Pratapgarh, Fatehpur and Kaushambi


-2.9 FY23 2.92 FY23 27.3%
11th Ratings C- 8.3 FY22 1.79 FY22 40.0%
Major decline in scores for Adjusted Quick Ratio, Loss Takeover by Government, Governance metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Government Dues metric in FY23
‒ PBT worsened considerably by 192 paise / kWh – driven by 94 paise increase in Power purchase cost,
61 paise increase in other costs (mainly provisioning of bad debt) and 40 paise decline in revenues
to -80 paise in FY23
Adjusted Quick Ratio worsened from 73% (FY21) to 40% (FY22) to 30% (FY23)
Received significant Government grants of 3,459 Cr in FY23 which helped takeover some of year’s loss, but were
significantly less than the quantum of losses (PBT of -6,610 Cr in FY23)
DF held additional charge of MVVNL during FY23
PuVVNL achieved Rank 49 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade C- and Integrated Score of 5.4 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
5.4 out of 100


0.0 35 0.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 0.0 1
0.0 7
(cash adjusted)


Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped drastically from (-0.6)k Cr in FY22 (compared to (-6.6)k Cr in FY23. Lost marks
in DSCR and Leverage due to poor EBITDA and high Debt levels– currently Debt as % of Revenue booked is high at
~133% (~27,000 crore), as compared to National median of ~47%
Net Trade Receivables remain very high at ~27,500 Cr, with Days Receivable metric of 700 days
(for max. expected is 60). Need to write-off old receivables
Collection Efficiency has improved from 75.1% to 88.1%, but still remains very low
(for max. score expected is 99.5%)
Key Strengths
85.8% 88.1%
79.3% 79.9% 82.6%
75.1%
40.0%
32.0%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 775 0.28 3,082 1.08 3,459 1.11 377 0.03
Other Expenses 4,538 1.64 8,436 2.95 11,076 3.56 2,639 0.61
Change in Receivables -1,833 -0.66 -4,538 -1.59 -2,480 -0.80 2,058 0.79
ACS-ARR Gap 5,436 1.97 5,132 1.79 9,091 2.92 3,959 1.13

Percentile
88%
Cash adjusted
18.02 2.48* 5.79
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
78%
Power purchase
16.03 5.15
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
13%
Interest 2.74 0.88
16% 7% 3% 0%
2.92
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
30 B-
Uttarakhand Power Corporation
Limited (UPCL) Rank
30 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of UPCL1

Date of incorporation 12-Feb-2001
Area of operations State of Uttarakhand


-35.0 FY23 0.74 FY23 15.3%
11th Ratings A 81.7 FY22 -0.49 FY22 14.1%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, DSCR, Leverage, Loss Takeover, Audit Qualification metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Government Dues, Exclusive MD & DF metrics in FY23
‒ PBT declined considerably by 72 paise / kWh – driven by 111 paise increase in Power purchase cost, and 36
paise increase in revenues
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined significantly by 50 paise, from 49 paise in
Received no Government grants in FY23 despite significant financial losses (PBT of 1,201 Cr in FY23). Have not
received government grants in previous year as well
Government Dues reduced from 779 Cr in FY22 to 633 Cr in FY23
UPCL achieved Rank 30 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 46.7 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
46.7 out of 100


17.1 35 1.3 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
2.8 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT dipped drastically from positive 0 Cr in in FY22 to -1,200 Cr in FY23
DSCR and Leverage ratio turned negative in FY23 due to negative EBITDA. DSCR was -1.35 v/s 1.1 for max score.
Leverage was -2.40 v/s <5 for max score
Reduce current liabilities to improve Adjusted Quick Ratio (at 0.22 v/s 1.00 for max score). Liquidate Electricity Duty
payable to Govt.
Need to improve Billing Efficiency. It was 85.6% in FY23 (for max score – 92%)
Seek State Govt. support for help in loss takeover (1,200 Cr loss in FY23)
Audit Qualification: Comply with Ind-AS standards
Key Strengths
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in Days Receivables at 18 days in FY23
Low debt levels – at only 18% of Revenue booked in FY23
Automatic pass through of Fuel costs is implemented on quarterly basis

98.3% 100.0% 98.9%
86.0% 85.9% 85.6%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 1,102 0.78 1,339 0.88 1,411 0.85 72 -0.03
Profit Before Tax -135 -0.10 0 0.00 -1,201 -0.72 -1,201 -0.72
ACS-ARR Gap 56 0.04 -746 -0.49 1,225 0.74 1,970 1.23

Component INR ‘000 cr. INR / kWh of total revenue book ed
Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
8.82 0.02* 5.32
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
98%
Power purchase
8.63 5.21
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
9%
44% 13% 9% 3%
2%
Interest 0.22 0.13
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.74
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
West Bengal State Electricity
29 B-
(WBSEDCL) Rank
29 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of WBSEDCL1

Date of incorporation 16-Feb-2007
Area of operations State of West Bengal excluding some districts served by CESC and IPCL


-3.6 FY23 0.34 FY23 17.3%
11th Ratings B 50.5 FY22 -0.20 FY22 16.7%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Leverage metrics in FY23

Gained marks in Loss takeover by Government, Governance metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 52 paise / kWh – driven by 94 paise increase in Power purchase cost, but 34 paise increase
in revenues (regulatory income has been excluded here)
‒ Excess Subsidy realization was NIL in both FY22 and FY23. Tariff Subsidy disbursement remained 100% during
FY22, FY23
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collections marginally declined by 2 paise
PBT (on accrual basis) turned positive in FY23
WBSEDCL achieved Rank 29 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 46.9 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
46.9 out of 100


21.4 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
3.9 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improving profitability would also improve DSCR. Lost marks in it due to significantly lower EBITDA in FY23. Leverage
deteriorated significantly from 3.81 in FY22 to 10.6 in FY23
Adjusted Quick Ratio was low at 0.26 in FY23 – need to pay-off current liabilities including payables to Gencos and
Transco. Days Payable were 143 days in FY23 v/s LPS norm of 45 days
Billing Efficiency declined from 84.8% in FY22 to 83.3% in FY23 (for max. score expected in 92%)
Key Strengths
Healthy Days Receivable – at 59 days in FY23
High Collection Efficiency – was 99.3% in FY23
Automatic pass through of Fuel cost is implemented monthly

99.5% 98.2% 99.3%
84.8% 83.3%
79.0%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 5,824 1.32 6,627 1.29 6,292 1.21 -336 -0.08
Profit Before Tax -4,252 -0.96 1,045 0.20 -1,656 -0.32 -2,701 -0.52
Excess Subsidy Realization -9 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
ACS-ARR Gap 4,521 1.02 -1,047 -0.20 1,768 0.34 2,815 0.54

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
29.79 0.11* 5.73
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
84%
Power purchase
25.27 4.86
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 1.85 0.36
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.34
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
B. Private Discoms
24 B-
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
(BRPL) Rank
24 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of BRPL1
Ownership Public Private Company

Area of operations 22 divisions across South and West Delhi, including Alaknanda, Dwarka,
Hauz Khas, Jaffarpur, JanakPuri, Khanpur, Mundka, Najafgarh, Nangloi,
Nehru Place, New Friends Colony, Nizamuddin, Palam, Punjabi Bagh,
R.K. Puram, Saket, SaritaVihar, Tagore Garden, Vasant Kunj, VikasPuri,
Uttam Nagar & Mohan Garden


2.0 FY23 0.00 FY23 7.2%
11th Ratings B- 68.8 FY22 -0.26 FY22 8.8%
Gained marks in Tariff subsidy realization, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23

‒ PBT worsened by 49 paise / kWh – driven by 82 paise increased in Power purchase cost, 13 paise decrease in
Other expenses and 20 paise increase in revenues
‒ Excess subsidy realization improved by 18 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization improved from 94% to 113%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved marginally by 5 paise
BRPL achieved Rank 24 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 70.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
70.8 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 3.9 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
TransCos (~7,900 Cr). Utility has submitted that it is due to Supreme Court order for non-payment of dues. As a
results, Days Payable were also very high at 303 days in FY23
Tariff Orders have not been issued for FY24 (not issued for FY23 as well) due to absence of Regulatory Commission
Given absence of Tariff Orders, regulatory assets have not been liquidated
Key Strengths
Profitable financials, with good ACS-ARR metric
Amongst top 20%ile performers in Days Receivable – at ~15 days in FY23
Healthy DSCR and Leverage at 1.15 and 0.93 respectively. Low debt levels – at only 12% of Revenue booked in FY23
High Billing and Collection Efficiency – were 92.8% and 100% respectively in FY23

98.0% 98.9% 100.0%
92.2% 92.2% 92.8%
Billing Efficiency
9.7% 8.8% 7.2%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,870 2.24 2,499 1.86 2,625 1.73 127 -0.13
Profit Before Tax 1,064 0.83 467 0.35 -222 -0.15 -688 -0.49
ACS-ARR Gap -885 -0.69 -355 -0.26 1 0.00 356 0.26

Percentile
102%
Cash adjusted
12.10 7.98
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
80%
Power purchase
9.48 6.25
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
9%
44% 13% 9% 3%
9%
Interest 1.12 0.74
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.00
Gap / Surplus 0 0.00
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
25 B-
BSES Yamuna Power Limited
(BYPL) Rank
25 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of BYPL1
Ownership Public Private Company

Area of operations 14 divisions across Central & East Delhi including Chandni Chowk, Darya Ganj,
Dilshad Garden, Jhilmil, Karawal Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Mayur
Vihar, Vasundhara Enclave, Nandnagri, Pahar Ganj, Patel Nagar, Shankar Road
and Yamuna Vihar


1.7 FY23 0.10 FY23 7.2%
11th Ratings B- 69.1 FY22 -0.02 FY22 7.8%
Decline in scores for DSCR metric in FY23

Gained marks in Tariff subsidy realization, Billing Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 18 paise / kWh – driven by 80 paise increased in Power purchase cost, and 57 paise increase
in revenues
‒ Excess subsidy realization improved by 4 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization improved from 99% to 104%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved marginally by 3 paise
DSCR has worsened from 1.11 in FY22 to 0.91 in FY23, due to declining EBITDA
Billing Efficiency improved marginally from 92.2% in FY22 to 92.8% in FY23
BYPL achieved Rank 25 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 70.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
70.8 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

9.8 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
TransCos (~7,400 Cr). Utility has submitted that it is due to Supreme Court order for non-payment of dues. As a
result, Days Payable were also very high at 570 days in FY23
Key Strengths
Healthy DSCR and Leverage at 0.91 and 1.11 respectively. Low debt levels – at only 18% of
Revenue booked in FY23
High Billing and Collection Efficiency – were 92.8% and 100% respectively in FY23

99.2% 100.0% 100.0%
92.0% 92.2% 92.8%
Billing Efficiency
8.7% 7.8% 7.2%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,047 2.69 1,804 2.23 1,900 2.18 96 -0.05
Profit Before Tax 834 1.10 5 0.01 -155 -0.18 -160 -0.18
Change in Receivables -5 -0.01 14 0.02 39 0.04 25 0.03
ACS-ARR Gap -802 -1.05 -12 -0.02 88 0.10 101 0.12

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
6.59 7.57
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
73%
Power purchase
4.77 5.48
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
12%
44% 13% 9% 3%
14%
Interest 0.92 1.05
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.10
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
14 A
Tata Power Delhi Distribution
Limited (TPDDL) Rank
14 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of TPDDL1
Ownership Private Public Utility

Area of operations North and Northwest parts of Delhi


1.2 FY23 -0.23 FY23 7.0%
11th Ratings A 79.0 FY22 -0.35 FY22 7.1%
Decline in scores for Tariff Subsidy (3 years) realization, DSCR metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Days Payable metric in FY23
‒ PBT increased marginally by 1 paise / kWh – driven by 79 paise increased in Power purchase cost, and 73 paise
‒ Excess subsidy realization declined by 7 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization declined from 104% to 94%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined by 7 paise
Days Payable improved from 58 days in FY22 to 38 days in FY23
Lost marginal marks in DSCR metric, due to lower EBITDA in FY23
TPDDL achieved Rank 14 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A and Integrated Score of 80.2 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
80.2 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 3.2 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

9.5 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Adjusted Quick Ratio is very low at 0.34 (for max. score, expected is 1.00)
Tariff subsidy realization fell marginally in FY23
Key Strengths
Amongst top 20%ile performers in Days Payable – at ~38 days in FY23 v/s LPS norm of 45 days
Healthy DSCR and Leverage at 1.02 and 2.55 respectively. Low debt levels – at only 26% of
Revenue booked in FY23
High Billing and Collection Efficiency – were 93.6% and 99.3% respectively in FY23
Analysis of AT&C Losses 99.4% 100.0% 99.3%

92.9% 92.9% 93.6%
Billing Efficiency
7.7% 7.1% 7.0%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 1,549 1.54 1,548 1.32 1,589 1.25 41 -0.07
Change in Receivables 52 0.05 76 0.06 -4 0.00 -80 -0.07
ACS-ARR Gap -237 -0.23 -413 -0.35 -292 -0.23 121 0.12

Percentile
99.4%
Cash adjusted
9.35 0.05* 7.34
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
79%
Power purchase
7.47 5.87
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
10%
44% 13% 9% 3%
3%
Interest 0.29 0.22
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.23
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
DNH & DD Power Distribution
NA A+
Corporation Limited
(DNHDDPDCL) Rank
NA out of 53
Trajectory
NA
Overview of DNHDDPDCL1
Ownership Privately Owned
Area of operations UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

Gross input energy 9,793 MU (N/A)3
Total energy sold 9,635 MU (N/A)3
Revenue booked2 INR 6,060 Cr (N/A)3
FY23 -0.02 FY23 3.6%

11th Ratings 0.0 0.0 FY22 NA FY22 N/A
ACS-ARR Gap is -2 paise / kWh in FY23

‒ PBT is 14 paise / kWh – has revenue of 619 paise as against power purchase cost of 590 paise, and marginal
expenses of 14 paise
‒ Further, Cash collection is -12 paise (Given first year of operations and 0 opening balance – this is to be
expected, as per the framework)
17% of its bills raised to the government customers were due at the end of FY23
DNHDDPDCL has not been ranked since it has less than 3 years of operations. It has achieved Grade A+ and Integrated
Score of 96.9 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
96.9 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA / out of -3 NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Push Government to clear 100% of their consumer bill dues. 17% of the amount billed to Government is
unpaid during FY23
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders – FY24 tariff orders were published in August
(should be published by March 31st)
Key Strengths
Effective Days payable with payable days 27
Completely Debt free as it is a new DISCOM
High billing & collection efficiency with 98.4% & 98% respectively

98.4% 98.0%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses 3.6%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Input Energy (MUs) 0 0 9,793
Net Energy Sold (MUs) 0 0 9,635
Billing Efficiency N/A N/A 98.38%
Revenue Billed (INR Cr) 0 0 5,985
Revenue Collected (INR Cr) 0 0 5,866
Collection Efficiency N/A N/A 98.01%
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 0 N/A 0 N/A 6,060 6.19 N/A N/A
Other Subsidy 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.00 N/A N/A
Power Purchase Cost 0 N/A 0 N/A 5,780 5.90 N/A N/A
Other Expenses 0 N/A 0 N/A 139 0.14 N/A N/A
Profit Before Tax 0 N/A 0 N/A 141 0.14 N/A N/A
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.00 N/A N/A
Change in Receivables 0 N/A 0 N/A -119 -0.12 N/A N/A
ACS-ARR Gap 0 N/A 0 N/A -22 -0.02 N/A N/A

Percentile
98%
Cash adjusted
5.94 0.12* 6.07
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
95%
Power purchase
5.78 5.90
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%

44% 13% 9% 3%
0%
Interest 0.02 0.02
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.02
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
3 A+
Torrent Power Ahmedabad
(Torrent Power Ahmedabad) Rank
3 out of 53
Trajectory
N/A
Overview of Torrent Power Ahmedabad1

Area of operations Cities of Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar

FY23 -0.55 FY23 4.0%

11th Ratings 0.0 0.0 FY22 -0.45 FY22 4.8%

‒ PBT improved by 8 paise / kWh
‒ Cash collection from customers improved by 2 paise
Three-year weighted average of AQR metric is 99%
Torrent Power Ahmedabad achieved Rank 3 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 99.5 out
of 100. Further, it exhibited a N/A Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
99.5 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

Default to
Banks/FIs
Work towards timely filling of Tariff Petition– Filing of tariff petition for FY25 was delayed
(should be filed by Nov 30th)
While AQR has improved to 1.05 in FY23, Lost marks due to low AQR in FY21 & 22. Continue to work on improving
the liquidity position
Key Strengths
Continue improved financial performance of FY23
Healthy days payable and days receivable with 20 and 30 respectively
High billing efficiency of 96.3% and collection efficiency of over 99%
Total of 100% loss is taken over by government
94.0%
98.9% 95.8% 99.4% 96.3% 99.7%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
7.1% 4.8% 4.0%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 907 1.22 928 1.15 1,004 1.15 76 0.00
ACS-ARR Gap -410 -0.55 -363 -0.45 -479 -0.55 -116 -0.10

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
7.36 0.03* 8.43
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
80%
Power purchase
5.88 6.74
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
5%
44% 13% 9% 3%
4%
Interest 0.26 0.30
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.55
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
2 A+
Torrent Power Surat
(Torrent Power Surat) Rank
2 out of 53
Trajectory
N/A
Overview of Torrent Power Surat1

Area of operations City of Surat

FY23 -0.24 FY23 3.7%

11th Ratings 0.0 0.0 FY22 -0.30 FY22 3.8%

‒ PBT worsened by 3 paise / kWh
Torrent Power Surat achieved Rank 2 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 99.6 out of 100.
Further, it exhibited a N/A Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
99.6 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

Default to
Banks/FIs
Work towards timely filling of Tariff Petition– Filing of tariff petition for FY25 was delayed
(should be filed by Nov 30th)
Key Strengths
Low debt levels as compared to the revenue around 22%
Achieved the collection efficiency of 99.5% for FY23
State regulator supports auto pass-through of fuel costs
95.9% 97.6% 96.6% 99.6% 96.8% 99.5%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses 6.4% 3.8% 3.7%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 271 0.99 276 0.79 293 0.75 18 -0.04
Profit Before Tax 206 0.75 116 0.33 117 0.30 1 -0.03
ACS-ARR Gap -174 -0.64 -105 -0.30 -95 -0.24 10 0.06

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
2.99 0.02* 7.67
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
86%
Power purchase
2.60 6.68
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
5%
44% 13% 9% 3%
2%
Interest 0.07 0.17
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.24
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
1 A+
Adani Electricity Mumbai
Limited (AEML) Rank
1 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of AEML1

Area of operations 7 Divisions of Mumbai City - Mira Bhayandar, Borivali, Malad, Andheri, Bandra,
Powai & Chembur

0.4
FY23 -0.07 FY23 6.5%
11th Ratings A+ 99.6 FY22 -0.51 FY22 6.7%
Gained marks in Corporate Governance metric in FY23

‒ PBT worsened by 37 paise / kWh – driven by 43 paise increase in power purchase costs
AEML achieved Rank 1 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 99.9 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
99.9 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)
Specific Disincentives: 0.0

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
-
Key Strengths
PBT positive in FY23 with PBT of 1078 Cr
Achieved high Billing efficiency of 93.7% and collection efficiency of 99.8%.
Amongst the top 20%ile performers in Days Receivable – currently at ~17days
Reached healthy Days Payables of 38 days in FY23
99.3% 100.0% 99.8%

91.7% 93.3% 93.7%
Billing Efficiency
8.9% 6.7% 6.5%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 2,041 2.53 2,029 2.30 2,214 2.22 184 -0.08
Profit Before Tax -375 -0.47 360 0.41 42 0.04 -317 -0.37
Change in Receivables 75 0.09 86 0.10 32 0.03 -54 -0.07
ACS-ARR Gap 301 0.37 -446 -0.51 -74 -0.07 372 0.43

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
8.06 8.09
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
72%
Power purchase
5.77 5.79
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
18%
44% 13% 9% 3%
4%
Interest 0.28 0.28
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.07
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
9 A+
TP Central Odisha Distribution
Limited (TPCODL) Rank
9 out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of TPCODL1

Area of operations 4 circles in Odisha namely Cuttack, Bhubaneshwar, Paradeep and Dhenekal


39.4 FY23 -0.10 FY23 22.6%
11th Ratings B 51.8 FY22 0.47 FY22 33.8%
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, DSCR, Leverage, Collection Efficiency, AQR metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated marginally by 8 paise
‒ Cash collection improved significantly by 65 paise, from -60 paise in FY22 (FY22 was significantly negative due to
partial year operations in FY21) to 5 paise in FY23
AQR improved from 0.85 in FY22 to 1.03 in FY23 due to reduction in short term loans
TPCODL achieved Rank 9 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 91.1 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
91.1 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Continue improvement trajectory in operating financials. Lost some marks in 12th Rating due to
poor ACS-ARR gap in FY22
Days Payable were at 53 days in FY23. Can be slightly improved further to reach LPS norms of 45 days
Despite improvement, Billing Efficiency currently stands at 77.4% (for max. score, expected is 92%)
Collection Efficiency improved from 86.7% in FY22 to 100% in FY23. Lost marks mainly due to poor figures in FY22
Key Strengths
Top 25%ile in ACS-ARR in the nation with -10 paise in FY23
Optimum receivable management with low Days Receivable of 30 days
Well managed debt – at 13% of revenue booked in FY23
100.0% 100.0%
86.7%
74.1% 76.4% 77.4%
33.8%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 1,002 1.20 1,366 1.55 1,633 1.65 266 0.10
Profit Before Tax -55 -0.07 120 0.14 56 0.06 -64 -0.08
Change in Receivables -1 0.00 -533 -0.60 46 0.05 579 0.65
ACS-ARR Gap 56 0.07 412 0.47 -103 -0.10 -515 -0.57

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
4.95 5.00
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
66%
Power purchase
3.21 3.25
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
25%
44% 13% 9% 3%
2%
Interest 0.11 0.11
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.10
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
NA A+
TP Northern Odisha Distribution
Limited (TPNODL) Rank
NA out of 53
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of TPNODL1
Area of operations State of Odisha in Balasore, Bhadrak, Baripada, Jajpur and Keonjhar


35.1 FY23 -0.19 FY23 17.3%
11th Ratings B 55.9 FY22 0.33 FY22 26.5%
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, DSCR, Leverage, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23

‒ PBT improved marginally by 3 paise
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved significantly by 48 paise (FY22 figure was significantly
negative, as it was the first year of operations)
TPNODL has not been ranked since it has less than 3 years of operations. It has achieved Grade A+ and Integrated
Score of 91.0 out of 100. Further, it exhibited an Improving Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
91.0 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Continue improvement trajectory in operating financials. Lost some marks in 12th Rating due to poor ACS-ARR gap in
FY22
Leverage also improved in FY23 due to good EBITDA
Days Payable were at 57 days in FY23. Can be slightly improved further to reach LPS norms of 45 days
Despite improvement, Billing Efficiency currently stands at 83.6% (for max. score, expected is 92%)
Collection Efficiency improved from 89.6% in FY22 to 98.9% in FY23. Lost marks mainly due to poor figures in FY22
Key Strengths
Profitable with a PBT% of 4%; Top 20%ile nationally
Optimum receivable management with lowest Days Receivable in Odisha
Well managed debt – at 12% of revenue booked in FY23

99.0%
89.2%
82.4% 83.6%

AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Input Energy (MUs) 0 5,327 6,476
Billing Efficiency N/A 82.45% 83.61%
Revenue Billed (INR Cr) 0 2,581 3,192
Revenue Collected (INR Cr) 0 2,301 3,159
Collection Efficiency N/A 89.16% 98.96%
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 0 0.00 2,795 5.25 3,453 5.33 657 0.08
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Power Purchase Cost 0 - 1,837 3.45 2,240 3.46 403 0.01
Other Expenses 0 - 833 1.56 1,040 1.61 207 0.04
ACS-ARR Gap 0 0.00 174 0.33 -122 -0.19 -296 -0.51

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
3.40 0.05* 5.25
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
65%
Power purchase
2.24 3.46
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
23%
44% 13% 9% 3%
2%
Interest 0.07 0.11
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.19
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
19 B
TP Southern Odisha
Distribution Limited (TPSODL) Rank
19 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of TPSODL1

Area of operations 8 districts in Southern Odisha - Ganjam, Gajapati, Boudh, Kandhamal,

Rayagarda, Koraput, Nabarangapur and Malkanagiri


-17.2 FY23 0.74 FY23 31.3%
11th Ratings A 79.3 FY22 0.38 FY22 34.3%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Adjusted Quick Ratio metrics in FY23
Gained marks in Leverage metric in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated significantly by 60 paise – driven by 56 paise increase in Other expense
(mainly admin & general / contractual employee costs)
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 23 paise, from -60 paise in FY22
(FY22 was significantly negative due to partial year operations in FY21) to -37 paise in FY23
TPSODL achieved Rank 19 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 62.1 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
62.1 out of 100


15.4 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
1.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
ACS-ARR Gap has widened significantly in FY23 significantly due to major fall in PBT. Lost marks in Leverage, due to
negative EBITDA in FY22, FY23
Billing Efficiency worsened from 76.6% in FY22 to 75.03% in FY23 (for max. score, expected is 92%)
Despite improvement, Collection Efficiency was still quite low at 91.5% in FY23. This also led to high Days Receivable
of 99 days in FY23
Key Strengths
100.0%
91.5%
85.8%
79.5% 76.6% 75.0%
34.3% 31.3%
Billing Efficiency
20.5%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Input Energy (MUs) 902 3,942 4,204
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 381 4.22 1,735 4.40 1,917 4.56 181 0.16
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 151 1.67 733 1.86 1,018 2.42 286 0.56
ACS-ARR Gap -99 -1.09 149 0.38 313 0.74 164 0.37

Percentile
92%
Cash adjusted
1.76 0.15* 4.19
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
55%
Power purchase
1.06 2.52
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
44%
44% 13% 9% 3%
3%
Interest 0.06 0.14
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.74
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
10 A+
TP Western Odisha Distribution
Limited (TPWODL) Rank
10 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of TPWODL1

Area of operations Western part of Odisha covering the circles of Rourkela, Sambalpur, Bargarh,
Bolangir & Bhawanipatna


3.9 FY23 -0.55 FY23 20.5%
11th Ratings A+ 87.2 FY22 -0.02 FY22 30.7%
Gained marks in Distribution loss target, Collection Efficiency metrics in FY23
‒ PBT deteriorated by 15 paise driven by increase in power purchase costs
‒ Cash collection improved by 68 paise, from -71 paise in FY22 (FY22 was significantly negative due to partial year
operations in FY21) to -4 paise in FY23
TPWODL achieved Rank 10 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 91.1 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
91.1 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 1.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Days payables stood at 48 days in FY23 (for max. score, expected is LPS Norms of 45 days)
Billing Efficiency improved from 78.9% in FY22 to 81.6% in FY23 (for max. score, expected is 92%) –still room for
significant improvement
Collection Efficiency improved from 87.8% in FY22 to 97.5% in FY23. Lost marks mainly due to poor figures in FY22
Key Strengths
Optimum days receivable managed at 35
Well managed debt – at only 3% of revenue booked. Resulting in healthy DSCR (at 12.7) and
leverage metrics (at 0.22)
Top 15%ile in AQR with a high AQR of 2.24 – Highest in Odisha
100.0% 97.5%
87.8%
77.6% 79.0% 81.6%

22.4% 20.5%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 970 4.82 4,926 5.29 7,023 5.40 2,096 0.11
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Power Purchase Cost 690 3.43 3,338 3.58 5,095 3.92 1,757 0.33
Other Expenses 180 0.89 903 0.97 1,166 0.90 263 -0.07
Profit Before Tax 100 0.50 685 0.74 762 0.59 77 -0.15
ACS-ARR Gap -331 -1.64 -20 -0.02 -711 -0.55 -691 -0.53

Percentile
99%
Cash adjusted
6.97 0.05* 5.36
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
73%
Power purchase
5.09 3.92
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
12%
44% 13% 9% 3%
1%
Interest 0.08 0.06
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.55
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
7 A+
Noida Power Company Limited
(NPCL) Rank
7 out of 53
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of NPCL1

Area of operations Greater Noida


1.8 FY23 -0.78 FY23 8.4%
11th Ratings A+ 93.3 FY22 -1.09 FY22 8.5%
Gained marks in Billing Efficiency metric in FY23

‒ PBT worsened by 32 paise / kWh – driven by 16 paise decrease in Power purchase cost, but 52 paise decrease in
revenues. This was driven by application of regulatory discount on the tariffs chargeable to consumers for part of
FY23 by the regulator.
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection remained similar at -1 paise
NPCL achieved Rank 7 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade A+ and Integrated Score of 95.1 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
95.1 out of 100


35.0 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

10.0 10 0.0 1
7.0 7
(cash adjusted)

NA NA NA

NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve Days Payable marginally to reach LPS norms of 45 days
Appoint Independent Directors in Board (Currently only 2 directors is independent out of 10 board directors)
Seek Regulator support for implementing automatic pass through of fuel costs
Key Strengths
Healthy Adjusted Quick Ratio at 235% in FY23
Debt –free utility
High Billing and Collection Efficiency – were 92.4% and 99.2% respectively in FY23
98.5% 99.4% 99.2%

91.6% 92.0% 92.4%
Billing Efficiency
9.8% 8.5% 8.4%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Power Purchase Cost 1,157 4.92 1,525 5.62 1,798 5.46 273 -0.16
Other Expenses 199 0.85 230 0.85 267 0.81 37 -0.04
ACS-ARR Gap -346 -1.47 -296 -1.09 -256 -0.78 41 0.32

Percentile
100%
Cash adjusted
2.32 0* 7.05
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
77%
Power purchase
1.80 5.46
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
7%
44% 13% 9% 3%
1%
Interest 0.01 0.05
16% 7% 3% 0%
-0.78
2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
26 B-
India Power Corporation
Limited (IPCL) Rank
26 out of 53
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of IPCL1
Ownership Private Owned

Area of operations Asansol – Ranigunj area of West Bengal

Gross input energy 939 MU (-4%)3
Revenue booked2 INR 627 Cr (+7%)3

-21.7 FY23 0.80 FY23 6.6%
11th Ratings A 71.4 FY22 0.34 FY22 4.0%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Leverage, DSCR, Days Payable, Adjusted Quick ratio and Auditor mentions
unpaid statutory metrics in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 25 paise / kWh – driven by 72 paise increase in Power purchase cost, 23 paise increase in
Other expenses, and 70 paise increase in revenues
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection declined by 21 paise; from -5 paise in FY22 to -27 paise in FY23
Payables to GenCos and Transco increased substantially from 65 Cr in FY22 to 171 Cr to FY23
IPCL achieved Rank 26 (out of 53 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 49.7 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 6 11 13 7 4 14
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0
Integrated Score
49.7 out of 100


16.9 35 2.0 2 4.0 4
Loss Takeover by
State Government


Ratio Governance

0.0 10 1.0 1
3.5 7
(cash adjusted)


NA Governance NA NA
Default to
Banks/FIs
Improve utility financials – PBT declined in FY23, coupled with significant income being booked as regulatory income
Improving profitability would also improve DSCR and Leverage. Lost marks in these due to negative EBITDA in FY23
Adjusted Quick Ratio declined in FY23 due to higher payables – need to liquidate payables as well other current
liabilities. Days Payable were 124 days in FY23 v/s LPS norm of 45 days.
Push Government to clear 100% of their consumer bill dues. 16% of the amount billed to Government is unpaid
during the past 3 years
Audit qualification: Clear statutory dues relating to unpaid Electricity Duty
Tariff Order for Utility hasn’t been issued for many years. Work towards timely issue of Tariff Orders
Key Strengths
High Billing and Collection Efficiency – were 97% and 96.3% respectively in FY23
Healthy Days Receivable – at 56 days in FY23
Automatic pass through of Fuel cost is implemented monthly

96.5% 100.0% 96.9% 99.0% 97.0% 96.3%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses 3.5% 4.0% 6.6%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 518 5.90 584 5.98 627 6.68 43 0.70
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 146 1.67 141 1.45 157 1.68 16 0.23
Profit Before Tax 34 0.39 -28 -0.28 -50 -0.53 -22 -0.25
ACS-ARR Gap -38 -0.43 33 0.34 75 0.80 42 0.46

Percentile
96%
Cash adjusted
0.60 0.02* 6.42
revenue
85% 99% 100% 121%
83%
Power purchase
0.52 5.53
cost
109% 86% 77% 55%
13%

44% 13% 9% 3%
6%
Interest 0.04 0.40
16% 7% 3% 0%
0.80

2.92 0.52 -0.04 -0.94
C. Power departments
Electricity Department, Andaman
10 C
& Nicobar Administration
(Andaman & Nicobar PD) Rank
10 out of 10
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of Andaman & Nicobar PD1
Ownership Power Department

Area of operations UT of Andaman & Nicobar
Gross input energy 347 MU (+5%)3
Total energy sold 284 MU (+7%)3

26.2 FY23 2.85 FY23 19.8%
11th Ratings C- -3.8 FY22 2.83 FY22 19.8%
Gained marks in distribution loss target, billing efficiency, collection efficiency, corporate governance and subsidy
realization metric in FY23.
‒ PBT improved by 41 paise / kWh – driven by 113 paise decrease in Power purchase cost vs 118 paise decrease
in revenue booked.
‒ Tariff Subsidy Realization remained constant at 100%
Corporate Governance: PD published separated and audited accounts this year
Aggregate 3-year subsidy realization is consistently high at 100% in FY23.
Andaman & Nicobar PD achieved Rank 10 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 22.5 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


0.0 55 5.3 10 6.0 6
Billing Efficiency 3.1 10 Tariff Cycle Timelines 1.0 2
Auto Pass Through

Collection Efficiency 4.6 10 0.0 2
of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Tariff Cycle Delays -1.5 / out of -4.5 Tariff Independent of Subsidy -1.0 / out of -1
Regulatory Assets NA Uncovered Revenue Gap (Current Year) NA
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 as it increased from 2.83 in FY22 to 2.85 in FY23 due to poor customer collections. The
weighted average value of the metric is 6.15, more than the lowest threshold of 1.00.
Need to improve Billing Efficiency – currently at 81.8% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 90%). Distribution loss was
18.2% v/s SERC target of 15.9% in FY23.
Tariff order does not specify tariff independent of subsidy
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – FY22 True up orders are still not published (should be published
by March 31st)in FY23 as it increased from 2.83 in FY22 to 2.85 in FY23 due to poor customer
Key Strengths
Power Department is completely debt free.
Has maintained a high Collection Efficiency of 98%

99.3% 98.0%
80.7% 81.9%
76.5%
62.8%
51.9%
Billing Efficiency
19.8% 19.8%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 161 4.90 1,093 33.22 1,111 32.04 18 (1.18)
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Power Purchase Cost 589 17.96 895 27.20 904 26.07 9 (1.13)
Other Expenses 329 10.03 284 8.63 283 8.17 -1 (0.46)
Profit Before Tax -757 -23.08 -86 -2.61 -76 -2.20 10 0.41
ACS-ARR Gap 816 24.90 93 2.83 99 2.85 6 0.02

Percentile
98%
Cash adjusted
1.09 0.02* 31.39
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
81%
Power purchase
0.90 26.07
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
17%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
7.31%
Interest 0.08 2.34
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
2.85
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
Department of Power,
9 C
Government of Arunachal
Pradesh (Arunachal PD) Rank
9 out of 10
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of Arunachal PD1
Nature of operations Transmission, Distribution

Area of operations State of Arunachal Pradesh

30.1 FY23 0.42 FY23 57.6%
11th Ratings C- 1.1 FY22 0.13 FY22 50.7%
Major decline in scores for collection efficiency metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR and corporate governance metric in FY23
‒ PBT improvement was NIL – driven by 51 paise increase in revenue booked vs 50 paise increase in Power
purchase cost.
Collection efficiency fell from 92.5% in FY22 to 75.8% in FY23.
Arunachal PD achieved Rank 9 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 31.2 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities
-8.3 30.6 70.8 100.0


29.7 55 0.0 10 0.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 as it increased from 0.13 in FY22 to 0.42 in FY23 due to poor customer
collections and higher power purchase cost.
Need to improve Billing Efficiency – currently at 55.9% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 90%). Distribution loss
was 44.1% v/s SERC target of 32.0% in FY23.
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – Tariff orders were published in October (should be
published by March 31st). FY25 Petition and True up order was also delayed.
Tariff order does not specify tariff independent of subsidy.
Key Strengths
Power department is completely debt free.
Government paid 100% of subsidy booked by the Power Department.

92.5%
86.9%
75.8%
58.1% 56.0% 57.6%

53.3% 50.7%
48.2%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Net Input Energy (MUs) 841 972 1,040
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 362 3.16 396 2.98 417 2.74 21 (0.24)
Profit Before Tax -538 -4.69 -503 0.00 -537 0.00 -35 0.00
Excess Subsidy Realization 538 4.69 503 3.78 537 3.53 35 -0.25
ACS-ARR Gap 7 0.06 17 -3.66 64 -3.11 47 0.55

Percentile
94%
Cash adjusted
0.95 0.06* 6.26
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
59%
Power purchase
0.60 3.94
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
41%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.00%
Interest 0 0.00
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
Other expenses 0 0.00
0.42
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
2 B
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Delhi (NDMC) Rank
2 out of 10
Trajectory
NA
Overview of NDMC1

Area of operations Areas of Delhi
FY23 0.74 FY23 10.7%

11th Ratings NA NA FY22 -0.77 FY22 8.3%

‒ PBT worsened by 104 paise / kWh – driven by 158 paise increase in revenue booked vs 241 paise increase in
Power purchase cost.
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization worsened by 31 paise.
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection worsened by 17 paise, from 38 paise in FY22 to 21 paise in FY23
been adopted. Where the days receivable for a utility are <= 60 days, for assigning scores to the ACS-ARR Gap
metric, negative cash adjustment due to increase in debtors has not been considered
NDMC achieved Rank 2 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 64.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


36.2 55 5.9 10 6.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
0.0 5
Governance
Tariff Cycle Delays -3.5 / out of -4.5 Tariff Independent of Subsidy NA
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 as it increased from -0.77 in FY22 to 0.74 in FY23 due to poor customer
collections and increase in power purchase cists.
Need to improve Billing Efficiency – fell from 91.6% to 89.3% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 90%). Distribution
loss was 10.7% v/s SERC target of 9.50% in FY23.
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – Tariff orders and true up orders are not published (should
be published by March 31st)
Corporate Governance: publish separated and audited accounts.
Key Strengths
Maintained a high collection efficiency of 100%
Power department is completely debt free

100.0% 100.0%
91.6% 91.7% 89.3%
82.1%

8.3%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 323 2.55 245 1.69 283 1.90 38 0.21
Change in Receivables -194 -1.53 55 0.38 31 0.21 -24 -0.17
ACS-ARR Gap 96 0.76 -112 -0.77 110 0.74 222 1.51

Percentile
102%
Cash adjusted
1.55 10.43
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
91%
Power purchase
1.38 9.27
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
18%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.00%
Interest 0 0.00
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
0.74
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
4 B
Electricity Department,
Government of Goa (Goa PD) Rank
4 out of 10
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of Goa PD1

Area of operations State of Goa

14.7 FY23 0.45 FY23 11.9%
11th Ratings B- 43.8 FY22 -0.02 FY22 6.0%
Decline in scores for collection efficiency metric in FY23

Gained marks in ACS-ARR metric in FY23
‒ PBT declined by 12 paise / kWh – driven by 78 paise increase in revenue booked vs 76 paise increase in Power
purchase cost.
Collection Efficiency declined from 94.9% in FY22 to 88.9% in FY23 due to poor customer cash collections.
Goa PD achieved Rank 4 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 58.6 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


30.2 55 10.0 10 6.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
0.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 due to lower additional government grant and poor customer collections. PBT
improved but was still negative.
Collection Efficiency declined to 88.9% in FY23 due to poor customer cash collections
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – FY22 True up orders were published in September (should
be published by March 31st)
Tariff order does not specify tariff independent of subsidy
Key Strengths
Govt paid 100% of subsidy booked by the Power Department.
PD working with the high billing efficiency of 99.1%.
Working on a low debt level of around 9%.
Performing well financially and remained profitable in FY23.

103.6% 99.1%
99.0% 95.0%
94.4%
89.0%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses 2.2% 6.0%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 182 0.43 382 0.84 310 0.62 -71 (0.22)
Other Expenses 454 1.08 542 1.19 552 1.11 10 (0.08)
ACS-ARR Gap 29 0.07 -8 -0.02 226 0.45 234 0.47

Percentile
90%
Cash adjusted
2.69 0.29* 5.40
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
79%
Power purchase
2.36 4.74
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
14.84%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.37%
Interest 0.01 0.02
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
0.45
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
1 A
Thrissur Corporation Electricity
Department (TCED) Rank
1 out of 10
Trajectory
NA
Overview of TCED1

Area of operations Thrissur city
FY23 -0.15 FY23 7.1%

11th Ratings NA NA FY22 0.81 FY22 16.5%

‒ PBT improved by 6 paise / kWh – driven by 24 paise increase in revenue booked vs 41 paise increase in Power
purchase cost.
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 90 paise, from -84 paise in FY22 to -7 paise in FY23
been adopted. Where the days receivable for a utility are <= 60 days, for assigning scores to the ACS-ARR Gap
metric, negative cash adjustment due to increase in debtors has not been considered.
TCED achieved Rank 1 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade A and Integrated Score of 80.8 out of 100.
Further, it exhibited a NA Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


44.4 55 8.1 10 6.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – Tariff orders were published in November (should be
published by March 31st)Work towards improving the collection efficiency which is currently at 96.3% (for max. score
expected is 99.5%)
Key Strengths
Maintained a high Billing Efficiency of 92.9% and the collection efficiency of 100%.
PD has allowed auto pass through fuel cost on quarterly basis.

100.0%
93.1% 92.9% 93.3% 89.5% 92.9%
Billing Efficiency
7.1%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 28 2.16 21 1.48 20 1.25 -1 (0.23)
Profit Before Tax -8 -0.61 0 0.03 1 0.08 1 0.06
ACS-ARR Gap 15 1.17 11 0.81 -2 -0.15 -14 -0.96

Percentile
101%
Cash adjusted
0.14 8.69
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
85%
Power purchase
0.12 7.29
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
11%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
1.27%
Interest 0 0.11
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
Other expenses. 0 0.23
-0.15
Gap / Surplus 0 0.15
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
NA C
Ladakh Power Development
Department (Ladakh PD) Rank
NA out of 10
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of Ladakh PD1

Area of operations UT of Ladakh

-15.8 FY23 1.99 FY23 30.3%
11th Ratings C 34.1 FY22 0.51 FY22 48.3%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, Subsidy received metric in FY23.

Gained marks in collection efficiency and corporate governance metric in FY23.
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization worsened by 30 paise.
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection improved by 57 paise, from -40 paise in FY22 to 18 paise in FY23
Collection efficiency improved from 86.9% to 100% in FY23.
Ladakh PD has not been ranked as it has less than 3 years of operations. It has achieved Grade C and Integrated Score
of 18.3 out of 100.Further, it exhibited a Stable Trajectory w.r.t. Integrated Score
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


0.0 55 10.0 10 0.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
collections and increase in power purchase costs. The weighted average value of the metric is 1.39, more than the
lowest threshold of 1.00.
Need to improve Billing Efficiency – currently at 69.6% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 90%).
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – Tariff orders were published in November (should be
published by March 31st)
Key Strengths
Maintained high Collection Efficiency of 100%
Government paid 101% of subsidy booked by the Power Department.

100.0%
86.9%
69.7%
59.5%
48.3%
30.3%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Billing Efficiency N/A 59.48% 69.67%
Collection Efficiency N/A 86.94% 100.00%
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Revenue (excl. reg. income) 0 N/A 76 3.05 86 3.29 11 0.24

Other Subsidy 0 N/A 57 2.29 54 2.05 -3 (0.24)
Power Purchase Cost 0 N/A 84 3.39 119 4.55 35 1.15
Other Expenses 0 N/A 59 2.37 78 2.98 19 0.60
Profit Before Tax 0 N/A -11 -0.42 -57 -2.18 -47 -1.76
Excess Subsidy Realization 0 N/A 8 0.32 0 0.02 -7 -0.30
Change in Receivables 0 N/A -10 -0.40 5 0.18 15 0.57
ACS-ARR Gap 0 NA 13 0.51 52 1.99 40 1.48

Percentile
104%
Cash adjusted
0.15 5.53
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
85%
Power purchase
0.12 4.55
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
56%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.00%
Interest 0 0.00
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
Other expenses 0 0.00
1.99
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
The Brihanmumbai Electric
7 B-
Supply & Transport Undertaking
(BEST) Rank
7 out of 10
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of BEST1

Area of operations 75 sq. km. territory of old city area of Mumbai

5.4 FY23 2.06 FY23 4.2%
11th Ratings B- 38.8 FY22 1.60 FY22 7.9%
Gained marks in distribution loss target metric and collection efficiency in FY23
Billing Efficiency improved from 95.4% in FY22 to 95.8% in FY23. Achieved Distribution loss of 4.18%, which was
exactly the same as the SERC target of 4.18% for FY23.
BEST achieved Rank 7 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 44.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


0.0 55 10.0 10 6.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Tariff Cycle Delays NA Tariff Independent of Subsidy NA
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 as it increased from 1.60 in FY22 to 2.06 in FY23 due to higher power purchase
cost. PBT deteriorated further by 87 paise.
Key Strengths
PD has allowed auto pass through fuel cost on monthly basis.
Working with high billing efficiency of 95.8% and the collection efficiency of 100%.

95.2% 96.5% 95.4% 96.6% 95.8% 100.0%
Billing Efficiency
8.2% 7.9% 4.2%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 873 2.15 926 2.10 1,005 2.08 79 (0.02)
Profit Before Tax -286 -0.71 -609 -1.38 -1,090 -2.25 -481 -0.87
ACS-ARR Gap 381 0.94 707 1.60 997 2.06 290 0.46

Percentile
103%
Cash adjusted
3.78 7.82
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
102%
Power purchase
3.77 7.81
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
21%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
3.23%
Interest 0.12 0.25
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
2.06
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
Power & Electricity Department,
8 C
Government of Mizoram
(Mizoram PD) Rank
8 out of 10
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of Mizoram PD1

Area of operations State of Mizoram

28.3 FY23 0.81 FY23 26.3%
11th Ratings C- 6.5 FY22 1.32 FY22 36.2%
Gained marks in ACS-ARR, collection efficiency, corporate governance, auto pass through of fuel costs and tariff
cycle timeline metric in FY23
‒ PBT worsened by 95 paise / kWh – driven by 125 paise increase in revenue booked vs 2 paise increase in Power
purchase cost
‒ Tariff Subsidy Realization remained constant at 100%
Collection efficiency improved from 90.4% in FY22 to 100.0% in FY23.
Mizoram PD achieved Rank 8 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade C and Integrated Score of 34.8 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


11.9 55 0.0 10 6.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has improved in FY23 as it fell from 1.32 in FY22 to 0.81 in FY23 due to improvement in cash
collection. But the weighted average value of the metric is 0.98 (for max. score expected is -0.05)
Work towards timely issue of Tariff Petition – tariff petition for FY25 are yet to be published (should be published by
November 30th )
Key Strengths
Govt has paid 100% total subsidy booked by the Power Department.
High collection efficiency of 100%.

100.0% 100.0%
90.4%
71.0% 70.6% 73.7%
36.2%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 243 3.35 284 3.65 77 0.84 -207 (2.82)
Other Expenses 395 5.45 356 4.57 364 3.93 8 (0.64)
Change in Receivables 36 0.50 -44 -0.56 83 0.90 127 1.46
ACS-ARR Gap 78 1.08 103 1.32 75 0.81 -28 -0.51

Percentile
111%
Cash adjusted
0.82 8.91
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
72%
Power purchase
0.54 5.78
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
30%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.06%
Interest 0 0.00
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
0.81
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
5 B
Department of Power, Nagaland
(Nagaland PD) Rank
5 out of 10
Trajectory
Improving
Overview of Nagaland PD1

Area of operations State of Nagaland

50.3 FY23 0.14 FY23 45.8%
11th Ratings C- 6.8 FY22 0.06 FY22 43.6%
Decline in scores for collection efficiency metric in FY23.

Gained marks in ACS-ARR, corporate governance and subsidy realization metric in FY23.
‒ PBT improved by 6 paise / kWh – driven by 59 paise increase in revenue booked vs 90 paise increase in Power
purchase cost
‒ Tariff Subsidy Realization went upto 100%
Collection efficiency fell from 95.9% in FY22 to 94.6% in FY23
Nagaland PD achieved Rank 5 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 57.1 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


42.1 55 0.0 10 5.5 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
Work towards timely issue of Tariff and True up Orders – FY22 True up orders were published in August(should be
published by March 31st)
Key Strengths

Has maintained a high Collection Efficiency of 94.6%

96.5% 96.0% 94.6%
54.9% 58.8% 57.3%

47.1% 43.6% 45.8%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 253 2.79 248 2.72 243 2.36 -5 (0.36)
ACS-ARR Gap 17 0.19 6 0.06 14 0.14 9 0.08

Percentile
95%
Cash adjusted
0.83 0.05* 8.08
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
69%
Power purchase
0.60 5.86
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
21%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.02%
Interest 0 0.00
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
0.14 0.14
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
Electricity Department of
3 B
Government of Puducherry
(Puducherry PD) Rank
3 out of 10
Trajectory
Declining
Overview of Puducherry PD1

Area of operations UT of Puducherry
Number of customers

-23.3 FY23 0.64 FY23 17.5%
11th Ratings A 83.6 FY22 -1.11 FY22 11.1%
Major decline in scores for ACS-ARR, corporate governance and collection efficiency metric in FY23.
Gained marks in distribution loss target, subsidy realization and billing efficiency metric in FY23.
‒ Excess Subsidy Realization worsened by 3 paise. Tariff Subsidy Realization went from 231% to 76%
‒ Cash adjustment for customer collection worsened by 110 paise, from 85 paise in FY22 to -25 paise in FY23.
Collection efficiency fell from 100.0% in FY22 to 92.6% in FY23.
Corporate Governance: PD did not publish separated and audited accounts this year
Achieved SERC loss target of 11.0% this year as actual distribution loss was 10.9%.
Puducherry PD achieved Rank 3 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade B and Integrated Score of 60.2 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities


34.3 55 10.0 10 6.0 6
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
0.0 5
Governance
Regulatory Assets -5.0 / out of -5 Uncovered Revenue Gap (Current Year) NA
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has widened in FY23 as it increased from -1.11 in FY22 to 0.64 in FY23 due to poor customer
Need to improve Billing Efficiency – currently at 89.1% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 90%).
Slow pace of regulatory assets liquidation – have increased marginally from ~336 Cr in FY22 to ~373 Cr. Should
have been liquidated.
Key Strengths
Power department has not crossed the allowed distribution loss allowed by government with 89.1% billing efficiency.
Has maintained a high collection efficiency of 92.6% which can be improved even further.
Power department is completely debt free..

100.0%
88.0% 90.8% 88.9% 89.1% 92.6%
Billing Efficiency
20.1% 17.5%
AT&C Losses
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other Expenses 218 0.74 240 0.74 201 0.59 -39 (0.15)
ACS-ARR Gap 152 0.52 -360 -1.11 215 0.64 575 1.75

Percentile
96%
Cash adjusted
1.86 0.09* 5.51
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
96%
Power purchase
1.87 5.55
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
8.28%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.78%
Interest 0.02 0.05
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
0.64
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
6 B-
Power Department, Government
of Sikkim (Sikkim PD) Rank
6 out of 10
Trajectory
Stable
Overview of Sikkim PD1
Nature of operations Distribution and Transmission

Area of operations State of Sikkim

-1.5 FY23 -0.20 FY23 36.7%
11th Ratings B- 48.8 FY22 0.27 FY22 30.8%
Decline in scores for distribution loss target metric, billing efficiency and collection efficiency metric in FY23.
Gained marks in ACS-ARR and uncovered revenue gap metric in FY23
‒ PBT improved by 68 paise / kWh – driven by 103 paise increase in revenue booked and 55 paise decrease in
Billing efficiency fell from 0.78 in FY22 to 0.74 in FY23.
Collection efficiency fell from 0.89 in FY22 to 0.86 in FY23.
Sikkim PD achieved Rank 6 (out of 10 utilities), with Grade B- and Integrated Score of 47.3 out of 100.
D C- C B- B A A+
Grade
B-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
0 2 4 2 4 1 0
No. of Utilities

ACS – ARR gap Distribution Loss Subsidy Realized

34.3 55 0.0 10 6.0 6
(cash adjusted) (SERC approved) (last 3 FYs)
Tariff Cycle
Billing Efficiency 0.0 10 2.0 2
Timelines
Auto Pass Through

of Fuel Costs
Corporate
5.0 5
Governance
Allotted score
ACS-ARR Gap has improved in FY23 as it fell from 0.27 in FY22 to -0.20 in FY23 due to increase in per unit revenue
and fall in power purchase cost. But the weighted average value of the metric is 0.44 because of FY21 value (for max.
score expected is -0.05)
Need to improve Billing Efficiency – fell from 77.8% in FY22 to 74.0% in FY23 (for max. score expected is 90%).
Distribution loss was 26.0% v/s SERC target of 18.0% in FY23.
Collection efficiency fell from 88.9% to 85.5% due to poor customer collections.
Key Strengths
Performing financially well and remained profitable in FY 23.

98.4%
88.9% 85.5%
74.1% 77.8% 74.0%
36.7%
30.8%
Billing Efficiency
AT&C Losses 2.2%
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Growth
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY23 – FY22
Other Subsidy 37 0.30 46 0.38 0 0.00 -46 (0.38)
Power Purchase Cost 315 2.53 276 2.27 180 1.73 -96 (0.55)
Other Expenses 228 1.83 243 2.00 264 2.53 20 0.52
Profit Before Tax -34 -0.27 0 0.00 71 0.68 71 0.68
ACS-ARR Gap 412 3.31 33 0.27 -21 -0.20 -53 -0.47

Percentile
90%
Cash adjusted
0.46 0.05* 4.45
revenue
90.11% 94.62% 101.90% 111.20%
35%
Power purchase
0.18 1.73
cost
102.31% 85.35% 72.08% 34.98%
42%
55.71% 30.86% 16.53% 8.28%
0.51%
Interest 0 0.03
7.31% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00%
-0.20
2.85 0.86 0.41 -0.20
APPENDIX
3. Scoring methodology
Summary of the 12th integrated rating methodology for State & Private Discoms
15 Base Metrics and 9 Specific Disincentives
Red card metric
Integrated Rating
Performance External
Financial Sustainability 75% 13% 12%
Excellence Environment
Overall ACS – ARR Gap 35 Billing Efficiency 5 Subsidy Realized 4

Profitability and (cash adjusted) (Last 3 FYs)
Cash Position Collection
Days Receivable 3 5
Efficiency Loss Takeover by 3
State Government
GenCo, TransCo & Days Payable to 10 Distribution Loss 2
Operational GenCos & TransCos (SERC approved) Government Dues 3
Obligations (Last 3 FYs)
Adjusted Quick Ratio 10
Corporate 1
Governance Tariff Cycle 1
Lender Debt Service Coverage 10 Timelines
Obligations Ratio (cash adjusted)
Auto Pass Through 1
Leverage (Debt/EBITDA) 7
of Fuel Costs
(cash adjusted)
Specific Disincentives1,2
Auditor’s -15 Audit Qualifications -4 Tariff Independent -1

Adverse Opinion of Subsidy
Availability of -15 Governance (Audit Committee, -3 Uncovered Revenue -4

Audited Accounts Exclusive MD & DF, Quarterly Accounts) Gap (Current Year)
Default to -15 Tariff Cycle Delays -4.5 Regulatory Assets3 -5

Banks/FIs
1 The cumulative impact on the integrated score from all Specific Disincentives will be capped at -10 points, except in the case of Red card metrics
2 Red card metrics carry a heavy disincentive score which is not capped under the limit for Specific Disincentives and results in ineligibility for A+, A grades
A. Scoring Methodology for State & Private Distribution Utilities
Note: 3 years weighted average metric to be used for scoring with following weights:
60% for FY23, 25% for FY22 and 15% for FY21
If equal to or less than -0.05, full marks to be awarded, else separate absolute & 35
trajectory scoring applicable
Marks for absolute level 28
Greater than -0.05 up to 0.9 Proportionate
Greater than 0.9 0
Marks for trajectory (applicable when latest ACS-ARR gap (cash adjusted) is 7
less than or equal to 1.4)
1 Year AGR of ACS-ARR gap (cash adjusted) is less than -5% 3.5
2 Year CAGR of ACS-ARR gap (cash adjusted) is less than -5% 3.5
Note: If the Days Receivable of a utility are equal to or less than 60 days in a year, the
negative cash adjustment arising out of increase in gross trade receivables, if any, shall
not be considered for the purposes of assigning score under this metric.
2 Days Receivable 3
Equal to or less than 60 days 3
Greater than 60 days up to 120 days Proportionate
Greater than 120 days 0
3 Days Payable to GenCos & TransCos 10
Equal to or less than 45 days 10
Greater than 45 days but less than or equal to 60 days 8
Greater than 60 days but less than or equal to 75 days 6
Greater than 75 days 0
4 Adjusted Quick Ratio 10
Greater than or equal to 1 10
Less than 1 up to 0.4 Proportionate
Less than 0.4 0
A Financial Sustainability (cont.) 75
5 Debt Service Coverage Ratio (cash adjusted) 10
Greater than or equal to 1.1 10
Less than 1.1 up to 0.6 Proportionate
Less than 0.6 0
6 Leverage (Debt/EBITDA) (cash adjusted) 7

Note: Final metric score to be calculated as 3 years weighted average of year-wise
score with following weights: 60% for FY23, 25% for FY22 and 15% for FY21.
Year-wise score to be calculated using leverage value for respective year and the
below scoring criteria.
Greater than 0 up to 5 7
Greater than 5 up to 15 Proportionate
Greater than 15 or less than 0 0

Marks for ratio of actual distribution loss to SERC approved distribution loss
Equal to or less than 1 2
Greater than 1 up to 1.2 Proportionate
Greater than 1.2 0
If greater than or equal to 92%, full marks to be awarded, else separate absolute & 5
Less than 92% up to 82% Proportionate
Less than 82% 0
Marks for trajectory (applicable when latest Billing Efficiency is greater than or 1
equal to 80%)
1 Year AGR of Billing Efficiency is greater than 5% 0.5
2 Year CAGR of Billing Efficiency is greater than 5% 0.5
B Performance Excellence (cont.) 13
3 Collection Efficiency (cont.) 5

If greater than or equal to 99.5%, full marks to be awarded, else separate absolute & 5
Less than 99.5% up to 91% Proportionate
Less than 91% 0
Marks for trajectory (applicable when latest Collection Efficiency is greater than or 1
equal to 90%)
If FY23 Collection Efficiency is greater than or equal to 95%, full marks to be awarded
for trajectory, else, below rules are applicable
1 Year AGR of Collection Efficiency is greater than 5% 0.5
2 Year CAGR of Collection Efficiency is greater than 5% 0.5
Note: Board with 2 Independent Directors (as per Statutory Requirement) are assigned
a score of 0.75 Marks
Board with 1/3rd independent directors 1
Greater than or equal to 100% 4
Greater than 80% up to 100% Proportionate
Less than 80% 0
2 Loss Takeover by State Government 3
If profitable before loss takeover, full marks to be awarded 3
Greater than or equal to 50% of losses before takeover 3
Greater than 0% up to 50% of losses before takeover Proportionate
Equal to 0% of losses before takeover 0
3 Government Dues (Last 3 FYs) 3
Equal to 0% 3
Greater than 50% 0

Tariff order for the next year (T+1) issued by 31 Mar of the recently closed FY (T) for 0.5
which audited accounts should be available
True-up order for tariffs of the year (T-1) issued by 31 Mar of the recently closed FY (T) 0.5
for which audited accounts should be available
C External Environment (cont.) 12
5 Auto Pass Through of Fuel Costs 1
If fuel costs are recovered on at least a quarterly basis 1
If fuel costs are not recovered or if SERC does not allow fuel costs adjustment 0
Note 1: Cumulative impact on the score from all Specific Disincentives will be capped
at -10 marks, except for Red card metrics
Note 2: Red card metrics are: 1) Auditor’s adverse opinion

2) Availability of audited accounts 3) Default to banks / FIs
Disincentive score for these metrics is outside the -10 marks limit for Specific
Disincentives and results in ineligibility for A+, A grades
1 Auditor’s Adverse Opinion -15
For overall adverse opinion by auditor -15
If the utility submits a provisional account for the evaluation year (T) and if the last -15
submitted audited account had an adverse opinion, then the adverse opinion
disincentive will continue to apply
2 Availability of Audited Accounts -15
Note 1: Maximum disincentive for this metric will be capped at -15
Note 2: If audited accounts are received before the rating date, this metric will not be
treated as a red card and the overall capping limits for Specific Disincentives will apply
Note 3: Lenders may review previously awarded disincentives on receipt of audited

accounts to make the process more dynamic
Post Sep 30 of the next FY (T+1), audited accounts for the last closed FY (T) -0.5 per month
should be available, else monthly disincentive applicable
If the utility only provides provisional accounts for the last closed FY (T) till the -5 additional
rating date, additional disincentive applicable
If the utility does not have audited accounts for the previously closed 2 FYs -5 per year
(i.e., T-1 and T-2), then -5 marks additional disincentive per year applicable additional
(capped at -10)
3 Default to Banks / FIs -15
Conditions for frequency of default
If there is default to any 1 lender in auditor’s report 25% of yearly

disincentives
If there is default to any 2 lenders in auditor’s report 50% of yearly

disincentives
If there is default to any 3 or more lenders in auditor’s report 100% of yearly

disincentives
Yearly disincentives for frequency of default
Default in last closed FY (T) -4
Default in year (T-1) -3
Default in year (T-2) -2

Default to PFC or REC including quantum of default
If there is any default to PFC or REC as of last quarter closing of ongoing FY (T+1) -4
Default amount to PFC or REC in FY (T+1) greater than 5% of outstanding
-2
loan to PFC or REC
Note 1: Provision for rating review by lenders on defaults as part of a dynamic rating
process as under:
a. If a loan to PFC or REC is under SMA-2 (i.e., overdue for 61 days or more), then it
will result in direct downgrade to D
b. Subsequent to the release of the ratings, if the utility is placed under SMA-2 by any
banks or financial institutions, then it will result in direct downgrade to D
c. Such Grade D may be reviewed after such default has been cured by the utility
subsequently.
4 Audit Qualifications -4
Employee related liabilities / statutory dues qualification -1
Non-adherence to Ind-AS qualification -1
Not a going concern qualification -2
5 Governance -3
Note: Discom is not required to have an audit committee if the holding
company has already appointed an Audit committee
Operational Audit Committee – if not available -1
Exclusive Managing Director and Director Finance – if not available -1
Quarterly accounts duly approved by Board of Directors or -1
Audit Committee – if not available
6 Tariff Cycle Delays -4.5

Delay in filing of tariff petition for year (T+2) post Nov 30 of year (T+1) -0.25 for every
2-month delay
Delay in issue of tariff order for the year (T+1) post Mar 31 of the year for -0.25 for every
which audited accounts should be available (T) 2-month delay
Delay in issue of true-up order for year (T-1) post Mar 31 of the year for -0.25 for every
7 Tariff Independent of Subsidy -1
If regulator considers subsidy while determining tariffs (not cost reflective) -1
8 Uncovered Revenue Gap (Current Year) -4

Less than 1% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order 0
1% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order -1
Greater than 1% and less than 4% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order Proportionate
Greater than or equal to 4% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order -4
D Specific Disincentives (cont.)
9 Regulatory Assets -5
Note 1: Cumulative balances of regulatory assets should be liquidated in 7 years.

The cumulative regulatory assets balance as of FY21 SERC orders is considered
as the baseline for liquidation
Note 2: Liquidation target as compared to FY21 levels will progressively increase by

1/7th each year. Example, target for FY22 is 1/7th reduction, for FY23 is 2/7th reduction
and so on, as compared to FY21 baseline
Note 3: If the cumulative balance of regulatory assets does not decrease from
FY21 SERC orders, then the utility will not be eligible for A+, A and B grades
If cumulative regulatory assets balance as of latest FY SERC orders has reduced 0

by target reduction for the FY or more
If cumulative regulatory assets balance as of latest FY SERC orders has Proportionate

reduced from FY21 baseline level but the reduction in balance is less than the
target reduction for the FY
If cumulative regulatory assets balance as of latest FY SERC orders is the -5

same as FY21 baseline level or higher
Sources of information include audited accounts, input data submitted by utilities, tariff filings & orders, true-up filings & orders, business plans, state
budgetary plans, State Govt orders/notifications, subsidy release particulars, PFC & REC default information, etc.
B. Scoring Methodology for Power Departments
If equal to or less than -0.05, full marks to be awarded, else separate absolute & 55
Greater than -0.05 up to 1 Proportionate
Greater than 1 0
Marks for trajectory (applicable when latest ACS-ARR gap (cash adjusted) 11
is less than or equal to 1.4)
1 Year AGR of ACS-ARR gap (cash adjusted) is less than -5% 5.5
2 Year CAGR of ACS-ARR gap (cash adjusted) is less than -5% 5.5
negative cash adjustment arising out of increase in gross receivables, if any, shall not
be considered for the purposes of assigning score under this metric.

Marks for ratio of actual distribution loss to SERC approved distribution loss
Equal to or less than 1 10
Greater than 1 up to 1.3 Proportionate
Greater than 1.3 0
If greater than or equal to 90%, full marks to be awarded, else separate 10
absolute & trajectory scoring applicable
Less than 90% up to 75% Proportionate
Less than 75% 0
Marks for trajectory (applicable when latest Billing Efficiency is greater 2
than or equal to 70%)
1 Year AGR of Billing Efficiency is greater than 5% 1
2 Year CAGR of Billing Efficiency is greater than 5% 1
If greater than or equal to 99.5%, full marks to be awarded, else separate absolute & 10
Marks for absolute score 8
Less than 99.5% up to 90% Proportionate
Less than 90% 0
Marks for trajectory (applicable when latest Collection Efficiency is greater

than or equal to 90%)
If FY23 Collection Efficiency is greater than or equal to 95%, full marks to

be awarded for trajectory, else, below rules are applicable
1 Year AGR of Collection Efficiency is greater than 5% 1
2 Year CAGR of Collection Efficiency is greater than 5% 1
Availability of separated and audited accounts for the Power Department 5
Greater than or equal to 100% 6
Less than 80% 0
Tariff order for the next year (T+1) issued by 31 Mar of the recently closed 1
FY (T) for which audited accounts should be available
True-up order for tariffs of the year (T-1) issued by 31 Mar of the recently closed 1
FY (T) for which audited accounts should be available
3 Auto Pass Through of Fuel Costs 2
If fuel costs are recovered on at least a quarterly basis 2
If fuel costs are not recovered or if SERC does not allow fuel costs adjustment 0
Note: Cumulative impact on the score from all Specific Disincentives

will be capped at -5 marks
1 Tariff Cycle Delays -4.5
Delay in filing of tariff petition for year (T+2) post Nov 30 of year (T+1) -0.25 for every
2-month delay
Delay in issue of tariff order for the year (T+1) post Mar 31 of the year for -0.25 for every
Delay in issue of true-up order for year (T-1) post Mar 31 of the year for which -0.25 for every
audited accounts should be available (T) 2-month delay
D Specific Disincentives (cont.)
2 Tariff Independent of Subsidy -1
If regulator considers subsidy while determining tariffs (not cost reflective) -1
3 Uncovered Revenue Gap (Current Year) -4
Less than 1% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order 0
1% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order -1
Greater than 1% and less than 4% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order Proportionate
Greater than or equal to 4% of SERC approved ARR in latest tariff order -4
4 Regulatory Assets -5
Note 1: Cumulative balances of regulatory assets should be liquidated in 7 years. The

cumulative regulatory assets balance as of FY21 SERC orders is considered as the
baseline for liquidation
Note 2: Liquidation target as compared to FY21 levels will progressively increase by

1/7th each year. Example, target for FY22 is 1/7th reduction, for FY23 is 2/7th reduction
and so on, as compared to FY21 baseline
If cumulative regulatory assets balance as of latest FY SERC orders has reduced by 0

target for the FY or more
If cumulative regulatory assets balance as of latest FY SERC orders has reduced Proportionate
from FY21 baseline level but the reduction in balance is less than the target
reduction for the FY
If cumulative regulatory assets balance as of latest FY SERC orders is the same as -5

FY21 baseline level or higher
Sources of information include audited accounts, input data submitted by power departments, tariff filings & orders, true-up filings & orders, state budgetary
plans, State Govt orders/notifications, subsidy release particulars, etc.
APPENDIX
4. Definitions
No. Parameter Definition
1 ACS – ARR Gap • ACS - ARR gap (cash adjusted) = Average Cost of Supply (ACS) - Average Revenue
(cash adjusted) Realized (ARR)
• Average Cost of Supply (ACS) = Total pre-tax expenditure / Gross Input Energy
• Average Revenue Realized (ARR) = Revenue from operations + other income +
tariff/revenue subsidy received + other revenue/subsidy received (excluding
capital grants under UDAY or other schemes) + gross opening receivables
(current + non-current) - gross closing receivables (current + non-current) /
Gross Input Energy
2 Days Receivable • Net trade receivables (current + non-current incl. electricity duty/cess)
* 365/ (Revenue from operations incl. electricity duty/cess)
• Note: For newly formed utilities which have not completed 1 full year of
operations, the numerator of the formula is multiplied by the number of days of
operation instead of 365 days
3 Days Payable to • (Liability for purchase of power (current + non-current) + Liability for purchase of
GenCos & fuel (coal, oil, gas, etc.) + Liability to railways for coal receipts) * 365 / (Generation
TransCos costs + Cost of power purchased + Transmission and SLDC charges)
• Note: For newly formed utilities which have not completed 1 full year of
operations, the numerator of the formula is multiplied by the number of days of
operation instead of 365 days
4 Adjusted • (Total current assets - Inventories - Net current tax assets - Assets classified as
Quick Ratio held for sale - Regulatory assets (current) - Pre-paid expenses and advances -
Receivables > 3 months) / Total current liabilities
5 Debt Service • Cash Adjusted EBITDA / (Interest & Finance Charges charged to operations +
Coverage Ratio current maturities of long-term loans + interest accrued & due (state, bonds,
(cash adjusted) banks/other FIs))
• Cash Adjusted EBITDA = Cash adjusted Revenue (As used in ARR) - Generation
Costs - Purchase of Power - Transmission & SLDC Charges - Employee Cost -
Repairs & Maintenance - Admin & General Costs
6 Leverage • (Total non-current loans + current loans (incl. interest accrued & due)) / Cash
(Debt/EBITDA) Adjusted EBITDA
(cash adjusted) • Cash Adjusted EBITDA = Cash adjusted Revenue (As used in ARR) - Generation
Costs - Purchase of Power - Transmission & SLDC Charges - Employee Cost -
Repairs & Maintenance - Admin & General Costs
7 Distribution Loss • (1 – Billing Efficiency) / SERC Approved Distribution Loss for the year
(SERC approved) • If tariff order does not exist for the year, then the last available tariff order will be
used to determine SERC approved Distribution Loss
8 Billing Efficiency • As per CEA Methodology with reference to circular no. CEA-GO-
17(11)/1/2018/DP&R Div/408-530
• Billing Efficiency = Energy Sold / Net Input Energy
• Energy Sold = Energy Sold to all categories of consumers excluding units of
Energy Traded/Inter-State Sales
• Net Input Energy = Energy Generated - Auxiliary Consumption + Energy Purchased
(Gross) – Energy Traded/ Inter State Sales – Transmission Losses
• Note: Open access/ wheeling units shall not be included in Net Input Energy and
Energy Sold while calculating Billing Efficiency
No. Parameter Definition
9 Collection • As per CEA Methodology with reference to circular no. CEA-GO-

Efficiency 17(11)/1/2018/DP&R Div/408-530
• Collection Efficiency = (Adjusted Revenue from Sale of Energy on Subsidy
Received basis + Opening Debtors for Sale of Energy – Adjusted Closing Debtors
for Sale of Energy) / (Revenue from Sale of Energy)
• Adjusted Revenue from Sale of Energy on Subsidy Received basis = Revenue
from Sale of Energy to all categories of consumers (including Subsidy Booked) but
excluding Revenue from Energy Traded / Inter-State Sales – Subsidy Booked +
Subsidy Received against Subsidy Booked during the Year
• Opening Debtors for sale of Energy = As shown in Receivable Schedule (Without
deducting provisions for doubtful debtors)
• Adjusted Closing Debtors for Sale of Energy = Closing debtors for Sale of Energy
as shown in Receivable Schedule (Without deducting provisions for
• doubtful debts) + Any amount written off during the year directly from Closing
Debtors for Sale of Energy
• Revenue from Sale of Energy = Revenue from Sale of Energy to all categories of
consumers (including Subsidy Booked) but excluding Revenue from Energy
Traded lnter-State Sales
Notes:
1. Total Tariff Subsidy received during the year including arrears (if any) shall also
be included while calculating Adjusted Revenue from Sale of Energy on
Subsidy Received basis
2. Unbilled Revenue shall not be considered as Debtors
3. No adjustment shall be made in revenue from sale of energy on account of
unbilled revenue
10 Subsidy Realized • Aggregate subsidy received (Last 3 FYs) / Aggregate subsidy booked
(Last 3 FYs) (Last 3 FYs)
11 Loss Takeover by • Loss takeover by State Govt. / Total loss without considering loss taken over by
State Govt. State Govt.
12 Government Dues • Aggregate Government dues (Last 3 FYs) / Total amount billed to govt
(Last 3 FYs) (Last 3 FYs)
13 Tariff Cycle • T+1 – Current ongoing FY

Timelines
• T – Recently closed year for which the audited accounts should be available
14 Uncovered • Current year uncovered revenue gap in ARR as a % of Total approved ARR
Revenue Gap
(Current Year)
15 Regulatory Assets • Regulatory asset balance (Current FY) / Regulatory asset balance (FY 21)
16 Cash adjustment • Cash adjustment due to Trade Receivables: Gross opening receivables
due to Trade (current + non-current) - gross closing receivables (current + non-current)
Receivables
• Change in Cash adjustment due to Trade Receivables (as % of Revenue booked):
Cash adjustment due to Trade Receivable (T) / Revenue booked (T) - Cash
adjustment due to Trade Receivable (T-1) / Revenue booked (T-1)
17 PBT (excl. Other • Profit Before Tax – other revenue/subsidy received

Subsidy)
• Captures actual operational performance of utility, by excluding Non-tariff Subsidy
provided by the government
APPENDIX
5. Glossary of terms
Term Description
ACS Average Cost of Supply
AGR Annual Growth Rate
ARR (in relation to ACS-ARR gap) Average Revenue Realized
ARR (in relation to SERC approved ARR) Aggregate Revenue Requirement
AT&C Loss Aggregate Technical & Commercial Loss
BEE Bureau of Energy Efficiency
CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate
CEA Central Electricity Authority
DSCR Debt service coverage ratio
EBITDA Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation & Amortization
EMI Equated monthly instalments
GenCo Generation Company
GSDP Gross state domestic product
GW Gigawatts
HT High Tension
Ind-AS Indian Accounting Standards
LPS Electricity (Late Payment Surcharge and Related Matters) Rules, 2022
LT Low Tension
MoP Ministry of Power, Government of India
MU Million Units
MW Megawatts
NPA Non-Performing Asset
PD Power Department
PFC Power Finance Corporation Limited
RDSS Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme
REC REC Limited
SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commission
SLDC State Load Dispatch Centre
TransCo Transmission Company
UDAY Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana
NOTES
NOTES

12 Annual Integrated Report

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

12 Annual Integrated Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Annual Integrated

Rating and Ranking of

REC Limited provided feedback and inputs on

Detailed analysis for the Twelfth Integrated Rating

The Committee constituted for the 12th Integrated

Except where otherwise stated, all data in this report

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 1

Findings from this year’s exercise

Total electricity demand

1,275 1,291 1,276

Source: Ministry of Power

2 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities

120 14% 15%

Power purchase costs increased by 71 paise per unit

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 3

Power purchase costs

FY21 4.74 +1.1% p.a.

City Palace, Udaipur

AT&C losses Billing efficiency

84.8% 86.1% 87.0%

16.2% FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

92.9% 97.3% 97.3%

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 5

6 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities

Days Payable reduced to 126 days driven by LPS Rules

Payables to GenCos & TransCos

275 289 274

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Power purchase costs (INR ‘000 Cr) Days payable (Days)

791 175 166

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 7

FY22 cash- Increase Increase Increase in Increase Improvement FY23 cash-

Utility State Improvement in cash adjusted gap (INR Cr)

MPMKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 3,802

SBPDCL Bihar 3,380

APSPDCL Andhra Pradesh 3,243

PVVNL Uttar Pradesh 2,115

MPPaKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 1,836

TSSPDCL Telangana 1,340

MPPoKVVCL Madhya Pradesh 1,179

NBPDCL Bihar 918

APCPDCL Andhra Pradesh 892

TSNPDCL Telangana 724

8 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities

Gross CAPEX deployment3

Based on the annual audited and provisional accounts of 55 Discoms

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 9

10 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities

Best Practices for the Utilities

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 11

Red card metric

Overall ACS – ARR Gap 35 Billing Efficiency 5 Subsidy Realized 4

Auditor’s -15 Audit Qualifications -4 Tariff Independent -1

Availability of -15 Governance (Audit Committee, -3 Uncovered Revenue -4

Default to -15 Tariff Cycle Delays -4.5 Regulatory Assets3 -5

12 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities

Results from the 12th Integrated Rating Exercise

Split of Discoms by performance trajectory

Improving Stable Declining

12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities 13

14 12th Annual Integrated Rating and Ranking of Power Distribution Utilities