Wired in Problems

Transmission Lines

Transmission lines play a major role in the development of electricity. It is also largely considered as an area of natural monopoly all over the world. Like in most countries around the world, the right to construct transmission lines lie practically within the monopoly domains of Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), which is a public utility company. After having been formed in 1984 post the merger of Electricity Department, Electricity Development Board and Nepal Electricity Corporation, NEA had complete monopoly over all three areas of electricity, namely, generation, transmission and distribution up until 1992. The Electricity Act 1992 opened up the sector for private players in generation. That led to the generation of more than 230 MW of electricity. Additionally, hydropower projects undertaken by independent power producers with the capacity of more than 1586 MW are in different stages of development. Most of the construction, however, has been halted due to transmission related problems, project infeasibility, and social or environmental issues. It is difficult to close those projects financially until there is certainty of transmission lines. 

Power Obstacles 

Lack of timely construction of transmission infrastructure has created hindrances in hydropower development. Construction of Khimti-Dhalkebar Corridor was supposed to be completed by 2010 but construction is incomplete till date. 

The people of Sindhulimadi agreed to give land to the project if they were given 100 per cent compensation. Thankot-Chapagaun Corridor has been under construction for more than a decade. Similarly, Mai Khola Hydropower and Sipring Khola Hydropower, two power projects backed by independent power developers are about to start generation but construction of transmission infrastructure has fallen behind schedule putting these projects’ future operation in quandary. It is believed that electricity which will be generated from Upper Tamakoshi but the ability to bring the produced electricity to the capital city is questionable due to delays in construction of transmission lines that run from Bhaktapur to Matatirtha via Harisiddhi. The electricity generated from sister organisations of Chilime will face the same fate in the future. 

The congestion in the existing grids add further woe to the situation as available power cannot be transmitted due to the problem of tripping. There is congestion in various transmission systems namely Bardaghat-Bharatpur, Marsyangdi-Siuchatar, Khimti-Bhaktapur, and Marsyangdi-Kathmandu. The congestion may lead to a system collapse in any of the transmission lines. 

In Bhairahawa, expensive machines used for industrial production were damaged due to the tripping problem. The same problem has been experienced in certain areas of the Kathmandu valley repeatedly due to excessive load hardly supported by distribution network. It is further aggravated by use of older transmission lines that are in poor condition and no longer reliable. 

Unclear Policies 

Despite this serious urgency, NEA has been unable to construct transmission lines due to problems in land acquisition. It takes a long time to get clearances from the Ministry of Forest for the construction of transmission lines in forest, national parks and conservation areas. As a compensatory measure, for every single tree that is cut down, the project has to plant 25 trees in case of protected species, and for common species only two trees need to be planted. Likewise, the process of land acquisition is very cumbersome because affected people demand 100 per cent compensation with ownership right to land. 

However, the Land Acquisition Act ensures only 10 per cent as compensation. Additionally, Rule 88 of Electricity Regulation, 1993 made a provision for the formation of a Compensation Fixation Committee to provide compensation in lump sum to people whose land was used for construction of transmission lines, but the provision does not mention the percentage of compensation. Such ambiguity gives spaces to local people to make their own demands in terms of compensation and in most cases it ends up in the form of obstruction to the construction of transmission lines. 

Such disturbances increase the gap between project identification and project construction time. As a result, new human settlement, housing plots and additional structures develop in the area which lead into remapping of transmission route. It leads to further delays in implementation of a transmission project. Having faced all these hurdles, India has promulgated a new Act that gives compensation of upto four times the real market value of land giving people a sense of not being cheated.

In addition to this, Public Procurement Act, 2007 was promulgated with the intention of making procedures, processes and decisions relating to public procurement open, transparent, and reliable to promote competition, fairness and accountability in public procurement process. However, the tendency to follow the law to the letter rather than the spirit has handicapped decision-making in public institutions. The Act allows discretionary decision-making to chiefs of public enterprises only up or equal to Rs 100,000. Any decision involving higher amounts have to go through a lengthy process as described in the Act. In addition to this, according to the Public Procurement Act, construction of transmission lines should be awarded to the party with the lowest bid.

However, there have been many instances where parties have bid an amount too low to get the project contract. After winning the contract, they have been found to raise their claims later resulting in higher costs and thus delays in construction of transmission lines. Therefore, contracts should be given to those parties whose cost is 10 per cent above or below the estimated cost under Engineering, Procurement and construction (EPC) system. Only then, will a new ray of hope be ushered in the development of transmission lines. 

(This article was published in The Himalayan Times on March 16, 2014 and can be seen in the following link

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/perspectives/fullnews.php?newsid=MjczNw==)

Multiple Solutions to a Monopoly

Illustration of a Monopoly Market

A century has gone by and yet Nepal has only been able to generate less than 800 MW of electricity. The production hardly meets the average demand and hence the unbroken streak of power shortage. Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), which is the body responsible for the generation of electricity, has had problems planning the construction of storage type projects and expansion of cross border electricity trade with India. The concentration has mainly been in the production of the run-of–the-river type projects that generate maximum electricity during the monsoon season but where the production goes down drastically in the subsequent months. 

Besides power generation, Nepal also faces serious challenges in terms of efficient transmission and distribution of power. Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), which has a monopoly as a buyer in Nepali electricity market also has the sole control over transmission and distribution systems. Often, NEA has been blamed for prioritizing construction of transmission lines in projects where it is involved while ignoring projects built by private sectors minus NEA’s involvement. It has also been blamed for spiking up Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA) of such projects. Thus, an unfair playing field is created in the market which discourages both national and international private developers. 

Despite the unfair advantages NEA holds, it has an annual operating loss of over eight billion Nepali rupees owing to inefficient management, overstaffing, institutional corruption, over politicization and misuse of resources. And for all the reasons mentioned, it has not been able to strike a PPA deal with a majority of private developers who are eventually running out of patience.  

To cut the argument short, Nepal’s electricity market needs multiple buyers because the state owned NEA run by employees instead of entrepreneurs simply lack a strong motive to earn profit. Additionally, a salaried bureaucrat sitting at the top of a public institution does not have incentive to take unpopular decisions because these organizations are regulated by departments and ministries which have the final authority over the use and abuse of its resources. 

Nevertheless, the private developers are still willing to invest in large storage type projects given that they are provided higher rate in Power Purchasing Agreement (PPA) and given the government’s willingness to bring effective resettlement and land acquisition policy. When there are multiple buyers in the electricity market they are compelled to provide higher price to sustain their market in the long run. Multiple buyers in Nepali electricity market is certain to attract more private investments, increase efficiency of human resource, enhance technical growth and improve customer satisfaction as in such a scenario different parties compete to win their market share. Such an arrangement also promotes innovation and lowers the costs of production by encouraging risk-taking behavior  in terms of new ideas which have greater public value. 

The introduction of multiple buyers in electricity market in places like Argentina, Chile, Lithuania, and the UK has reduced wholesale as well as the retail prices, increased reliability and reduced power outage in these countries. Similar results have been seen in Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and their associated territories. In addition to this, the consumers of these regions have been given a choice to select suppliers which has led to reduction in prices of electricity. This strategy has also helped in creating energy security in North European and the Northern Atlantic region, which has been a basic requirement for the achievement of economic growth and prosperity.

Nepal has seen positive changes in telecommunications after restructuring of Nepal Telecommunication Corporation and the opening of market in this sector for other possible players. Today, price of various telecommunication products and customer services has become more competitive in every respect.  Similar changes have been seen in education, health, media, banking and entertainment sector after the end of government monopoly and the arrival of domestic and foreign private players who bring alongwith new vision, innovation, and new management modality. 

Having said all of this, privatization is not without challenges in a developing market like ours. Especially in hydropower sector which has limited number of players given the size and level of investment required, and where the risk of price cartelling and syndication instead of the creation of a competitive market pricing is unusually high. When that happens, the strategy of deregulation could easily backfire—taking monopoly out of state’s hand only to give it back to a bunch of crony capitalists hungry for unlimited profit. 

Therefore, the government must play it smart and open up Nepali electricity market to multiple buyers, but with proper policies in place to help harness and access this resource at an affordable price. The mantra should be to make profit but the intent must be to provide public service as well because quality electricity is not just a product anymore, it is also a right.

(This article was published in The Himalayan Times on 24th November, 2013)

Unbundling of Nepal Electricity Authority

Nepal Electricity Authority

The vertically integrated state-owned Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) has been responsible for generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the country for more than two decades. NEA was established in 1985 after three independent government bodies, namely: the Electricity Department, Electricity Board and Nepal Electricity Corporation merged. This intervention was necessary at that time because the generation capacity of the country was small and less human resources was employed in these organisations. In add-ition to this, it was very difficult to find a single responsible body for the development of hydropower in Nepal and the donor communities often faced inconvenience and confusion while working with these different bodies.

There was an implicit belief behind the merger that a utility service body like NEA would enjoy economies of scale, and that it was in the larger public interest that production and gene-ration of electricity remained a government monopoly and the profit did not go to individual pockets. 

Sadly, as is often the case, services provided by government monopolies lead to losses due to inefficient management, overstaffing, institutional corruption, and politicisation with presence of strong unions and misuse of resources. The financial haemorrhage of NEA in the last three decades of its establishment has compelled the government to look for alternative ways of reducing these losses. One of the ways of doing that is unbundling infrastructure services vertically, so that services are provided efficiently and in a competitive manner. 

Poor Policies

After promulgation of Electricity Act 1992, hydropower sector was opened up for national and intern-ational private investments in electricity generation. However, the government retained transmission and distribution services with the state-owned utility. Though there are few explanations about the construction of transmission and distribution lines by private parties in the Act, it is unable to transform them into actions in the absence of effective regulations and guidelines. 

Despite high transmission and distribution losses, rising labour costs and low tariffs hitting the financial viability of NEA, government has persisted with the semi-autonomous body. NEA has an operating loss of more than Rs eight billion annually, while the cumulative loss has reached Rs 27 billion. But all of that was written off by the government to show a healthy financial status of the utility and attract foreign direct investment.

The current structure of NEA is not just unsustainable; it has also created entry barriers for independent power producers (IPPs) with a discriminatory network access. There are more than 13 hydropower projects such as Maya Khola Hydroelectric Project (14.9 MW), Solu Hydroelectric Project (23.5 MW), Tallo Solu Hydroelectric Project (82 MW), and Mewa Khola Hydroelectric Project (50 MW), which have been waiting for construction of transmission lines for several years. Such poor policy has discouraged new entries in the field, which is regarded as a major hurdle in meeting growing demand of energy. 

Lessons to Learn

Realising this, the government came up with a functional unbundling of NEA in three different segments — generation, transmission and distribution. However, it has existed only on paper, and there is a need to have a separate accounting system in all segments, along with functional unbundling to encourage competition for quality services at minimum costs. 

The example of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) in southern India, which has unbundled the units into generation, transmission and distribution can suitably be cited here. The Andhra government reduced transmission and distribution losses from about 38 per cent in 1999 to 26 per cent in 2003, and less than 20 per cent in 2008, mainly by controlling power theft. This volume of loss in transmission and distribution sector is taken as normal because of use of less efficient equipments in the region. Similarly, according to report produced by the World Bank in 2009, various countries of European Union have also successfully reduced losses to around 10 per cent after privatising distribution companies. 

Nepal’s non-technical loss of electricity is about 14 per cent, caused mostly due to theft. If it is reduced to around five per cent, millions of rupees can be saved and used for construction of transmission lines or generation of hydro-electricity, according to the need of time. Furthermore, many hydropower projects in Lamjung, Nuwakot and Dolakha are in limbo due to lack of transmission lines. Had the unbundling of NEA been done on time and with serious attention, these bottlenecks would not have existed and losses could 

be reduced.

Challenges and Opportunities

Media has reported that senior officials at NEA are against such reforms because it compromises their position in the changing scenario. Despite strong opposition from its own staff, the government plans to form a new transmission company to resolve problems related to transmission and distribution for efficient evacuation of power. But, the process is hopelessly slow.

If unbundling of NEA is done on time, it will be easier for the government to manage resources and resolve acute problems that exist in hydropower sector of Nepal. The domestic and inter-national private sectors’ trust in these bodies will grow and Nepal’s hydropower development will take a meaningful stride forward. 

(This article was published in The Himalayan Times on 28th July, 2013 and can be seen in the following link

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/perspectives/fullnews.php?headline=Unbundling+of+Nepal+Electricity+Authority&newsid=MjM0MA==) 

Capping and Tapping FDI in Nepal

Many countries of the world opened up to structural adjustment programmes after the oil crisis, economic depression and stagflation of the 1970s. Young democracies needed loan and injection of foreign direct investment (FDI) to boost their growth. The 

decolonisation of Africa and Asia during the later half of the 20th century, and fall of Soviet Union led many state controlled economies to switch to market economy.

Following Footsteps

India’s abandoning of Nehruvian model in favour of market economy under young Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh, the present Prime Minister, affected Nepal, which followed its southern neighbour. Ushering multi-party democracy in 1990 saw new breed of western educated Economists like Mahesh Acharya and Ram Saran Mahat, whose economic policies transformed Nepal from a predominantly agrarian subsistence economy into market-oriented one.

However, the transformation has been painstakingly slow, disrupted by Nepal’s political and power crisis. According to Department of Industry (DoI), the flow of FDI in Nepal has been limited to USD 95 million in the last two decades. This is largely due to a decade-long armed-conflict, protracted political transition and chronic power shortage. Nepal has huge potential for market seeking and non-market seeking FDI but lacks basic investment climate including infrastructure, policies and commitment from domestic actors.

The government recently came up with a new Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer Act (FDITTA) which has introduced a minimum ceiling of USD 200,000 on FDI in the country. It aims to streamline FDI and channelise it to essential sectors . However, it lacks vision and suffers from policy short-sightedness. 

Criteria Concerns

To begin with, the ceiling is overambitious and impractical as it ignores the fact that international confidence in Nepal’s business environment is at an all-time low. So, to stifle whatever little FDI is flowing in few sectors does not exactly contribute to making things better.

Secondly, a small investment sector like IT business, which is an idea-based industry, does not offer large scale investment options. There is limited scope for big investments in this kind of enterprise because six out of seven ideas fail during experimental phase and the business is better off run as a small cluster enterprise. Interestingly, the draft makes exceptions for such businesses established inside IT Parks like the one in Banepa. This only exposes the government’s policy inconsistency.

Similarly, in hydropower sector, the draft prevents investment in projects that are less than 30 MW in capacity. This leaves a huge investment gap as domestic investors often find it difficult to raise capital to invest in projects that are of more than four MW capacities. Even commercial banks in Nepal find it difficult to invest in big hydropower projects due to huge risks and long project gestation period. FDI is not just about raising capital. Besides capital investment, a foreign investor brings in management and latest technical expertise in terms of best practices.

The new draft also puts a lower cap on investment in tourism business. Foreign investors may only invest in hotels with more than three-star facilities. This will destabilise the entire tourism industry. In major tourist destinations like Thamel, Nagarkot, Pokhara and Namche Bazaar, there are hundreds of small restaurants run by natives of France, Thailand, Italy, and Spain. These are small businessmen who bring in much needed investment in the sector, adding variety to the services to attract visitors from various parts of the world. Even from a business point of view, investors only plan bigger projects once they succeed in small ventures. The introduction of minimum cap will ruin such long-term possibilities.

Promising Potential

Fortunately, there is a consensus among stakeholders on the role of FDI in Nepal’s economy, which still suffers from capital deficiency. 

Besides injection of capital and job creation, foreign businesses provide grants and assistance for local development as a part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitment. Himal Power Limited, a Norwegian company has built schools and a hospital in Dolakha. It has constructed and handed over two mini-hydro plants to the Khimti Rural Electricity Cooperative (KERC) which distributes electricity to around 8,000 households. 

The positive impact of FDI in developing economies is evident from the fact its share in the GDP remains between 10 to 30 per cent. However, in case of Nepal, the figure is as low as 0.5 per cent. Nepal has good possibilities in natural-resource seeking, market-seeking and efficiency-seeking FDI. 

For too long, Nepal’s private sector had been walking on a double edged sword of preventing domestic capital flight as well as attracting the right kind of foreign investment for the country. This month, the government decided to allow Nepali business houses to invest in foreign soil. Now, by opening Nepali market for foreign investment, the government must promote healthy competition domestically.

With the right kind of policy instruments to protect domestic interests, such de-regulation will increase competitiveness of our private sector at international level. But for that to happen, the government must first hold open discussions with stakeholders about effectiveness and shortcomings of its FDITTA.

(This article was published in The Himalayan Times on 16th June, 2013 and can be seen in the following link

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/perspectives/fullnews.php?newsid=MjIyOQ==)

Transmission Failure

The current trends of supply and demand of electricity could mean that Nepal’s energy crisis will continue for at least five more years, even if all the committed projects are constructed without hitch. By 2016, with the completion of Upper Tamakoshi, Nepal’s estimated supply of electricity will be 1,205 MW in dry season — still a deficit of 305 MW. However, during rainy seasons, there will be ample surplus electricity that the country could export to the energy hungry neighboring states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, which are among fastest growing economies in India.

Defused Infusion

Lack of adequate transmission lines and insufficient capacity of existing and planned cross-border transmission lines will be major drawbacks in the future. Presently, the electricity generated from Kaligandaki has not been well utilised during the rainy season in absence of high voltage transmission lines, which has resulted in revenue loss for the nation and commercial loss for producers.

New cross-border transmission lines are essential for commercial viability of mega hydropower projects such as Arun III, Upper Karnali, Upper Tamakoshi and others. They are important as there is a complementary relationship between power demand and supply potential between Nepal and India. In addition to this, if the government prioritises the construction of cross-border transmission lines to link major hydro projects, it will also help reduce the load-shedding to some extent.

Procurement Potential

Nepal’s electricity import is limited to 145 MW during the dry season due to low capacity transmission lines. If high capacity cross-border transmission lines were built, Nepal’s power procurement would increase to 250 MW. The Muzaffarpur to Dhalkebar corridor project was planned to realise this potential but has not started due to incomplete financial closure in Nepal. Unlike other bilateral projects, this has been planned on commercial basis. 

The two sides have established separate companies with participation of various agencies such as Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), Power Trading Corporation, Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services and Power Grid Cooperation of India Ltd. The governments of Nepal and India and the World Bank have played facilitating roles in the process.

There are simultaneous plans to construct three more cross-border transmission lines from Butwal to Gorakhpur, Duhabi to Purniya and Anarmani to Siliguri. Timely completion of these projects will be pivotal in development of hydropower in Nepal and will open new frontiers in power trade between the two countries. Also, adequate transmission lines will encourage additional investments in new hydropower projects in Nepal as the demand for power in India’s two most populous and energy hungry states — UP and Bihar — will only grow in the future.

Problematic Policies

With the restoration of multi-party system in 1990, several policies were formulated to promote hydropower development in Nepal, with some already in effect. The recently revised Hydro-power Policy, 2001 allows greater private part-icipation in power sector to facilitate improved access in rural areas. However, there are various hefty environmental and forest guidelines that hinder construction of transmission lines. For every tree that is cut down, the project has to plant 25 more and for clearing one hectare of land for transmission lines, the project has to compensate the forest department with 16 hectares. Similarly, the process of land acquisition for the project is very complicated as people demand full compensation with ownership of land.

Due to such logistical problems and lack of capital, six projects have been in limbo for years. The government has recently decided to start constructing transmission lines for Khare Khola Hydro Electric Project (HEP) (24.1 MW) and Singati Khola HEP (16 MW). But the remaining four projects, namely Maya Khola HEP (14.9 MW), Solu HEP (23.5 MW), Tallow Solu HEP (82 MW) and Mewa Khola HEP (50 MW) have still not started their construction works due to lack of trans-mission lines.

Sensible System

According to a NEA source, it costs Rs 11.5 million to construct one kilometer of transmission line with 133 kV capacity. But the budget allocation for the development of this sector is much less than what is required. Similarly, NEA has been in financial crisis due to its inability to adjust tariff rates. There are also other challenges like selection and implementation of projects with low financial and system feasibility, and low productivity of human resource.

To address these issues, NEA should start making appropriate arrangements to introduce wheeling charge system in transmission lines, so that various industries such as cement, iron, steel, et cetera, which consume higher amount of electricity can directly buy electricity from the power producers at higher prices. This will 

encourage power producers to develop new hydropower projects while industries will get regular supply of electricity. This will not only reduce the overall cost of production as they will not need to depend on costly and imported fossil fuel but also make transmission system more efficient and sustainable. This system ensures reliable supply of electricity, which could resolve energy-related problems of the industries and lead the nation towards a path of economic prosperity. 

(This article was published in The Himalayan Times and can be seen in the following link

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/perspectives/fullnews.php?headline=Transmission+failure&newsid=MTQ1NA==)

PPP Model of Investment in Hydropower

The Electricity Act of 1992 paved the way for participation of the private sector in  electricity generation. The privatisation of Butwal Power Company in January 2003 further augmented the domestic private sector’s role in hydro-power development and established Himal Hydro and General Construction Company and Nepal Hydro and Electric Ltd as Nepal’s indigenous hydropower companies with international reputation. However, the role and capacity of the private sector in Nepal’s energy development so far has, at best, only been supplementary.

Role of FDI

Eighty-one different firms have taken approval to invest in Nepal’s hydropower sector, of which 23 projects that generate 174 Megawatt (MW) have been completed — only 27 per cent of the total generation capacity. 

Besides, the private sector has not developed a single storage type of project as it needs high cost and effective resettlement policy. The two largest projects in the country — Khimti and Bhotekoshi that contribute 96 MW — have been constructed with substantial 

foreign direct investment (FDI).

Nepal’s gross domestic savings is not high and nearly three-fourth of all development expenditure is met by foreign aid. Therefore, to harness 42,000 MW of technically and economically feasible hydroelectricity, which requires billions of dollars, there is no other alternative but to mobilise FDI.

However, except for Khimti and Bhotekoshi, there has been no major investment. The reason is Nepal’s volatile politics, bureaucratic hassles and chaotic labour unions, which frightens investors.

Government Policies

In the last few years, the government came up with a series of hydropower-friendly policies to attract domestic investment in the energy sector through tax rebates, availability of loans at concession, increased power purchase agreement (PPA) rate, and waived value added tax on construction materials. All hydropower projects being developed by Independent Power 

Producers (IPP), who have signed PPA with the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) and are yet to start construction, are entitled 

to these benefits.

The government raised the PPA rate by 20 per cent. Under the new agreed rates, the projects will get Rs 8.4 and Rs 4.8 per units in winter and summer respectively. The NEA signed PPAs worth 714.77 MW during 2010-11. This is almost double the total capacity of PPA signed in the past. But the approach overlooked local component, because of which various

issues including those related to land acquisition and compensation, local participation and ownership have stalled many projects. This proves that besides capital investment, project proponents require strong cooperation from the locals to utilise local resources.

The PPP Model 

The Chilime Hydropower Project, which has been developed under PPP model, is an example of how local participation and 

ownership can facilitate timely completion of the projects. In the project developed by Chilime Hydropower Company Limited, majority of shares (51 per cent) belong to the NEA, 10 per cent is owned by locals of the area, 25 per cent by its staff and the remaining 14 per cent shares were floated in the market for general public.

Chilime is a perfect example of how to develop a capital-intensive hydropower project in a country where there is inadequacy of 

resources and a spectrum of local issues. Giving people living in the project area ownership in the project not only puts legal claims at rest, it also facilitates acquisition and compensation issues.

Additional Benefits

The PPP model also channelises scattered capital in the form of remittances or other means, putting them to productive use. Another advantage of this model is that since the risk is equitably shared by all parties including locals, there is a greater transference of responsibility which enhances efficiency and guarantees higher returns. Besides, local participation in the project in the form of investment and labour creates multiplier effects in the local economy, with higher levels of employment, increased labour productivity and higher consumption levels. Research also confirms that the durability and sustain-ability of projects increase with meaningful participation of local communities.

Besides the above mentioned benefits, the PPP model helps in poverty reduction by bringing socio-economic growth with 

higher level of empowerment of local people. So, while both domestic and FDI is crucial to address Nepal’s energy crisis, the government must ensure a win-win situation by creating a conducive investment climate that benefits national as well as local economy.

(This article was published in The Himalayan Times on 17th June, 2012 and can be seen in following link

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/perspectives/fullnews.php?headline=PPP+model+of+investment+in+hydropower&newsid=MTI3NQ==)