Financing Lma

8/3/2019 Financing Lma

1/16

Rural Road and Power Financing: Achilles Heel of Infrastructure Development

Smita Sirohi1and K.B.Vedamurthy2

Rural infrastructure development has been assigned importance since the very inception of the

planning process in India. Elaborating its pattern of priorities, the First Five Year Plan held that, "....

For the immediate five year period, agriculture, including irrigation and power, must in our view

have the top most priority ...... The state in this initial period has to concentrate on the provision of

basic services like power and transportation"(Planning Commission, 1952, p.14). In the subsequent

plans as well, stress was laid on building a meaningful infrastructural network and providing basic

services for the development of the modern economy.

The realisation of the stated goals of infrastructure development has however, been very tardy

and regionally unbalanced. For instance, the Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-78), under the Minimum

Needs Programme (MNP), aimed at linking all the villages in the country having a population of 1500and above with all-weather roads by the end of the Plan period. However, even twenty years later,

about 11 thousand villages (8%) with the specified population size could not be provided connectivity

topucca roads. Similarly, the target of covering at least 40 percent rural population in all the States

under electrification programme in the Fifth Plan, has not been fulfilled till now as in several states

more than two-third of the rural households remain without electricity.

The issues related to infrastructure financing lie at the very core of the problem of target

shortfalls and regional imbalances in infrastructure development. The requirement of large capital

investment for the infrastructural projects, their long gestation period and problems associated with the


2/16

p j , g g p p

In this backdrop, this paper delineates the financing of rural roads and electrification in recent

years, discusses the critical issues in current pattern of financing and future approaches in raising

funds from alternate sources for further development of these infrastructure facilities. The choice of

these two components of rural infrastructure is guided by the empirical evidence from India that

among the various physical infrastructures, roads and rural electrification are two most effective ones

for agricultural development (Barns and Binswanger, 1986; Binswangeret al., 1989; Fan et al., 1999;

Majumdar, 2002). The next section presents a brief overview of the current status of road and power

infrastructure at the sub-national level, followed by the regional trends and major concerns in theirfinancing under various schemes/programmes. Section III discusses the issue of seeking alternative

financing options and the last section concludes the paper.

I. Road and Power Infrastructure: a Situation Report

Rural Roads: The rural roads stimulate rural development through facilitating transportation and

marketing of agricultural inputs and output, promoting accessibility to technical knowledge and

services etc. Therefore, the construction of rural roads that connect villages and bring the majority of

Indian population into the mainstream of national life has remained an important component of

planning. Most of the rural roads are constructed and maintained by the Panchayat Raj institutions.

The rural roads account for about 80 percent of the total road length of 3.314 million km. in the

country. Over the years, the increase in these roads has been faster than total road network (except

during the decade of 80s), largely as a result of the impetus given to rural roads through increased state

funding, especially in a number of development schemes, like Food for Work Programme, Minimum

Needs Programme, National Rural Employment Programme, Rural Land Employment Generation

P d J h R Y j


3/16

habitations. In the last eight years about 22 percent of the unconnected habitations have been provided

connectivity under PMGSY and other schemes. The coverage has been cent percent in Kerala and also

encouraging in already better endowed state of Punjab where over 55% of the unconnected habitatins

have been provided connectivity under the Scheme. In the two north eastern states of Nagaland and

Sikkim reasonable progress has been made and about 50-55% habitations are now connected to all-

weather roads. However in several needy states like, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Himachal, J&K, Jharkhand,

M.P., Orissa, U.P., Uttranchal and W.Bengal the expansion of road coverage has been quite slow. Due

to this negative correlation between the proportion of habitations connected in the states underPMGSY till August 2008 and percentage of unconnected habitations at the inception of the

programme, the regional disparities in rural road infrastructure persist.

The earlier goal of PMGSY - providing connectivity, by the end of the Tenth Plan Period, to

all unconnected habitations in the rural areas with a population of more than 500 persons (250 and

above in hilly, desert and tribal areas) through good all-weather roads- was revised under the Bharat

Nirman project, launched by the Honourable Prime Minister in December 2005. The Project aims to

connect larger habitations of over 1000 population and above (500 in hilly and tribal areas) with all-

weather road by 2009. Accordingly, the work undertaken under the PMGSY has be modified to

address the above goals within the stipulated time-frame.

Another important dimension of road development is the type of structure of the roads. At the

all-India level, about 42 percent of the roads are still un-surfaced and about 2/5th of un-surfaced roads

are even un-motorable. As expected, the condition of roads is more deplorable in rural areas, with 67

percent of the total un-motorable roads being thePanchayat Raj roads. In India only about 36 percent

f h d d P h R j i i i f d3 F h h k f f d


4/16

Rural Electrification: The national policy on rural electrification focuses on two components,

electrifying villages for providing domestic connections and energisation of irrigation pumpsets. To

give impetus to the task of providing electric power to the rural areas, in July 1969, Rural

Elctrification Corporation (REC) was set up. The tempo of rural electrification was stepped up further

under the MNP in the Fifth plan. Hence, the pace of rural electrification and pumpset energisation

gained momentum during the seventies.

At present, electricity has reached more than 80 percent villages in India (Table 1). In somestates, like, Andhra, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu nearly all the villages have

been electrified. In fact, in last four of these states cent percent village electrification was achieved in

the decade of 70s itself. On the other hand, the scenario of rural electrification is quite grim in Bihar

and Jharkhand where 50 to 70% villages remain without access to electric power. In some other states

like Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Orissa, U.P., Maharashtra and Rajasthan more than 10% villages

are un-electrified.

The progress of rural electrification should however, be looked at with some caution as, a

village was deemed "electrified" if electricity was used in an inhabited locality within the revenue

boundary of the village for any purpose whatsoever. So far, the definition of village electrification, did

not consider any minimum percentage of households being electrified and generation of gainful

economic activities. Hence, in several states like Andhra, Kerala, M.P. and Chattisgarh despite of

electrification in more than 94 percent villages, about one-third to two-third rural households were

without electricity (Table 1). In several other states (W.Bengal, U.P., Orissa, Assam, Jharkhand and

Bih ) h 80 h h ld i l d h l i i Th f


5/16

Eastern States particularly, the existing level of pumpset energisation is minuscule 0.1 to 2.0 per cent

of the potential. Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh,

Jammu & Kashmir are the other states, where large balance potential of energisation of irrigation

pumpsets remains to be utilized. On the other hand, in Punjab, Rajasthan, Andhra and Tamil Nadu

there is over-exploitation of the potential, which has serious implication for ground water resources.

Also, in the states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra, the number of electric pumpsets has

marginally exceeded the potential and this trend may assume serious dimensions for groundwater

resources in the times to come.

The progress of household electrification and pumpset energisation aside, the real assessment

of access of electricity infrastructure to the farmers is the availability of electricity during the peak

agricultural season. The brunt of mounting power shortages in the country is perhaps

disproportionately borne by the rural areas. In most of the States power is supplied to the rural areas

for only about 8-10 hours in a day (CEA, 2004). Between May 2002 and May 2004, the situation has

deteriorated very sharply in Punjab and Maharashtra, where the official claim of 21 to 24 hours of

rural power supply has come down to 10 to 16 hours per day. Hence, together with the extension of

electricity infrastructure, bringing down peaking shortage to rural areas are critical areas of concern in

rural infrastructure development.

II. Allocation of Finances: Status and Issues

Most of the funds for rural infrastructure development, as mentioned earlier, come from theGovernments development outlays, particularly state development expenditure. The average share of

development expenditure in the total expenditure (both, revenue and current account together) ranges


6/16

(Table 2). The larger expenditure by these states, especially U.P., may appear to be a result of larger

size of the state. Although, in absolute terms, states with lesser geographical area such as Himachal

Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and Northeastern states spend lower amount than their larger counterparts,

however, in relative terms, no distinct pattern between the size of the state and its proportionate share

in road expenditure seems to emerge. Several larger sized states like M.P., Rajasthan, for instance,

have relatively lower share than comparatively smaller sized states of Gujarat, Andhra and Tamil

Nadu. In allocation of resources to power infrastructure, Gujarat tops the list followed by M.P.,

Karnataka and Maharasthra, while on the lower end are the Northeastern states, Kerala, Himachal andBihar.

Rural roads: The above discussion gives a birds eye view of disparities in infrastructure financing

across states. A more focused discussion on financing aspects of rural roads follows here, based on the

three major schemes that have provided most of the finances for rural road infrastructure since the 90s,

viz. PMGSY, Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) and Jawahar Rozgar Yojna (JRY).

PMGSY: The PMGSY is a 100% Centrally Sponsored Scheme, funded from 50 percent of the

resources generated for Central Road Fund by the cess on the high speed diesel. The Scheme provides

funds primarily for new connectivity. A sum of Rs.23995 crores has been sanctioned during 2000-06

for providing new connectivity. The allocations to the state show some mismatch between the share of

states in these funds and presence of unconnected habitations at the inception of the project. The

maximum funds for providing new connectivity have been sanctioned to Rajasthan (18.4%), although

the state accounted for 6.3% of the unconnected habitations in the country (Table 3). Madhya Pradesh

follows next with 14.4 percent share in funds, though in terms of unconnected habitations it has a

l h f 10 5 O h h h d h ll i U P W B Jh kh d d Bih


7/16

Another issue in rural road finances is poor utilisation of sanctioned funds. The Planning

Commission in its mid term appraisal of the Tenth Plan has also admitted that the PMGSY has not

taken off as per expectations. The viability of the scheme is undermined due to mismatch between the

target date of completion and the availability of funds (Planning Commission, 2005). The worst

performer in this aspect is Bihar where the value of work carried out till June 2006 is only 18% of the

funds sanctioned during first 2000-04. In several other states, like, Himachal, J&K, Manipur,

Meghalaya, Tripura and U.P. also the work performance is not upto the mark and less than 60% funds

remain unutilized. The case of U.P. is particularly striking, as poor utilization of non-interest bearing

funds in the state go hand in hand with large amount of borrowings made by the state under RIDF.

RIDF: This is a non-concessional lending facility provided by the commercial banks since

1995-96 for rural infrastructure development. Under the Scheme, loans of Rs.740734.41 crores have

been sanctioned upto March 2008 for provision of rural infrastructure. The irrigation sector accounts

for maximum number of sanctioned projects but in financial terms the allocation to rural roads and

bridges is highest. The share of rural roads and bridges was 34.7 and 12.1 percent, respectively in the

cumulative sanctions during I to IX tranche (1995/96-2003/04) of RIDF.

The fund is a demand driven instrument, but in general, its pattern of use is not corrective of

spatial inequality on infrastructure endowment (Rajaraman, 2005). This observation holds true in case

of rural road financing also. At the sub-national level, the cumulative sanctions in first seven tranches

of RIDF (up to 20002) range from Rs. 1.37 crores in Bihar to Rs. 1209.72 crores in Maharashtra. Six

states, Maharashtra, U.P., W.Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra account for 63% of the

sanctions for rural road development. The disbursements too, determined by state governments

illi d h f d f ll h i il l


8/16

positive (r=0.36) though somewhat lower. Hence, four predominant and interrelated issues emerge

from the above discussion on rural road financing: regionally unbalanced finances, overlapping in

financing pattern of various schemes, divergence between objectives and actual fund allocation and

operation of non-economic factors in disbursement of funds.

Rural Power: The infrastructure development for rural power is primarily financed through REC, a

wholly owned Government of India public sector enterprise. It provides financial assistance to State

Electricity Boards (SEBs), State government departments and rural electric cooperatives for ruralelectrification projects as are sponsored by them. The cumulative sanctions from REC stand at

Rs.80,000 crores but the disbursements are of only Rs.45,000 crores, much lower than the sanctioned

funds. Across the state, the gap between sanctions and expenditure till march 2002 is maximum in

J&K where only 40% of the sanctioned funds were actually spend (Table 4).In the majority of states

utilization of funds was only 55-80 percent. Gujarat was the only state that expended over 90 percent

of the sanctions from REC for development of power infrastructure. There are several reasons for

unspent provisions of funds: delay in awarding contracts and slow progress of infrastructural work,

being the important ones.

Together with the problem of poor utilization of available funds, their unequal distribution

across states and overlapping of financing under different schemes are important issues in financing

rural power infrastructure also. This is empirically substantiated by the fund allocation for rural power

infrastructure in recent years under the various programmes like, Pradhan Mantri Gramodya Yojna

(PMGY), MNP, Kutir Jyoti, Remote Village Electrification, RGGVY and sanctions from REC. In

2005 60 f h l h h ld i h l i i l d i f U P


9/16

crores, will not generate sufficient resources to fund the programme. The requirement of state finances

for rural electrification will also be massive as Bharat Nirman Yojna proposes to replace the existing

scheme of 40% capital subsidy for rural electrification with 90% capital subsidy for overall cost of the

projects under the scheme.

Working out private-public partnership (PPP) arrangements to the maximum extent possible is

inevitable for augmenting resources and for improving efficiency in implementation of projects.

However, as the private firms do not engage in activities with low excludability because it is difficult

to get consumers pay (Easteret al., 1998), it is a daunting task to attract private investors in financingrural road and power projects. The basic conditions for the private sector to be able to take the

challenge of rural service provision are: access to domestic or international sources of financing for

equity and debt and creation of economic incentives in rural infrastructure investment.

A beginning has already been made in this direction. The RBI is undertaking reforms for

relaxing the financial regulatory regime for enhancement of financial flows for infrastructure projects

(Reddy, 1998). The alternative for institutional support for rural infrastructure financing can take

several forms such as income tax incentives and output based aid schemes. The critics argue that

income tax incentives represent a blunt and inefficient instrument for promoting any specific

economic activity (Varma, 2000), but for infrastructure development in some pockets within rural

areas such incentives may be instrumental in attracting and persuading private companies to make

investments. The output based aid schemes link the payment of subsidies to the outputs or results

actually delivered. Unlike the traditional methods of paying subsidies, for capital investments or to

bridge the operating deficit gap, that do not provide sufficient incentives to providers to improve their

f d i h f l di di i i l h ddi i l b fi f


10/16

limited financial assistance and training in labor-based work methods to villagers who wish to

construct rural roads and paths on a voluntary basis (Kumar et al., 2002). A few examples of cost

sharing of local access roads between the government and benefiting local communities are available

in India also. In Uttranchal and parts of Punjab, paths, tracks and footbridges are being constructed on

a cost sharing basis with local communities located in remote and inaccessible areas. Communities

generally contribute voluntary labour and are actively involved in planning and execution of works. In

addition, initiatives for community participation have been made in strengthening the power scenario

in rural areas (Box 1). Intensive community participation is a major requirement for ensuring longterm sustainability of investment on rural infrastructure. Participatory planning and management

facilitates assessment of the needs of the rural households in order to create integrated utilities for

them.

Box 1 : Community participation in rural electrification

Jaipur Electricity Distribution Company (Jaipur Discom) has implemented a unique programme in

Bagwada village of Jaipur district under which the power supply management and supervision in

the villages will be looked after by the local villagers. Under the scheme a village representative

will be selected by the concerned gram panchayat, who will be given a monthly remuneration to

make the discom headquarters aware of the ground realities of the power problems of the village.

He will also inform the headquarters about the duration of power supply and would be responsible

f di t ib ti f bill H ill b t d t ti t th ill t d it th bill ti


11/16

independent existence, yet a lot remains to be achieved in terms of providing universal access and

achieving cross-state parity in infrastructural development. The financing of rural road and power

infrastructure from public funds is plagued with a plethora of problems like, shortage of funds, non-

utilization of available funds in some states, overlapping of various financing schemes, regional

imbalances in fund allocation etc.

To reduce the burden on the state exchequer and implement efficiency in operation of the

projects alternative modes of mobilizing and managing finances have to be facilitated. Relaxing the

financial sector regulations for encouraging private flow of capital in infrastructure development iscertainly a welcome step in this direction, but the extent to which rural infrastructure sector,

characterized by low and uncertain economic returns, stands to benefit from this remains to be seen.

The other institutional alternatives for promoting rural infrastructure financing such as income tax

incentives, output based aid schemes, additional sources of revenue etc. need to be explored. Taking

the cue from the experiences of other developing countries like China, Lesotho etc., the tapping of

non-governmental sources through greater community participation can also be instrumental in

improving rural infrastructure. Without adequately addressing the myriad issues in rural infrastructure

financing the Bharat Nirman will remain a distant dream.

References

Barnes, D. and Binswanger, H.P. (1986), Impact of rural electrification and infrastructure onagricultural changes 1966-1980,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 21(1), pp. 26-34.

Biswanger, H.; Khandkur, P.S.R. and Rosenzweig, M.R. (1989), How Infrastructure and Financial


12/16

Majumdar, R. (2002),Infrastructure and Economic Development : A Regional Analysis, UnpublishedPh.D. Thesis, Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New

Delhi.

Planning Commission (1952), The First Five Year Plan, Govt. of India, N.Delhi.

Planning Commission (2005), Mid-term Appraisal of Tenth Five Year Plan, Govt. of India, N.Delhi.

Rajaraman, I.(2005), Financing Rural Infrastructure in Developing Countries: The case of India,

Applied Econometrics and International Development, Vol. 5(2), pp 53-68.

Reddy, Y.V. (1998), Infrastructure Financing: Status and Issues, Paper presented in the Workshopon the Role of Financial Institutions in the Development of Infrastructure at Planning Commission,Yojana Bhavan, N.Delhi, on Nov.11, 1998.

Thorat, S. and Sirohi, S. (2004), Rural Infrastructure, State of the Indian farmer: a Millennium Study,Vol.IV, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

Varma, J. (2000), Regulatory Dilemmas in Infrastructure Financing, India Infrastructure Report

2001, 3iNetwork, Oxford University Press, N.Delhi, pp.53-62.


13/16

Table 1: Status of Rural Road and Power Infrastructure in India

States

Percentage of

Uncon

nected

habitations :

2000

Percentage ofunconnected

Habitations

provided

Connectivityunder

PMGSYduring 2000-

2008 (Aug)

Percentage of

Surfaced

Roads

Percentageof villages

electrified:

Sept.08

Percentageof rural

households

with access

toelectricity:

2005

EnergisedPumpset

utilized as %

of potential:

end of 2003-04

Andhra Pradesh 3.97 35.20 61.1 100.0 59.7 119.9

Assam 68.75 33.49 14.4 78.6 16.5 1.4

Bihar 57.52 18.09 43.2 52.9 5.1 20.6*

Chhattisgarh 81.92 24.62 69.2 95.6 46.1 -

Gujarat 23.03 28.01 90.32 99.7 72.1 103.6

Haryana 0.34 0.00 93.29 100.0 78.5 98.3

Himachal Pradesh 66.72 16.78 56.57 98.2 94.5 64.8

Jammu & Kashmir 42.57 10.11 42.44 98.2 74.8 14.5Jharkhand 58.81 8.93 24.73 31.1 10 -

Karnataka 8.13 7.36 68.31 98.7 72.2 105.7

Kerala 2.96 103.41 33.25 100.0 65.5 102.5

Madhya Pradesh 62.40 27.55 48.58 96.4 62.3 51.8*

Maharashtra 12.16 21.27 78.35 88.3 65.5 104

Manipur 39.31 8.06 33.79 85.5 52.5 0.1

Meghalaya 51.32 5.20 68.58 59.3 30.3 0.5

Nagaland 12.11 49.61 30.69 64.4 56.9 1.9

Orissa 57.73 16.03 22.04 55.8 19.4 6.1

Punjab 6.78 56.30 85.73 100.0 89.5 121.6


14/16

Table 2: State Development Expenditure on Roads & Bridges and Power

States

Average share

ofDevelopment

Expenditure in

Total

expenditure:

2000/01-

2003/04

Average share

of Expenditureon Roads &

Bridges in

Total

Development

expenditure:

2000/01-2003/04

Average share

of Expenditureon Power in

Total

Development

expenditure:

2000/01-

2003/04

Average share

of State in All-India

Expenditure

on Roads &

Bridges :

1990/01-

2003/04

Average share

of State in All-India

Expenditure

on Power :

1990/01-

2003/04

Andhra Pradesh 57.99 6.95 8.76 7.56 7.87

Assam 56.72 7.55 0.96 3.56 0.09

Bihar 49.35 3.99 0.30 3.89* 3.37*

Chhattisgarh 66.47 7.91 2.33 - -

Gujarat 64.80 4.82 16.26 7.90 14.63

Haryana 58.56 5.36 12.71 2.06 5.14

Himachal Pradesh 55.01 12.83 5.28 3.08 1.57

Jammu & Kashmir 55.61 1.57 20.52 0.83 7.45

Jharkhand 62.75 5.30 1.66 - -

Karnataka 61.72 5.53 13.70 5.05 8.76

Kerala 52.15 6.57 1.26 4.02 0.15

Madhya Pradesh 59.48 4.87 10.94 6.56* 9.51*

Maharashtra 54.17 3.37 7.54 12.98 8.32

Manipur 51.52 4.95 13.70 0.68 1.23

Meghalaya 62.56 10.55 1.08 1.24 0.12

Nagaland63.23 6.92 13.16 0.70 0.93

Orissa 56.08 7.13 11.61 0.89 0.93

Punjab 48.00 6.24 0.96 3.66 2.50

Rajasthan 41.62 3.32 13.18 2.05 5.58


15/16

Table 3: Rural Road Financing under Major Recent Schemes

States Share in total

unconnected

habitations

(%): 2000

PMGSY RIDF JRY

Total Sanction

(Rs.crores) for

New Connectivity:

2000-06

% funds

sanctioned

for

upgradation

% Utilisation

of sanctions

made during

2000-04

Habitations

connected

as percent

of eligible

Cumulative road

works sanctioned

(Rs.crores): 1-VII

tranche

Expenditure on

rural roads:1990-

91 (Rs. crores)

Cumulative

expenditure

(Rs. crores):

1994-99

Andhra Pradesh 0.8 286.0 (1.2) 82.5 91.4 113.2 753.4 (8.2) 45.4 (9.6) 6.3

Assam 4.8 1361.2 (5.7) 0.2 92.2 23.7 48.8 (0.5) 19.9 (4.2) 110.6

Bihar 7.4 509.4 (2.1) 61.2 18.4 1.7 1.4 (0.0) 90.7 (19.2) 142.3

Chhattisgarh 7.3 2099.6 (8.8) 6.2 84.7 33.8 60.3 (0.7) - -

Gujarat 2.5 355.9 (1.5) 18.8 92.5 18.3 620.9 (6.8) 23.4 (5.0) 101.8

Haryana 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 94.0 0.0 30.8 (0.3) 7.3 (1.5) 5.2

Himachal Pradesh 3.4 1018.9 (4.3) 0.3 56.2 72.4 319.2 (3.5) 3.6 (0.8) 9.9

Jammu & Kashmir 1.2 313.9 (1.3) 1.9 41.1 14.0 471.6 (5.2) 4.3 (0.9) 3.7

Jharkhand 6.4 544.8 (2.3) 13.7 73.9 11.3 1.9 (0.0) - -

Karnataka 1.4 37.9 (0.2) 92.9 86.9 33.2 832.2 (9.1) 21.1 (4.5) 73.6

Kerala 0.1 124.3 (0.5) 3.0 91.9 89.0 244.8 (2.7) 32.7 (6.9) 80.3

Madhya Pradesh 10.5 3445.3 (14.4) 10.0 94.4 31.5 396.3 (4.3) 12.0 (2.5) 165.7

Maharashtra 2.1 404.2 (1.7) 40.0 74.2 51.1 1209.7 (13.2) 4.0 (0.8) 162.0

Manipur 0.3 208.3 (0.9) 30.2 33.0 30.8 - 1.8 (0.4) 2.0

Meghalaya 0.8 133.2 (0.6) 0.0 58.0 18.4 60.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.0) 1.9

Mizoram 0.1 271.7 (1.1) 2.9 100.2 24.6 45.0 (0.5) 3.1 (0.7) 2.5

Nagaland 0.0 130.2 (0.5) 33.2 99.4 64.9 65.5 (0.7) 0.8 (0.2) 1.1

Orissa 8.6 1908.2 (8.0) 14.8 94.9 28.6 43.7 (0.5) 44.9 (9.5) 168.4

Punjab 0.3 137.8 (0.6) 34.5 88.2 86.2 178.2 (1.9) 0.1 (0.0) 0.6

Rajasthan 6.3 4404.1 (18.4) 2.1 87.9 85.4 488.5 (5.3) 14.5 (3.1) 22.6Sikkim 0.1 196.0 (0.8) 16.9 74.9 36.2 19.0 (0.2) 0.5 (0.1) 3.5

Tamil Nadu 1.6 444.2 (1.9) 19.2 80.4 97.5 900.3 (9.8) 40.5 (8.6) 198.5

Tripura 1.2 55.3 (0.2) 28.6 43.9 17.0 - 0.8 (0.2) 10.3

Uttar Pradesh 18.6 3247.1 (13.6) 5.9 51.1 17.7 1168.0 (12.8) 80.6 (17.1) 241.5

Uttaranchal 2.6 289.0 (1.2) 17.2 65.4 18.1 59.8 (0.7) - -

West Bengal 10.8 1567.8 (6.6) 6.6 77.3 16.5 995.3 (10.9) 18.0 (3.8) 162.1

All-India 100.0 23494.3 (100) 47.4 74.4 20.4 9151.0 (100.0) 471.3 (100.)) 1679.8

Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentage of All-India total. Source: (1) www.pmgsy.nic.in(2)www.indiastat.com

15
http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/http://www.indiastat.com/http://www.indiastat.com/http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/http://www.indiastat.com/


16/16

Table 3: Finances for Rural Electrification in under major Schemes in recent years

States

Share in

total un-

electrifie

d

households (%):

2005

%

utilization

of REC

sanctions

uptoMarch

2002

Sanctions

from

REC (Rs.

crores):

2001-03

Sanctions

under

PMGY

(Rs.

crores):2001-05

Sanctions

under

MNP (Rs.

crores):

2001-04

Sanctions

under

Kutir

Jyoti (Rs.

crores):2003-04

Sanctions under

Remote Village

Electrification

(Rs. crores):

2002-06

Sanctions

under Bharat

Nirman

RGGVY (Rs.

crores): 2005-07

Total (Rs. crores)

Andhra Pradesh 6.5 60.6 3423.41 52.25 9.61 22.50 1.09 648.16 4157.02 (13.4)

Assam 4.5 80.3 0.00 119.11 113.64 0.00 1.44 158.04 392.23 (1.3)

Bihar* 19.8 66.7 0.00 97.63 175.03 12.44 21.40 2772.98 3079.48 (9.9)

Gujarat 2.1 92.0 1560.68 11.02 0.00 0.75 0.54 60.85 1633.84 (5.3)

Haryana 0.7 56.8 722.07 4.84 0.00 0.76 0.84 48.48 776.99 (2.5)

Himachal 0.1 66.3 176.21 4.19 3.46 0.18 1.87 25.02 210.93 (0.7)

Jammu & 0.4 40.2 372.08 35.22 1.54 0.00 11.21 97.62 517.67 (1.7)

Karnataka 2.4 58.2 2133.92 30.54 0.14 22.67 0.49 375.39 2563.15 (8.3)Kerala 2.2 68.6 1445.47 5.95 0.00 3.07 0.00 19.76 1474.25 (4.8)

Madhya Pradesh* 5.2 80.5 0.00 61.55 27.14 12.07 13.48 544.53 658.77 (2.1)

Maharashtra 4.9 70.5 1994.37 52.43 0.00 1.50 5.99 78.86 2133.15 (6.9)

Manipur 0.2 72.6 0.00 18.00 5.36 0.00 12.23 64.07 99.66 (0.3)

Meghalaya 0.3 87.4 160.00 18.00 67.74 0.48 4.98 46.00 297.20 (1.0)

Mizoram 0.1 107.1 55.98 17.94 0.32 0.27 1.45 41.75 117.71 (0.4)

Nagaland 0.1 82.6 28.76 41.07 2.06 0.54 0.00 16.25 88.68 (0.3)

Orissa 7.0 78.7 155.79 19.04 83.26 0.00 0.48 434.10 692.67 (2.2)

Punjab 0.4 78.4 2277.87 24.09 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 2303.08 (7.4)

Rajasthan 5.1 75.7 1932.68 33.14 10.14 2.25 6.08 453.23 2437.52 (7.9)Sikkim 0.0 118.2 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.35 0.09 26.10 34.54 (0.1)

Tamil Nadu 3.1 66.1 1169.10 35.25 0.00 4.71 3.67 0.00 1212.73 (3.9)

Tripura 0.5 69.6 7.02 21.61 0.28 2.16 18.04 19.58 68.69 (0.2)

Uttar Pradesh* 21.9 60.9 623.89 328.58 313.14 0.00 26.05 3363.41 4655.07 (15.0)

West Bengal 11.4 71.6 0.00 94.11 83.74 8.46 37.71 385.04 609.06 (2.0)

All-India 100.0 69.8 18889.28 1156.09 927.94 100.00 178.64 9722.53 30974.47 (100.0

Note: (1) * Including the information on newly carved-out state (2) Figures in parenthesis are percentage of All-India total.Source: (1) www.powermin.nic.in(2) www.indiastat.com

16
http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/http://www.pmgsy.nic.in/

Financing Lma

Documents

Transcript of Financing Lma