1ST - 31ST July 2015 . Vol 2 Issue 5 . For Private Circulation Only
pg 43. INTERVIEW: Bhagirath Choudhary
pg 47. No one wishes to struggle in the hinterland
pg 49. Mumbai A-Musings: Readiness Playgrounds
3GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 2
VOL 2 . ISSUE 5 . 1ST - 31ST JULY 2015
Vineet Bhatnagar- Managing Director and CEO
EDITORIAL BOARDNaveen Kulkarni, Manish Agarwalla, Kinshuk Bharti Tiwari
COVER & MAGAZINE DESIGN Chaitanya Modak, www.inhousedesign.co.in
EDITORRoshan Sony
FOR EDITORIAL QUERIES:PhillipCapital (India) Private LimitedNo. 1, 18th Floor, Urmi Estate, 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai 400 013
RESEARCH Banking, NBFCs Manish Agarwalla, Pradeep Agrawal, Paresh Jain
Consumer, Media, Telecom Naveen Kulkarni, Jubil Jain, Manoj Behera
Cement Vaibhav Agarwal
Economics Anjali Verma
Engineering, Capital Goods Ankur Sharma, Hrishikesh Bhagat
Infrastructure & IT Services Vibhor Singhal, Deepan Kapadia
Logistics, Transportation & Midcap Vikram Suryavanshi
Midcap Amol Rao
Metals & Automobiles Dhawal Doshi, Nitesh Sharma
Agri Inputs Gauri Anand
Pharmaceuticals Surya Patra, Mehul Sheth
Portfolio Strategy Anindya Bhowmik
Technicals Subodh Gupta
Production Manager Ganesh Deorukhkar
Database Manager Deepak Agrawal
Sr. Manager – Equities Support Rosie Ferns
SALES & DISTRIBUTION Ashvin Patil, Shubhangi Agrawal, Kishor Binwal, Sidharth Agrawal, Bhavin Shah, Varun Kumar, Narayan Mulchandani
CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS Zarine Damania
GROUND VIEW - PREVIOUS ISSUES
15th Nov 2014 Issue 11
1st June 2015 Issue 4 1st Apr 2015 Issue 3
1st Feb 2015 Issue 2 1st Jan 2015 Issue 1
16th Dec 2014 Issue 12
3GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 2
4. COVER STORY: Bijlee PrasaranGround View explores the opportunity and chal-lenges in the transmission sector over the next 8-10 years
43. INTERVIEW: Bhagirath Choudhary shares his views and insights about the immense opportunity for biotech crops in India
47. No one wishes to struggle in the hinter-land
49. Mumbai A-Musings: Readiness Play-grounds
51. Indian Economy Trend indicators
53. PhillipCapital Coverage Universe: Valuation Summary
LETTER FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTORIndia saw its biggest ever transmission grid fail-
ure in July 2012 when the power failed in most
of northern and eastern India affecting a record
620mn people. This was among the largest grid
failures ever seen around the world. The blackouts
were a major embarrassment to the government
and resulted in increased investments in the sector.
The new government at the centre is focused on
removing transmission bottlenecks, which hamper
free flow of power across the country.
During the 12th plan (2012-17), we estimate that
transmission sector spending is set to increase by
62% over the previous plan - to Rs 1.8tn; within
this, inter-state transmission would see a massive
127% jump to Rs 1.25tn while state level spending
will remain flattish. This jump in inter-state spend-
ing is needed to evacuate the large 128% jump
expected in generation capacity during the same
period. However, the 13th plan(2018-22) would
see a slowdown in inter-state spending (+28% over
12th plan) while intra-state spending would see a
jump (+82%). This has several ramifications for both
transmission-project developers and the equipment
suppliers. More importantly, with the sector being
opened up, we see increased risks for Power Grid
and large opportunities for private-sector players.
Ankur Sharma and Hrishikesh Bhagat bring you
the details in their article “Bijlee Prasaran”. In a
freewheeling chat with Gauri Anand, Dr Bhagirath
Choudhary, Founder Director, SABC talks about the
immense opportunity for biotech crops in India.
He believes that society has been misled about
the safety of GM crop technology. This issue also
covers story by Varun Kumar ‘No one wishes to
struggle in the hinterland’ and a lighthearted take
on the many lives of Mumbai’s flustered denizens
by Roshan Sony in “Mumbai A-Musings - Readiness
Playgrounds”. Cheers!
Best Wishes
Vineet
CONTENTS
5GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 4
High voltage transformer in operations at a substation
765kv substation operating in India
5GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 4
COVER STORY
India’s power generation sector has seen strong capacity additions over the past few years with the entry of the private players. On the transmission side, Power Grid has done a commendable job in increasing the inter-state transmission network; the estimated capex over FY08-17 is ~Rs 1.8tn. Going into the 13th plan (2018-22), we expect spending on inter-state transmission to slow (+28% over the 12th plan), but see a sharp pick up in intra-state transmission (+82% ) as state spending in transmission picks up. This shift in growth translates into higher spending in the 220kv and HVDC space and lower growth in the 765/400kv segments. To augment capacities in the transmission space, the sector has been opened to competition from CY11 and we expect increasing private-sector participation in new transmission projects. This has serious ramifications for the incumbent, Power Grid, which was earlier getting projects on an assured-return basis. With tariff-based bidding, PGCIL would have to compete with private players and win projects with no assured returns.
BY ANKUR SHARMA & HRISHIKESH BHAGAT
pg. 6 Renewed focus on transmission Why is the government so focused on transmission system?___________________________________________pg.10 Status of transmission sector How transmission in India stacks up right now?___________________________________________ pg.12 Transmission capex Spending in the 10th-13th plan on transmission___________________________________________pg.17 Planning the transmission system How exactly is transmission system planning done?___________________________________________pg.25 Shift to higher voltage Transmission network shifting to new technologies and higher voltage___________________________________________pg.29 Competitive bidding in transmission Tariff-based bidding – encourage private-sector participation___________________________________________pg.33 Evacuation of renewable power Green Energy Transmission Corridors___________________________________________
7GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 6
India has cumulatively added ~130GW in
generation capacity in the last eight years
and with a targeted addition of 120GW (CEA’s
revised estimate at 150GW including renewa-
bles) in the 12th plan, India would add ~220GW
over 10 years between FY08 and FY17. This
compares very favourably to the previous plans
— in the 8th, 9th, and 10th five-year plans, a
much-lower 63GW was added cumulatively.
While India has managed to add decent pow-
er-generation capacity in the last 10 years, other
inputs such as coal, transmission capacity, and dis-
tribution reforms have failed to keep up the pace.
The current government is focusing on: (1) increas-
ing coal production and (2) correcting transmission
and distribution constraints to give back the power
sector its mojo. The following pages detail the
planned spending on inter-state and intra-state
transmission networks and the consequent winners
and losers.
Why is the government so focused on transmission system?
R E N E W E D F O C U S O N T R A N S M I S S I O N
An important event that contributed to the re-
newed focus on establishing a robust and reliable
transmission system that can withstand the differ-
ent load profiles across the country was the north-
ern region blackout in CY12 after a grid failure.
Two severe power blackouts affected most of north-ern and eastern India on 30th and 31st July 2012. The day 1 blackout affected over 300mn people and was briefly the largest power outage in history, counting number of people affected, beating In-dia’s own 2001 record, also in northern India, when 230mn people were affected. The day-2 blackout remains the largest power outage in history and affected over 620mn people, about 9% of the world population or half of India’s population, spread across 22 states in northern, eastern, and northeast India. An estimated 32GW of generating capacity was taken offline. The blackouts were a major embarrassment to the government of India, which faced widespread criticism for not overhauling India’s power grid.
Even as Coal India missed its FY15 target, it has re-portedly been given a production target of 550mn tonnes for FY16. The company produced 494mn tonnes of coal in FY15 while its offtake was 489mn tonnes. For the first two months of FY16, Coal India’s production has increased 12% and as per the coal secretary, it would not only meet its target for FY16, but even exceed it by 10%
Capacity addition in India (incl. renewables) (MW)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
8th Plan 9th Plan 10th Plan 11th Plan 12th Plan 13th Plan
The reforms ushered in by the Electricity Act,
2003, led to the private sector strongly adding
new generation capacity over 2010-15; the private
7GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 6
sector now accounts for ~40% of the genera-
tion capacity in India. While large capacity was
added in the last five years, a major portion of it
is underutilized because of: (1) paucity of fuel and
transmission botllenecks and (2) lack of offtake by
SEBs. The government has already started working
on increasing coal India’s production and is now
focusing on removing transmission bottlenecks.
While electricity reforms brought in strong addi-
tions in generation capacity, a similar increase has
not yet happened in transmission, despite the
sector being opened up to the private sector from
CY11 (inter-state transmission).
Private sector capacity now at ~40% of installed capacity in India
Power Sector
Generation 40%
Trans Line 60%
Tower pkg. 60% Transformers 50%
Conductors 25% Others 50%
Others 15%
Sub station 40%
Transmission 20% Distribution 40%
Normative spending in various segments of the power sector driven by capacity addition
From 2011, the government decided that it would award all future transmission projects on tariff-based bidding. Until then Power Grid was given all projects on a nomination basis (cost-plus model) where the company earned a fixed RoE (15.5% in the 11th and 12th plan).
Source: CEA
Source: PhillipCapital India Research
9GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 8
Transmission Distribution
Generation Capacity
Generating Transformer
Sending 765 KV
Receiving 765 KV
400 KV 220 or 132 KV
33 KV 11 KV
765 KV Generating system Transmission Cap requirement
Distribution Cap requirement
MW MVA 22 KV to 765 kv
765 KV to 400 kv
400 KV to 220 kv or 132 kv
220 kv to 132 kv or 33kv
33kv to 11kv
11kv to 433kv
660 805 1080 1080 1620 2430 6210 4860 9720 14580
9.4 22.1
400 KV generating system Sending 400 kv
Receiving 400 KV
Transmission Cap requirement
33 KV 11 KV Distribution Cap requirement
MW MVA 22 KV to 400 kv 400 to 220 kv or 132 kv
33kv to 11kv
11kv to 433kv
500 610 811 811 1622 1622 3244 4866
3.2 9.7
220 KV generating system Sending 220 KV
Receiving 400 KV
Transmission Cap requirement
33 KV 11 KV Distribution Cap requirement
MW MW 22 KV to 400 kv 220 kv to 132 kv
33kv to 11kv
11kv to 433kv
200 244 500 500 1000 1000 2000 3000
5 15
Assessment of transformation capacity wt reqmnt wt avg require-ment
wt avg
765 KV generating system-1 phase system-6 transformation
0.5 9.4 4.7 22.1 11.045
400 KV generating system-1 phase system-4 transformation
0.35 3.2 1.1 9.7 3.4062
220 KV generating system-3 phase system-4 transformation
0.15 5 0.75 15 2.25
6.6 16.7
Every MW of new generation capacity needs around 7MVA of transmission capacity
Plan Transmission Lines Transformation
Generation (MW)
(ckm) Ckm/MW (MW) MVA/MW
VI 42584 52,034 0.82 46621 1.1
VII 63636 79,455 0.80 75,322 1.2
VIII 85795 117,376 0.73 125,042 1.5
IX 105045 152,269 0.69 181,942 1.7
X 132329 198,407 0.67 257,639 1.9
XI 199877 257,481 0.78 409,551 2.0
XII (Till April, 15) 268602 364,921 0.74 591,380 2.2
Generation and transmission capacity addition over the plan periods
However, today India has only 2.2MVA of transmis-
sion capacity per megawatt of generation capacity
— this is far below the required 7MVA and largely
explains the congestion that is visible in the in-
terstate transmission of power across the country.
While Power Grid has done a good job in terms
of adding transmission capacity, it has clearly not
been sufficient. Understanding this need, the gov-
ernment opted to open the sector to the private
sector, but this has had mixed results. Source: CEA
To ensure uninterrupted flow of power 1MW of new generation capacity needs ~7MVA of transformation capacity
9GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 8
On 30th and 31st July, India saw two severe blackouts due to grid disturbances. These blackouts affected northern, eastern and northeast India and affected more than 300mn people. Due to high load and poor monsoons, the northern Region was drawing too much power from the neighbouring western and eastern grids. On the other hand, because of rains, the western-region demand was lesser than nor-mal and it was under-drawing. This situation led to a very skewed load-generation balance among the regions. The two blackouts exposed the inherent and hitherto hidden fragility of India’s electricity grid.
Analysis of the grid failure highlighted multiple reasons: a) Skewed load generation balance across regional grids b) Grid indiscipline, including over-drawing and under-drawing c) Depleted reliability margins d) Failure of defence mechanisms e) Absence of primary response from generators f) Insufficient visibility and situational awareness at load-despatch centresg) Inadequate appreciation of transfer capability vis-à-vis transmission capacity
The blackouts brought into sharp focus the importance of investments in T&D infrastructure and ensuring grid discipline. To prevent fu-ture grid collapses, the government took various measures such as extensive audit of the protection system, stern action against utilities in case of deviation from schedule, and strengthening of the State Load Despatch Centre.
Plan T&D as proportion of generation (x)
I – Plan 1.3
II – Plan 0.8
III – Plan 0.6
Three Year Plan 0.8
IV – Plan 0.9
V – Plan 0.7
Annual Plan 0.8
VI – Plan 0.5
VII – Plan 0.5
Annual Plan 0.4
Annual Plan 0.3
VIII – Plan 0.5
IX – Plan 0.7
X Plan 0.7
XI Plan 0.5
Recommended 1.0
Spending on T&D vs. generation – signifi-cant underinvestment
Other than India’s first five-year plan, the ratio of spending on T&D to generation has been appallingly lower than required.
765 substation operating in India
July 2012 grid failure: What went wrong?
Source: CEA
11GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 10
S T A T U S O F T R A N S M I S S I O N S E C T O R
How transmission in India stacks up right now?
India currently has two transmission systems
—Interstate Transmission System (ISTS) and
Intra-state Transmission System (Intra-STS). Al-
together, these systems make up 305,000ckms
of transmission lines(>220kv), 13,500MW of
high-voltage direct current (HVDC) terminals, and
591,000MVA of transformation capacity.
Description 10th Plan end
11th plan addition
11th plan end
Current (Apr,15)
12th plan addition
12th Plan end
13th plan addition
13th Plan end
Transmission Lines (>220kv) ckm
HVDC Bipole lines 5872 3,560 9,432 9,432 7,440 16,872 10,600 27,472
765kv 2184 3,066 5,250 18,650 27,000 32,250 22,200 54,450
400kv 75722 31,097 106,819 136,264 38,000 144,819 30,000 174,819
220kv 114629 21,351 135,980 149,828 35,000 170,980 85,714 256,694
Total 198407 59,074 257,481 304,742 107,440 364,921 148,514 513,435
HVDC terminal
HVDC back-to-back 3000 - 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 - 3,000
HVDC Bipole terminals 5000 1,750 6,750 10,500 12,750 19,500 15,000 34,500
Total- HVDC Terminal Capacity, MW 8200 1,550 9,750 13500 12,750 22,500 15,000 37,500
Substations transformation capacity
765 kV - 25,000 25,000 126,000 149,000 174,000 79,000 253,000
400 kV 92,942 58,085 151,027 192,997 45,000 196,027 49,000 245,027
220kv 156,497 67,277 223,774 272,383 76,000 299,774 142,857 442,631
Total- AC Substation capacity, MVA 249439 150,362 399,801 591,380 270,000 669,801 270,857 940,658
Transmission capacity addition over the 10th -13th plan
India to see a 42% growth in transmission lines in the 12th plan (over the 11th), a 131% growth in total HDVC terminal capacity, and 68% growth in total substation capacity. In the 13th plan (2018-22), India plans a 41% increase in transmission lines (over the 12th plan), a 67% growth in total HDVC terminal capacity and a 40% growth in total substation capacity.
By the end of the 12th plan 26% of India’s substation capacity is likely to be/run on 765kV, 29% on 400kV, and 45% on 220kV lines. This compares favourably with the 11th plan when only 6% substation capacity was on 765kV, 38% on 400kV, and a large chunk of 65% was on 220kV lines.
Source: CEA
11GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 10
Power flow across India’s transmission network (existing system)
India currently has high-capacity transmission
systems with 765kV and 400kV AC technology and
HVDC systems that deploy up to +/- 800kV tech-
nology. The country has about 19,000 circuit km of
765kV lines and ~136,000 circuit km of 400kV lines.
The 765kV and 400kV substation capacities are
~126,000MVA and ~193,000MVA respectively. The
government will initiate efforts for adopting 1200kV
technology (higher-voltage level) in the 13th plan.
PGCIL has already set up a test-station at Bina in
Madhya Pradesh for a 1200kv AC line and is likely
to award orders for two 1200kv lines in the 13th
plan. Investment in Flexible AC Transmission System
(FACTS), including static VAR compensators (SVCs)
and switchable reactors, is also needed to utilize
transmission highways and take care of demand
variations between peak and off-season.
Year Voltage
1950 220
1960 220
1970 220
1980 220
1990 400
2000 500kv DC
2005 765kv Ac
2010 800kv Dc
2019-20e 1200 kv Ac
Indian grid moving towards higher voltages
Purpose of ISTS • Evacuation of power from inter-state generation stations, which have beneficiaries in more than one state. • Onwards transmission of power for delivery of power from inter-state generation stations up to the delivery point of the
state grid. • Transfer of operational surpluses from surplus state(s) to deficit state(s) or from surplus region(s) to deficit region(s). • Economic dispatch and procurement of power as a competition enabler.
Purpose of Intra-STS• Evacuation of power from generating stations having beneficiaries in that state. • Onwards transmission within the state from the ISTS boundary up to various substations of the state grid network. • Transmission within the state grid for delivery of power to load centres within the state.
Source: CEA
Source: PGCIL
13GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 12
T R A N S M I S S I O N C A P E X
Spending in the 10th-13th plan on transmission
Based on the capacity addition required
for the inter-state and intra-state trans-
mission system, a capex of Rs 2.6tn
would be required over the 13th plan.
Out of this, Rs 1.6tn would be spent on the ISTS
while Rs 1tn would be spent by the states on
the intra-state transmission network (220kv and
below).
PGCIL was the dominant player in ISTS in the 11th
Description 10th plan(FY03-07) 11th plan(FY08-12) 12th plan(FY13-17) 13th plan(FY18-22)
Rs bn Total PGCIL Share Total PGCIL Share Total PGCIL Share Total PGCIL Share
Transmission
Inter State 200 190 95% 550 553 98% 1,250 1,100 80% 1,600 800 50%
Intra State 255 562 0% 550 112 20% 1,000 250 25%
Distribution 300 0 0% 1,000 0 0% 3,062 0 0% 2540 254 10%
Smart Grid 2,300 230 10%
Smart City 240 24 10%
Total T&D spending 755 190 25% 2,112 553 25% 4,862 1,212 25% 5,260 1,304 25%
Total (transmission) 455 190 42% 1,112 553 45% 1,800 1,212 67% 2,600 1,050 40%
Transmission and distribution spending over the 10th-13th plan
Description (Rs bn) 11th Plan (2008-12) 12th Plan (2013-17) 13th Plan (2018-22) Comments
Inter-State 550 1,250 1,600 Target market for PGCIL grows only 28% in the 13th plan
Intra state 562 550 1,000 PGCIL to enter in state JV’s for intra state transmission networks
Total transmission capex 1,112 1,800 2,600
YoY Growth (%) 62% 44%
Inter -state transmission gwth (%) 127% 28%
Intra- state transmission growth(%) -2% 82%
Generation capacity addition incl. renewables (MW)
67 153 102
Growth vs previous plan(%) 128% -33%
11th -13th plan transmission capex spending
and 12th plan, but this is going to change in the
13th plan — with projects now going in for tar-
iff-based bidding, PGCIL itself expects to maintain
a 50% share in such projects.
ISTS spending would slow down to 28% in the
13th plan from the 127% growth seen in the 12th
plan while the intra-state spending would jump
82% over the 12th plan as states step-up spend-
ing to upgrade their networks to align with the
Sour
ce: C
EA, P
GCIL
13GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 12
inter-state transmission corridors. Large growth
in ISTS during the 12th plan was driven by the Rs
670bn spending on setting up the nine High-Ca-
pacity Transmission Corridors (HCTCs), which have
been set up to link the generation plants.
A slowdown in the ISTS spending along with high-
er state spending has two repercussions for the
sector and therefore on PGCIL:
a. Not only is PGCIL required to win ISTS projects
on tariff-based bidding going into the 13th plan,
the growth in spending on such projects is also
seen slowing down (28% in 13th plan vs. 127% in
12th plan). This implies that PGCIL will need to
diversify its growth areas (in distribution and smart
grid) to keep up its momentum.
b. With intra-state spending rising 82% to Rs 1tn,
states will need to step up their spending require-
ments in building transmission capacity. PGCIL has
already started working with states to help them
upgrade their existing infrastructure (JVs formed
with Bihar and Orissa).
Description Rs mn Comments
Negotiated basis projects got 300 Given to PGCIL in December, 2014
Tariff based bidding projects won already 150
TBCB projects to be won 340 PGCIL needs to win and/or get on negotiated basis
Green Energy Corridors(Inter + Intra State) 200 Some portion to come in 12th plan and balance in 13th plan
Smart Grid 230
Smart City 24
Total 1,304
PGCIL’s 13th plan targeted capex (Rs bn)
Description Rs bn
Central sector generation linked transmission projects 250
Ultra mega power projects linked transmission projects 90
High-capacity transmission corridors – IPP 670
Grid-strengthening schemes 180
Intra-state JVs and green corridor 10
Total planned capex (Rs bn) 1,200
Power Grid’s 12th plan capex spending chiefly drives ISTS, as it is the dominant player in the central sector
In the 13th plan, while interstate spending in transmission will slow (28% vs. the 127% growth in 12th plan) , the intrastate spending will rise (82% growth in 13th plan vs. flat in 12th plan)
Opportunity breakup for transmission players in the 11th-13th plan
Based on the inter-state and intra-state transmis-
sion capacity that is expected to be built in the
12th -13th plan, it seems like there will be a big
jump in spending from the states on intra-state
transmission and HVDC lines while capex in the
765kv segment (transformers, lines, substations)
will decline. Here are some details on how spend-
ing is likely to flow to various equipment providers
and contractors:
a. Transformers: Based on transformation ca-
pacity additions of 271,000MVA, total spending
on transformers in the 13th plan would be flat vs.
15GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 14
the 12th plan and +80% versus the 11th plan. More
importantly, transformer capex is likely to decline in
the 765kv segment (Rs 24bn, -47%) and increase in
the 400kv (Rs 49bn, +9%) in the 13th plan. Currently,
there are five serious players in 400/765kv trans-
formers—Alstom T&D, TBEA Shenyang, Crompton
Greaves, ABB, Siemens, and Toshiba who would see
reduced demand going into the 13th plan. Orders
for 1200kv transformers are likely to start flowing in
only in the end of 13th plan/early 14th plan. Total
spending in the 220kv segment in the 13th plan is
likely to see a sharp jump of 88% to Rs 43bn (+10%
in the 12th plan) as states upgrade their transmission
network. Most of the players that are strong in the
400/765kv transformers have not been very aggres-
sive in the 220kv segment, which has historically
seen more competition and is a very commoditized
market.
b. Transmission lines: Transmission-line capex is
likely to rise 41% to Rs 1.5tn in the 13th plan (+91%
in the 12th plan) driven primarily by a surge in
capex in 220kv and HVDC lines. Spending in 765kv
and 400kv should be largely flat at a cumulative Rs
633bn. Spending for intra-state transmission in the
220kv lines is likely to be Rs 600bn (+145%) while
HVDC lines witness spending of Rs265bn (+42%).
Clearly, state spending on transmission line is seen
picking up in a substantial manner.
c. Substation: Overall substation capex should be
Rs 984bn in the 13th plan (+33% over the 12th plan)
largely driven by spending on HVDC and 220kv sub-
stations. Spending on 220kv substations is likely to
be Rs 400bn (+111% over the 12th plan) while HVDC
substation spending is seen at Rs210bn in the 13th
plan (+50% over the 12th plan). Cumulative spend
on 765/400kv substations is seen declining 10% over
the 12th plan to Rs374bn.
d. HVDC Substations: Four large HVDC terminals
are envisaged during the 13th plan with a total
15GW capacity and estimated spending of Rs 210bn
(+50% over the 12th plan). These are:
i. Champa Kurukshetra Phase 2 (3GW) – Work
to start from 2HFY16 and likely to commission by
FY19. This order has been awarded to Alstom SA for
Rs 33bn and Alstom T&D’s share in this order is Rs
14bn.
ii. Chattisgarh (Raigarh) to Tamil Nadu (6GW) –
Tenders already issued and likely to be ordered by
Q4FY16. This project has been given to PGCIL on a
nomination basis and the cost is Rs 200bn. We esti-
mate that the HVDC portion of this order would be
~Rs 80-90bn. Four bidders are likely to participate in
this order – ABB, Siemens, Alstom SA, and Toshiba.
This line could be extended to Kerala for evacuating
another 3GW of power.
iii. Orissa to Badarpur (3GW) – Still in the planning
stage.
iv. Assam (Rangia/Rowta) to Punjab (3GW) – Still
in the planning stage.
Alst
om’s
765k
v tra
nsfo
rmer
in o
pera
tion
15GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 14
Description 10th Plan end
11th plan addition
11th plan end
Current (Apr,15)
12th plan addition
12th Plan end
13th plan addition
13th Plan end
Transmission Lines ckms
HVDC Bipole lines 5872 3,560 9,432 9,432 7,440 16,872 10,600 27,472
765kv 2184 3,066 5,250 18,650 27,000 32,250 22,200 54,450
400kv 75722 31,097 106,819 136,264 38,000 144,819 30,000 174,819
220kv 114629 21,351 135,980 149,828 35,000 170,980 85,714 256,694
Total 198407 59,074 257,481 304,742 107,440 364,921 148,514 513,435
HVDC terminal
HVDC back-to-back 3000 - 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 - 3,000
HVDC Bipole terminals 5000 1,750 6,750 10,500 12,750 19,500 15,000 34,500
Total- HVDC Terminal Capacity, MW 8000 1,750 9,750 13500 12,750 22,500 15,000 37,500
Substations transformation capacity
765 kV - 25,000 25,000 126,000 149,000 174,000 79,000 253,000
400 kV 92,942 58,085 151,027 192,997 45,000 196,027 49,000 245,027
220kv 156,497 67,277 223,774 272,383 76,000 299,774 142,857 442,631
Total - AC Substation capacity, MVA 249439 150,362 399,801 591,380 270,000 669,801 270,857 940,658
Transformer capex in 10-13th Plan (Rs bn)
765kv 7,500 44,700 23,700
400kv 17,426 13,500 14,700
220kv 20,183 22,800 42,857
Total capex 45,109 81,000 81,257
YoY Growth (%) 80% 0%
Transmission line capex (Rs bn)
HVDC Bipole 89,000 186,000 265,000
765kv 45,990 324,000 333,000
400kv 248,776 304,000 300,000
220kv 170,808 245,000 600,000
Total transmission line capex 554,574 1,059,000 1,498,000
YoY Growth (%) 91% 41%
% of total transmission capex 50% 59% 59%
Substation spending (Rs Mn)
HVDC Bipole/ Back to back 19,250 140,250 210,000
765kv 75,000 298,000 237,000
400kv 145,213 112,500 137,200
220kv 168,193 190,000 400,000
Total 407,655 740,750 984,200
YoY Growth(%) 91% 33%
% of total transmission capex i 39% 41% 38%
Transmission spending over 10th – 13th plan: By equipment type
Source: CEA, PhillipCapital India Research
17GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 16
HVDC Lines Type Agency 10th Plan end
11th Plan end
12th plan addition
End of 12th plan
13th plan End of 13th Plan
Chandrapur-Padghe bipole MSEB 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Rihand-Dadri bipole PGCIL 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Talcher-Kolar bipole PGCIL 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500
Balia-Bhiwadi bipole PGCIL 2,500 2,500 2,500
Biswanath-Agra bipole PGCIL 3000 3000 3,000
Champa– Kurukshetra Phase 1 bipole PGCIL 3000 3000 3,000
LILO of Bishwanath Chariyalli– Agra at Alipurduar
bipole PGCIL 3000 3000 3,000
Mundra -Mohindergarh bipole Adani 2,500 2,500 2,500
Champa - Kurukshetra – Phase II bipole PGCIL 3,000
Chhatisgarh -Tamil Nadu bipole PGCIL 6,000 6,000
Orissa - Badarpur +/-800kv HVDC bipole NA 3,000
Rangia/Rowta(Assam) – Gurdaspur(Pun-jab) +/-800kv
bipole NA 3,000
Sub-total (bipole) 5,000 10,500 9,000 19,500 15,000 19,500
Vindhyachal b-to-b PGCIL 500 500 500 500
Chandrapur b-to-b PGCIL 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Gazuwaka b-to-b PGCIL 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Sasaram b-to-b PGCIL 500 500 500 500
Sub-total (b-to-b) 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 3,000
HVDC Terminal Capacity 8,000 13,500 9,000 22,500 15,000 22,500
HVDC lines to be constructed over the 11th - 13th plan (MW)
Company wise presence in the transmission sector
Transmission Line Substation Transformer Conductor
BHEL √
L&T √ √
ABB India √ √
Siemens √ √
Crompton Greaves √ √
Alstom T&D √ √
KEC √ √
Kalpataru √ √
Techno Electric √ √
Jyoti Structures √ √
Skipper Ltd √
Voltamp √
Bharat Bijlee √
TRIL √
Indo Tech Transformer √
BS Ltd √
Sterlite Technologies √
Sour
ce: C
EA
17GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 16
P L A N N I N G T H E T R A N S M I S S I O N S Y S T E M
How exactly is transmission system planning done?
At the start of the decade, planning a
transmission system was relatively less
complex due to prior knowledge of
quantum of power, point of injection,
and point of withdrawal. Even for transfer of 15%
unallocated power of central-sector projects to
different parts of the country, there was rarely
a congestion problem. This was because of the
inherent margins built-up in transmission systems,
which were enough to take care of the flexibility
required for transferring this unallocated capacity.
Over the last decade, power trading has really
taken off in India. Pace of generation capacity
addition (primarily from the private sector) has
increased substantially and the distances between
generation and usage of power are larger. Due
to these factors, there is a greater need for a very
robust transmission system. The 2012 northern-re-
gion blackout has brought the focus back on put-
ting in place a reliant and dependable transmis-
sion system that can withstand the load demand
of various regions and states.
India’s distribution of power generation – consumption primarily in the north, south, and west Relevant factors in planning a transmis-
sion system• Ensure that the planned transmission
network is implemented on schedule, issues related to ROW, forest clearance, and various other clearances need to be addressed with the appropriate ministries.
• It is necessary to have a mechanism for a secured operation of large Indian grid. This involves implementation of primary and secondary response, protection audit, ancillary services, reliability standards, and compliance to grid code and standards, among other things.
• Intermittent and variable generation from renewable sources also affects grid stability. Adequate balancing facilities and mechanisms for handling the variable nature of renewable-en-ergy sources of generation need to be developed.
Source: PGCIL
19GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 18
Planning for the transmission network
State- and region-wise import-and-export scenar-
ios are assessed by using the available pipeline
of generation plants (projected to come up in the
12th and 13th plans). After this, to meet possible
import/export requirements, a projection of the
additional transmission system is made by using
CEA’s system studies . The 18th Electric Power
Survey is used as the basis for the demand projec-
All-India demand duration curve
tions by each state/region for the 12th and 13th
plan.
The transmission network is planned in a way that
it meets peak load demand across all seasons.
On a pan India basis, base load is ~70% of peak
load—up to 80% load is present 50% of the time
and peak-period of 90-100% load only 5% of the
time.
Evolving the transmission system for the 12th-13th plan (2013-2022)
The transmission system requirement is modelled
at the state level — it is then aggregated at the
regional level and subsequently at the national
level. In any given state, there can be state-sector
generation tied up completely to the host state,
central-sector generation serving more than one
state, and generating stations belong to state-sec-
tor and inter-state IPPs.
Each state has its own power demand. Power
availability from all the sources in a state minus
its own demand gives net import or export out
of that state. The aggregation of import-export
requirement of states within a region, and taking
into consideration the diversity factor, translates
into inter-regional power transfer requirements.
The transmission system is evolved to cater to
the inter-state and inter-regional power transfer
requirements. While planning the inter-state trans-
mission system, the diversity in demand has to be
also kept in mind.
Sour
ce: C
EA
19GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 18
Region/State-1 (Exporting)
Demand
If availability > Demand
Generation � State Sector� Central Sector� IPP
Combined
availability of
power}Region/State-2 (Importing)
Demand
If availability < Demand
Combined
availability of
power
Generation � State Sector� Central Sector� IPP }
Planning methodology
12th plan end(FY17) 13th plan end(2021-22)
NR 60,934 86,461
WR 62,015 86,054
SR 57,221 82,199
ER 24,303 35,928
NER 2,966 4,056
Andaman & Nicobar Island 67 89
Laskhwadeep 11 18
All India 199,540 283,470
Region-wise peak demand/load (MW)
Demand Projection by 2021-22 – peak demand
to touch 284GW
As per the Electric Power Survey, peak demand
would rise to ~200GW by end of the 12th plan
(FY17) and to 284GW by the end of 13th plan
(FY22) from 130GW by the end of the 11th plan.
The peak demand by FY22 will be more than twice
the load as of end of 11th plan.
Demand is estimated to grow by 9% in the 12th
plan and 7% in the 13th plan. This implies elec-
tricity demand growth of 1.0-1.5x GDP growth
during this period. The estimation of the transmis-
sion planning system is made to meet this peak
and off-peak load demand in the system during
summer, winter, and monsoon.
Installed capacity as of the end of the 12th and
13th plan
After having determined the peak demand by the
end of the 13th plan, it is important to understand
the installed generation capacity by state/region in
the same period. This would help understand the
surplus/deficit situation for each state and there-
fore the resultant need for ISTS.
As per the CEA, capacity added during the first
three years of the 12th plan was ~62GW and CEA
estimates that a total of ~150GW could get added
of which ~32GW would be from renewable energy
sources. Another 102GW or thereabouts would be
added during the 13th plan to take the total in-
stalled capacity (including renewables) to 469GW
by FY22. This would include renewable capacity
by 65GW.
Sour
ce: C
EA
Sour
ce: C
EA
21GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 20
The biggest capacity additions (relative) are being planned in northeast, east and south India. The largest (absolute) capacity additions are in south, west, and east India.
11th Plan end (2011-12)
12th plan end 2016-17
CAGR (12th Plan)
13th plan end 2021-22
CAGR (13th Plan)
Delhi 5031 6398 5% 9024 7%
Haryana 6533 10273 9% 14244 7%
Himachal Pradesh 1397 1900 6% 2589 6%
Jammu & Kashmir 2385 2687 2% 4217 9%
Punjab 10471 12342 3% 14552 3%
Rajasthan 8188 13886 11% 19692 7%
Uttar Pradesh 12038 23081 14% 36061 9%
Uttrakhand 1612 2189 6% 2901 6%
Chandigarh 263 426 10% 559 6%
Northern Region 40,248 60,934 9% 86,461 7%
Goa 527 815 9% 1192 8%
Gujarat 10951 19091 12% 26973 7%
Chhattisgarh 4687 6599 7%
Madhya Pradesh 9151 13904 9% 18802 6%
Maharashtra 21069 28645 6% 39622 7%
D. & N. Haveli 615 944 9% 1297 7%
Daman & Diu 301 441 8% 605 7%
Western Region 42352 62,015 8% 86,054 7%
Andhra Pradesh 14054 22445 10% 33194 8%
Karnataka 10545 13010 4% 18403 7%
Kerala 3516 4669 6% 6093 5%
Tamil Nadu 12813 20816 10% 29975 8%
Pudducherry 335 630 13% 782 4%
Southern Region 37599 57221 9% 82199 8%
Bihar 2031 5018 20% 9306 13%
Jharkhand 1030 4616 35% 6341 7%
Orissa 3589 5672 10% 6749 4%
West Bengal 6592 11793 12% 17703 8%
Sikkim 100 144 8% 176 4%
Eastern Region 14707 24,303 11% 35,928 8%
Assam 1112 1817 10% 2534 7%
Manipur 116 346 24% 497 8%
Meghalaya 319 445 7% 596 6%
Nagaland 111 185 11% 271 8%
Tripura 215 340 10% 472 7%
Arunachal Pradesh 121 135 2% 177 6%
Mizoram 82 285 28% 352 4%
North Eastern Region 1920 2966 9% 4056 6%
Andman & Nicobar 67 89 6%
Lakshadweep 11 18 10%
All India 130,006 199,540 9% 283,470 7%
Peak power demand: State-wise at end of 12th and 13th plan (MW)
Sour
ce: C
EA, 1
8th
Elec
tric P
ower
Sur
vey
21GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 20
The biggest capacity additions (relative) are being planned in northeast, east and south India. The largest (absolute) capacity additions are in south, west, and east India.
Region (MW)
Up to Jul, 2014
Balance in XIIth Plan
13th plan addition
13th plan end
NR 64,387 20,929 16,890 102,206
WR 91,847 36,709 20,262 148,818
SR 57,232 38,650 23,076 118,958
ER 33,881 12,738 31,195 77,813
NER 2,910 3,511 8,202 14,623
Bhutan 1,416 3,066 2,120 6,602
Total 251,673 115,603 101,745 469,020
Plan-wise generation capacity addition by end of the 13th plan (FY21-22)
Region Coal Nuclear Gas Hydro Renewable Total
NR 51,238 4,420 6,714 26,656 13,178 102,206
WR 106,478 3,940 11,804 7,879 18,717 148,818
SR 59,520 4,820 9,673 12,765 32,180 118,958
ER 68,617 - 207 8,572 417 77,813
NER 810 - 1,803 11,358 651 14,623
Bhutan - - - 6,602 - 6,602
Total 286,663 13,180 30,202 73,832 65,143 469,020
Region wise installed capacity by end of 13th plan (MW)
Generation (MW) Demand (MW)
Region Up to 11th Plan
Addition in 12th Plan
Installed Capacity (Jul, 14)
Balanced during 12th
Plan
Addition in 13th Plan
13th Plan end
Present (Jul, 14)
12th Plan 13th Plan
NR 54,467 30,849 67,873 17,443 16,890 102,206 45,934 60,934 86,461
WR 66,064 62,492 88,956 39,600 20,262 148,818 41,335 62,015 86,054
SR 55,821 40,061 59,069 36,813 23,076 118,958 39,015 57,221 82,199
ER 29,761 16,858 30,681 15,937 31,195 77,813 15,888 24,303 35,928
NER 2,884 3,537 2,910 3,511 8,202 14,623 2,164 2,966 4,056
Total 208,996 153,797 249,489 113,304 99,625 462,418 1,35,918 199,540 283,470
Region-wise demand and supply analysis by the end of the 13th plan
By the end of the 13th plan, the largest capacity will be in the west India, followed by south, north, and east. Biggest capacity additions (relative) are being planned in northeast, east and south India. The largest (absolute) capacity additions are in South, West, and East India.
By the end of the 13th plan, coal will continue to be the dominant fuel used in power generation (at 61%). Hydro (16%) and renewable (14%) will form the next largest chunk based on fuel used. Gas and nuclear will bring up the rear.
Source: CEA
Source: CEA
Source: CEA, ** - excludes 6GW from Bhutan imports
23GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 22
2021-22: Load-generation balance report
The load-generation balance report at the end
of the 13th plan indicates that northern regions
would have a deficit of ~19-22GW while the
southern region would have a deficit of 13-19GW.
The surplus in the western region is 12-16GW. This
implies that the northern and southern regions are
generally in a deficit situation and power surplus
from the west, east, and northeast will need to be
carried into these regions.
Summer Peak Monsoon Peak
Region wise Dispatch (% of Capacity)
Demand Sur(+) / Def(-) Dispatch (% of Capacity)
Demand Sur(+) /Def(-)
NR 66000 (65%) 86500 -20500 64500 (63%) 83000 -18500
WR 93200 (63%) 81700 11500 79500 (53%) 77500 2000
SR 65000 (55%) 80500 -15500 57500 (48%) 74000 -16500
ER 53800 (69%) 36000 17800 56800 (73%) 34200 22600
NER 8000 (55%) 4100 3900 10000 (68%) 3900 6100
Bhutan 4000 (61%) 0 4000 5500 (83%) 0 5500
Bangladesh 1000 -1000 1000 -1000
Pakistan 200 -200 200 -200
All India 290000 (62%) 290000 0 273800(58%) 273800 0
2021-22: Load-generation balance report (MW)
Winter Peak Monsoon Peak
Region wise Dispatch (% of Capacity)
Demand Sur(+) / Def(-) Dispatch (% of Capacity)
Demand Sur(+) /Def(-)
NR 59800 (59%) 82000 -22200 40000 (39%) 61000 -21000
WR 97900 (66%) 86000 11900 75900 (51%) 60000 15900
SR 62900 (53%) 82000 -19100 45000 (38%) 58000 -13000
ER 5800 (75%) 33300 24700 45000 (58%) 25200 19800
NER 6700 (46%) 3900 2800 1500 (10%) 2900 -1400
Bhutan 3100 (47%) 0 3100 600 (9%) 0 600
Bangladesh 1000 -1000 700 -700
Pakistan 200 -200 200 -200
All India 288400 (61%) 288400 0 208000 (44%) 208000 0
By the end of the 13th plan, the west, east, and northeast regions are likely to have surplus generation; south and north will be deficit
Source: CEA
23GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 22
India Power Scenario FY22 – summer peak
Transmission Corri-dor(MW)
10th Plan end 11th plan end Existing (July, ‘14)
12th plan addition
End of 12th plan
13th plan Total capacity
East- North 3,430 10,030 14,230 5,300 19,530 7,200 26,730
East - West 1,790 4,390 6,490 6,300 12,790 8,400 21,190
East - South 3,130 3,630 3,630 4,200 7,830 4,200 12,030
East- North East 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,600 2,860 - 2,860
West - North 2,120 4,220 8,720 8,200 16,920 15,600 32,520
West - South 1,720 1,520 5,720 2,200 7,920 14,400 22,320
North East - North - - - 6,000 6,000 3,000 9,000
Total 14,050 25,650 40,050 33,800 73,850 52,800 126,650
Addittion in capacity over the plan period (in MW)
11,600 48,200 52,800
Inter-regional transmission capacity (MW) envisaged until the 13th plan
Key inter-regional transmission corridors
Accounting for the deficit/surplus in various
regions, along with the diversity factor, the in-
ter-regional transfer capacity is seen increasing to
127GW by the end of the 13th plan (FY22) from
40GW currently. A total of 148,514ckms of trans-
mission line, 15,000MW of HVDC terminal capaci-
ty, and 271,000MVA of transformation capacity of
>220kv would need to be set up in the 13th plan
(2017-22).
25GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 24
Description 10th Plan end
11th plan addition
11th plan end
Current (Apr,15)
12th plan addition
12th Plan end
13th plan addition
13th Plan end
Transmission Lines (>220kv) ckm
HVDC Bipole lines 5872 3,560 9,432 9,432 7,440 16,872 10,600 27,472
765kv 2184 3,066 5,250 18,650 27,000 32,250 22,200 54,450
400kv 75722 31,097 106,819 136,264 38,000 144,819 30,000 174,819
220kv 114629 21,351 135,980 149,828 35,000 170,980 85,714 256,694
Total 198407 59,074 257,481 304,742 107,440 364,921 148,514 513,435
HVDC terminal
HVDC back-to-back 3000 - 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 - 3,000
HVDC Bipole terminals 5000 1,750 6,750 10,500 12,750 19,500 15,000 34,500
Total- HVDC Terminal Capacity, MW 8200 1,550 9,750 13500 12,750 22,500 15,000 37,500
Substations transformation capacity
765 kV - 25,000 25,000 126,000 149,000 174,000 79,000 253,000
400 kV 92,942 58,085 151,027 192,997 45,000 196,027 49,000 245,027
220kv 156,497 67,277 223,774 272,383 76,000 299,774 142,857 442,631
Total- AC Substation capacity, MVA 249439 150,362 399,801 591,380 270,000 669,801 270,857 940,658
Inter-regional transmission lines by voltage levels
Inter-regional transmission links planned by the end of the 13th plan
Sour
ce: C
EA
Source: CEA
25GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 24
S H I F T T O H I G H E R V O L T A G E
Transmission network shifting to new technologies and higher voltage
The Indian transmission network (>132kv)
has continuously been moving towards
higher voltages and new technologies.
This has become more pronounced af-
ter the blackout in the northern grid in July 2012.
Description 10th Plan end
11th plan addition
11th plan end
Current (Apr,15)
12th plan addition
12th Plan end
13th plan addition
13th Plan end
Transmission Lines (>220kv) ckm
HVDC Bipole lines 5872 3,560 9,432 9,432 7,440 16,872 10,600 27,472
765kv 2184 3,066 5,250 18,650 27,000 32,250 22,200 54,450
400kv 75722 31,097 106,819 136,264 38,000 144,819 30,000 174,819
220kv 114629 21,351 135,980 149,828 35,000 170,980 85,714 256,694
Total 198407 59,074 257,481 304,742 107,440 364,921 148,514 513,435
HVDC terminal
HVDC back-to-back 3000 - 3,000 3,000 - 3,000 - 3,000
HVDC Bipole terminals 5000 1,750 6,750 10,500 12,750 19,500 15,000 34,500
Total- HVDC Terminal Capacity, MW 8200 1,550 9,750 13500 12,750 22,500 15,000 37,500
Substations transformation capacity
765 kV - 25,000 25,000 126,000 149,000 174,000 79,000 253,000
400 kV 92,942 58,085 151,027 192,997 45,000 196,027 49,000 245,027
220kv 156,497 67,277 223,774 272,383 76,000 299,774 142,857 442,631
Total- AC Substation capacity, MVA 249439 150,362 399,801 591,380 270,000 669,801 270,857 940,658
Focus is shifting towards usage of higher voltage lines
Currently, transmission lines are primarily run at
400/765kv voltage levels and PGCIL intends to
move to 1200kv in the 13th-14th plan. Higher
voltages lead to more efficient transfer of power
while using lesser space.
Source: CEA
27GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 26
Delivering renewable energy with HVDC
New technologies that are being adopted to make the
grid more reliable and efficient include HVDC, dynamic
reactive compensation, PMU/PDC-based synchro-phasor
technology/wide-area monitoring system (WAMS), phase
shifting transformers and series reactors, and 1200kV
UHVAC. Here are a few details of these technologies:
a. HVDC-based: A high-voltage, direct current (HVDC)
electric-power transmission system uses direct current
for the bulk transmission of electrical power, in con-
trast with the more common alternating current (AC)
systems. These HVDC systems may be less expensive
for long-distance transmission and suffer lower electri-
cal losses. Since high voltage cannot readily be used
for lighting or motors, they need to be reduced at the
transmission level for end-use equipment. Transformers
are used to change voltage levels in alternating cur-
rent (AC) transmission circuits. However, most HVDC
systems have thyristor valves (a small device used to
control high voltage) and such HVDC systems are also
called line-commutated convertor (LCC). A long distance
point-to-point HVDC transmission scheme generally has
lower overall investment costs and lower losses than an
equivalent AC transmission scheme. HVDC-conversion
equipment at the terminal stations is costly, but the total
DC transmission line costs over long distances are lower
than AC lines over the same distance. Further, HVDC
scores higher on controllability front, as power flow
between AC systems can be automatically controlled
without risk to the network.
b. Dynamic reactive compensation (SVC/STATCOM) -
In order to maintain voltages within stipulated limits and
grid stability, STATCOM/SVC are required as dynamic
compensators at strategic locations. A static synchronous
compensator (STATCOM) is a regulating device used
on alternating current electricity transmission networks.
When connected to a source of power it can also pro-
vide active AC power. Usually a STATCOM is installed to
support electricity networks that have a poor power factor
and (often) poor voltage regulation. While it does have
other uses, the most common use is for voltage stability.
A static VAR compensator (SVC) can also be used for
voltage stability. However, a STATCOM has better charac-
teristics than an SVC on the grid-stability front due to its
ability to maintain current output irrespective of voltage
levels.
c. Synchro-phasor technology/Wide Area Monitoring
System (WAMS): The Indian power systems’ dimensions
and complexity is increasing. This necessitates better
visibility of the grid system. To achieve a safe, secure,
and reliable operation on a real-time basis, it is necessary
to rapidly update the operating scenario with intelligent
computation to capture the dynamic behaviour of a pow-
er system. To address critical developments in the grid
application of synchrophasor technology using Phasor
Source: CEA
27GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 26
Voltage 132 kV 220 kV 400 kV 765 Kv +500 kV HVDC +/-800 kV HVDC 1200 kV
ROW Meters(M) 27 35 52 64 46 70 90
Capacity (MW) 70-80 160-170 500-600 2500-3000 2000-2500 6000-6400 6000-8000
MW/m 3 5 15 45 48 90 90
Advantages of using HVDC versus A/C transmission line - higher capacity and lower transmission loss
Measurement Unit (PMU) along with Phasor Data Con-
centrators (PDC) and high-speed wideband fibre optic
communication links are used. The dynamic behaviour
of the power system can be observed almost real time at
the control centre, thereby improving/enhancing situa-
tional awareness for the operators and helping increase
the grid’s deliverability.
d. Phase Shifting Transformers: Existing transmission
systems are often operated and stressed to the limit of
the performance capability of their original design, in
order to maximize asset utilization. To ensure that under
these conditions the grid’s operations remain econom-
ical, reliable, and secure, the need for various aspects
of power flow management within the power systems
is becoming evident. Phase-shifting transformers (PST)
help control the real power flow in transmission lines
and systems inter-ties. They allow for better utilization
of existing networks by balancing the loading in parallel
paths.
e. Series Reactor - To meet the growing power demand
generation, new lines are being added. All this has
resulted in an increase in short-circuit level. In India, as
generation resources are concentrated in selected areas,
these locations face high short circuits. Similarly, areas
with high demand, connected by many lines, also face
high short-circuit levels. Series reactor has been consid-
ered for limiting the fault current level and therefore the
resulting short circuits there from.
f. 1200 kV UHVAC technology - In India, in the past
decade, 765kV Extra High Voltage (EHV) AC technology
has been on the forefront of establishing high capacity
transmission corridors. However, in view of the grow-
ing right-of-way concerns and establishment of giga-
watt-scale generation complexes, there is a need for
further increasing transmission of power in a given right-
of-way. In this direction, the world’s highest transmission
voltage level of 1200kV UHV-AC has already established
in India with the charging of National Test Station at Bina
in MP in 2012. This technology has been developed
indigenously through the establishment of a 1200kV test
station through a collaborative effort with leading Indian
electrical equipment manufacturers, CPRI and CEA and
Powergrid. The technology is expected on a commer-
cial basis in the 14th plan (2022 onwards). After getting
adequate experience in the operation of 1200kV lines
and substation equipment at the test station at Bina, and
based on system requirement for bulk transmission of
power, more 1200kV lines could be planned. However, in
case of low power transfer requirement in initial periods,
lines may be operated at lower voltage levels.
29GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 28
Name of Company 765kv trans-former
1200kv transformer
HVDC Static Com-pensator
400/765kv AIS
400kv GIS 765k GIS PMU
ABB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Siemens Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Alstom T&D Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Toshiba Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
TBEA Shenyang Y Y N N N N N N
Crompton Greaves Y Y N N Y Y N N
Hyosung N N N N Y Y Y N
Company-wise capability in the transmission space
765kV class transformer / Reactor
Foreign bidders to set up manufacturing facility to supply at least one transformer / reactor
765kV GIS equipment Foreign bidders to set up manufacturing facility to supply at least one bay
±800kV HVDC equipment Thyristor-at least 50% to be assembled in India. Convertor X-former - 90% indigenous
SVC & Statcom At least one SVC/Statcom to be supplied from manufacturing facility in India
HTLS conductors, Insulators & EHV cable
Suitable provisions being proposed to promote manufacturing in India
Complementing ‘Make in India’
With most of the incremental transmission capacity
likely to be put up at high voltages, the play-
er-wise capabilities across various equipment types
are listed above.
“Make in India” clause by PGCIL
In order to promote the government’s ’Make in
India’ initiative, PGCIL has already put in place
stringent norms to force equipment suppliers to
set up factories in India. Even before the current
government’s push, PGCIL had inserted a domes-
tic manufacturing clause for its 765kv transform-
ers. This in turn led to companies (Alstom T&D,
Siemens, ABB, and TBEA Shenyang) setting up
factories at Baroda over the last 5-6 years.
As highlighted in the chart below, PGCIL has ex-
panded the domestic manufacturing clause across
equipment types; this will lead to more Chinese/
Korean companies setting up shop in India.
Channel checks indicate that Baoding (Chinese
transformer manufacturer) has started constructing
a 10,000MVA transformer facility at Baroda while
Hyosung (Korean GIS manufacturer) is putting up a
factory at Pune.
The Make in India clause benefits local players
in two ways:
a) It weeds out non-serious players who were pre-
viously importing and dumping equipment from
their overseas factories. This is in turn implies a
bigger pie for existing players and is very evident
in the case of 765kv transformers where Koreans
have completely left the market after PGCIL im-
posed the domestic clause.
b) Improves pricing for locally made equipment
as the domestic players have a more level playing
field versus foreign competition (read Chinese and
Korean players).
Source: PGCIL
29GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 28
C O M P E T I T I V E B I D D I N G I N T R A N S M I S S I O N
Tariff-based bidding – encourage private-sector participation
Realizing the need for gathering addi-
tional funds for the power sector, the
government promulgated the Electricity
Act, 2003, to promote private participa-
tion in the transmission sector. The act provided
for transmission licenses by the CERC and SERC
and for determination of tariffs under section
61/62 through competitive tariff-based bidding.
Thereafter, a model transmission agreement was
notified in May 2012.
There are two routes for the private sector to
participate in transmission — either via the JV
route or through a 100% owned Independent
Private Transmission Company (IPTC). It has been
proposed that all new transmission lines shall be
Key features of the Model Transmission Agreement (Source: Planning Commission)a. Concession Period: Maximum 25 years with a provision for 10 more years.b. Scope of the project: Includes construction, operation, and maintenance of intra-state transmission system through PPP on DBFOT
(design, build, finance, operate, transfer) mode for 25 years (extendable by 10 years) starting from the date the Transmission license is granted.
c. Viability Gap Funding: Projects based on the MTA qualify for VGF under the Scheme for Financial Support to PPPs in infrastructure, which provides for a central grant of up to 20% of the capital cost of the project. VGF is to be determined by competitive bidding. In cases where bidders do not seek any grant and are instead willing to make a financial offer to the authority, they will be free to quote a premium in the form of a reduction in the specified unitary charge.
d. Transmission charge: The MTA provides for payment of an annual unitary charge, which the authority would stat upfront. This charge is determined based on extant transmission tariffs, proposed capacity of the transmission system, total project cost, and the estimated cost of the associated upstream and downstream transmission capacity. The MTA suggests that the unitary charge should not be fixed at a level lower than 75% of the amount likely to be required for servicing the project costs.
e. Selection of concessionaire. This will be based on open competitive bidding and all project parameters such as concession period, techni-cal standards, and performance standards.
f. Financial close. The MTA stipulates a time limit of 180 days for achieving financial closure (extendable by another 120 days on payment of a penalty).
g. Construction of the transmission line. It is proposed that the authority satisfy these conditions—handing over possession of the land required for construction of sub-stations and obtaining of environmental clearances—before financial close. It is also proposed that the concessionaire satisfy these conditions—procurement of a transmission license and other applicable permits. In order to facilitate the process, the authority would provide reasonable support and assistance to the Concessionaire in procuring licence and permits.
‘bid out’ from January 2011 and only lines that are
of national interest shall be given to Power Grid
on a nomination basis. All intra-state transmission
networks would move towards TBCB (tariff-based
competitive-bidding) from 1st January 2013.
There are two ways for ‘bidding out’ the transmis-
sion networks: (1) model transmission agreement
using the lowest VGF as notified by the Planning
Commission or (2) the Standard Bidding Docu-
ments as notified by the Ministry of Power. For
most of the inter-state transmission projects that
PFC/REC bid, they use the SBD method while
some states have used the VGF model as stated
by the Planning Commission.
31GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 30
Procedure for bidding out of projects on tariff based bidding
– Project approval by empowered committee
– Bid process coordinator selected (PFC and REC)
– RFQ notification and bid invitation
– Annual transmission charges quoted for the contract years (35 yrs) in the RFP
– Transmission charges levelized over a period from the scheduled COD of the
project up to 35 years
– Project awarded to L1 (lowest) bidder
CERC
– Response to RFQ submission and evaluation by BPC
– Selection of qualified bidders. Issuance of RFP to selected bidders
– (a) Responsiveness check, (b) Compliance with submission requirements,
(c) Evaluation of qualifying requirements
Bidder 1 / 2 / N
Bidder 1 / 2 / N
disputes
A list of projects that have been awarded on
tariff-based bidding over the last 2-3 years follows.
PGCIL has won nine projects out of the 18 that it
had originally bid for, which implies a 50% market
share in such projects. Recently, PGCIL was given
projects worth Rs 300bn on a nomination ba-
sis by the government; of these, the Rs 200bn
Raichur-Pugular HVDC lines was done on Tamil
Nadu’s insistence, as the state wanted this line to
come up on time. Currently, Rs 280bn of projects
are out on TBCB (to be awarded over the next few
quarters).
31GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 30
Project State Awarding Agency Developer
North Karanpura Jharkhand REC Reliance Power Transmission
Talcher II Orrisa REC Reliance Power Transmission
East North Interconnection transmission project Assam, West Bengal & Bihar PFC Sterlite Technologies
Jabalpur Transmission project Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh PFC Sterlite Transmission Projects
Bhopal Dhule Transmission Co Ltd Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh & Maharashtra PFC Sterlite Transmission Projects
Nagapattinam-Madhugiri transmission Tamil Nadu PFC PGCIL
Patran Transmission Co. Ltd. Haryana PFC Techno Electric and Engineering
Transmission System for Part ATS of RAPP U-7 & 8 Rajasthan PFC Sterlite Grid
Eastern Region System Strengthening Scheme-VII West Bengal, Jharkand PFC Sterlite Grid
ERSS VI (Darbhanga-Motihari) PFC Essel Infraprojects Ltd
Talcher-II Transmission Co Ltd Odisha , AP REC PGCIL
North Karanpura Transmission Co Ltd Uttar Pradesh , MP, Chhatisgarh, Haryana
REC PGCIL
Raichur Sholapur Transmission Co Ltd Karnataka REC Patel Engg, Simplex Infra & BS Transcomm
Vemagiri A Transmission System Ltd Andhra Pradesh REC PGCIL - discontinued
Vizag Transmission Ltd NA REC PGCIL
Kudgi Transmission Ltd NA REC L&T IDPL
NRSS XXiX NA REC Sterlite Grid
NRSS XXXI (A) NA REC PGCIL
NRSS XXXI (B) NA REC Essel Infraprojects Ltd
WRSSS-II Project B (Maharashtra) Maharashtra MSETCL Reliance Infra
WRSSS-II Project C (Gujarat) Gujarat GETCO Reliance Infra
Transmission system for 1320MW Jhajjar TPP Haryana HVPNL Kalpatru Power & Techno Electric
Bikaner-Deedwana-Ajmer-Sujangarh transmission Rajasthan RRVPNL GMR Energy
Hindaun -Alwar Transmission line Rajasthan RRVPNL GMR Energy
765kV S/C Mainpuri-Bara line with 765/400kV AIS at Mainpuri
Uttar Pradesh UPPTCL Isolux Corsan Concesiones S.A.
765kV S/C Mainpuri -Hapur & Mainpuri -Gr Noida lines with 765/400kV AIS at Hapur & Gr Noida
Uttar Pradesh UPPTCL Cobra-MEIL Consortium
Unchahar Transmission Uttar Pradesh REC PGCIL
NCC Project Andhra Pradesh REC Awarded to PGCIL on nomination
Transmission Strengthening Scheme Vindhy-achal V
REC PGCIL
Gadarwara STPS (2 x 800 MW) of NTPC (Part A) REC PGCIL
Gadarwara STPS (2 x 800 MW) of NTPC (Part B) REC PGCIL
List of projects awarded on tariff-based bidding
33GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 32
Private sector players not having a smooth run either
Competitive intensity was quite high in the initial
tariff-based projects, as more than twenty play-
ers participated in such projects. Reliance Power
Transmission won the two initial projects based on
very aggressive bids. Construction work on these
two projects is yet to take off, as the company has
petitioned the CERC for an increase in transmis-
sion charges.
Heightened competition continued until 2013;
however, in recent bids, the number of players
declined to 5-7; it seems like most players have
realised that executing these projects is not easy
because of issues (severe Right of Way and clear-
ance-related)that developers face. For example,
for the Kudgi transmission project, L&T expects to
make IRRs in the range of 18-20% while PGCIL has
also mentioned that IRRs for recent projects are
rising.
ABB Gas Insulated Substation
Description Earlier Current/Proposed
Grid Construction PGCIL - award on nomination basis PGCIL and Private players
Grid Control PGCIL POSOCO hived off from PGCIL to control grid
Collection of transmission charges PGCIL New company to be formed for collection of trans-mission charges
Changing dynamics in the transmission sector
33GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 32
E V A C U A T I O N O F R E N E W A B L E P O W E R
Green Energy Transmission Corridors
Currently, the total installed electricity
generation capacity in India is about
270GW. Out of this, about 13%
(36GW) is through renewable gener-
ation (mainly wind at 23.4GW) and the rest is in
the form of small hydro (4GW), biomass (4.4GW),
and solar (3.7GW). Various policies and regulatory
and fiscal incentives have accelerated the devel-
opment of renewable energy (RE) generation.
Due to such initiatives, large capacity addition
though renewable generation is envisaged in the
12th and 13th plan period.
Proposed Green Energy Corridors
Capacity addition will be driven by states such
as TN, Karnataka, AP, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and
Rajasthan. Envisaged RE capacity within RE-rich
states would be more than their proposed RPO
target in 2016-17. Therefore, surplus RE gener-
ation would be transferred to other non-RE rich
states. The issue of output variability in case of
non-conventional energy needs to be addressed
through proper demand-side management. It is
also necessary to strengthen the transmission sys-
tem at both intra-state and interstate level.
Sour
ce: C
EA
35GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 34
Name of State Solar Power (MW) Wind (MW) Small Hydro Power (MW) Biomass Power (MW)
Delhi 2762
Haryana 4142 25 209
Himachal Pradesh 776 1500
Jammu & Kashmir 1155 150
Punjab 4772 50 244
Rajasthan 5762 8,600
Uttar Pradesh 10697 25 3499
Uttrakhand 900 700 197
Chandigarh 153
Northern Region 31120 8600 2450 4149
Goa 358
Gujarat 8020 8800 25 288
Chhattisgarh 1783 25
Madhya Pradesh 5675 6200 25 118
Maharashtra 11926 7600 50 2469
D. & N. Haveli 449
Daman & Diu 199
Western Region 28410 22600 125 2875
Andhra Pradesh 9834 8100 543
Telangana 2000
Karnataka 5697 6200 1500 1420
Kerala 1870 100
Tamil Nadu 8884 11900 75 649
Puducherry 246
Southern Region 26531 28200 1675 2612
Bihar 2493 25 244
Jharkhand 1995 10
Orissa 2377
West Bengal 5336 50
Sikkim 36 50
Eastern Region 12237 135 244
Assam 663 25
Manipur 105
Meghalaya 161 50
Nagaland 61 15
Tripura 105
Arunachal Pradesh 39 500
Mizoram 72 25
North Eastern Region 1205 615
Andaman & Nicobar Islands 27
Lakshadweep 4
Other ( New States) 600 120
All India 99533 60000 5000 10000
State wise target for 175GW of renewable energy by 2022
35GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 34
S.No Particulars Estimated Cost (Rs bn)
1 Intra State Transmission System Strengthening 205
1A. For absorption of power within the state 94
(i) a) Tamil Nadu 26
(ii) b) Andhra Pradesh 11
(iiii) c) Gujarat 15
(iv) d) Rajasthan 38
(v) e) Himachal Pradesh 4
1B. Last Mile connectivity to STU network 111
2 Inter State Transmission System 188
2A. ISTS Strengthening 173
2B. Last Mile connectivity to ISTS network 16
3 Dynamic Reactive Compensation 6
4 Real Time Dynamic State Measurement Scheme as well as Communication Systems 5
5 Energy Storage 20
6 Cost of Establishment of RE management Center (6 RE rich state, one each for NLDC / 3 RLDC ) 2
Grand Total 426
Estimated cost of Green Corridor
Transmission system for renewables is classified as:
1. Intra-state strengthening (STU) for absorption within state may be implemented by respective STUs. It aids transfer of power from point of common coupling (PCC) to grid network for absorption of power within the same area or host state. Develop-ment of last-mile connectivity also needs special emphasis for faster implementation; otherwise, it may lead to generation bottleneck.
2. Inter-state transmission system includes inter-state transmission strengthening across states to facilitate transfer of power beyond state boundaries. ISTS mainly comprises of +500kV HVDC as well as 765kV/400kV AC transmission lines for in-ter-state transmission of power.
37GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 36
Upto 11th plan 12th plan addittion 13th Plan Addition 13th plan end
Northern Region
Delhi 2,593 808 (285) 3,116
Haryana 5,379 1,042 2,560 8,981
Himachal 7,919 4,864 1,206 13,989
J&K 2,671 1,583 1,943 6,197
Punjab 4,132 3,920 1,306 9,358
Rajasthan 10,329 10,950 4,660 25,938
U.P 17,826 6,658 2,370 26,854
Uttarkhand 3,616 1,025 3,130 7,771
Total 54,467 30,849 16,890 102,206
Western Region
Goa 48 - - 48
Gujarat 22,646 14,690 1,744 39,079
Chhatisgarh 9,464 15,940 6,340 31,744
M.P 9,230 12,630 6,760 28,620
Maharashtra 24,676 19,233 5,418 49,327
Total 66,064 62,492 20,262 148,818
Southern Region
Andhra Pradesh 11,715 12,780 7,386 31,881
Karnataka 14,079 8,790 1,600 24,469
Kerala 2,853 100 - 2,953
Tamilnadu 19,663 16,603 11,190 47,456
Telangana 7,512 1,788 2,900 12,199
Total 55,821 40,061 23,076 118,958
Eastern Region
Bihar 3,037 5,190 4,620 12,847
Jharkhand 3,974 1,645 8,890 14,509
Odisha 7,817 5,185 13,005 26,007
West Bengal 14,305 2,772 3,505 20,582
Sikkim 627 2,066 1,175 3,868
Total 29,761 16,858 31,195 77,813
Al India Total 210,413 153,797 101,745 469,020
Annexure 1. Detailed state/region wise capacity addition during the 12th and 13th plan (MW)
37GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 36
Description Present(MW) Balance by 12th
Plan(MW)
End of 12th Plan(MW)
During 13th plan(MW)
End of 13th plan(MW)
East - North(MW)
Dehri-Sahupuri 220 kV S/c 130 130 130
Sasaram HVDC back-to-back 500 500 500
Muzaffarpur-Gorakhpur 400 kV D/c (with Series Cap+TCSC) 2000 2000 2000
Patna – Balia 400kV D/c (Quad) 1600 1600 1600
Biharshariff – Balia 400kV D/c(Quad) 1600 1600 1600
Barh – Balia 400kV D/c (Quad) 1600 1600 1600
Gaya - Balia 765kV S/c 2100 2100 2100
Sasaram bypassing(additional capacity) 500 500 500
Sasaram - Fatehpur 765kV2x S/c 4200 4200 4200
Barh-II-Gorakhpur 400kV D/c (Quad) line 1600 1600 1600
Gaya-Varanasi 765 kV S/c line 2100 2100 2100
Biharsharif - Varanasi 400kV D/c line with quad conductor 1600 1600 1600
Tillaiyya – Balia 765kV D/c line, one ckt via Gaya 4200 4200
Angul (ER- Orissa) – Badarpur (NR-Delhi) +800kV, 6000MW HVDC bipole with 3000MW terminal Capacity
3000* 3000
Sub-total 14230 5300 19530 7200 26730
East - West
Budhipadar-Korba 220 kV 3 ckts. 390 390 390
Rourkela-Raipur 400 kV D/c with series comp.+TCSC 1400 1400 1400
Ranchi –Sipat 400 kV D/c with series comp. 1200 1200 1200
Rourkela-Raipur 400 kV D/c (2nd) with series comp. 1400 1400 1400
Ranchi - Dharamjayagarh - WR Pooling Station 765kV S/c line 2100 2100 2100
Ranchi - Dharamjaygarh 765kV 2nd S/c 2100 2100 2100
Jharsuguda-Dharamjaygarh 765kV D/c line 4200 4200 4200
Jharsuguda - Dharamjaygarh (to be LILOed at Raigarh Tamnar) 765kV D/c line (2nd)
4200 4200
Jharsuguda - Raipur Pool 765kV D/c line 4200 4200
Sub-total 6490 6300 12790 8400 21190
West-North
Auriya-Malanpur 220 KV D/c 260 260 260
Kota - Ujjain 220 KV D/c 260 260 260
Vindhyachal HVDC back-to-back 500 500 500
Gwalior-Agra 765 kV 2 x S/c 4200 4200 4200
Zerda-Kankroli 400kV D/c 1000 1000 1000
Champa Pool- Kurukshetra HVDC Bipole 3000 3000 3000
Gwalior-Jaipur 765kV 2xS/c lines 4200 4200 4200
RAPP-Sujalpur 400kV D/c 1000 1000 1000
Adani(Mundra) - Mahendranagar HVDC bipole 2500 2500 2500
Annexure 2. Inter-Regional Transmission Cap-region wise lines over 12th and 13th plan (MW)
39GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 38
Description Present(MW) Balance by 12th
Plan(MW)
End of 12th Plan(MW)
During 13th plan(MW)
End of 13th plan(MW)
Upgradation of Champa – Kurukshetra +800kV, 6000MW HVDC bipole with 3000MW terminal Capacity
3000 3000
Jabalpur – Orai 765kV D/c line 4200 4200
Banaskanta – Chittorgarh 765kV D/c line 4200 4200
Dhanvahi – Fatehpur 765kV D/c line 4200 4200
Sub-total 8,720 8,200 16,920 15,600 32,520
EAST- SOUTH
Balimela-Upper Sileru 220kV S/c 130 130 130
Gazuwaka HVDC back-to-back 1,000 1,000 1,000
Talcher-Kolar HVDC bipole 2,000 2,000 2,000
Upgradation of Talcher-Kolar HVDC Bipole 500 500 500
Angul - Srikakulum 765kV D/c line 4,200 4,200 4,200
Angul - Srikakulum 765kV D/c line (2nd) 4,200 4,200
Sub-total 3,630 4,200 7,830 4,200 12,030
WEST- SOUTH
Chandrapur HVDC back-to-back 1,000 1,000 1,000
Kolhapur-Belgaum 220kV D/c 260 260 260
Ponda – Nagajhari 220kV D/c 260 260 260
Raichur - Sholapur 765kV S/c line (PG) 2,100 2,100 2,100
Raichur - Sholapur 765kV S/c line (Pvt. Sector) 2,100 2,100 2,100
Narendra - Kolhapur 765kV D/c (ch at 400kV) 2,200 2,200 2,200
Wardha - Nizamabad 765kV D/c line 4,200 4,200
Raigarh - Pugalur +/- 800kV, 6000 Bi-pole 6,000 6,000
Warora Pool - Warangal 765kV D/c line 4,200 4,200
Sub-total 5,720 2,200 7,920 14,400 22,320
EAST- NORTH EAST
Birpara-Salakati 220kV D/c 260 260 260
Siliguri - Bongaigaon 400 kV D/c 1,000 1,000 1,000
Siliguri - Bongaigaon 400 kV D/c (Quad) line 1,600 1,600 1,600
Sub-total 1,260 1,600 2,860 - 2,860
NORTH EAST-NORTH
Biswanath Chariali - Agra +/- 800 kV, 3000 MW HVDC Bi-pole 3,000 3,000 3,000
LILO of Biswanath Chariali - Agra +/- 800 kV, 3000 MW HVDC 3,000 3,000 3,000
Rangia/Rowta – Gurudaspur +800kV, 6000/6500 MW HVDC 3,000 3,000
Sub-total 6,000 6,000 3,000 9,000
TOTAL 40,050 33,800 73,850 52,800 126,650
YoY Growth (%) 84% 71%
Annexure 2. Contd.
39GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 38
Installed Capacity (MW) Availability (MW) Demand (2021-22)
Deficit/Surplus
State Coal Nuclear Thermal Coal+Nuclear)
Hydro Gas Res. Total Thermal Hydro Gas Res. Total
NR
Delhi 420 0 420 0 2680 16 3116 336 0 536 2 874 9024 -8150
Haryana 7660 700 8360 62 436 123 8981 6688 31 87 12 6819 14244 -7425
Himachal 0 0 0 12082 0 1907 13989 0 6041 0 191 6232 2589 3643
J & K 0 0 0 5392 184 622 6197 0 2696 37 62 2795 4217 -1422
Punjab 7650 0 7650 1411 0 297 9358 6120 706 0 30 6855 14552 -7697
Rajasthan 11935 3280 15215 526 1020 9177 25938 12172 263 204 918 13557 19692 -6135
Uttar Pradesh 23573 440 24013 502 1493 846 26854 19210 251 299 85 19845 36061 -16216
Uttarkhand 0 0 0 6681 900 190 7771 0 3341 180 19 3540 2901 639
Chandigarh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 559 -559
Total 51238 4420 55658 26656 6714 13178 102206
States of WR
Goa 0 0 0 0 48 0 48 0 0 10 0 10 1192 -1182
Gujarat 17931 1840 19771 1990 8386 8932 39079 15817 995 1677 1340 19829 26973 -7144
Chhatisgarh 31315 0 31315 120 0 309 31744 25052 60 0 46 25158 6599 18559
M. P. 24482 700 25182 2794 0 644 28620 20146 1397 0 97 21639 18802 2837
Maharashtra 32750 1400 34149.5 2975 3370 8832 49327 27320 1488 674 1325 30806 39622 -8816
D&N Haveli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1297 -1297
Daman & Diu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 -605
Total 106478 3940 110418 7879 11804 18717 148818
Andhra Pradesh 16020 0 16020 4630 7231 4000 31881 12816 2315 1446 600 17177 15933 1244
Karnataka 10880 880 11760 3530 234 8945 24469 9408 1765 47 1342 12562 18403 -5841
Kerala 0 0 0 1921 769 263 2953 0 961 154 39 1154 6093 -4939
Tamil Nadu 23340 3940 27280 2160 1439 16577 47456 21824 1080 288 2487 25678 30757 -5079
Telangana 9280 0 9280 524 0 2395 12199 7424 262 0 359 8045 17261 -9216
Total 59520 4820 64340 12765 9673 32180 118958
States of ER
Bihar 12590 0 12590 143 0 114 12847 10072 72 0 17 10161 9306 855
Jharkhand 14265 0 14265 134 90 20 14509 11412 67 18 3 11500 6341 5159
Odisha 23880 0 23880 2028 0 100 26007 19104 1014 0 15 20133 6749 13384
West Bengal 17882 0 17882 2457 112 131 20582 14306 1228 22 20 15576 17703 -2127
Sikkim 0 0 0 3811 5 52 3868 0 1906 1 8 1914 176 1738
Bhutan 0 0 0 6602 0 0 6602 0 3301 0 0 3301 0 3301
Total 68617 0 68617 8572 207 417 84415
States of NER
Assam 810 0 810 300 586 430 2125 648 150 117 64 980 2534 -1554
Manipur 0 0 0 171 45 5 222 0 86 9 1 95 497 -402
Nagaland 0 0 0 283 2 29 314 0 142 0 4 146 271 -125
Tripura 0 0 0 0 1117 16 1133 0 0 223 2 226 472 -246
Arunachal 0 0 0 9665 0 104 9769 0 4833 0 16 4848 177 4671
Mizoram 0 0 0 542 52 36 630 0 271 10 5 287 352 -65
Meghalaya 0 0 0 397 2 31 430 0 199 0 5 204 596 -392
Total 810 0 810 11358 1803 651 14623
Annexure 3. Load Generation Balance by state – 13th Plan (2021-22)
41GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 40
Annexure 4. Eleven high capacity transmission corridors planned in 12th plan
Source: PGCIL
41GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 40
State Peak Demand
(MW)
Increment Load (MW)
State Generation (MW) Import required
(MW )
% of Peak
Existing Addition Total Disptach
Northern Region
Delhi 9,024 3,371 2,696 - 2,696 538 8,486 94%
Haryana 14,244 6,130 4,665 1,680 6,345 4,977 9,267 65%
Himachal Pradesh 2,589 1,197 1,378 2,237 3,615 1,140 1,449 56%
Jammu & Kashmir 4,217 2,219 983 1,017 2,000 730 3,487 83%
Punjab 14,552 5,819 5,208 4,086 9,294 6,838 7,714 53%
Rajasthan 19,692 9,654 9,490 10,754 20,244 9,712 9,980 51%
Uttar Pradesh 36,061 23,734 8,511 4,960 13,471 10,076 25,985 72%
Uttarkhand 2,901 1,075 1,842 - 1,842 915 1,986 68%
Chandigarh 559 214 - - - - 559 100%
Western Region
Goa 1,192 663 - - - - 1,192 100%
Gujarat 26,973 14,772 11,542 8,079 19,621 8,221 18,752 70%
Chhatisgarh 6,599 3,234 - 1,965 1,965 2,474 4,125 63%
Madhya Pradesh 18,802 9,086 6,145 1,965 8,110 5,507 13,295 71%
Maharashtra 39,622 20,346 19,496 9,681 29,177 16,126 23,496 59%
D&N Haveli 1,297 636 - - - - 1,297 100%
Daman & Diu 605 283 - - - - 605 100%
Southern Region
Andhra Pradesh 15,933 9,615 7,632 9,680 17,312 9,697 6,236 39%
Karnataka 18,403 9,180 10,905 7,390 18,295 7,763 10,640 58%
Kerala 6,093 2,520 2,679 100 2,779 1,119 4,974 82%
Tamilnadu 29,975 17,150 17,068 13,913 30,981 13,053 16,922 56%
Telangana 17,261 10,417 4,389 2,690 7,079 3,949 13,312 77%
States of the Eastern Region
Bihar 9,306 6,994 697 500 1,197 841 8,465 91%
Jharkhand 6,341 4,458 3,539 1,820 5,359 4,234 2,107 33%
Odisha 6,749 3,027 2,767 1,600 4,367 2,821 3,928 58%
West Bengal 17,703 8,478 10,518 6,440 16,958 12,868 4,836 27%
Sikkim 176 86 52 - 52 8 168 96%
States of the North Eastern Region
Assam 2,534 1,314 764 100 864 217 2,317 91%
Manipur 497 364 5 66 71 34 463 93%
Nagaland 271 165 51 - 51 15 256 94%
Tripura 472 222 165 - 165 32 440 93%
Arunachal 177 53 104 - 104 16 161 91%
Mizoram 352 270 58 - 58 16 336 95%
Meghalaya 596 266 40 40 80 178 418 70%
Annexure 5: Statewise requirement of power import (2021-22)
43GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 42
Annexure 6: India peak and base demand over the years
Demand (GWh)
Availability (Gwh)
Deficit (GWh)
Deficit (%)
Peak demand (MW)
Availability (MW)
Deficit (MW)
Deficit (%)
1984-85 155,432 145,013 10,419 7 25,810 22,800 3,010 12
1985-86 170,746 157,262 13,484 8 28,090 24,215 3,875 14
1986-87 192,356 174,276 18,080 9 30,850 26,924 3,926 13
1987-88 210,993 187,976 23,017 11 31,990 28,242 3,748 12
1988-89 223,194 205,909 17,285 8 36,245 31,713 4,532 13
1989-90 247,762 228,151 19,611 8 40,385 33,658 6,727 17
1990-91 267,632 246,560 21,072 8 44,005 37,171 6,834 16
1991-92 288,974 266,432 22,542 8 48,055 39,027 9,028 19
1992-93 305,266 279,824 25,442 8 52,805 41,984 10,821 20
1993-94 323,252 299,494 23,758 7 54,875 44,830 10,045 18
1994-95 352,260 327,281 24,979 7 57,530 48,066 9,464 16
1995-96 389,721 354,045 35,676 9 60,981 49,836 11,145 18
1996-97 413,490 365,900 47,590 12 63,853 52,376 11,477 18
1997-98 424,505 390,330 34,175 8 65,435 58,042 7,393 11
1998-99 446,584 420,235 26,349 6 67,905 58,445 9,460 14
1999-00 480,430 450,594 29,836 6 72,669 63,691 8,978 12
2000-01 507,216 467,409 39,807 8 74,872 65,628 9,244 12
2001-02 522,537 483,350 39,187 8 78,441 69,189 9,252 12
2002-03 545,674 497,589 48,085 9 81,492 71,547 9,945 12
2003-04 559,264 519,398 39,866 7 84,574 75,066 9,508 11
2004-05 591,373 548,115 43,258 7 87,906 77,652 10,254 12
2005-06 631,757 578,819 52,938 8 93,255 81,792 11,463 12
2006-07 690,587 624,495 66,092 10 100,715 86,818 13,897 14
2007-08 739,343 666,007 73,336 10 108,866 90,793 18,073 17
2008-09 777,039 691,038 86,001 11 109,809 96,785 13,024 12
2009-10 830,594 746,644 83,950 10 119,166 104,009 15,157 13
2010-11 861,591 788,355 73,236 9 122,287 110,256 12,031 10
2011-12 937,199 857,886 79,313 8 130,006 116,191 13,815 11
2012-13 998,114 911,209 86,905 9 135,453 123,294 12,159 9
2013-14 1,002,257 959,829 42,428 4 135,918 129,815 6,103 4
2014-15 1,068,943 1,030,800 38,143 4 148,166 141,160 7,006 5
43GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 42
Bhagirath Choudhary
In a freewheeling chat with Ground View, Bha-girath Choudhary, talked about the immense opportunity for biotech crops in India. Choud-hary is the Founder Director of the South Asia Biotechnology Centre (SABC) and concurrently serves as Director of the International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, New Delhi. He believes that society has been misled about the safety of GM crop technolo-gy, prevailing misinformation may restrict the introduction of some new cutting-edge gene editing technologies and further delay has an enormous opportunity cost, which will only increase the divide between urban and rural India.
shares his views and insights about the
immense opportunity for biotech crops in India
BY GAURI ANAND
Tell us about SABC and what you do there?
The South Asia Biotechnology Centre (SABC) is a non-profit
organization that aims to serve as a knowledge hub. It also
aims to bridge the knowledge gap between science and
society about biotechnology and its vitally important contri-
bution to food, feed, fibre security, and growth of India’s bio
economy. SABC has two objectives – share credible infor-
mation on biotechnology with the society to improve public
understanding and to facilitate the transfer of biotechnology
applications. These are necessary steps for unlocking the
prospects of India’s bio economy, which I strongly believe
has enormous potential – from bio crops and bio materials to
biofuel.
Tell us more about the role of biotech crops in increasing
food production and ensuring food security? What is the
difference between biotech and GM?
Biotechnology has been around for many years. All of us are
talking about biotechnology, but it can mean many different
45GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 44
hectarage of biotech crops was biotech corn and over 50%
or 90.7mn hectares was biotech soybean. Biotech cotton,
canola, papaya, sweet pepper, sweet corn, squash, sugar
beet, brinjal, and alfalfa occupied the remaining area. Of the
18mn farmers that used the technology, 90% (16.5mn) were
small-resource poor farmers in developing countries includ-
ing 7.7mn in India, 7.1mn in China, and almost 500,000 in
the Philippines. In 2014, 87% of the global biotech hectarage
was planted in the Americas with only 11% in Asia and 2% in
Africa; it is evident that Asia represents the major opportu-
nity for growth. With the advent of the new genome-edited
biotech crops, the future looks encouraging for continued
increase in crop productivity, which in turn will contribute to
increased productivity, food security, and the alleviation of
poverty in developing countries.
What are the real benefits of adopting GM crop technol-
ogy?
When biotech crops were first commercialized in 1996, critics
were sceptical of the promises made by their proponents
— 20 years later, facts confirm the multiple and significant
benefits that these crops offer. In these 20 years a total 2bn
hectares of biotech crops (equivalent to twice USA or China’s
landmass) were planted by millions of risk-averse farmers in
28 countries and generated an impressive additional US$
150bn of farm income. A meta-analysis by German econo-
mists Klumper and Qaim (2014) of 20 years of data (1995-
2014) showed that on an average biotech crops increased
yield by 22%, decreased pesticide use by 37%, and increased
profits by a substantial 65%, with yield and profit gains
higher in developing countries than industrial. Moreover, bi-
otech crops contributed to humanitarian benefits by helping
alleviate poverty for 16.5mn small farmers and their families
totalling 65mn — the potential for the future is enormous.
Gene-modification of crops — what are the risks to
health, safety, and environment?
Biotech crops are one of the highly regulated and rigorously
tested crop technologies in agriculture. Between 1996 and
2015 an accumulated 2bn hectares were planted and trillions
of meals were consumed by animals and humans showing no
harm to their health. A majority of grain, edible oil, and meal
traded globally is a produce of biotechnology. Regulatory
authorities in 28 biotech crop-growing countries and 32 bio-
tech-importing countries have concluded that biotech crops
are safe for food and feed consumption. There have been
more than 2,000 studies that confirm GMOs do not pose an
unusual threat to human and animal health and environment.
things. Traditionally, biotechnology has had its hand in drugs,
detergents, as well as in food and beer. However, recent ad-
vancement in tools, techniques, and methodologies to move
genes from one species to another have spurred the growth
of biotechnology sector. Since the advent of gene-transfer
technology in 1980s led by Professor Marc van Montagu (a
World Food Prize Laureate), the world has benefited greatly
from the products based on the recombinant DNA technol-
ogy mostly in pharmaceutical and agriculture sectors. rDNA
pharmaceuticals that cure incurable diseases are being hailed
as a breakthrough technology of the 21st century.
On the other hand, the usefulness of rDNA-based crops
(popularly known as genetically modified (GM) crops that
make plants stronger against insect pests and diseases) is
still being debated. Biotech crops offer solutions to many
problems of today’s agriculture – they can help reduce the
use of insecticides, survive herbicide sprays that kill weeds,
can thrive in harsh conditions, and yield better than conven-
tional crops. Despite this, GM crops court unabated contro-
versy caused by anti-GM groups due to factors other than
their safety, efficacy, and performance. The next generation
biotech crops are based on the new breeding technologies
(NBT) like CRISPR CAS, TALEN, and ZFN. NBT features non-
GM biotech crops utilizing genome-edited applications with
three significant advantages over GM - precision, cost, and
speed, and importantly, they require less onerous and costly
regulations. Biotech crops with new breeding technologies
would require a different regulatory system, creating a level
playing field for public and private enterprises. Such as the
recent announcement by the MS Swaminathan Research
Foundation (MSSRF) to develop high-yielding and disease-re-
sistant rice varieties using gene-edited technologies.
Crop technology is widely adopted in industrial nations
— is the area expanding? What trait is widely adopted
and how do you see this trending?
Biotech crops are the fastest adopted crop technology in the
history of modern agriculture. 1996 to 2015 have been the
decades of biotech crops in agriculture globally. In 2014, for
which the latest biotech crops data is available, biotech crops
were planted over 181.5mn hectares by 18mn small (land
holding) farmers in 28 industrial and developing countries.
In this period, two important traits — insect resistant (IR) and
herbicide tolerant (HT) dominated the global area under
biotech crops in four principal crops soybean, maize, canola
and cotton.
In 2014, globally, over a third (55mn hectares or 30%) of the
45GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 44
Unfortunately, well-funded groups averse to use of biotech
in agriculture have exaggerated risks and fears and created
myths and misconception about their safety.
Bt Cotton has been successful in India. Do you think this
will give way for adoption of technology in other crops?
Which crop/trait would those be?
Bt cotton is a classic example of the remarkable success of
India’s first genetically modified crop. India approved Bt cot-
ton in 2002 after a lengthy and rigorous assessment of safety,
efficacy, and agronomic performance. Bt cotton technology
has made an enormous contribution at both the macro and
micro level by contributing to tripling India’s cotton produc-
tion to 39mn bales in 2014 from 13mn bales in 2001. The
contribution of Bt cotton to increased production of cotton
edible oil and cake is noticeable. Bt cotton now contributes
approximately 1.5mn tonnes of cotton edible oil and supplies
about a third of total cattle feed meal. The use of insecticide
to control voracious cotton pest, bollworm, has dramatically
reduced from 71% of total insecticide use in cotton in 2001
to 3% in 2014. As a result, the number of insecticide sprays
has come down to almost nil or one/two sprays. Bt cotton
has increased the profitability and income of cotton growing
farmers across different agro-climatic zones covering irrigat-
ed, rain-fed, and semi-irrigated cotton area. Remarkably,
India’s contribution to global cotton production doubled to
24% in 2014 from 12% market share in 2001.
Given the enormous contribution of Bt cotton to India’s farm
economy, the country should not drag its feet on biotech-
nology. The NDA government, led by the former Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had approved the commercial
cultivation of Bt cotton – a judgment that yielded more than
what was expected. The moratorium on Bt brinjal in 2010 by
former UPA government stalled almost all projects on biotech
crops in the last five years. There is an enormous opportunity
cost in delaying many new biotech products including Bt/
HT maize, Bt/HT cotton, Bt chickpea and GM mustard, which
are at the penultimate stage of approval in the country. Bt
brinjal is now successfully cultivated by farmers in Bangla-
desh whereas our farmers on the border look on, dismayed.
Farmers spray insecticide on brinjal crop every alternate day
to save it from the deadly shoot and fruit borer (FSB). Many
other vegetables including okra, chilli, cabbage, and cauli-
flower that we consume are loaded with pesticide residues.
These crops can be free from pesticide residue if biotech
counterparts are allowed for cultivation.
Biotech mustard developed by Dr Deepak Pental of Delhi
University is a bright spot in the current debate on biotech
crops. Field trials of biotech mustard show promising results,
with yield increasing up to 25%. Biotech mustard can pro-
duce additional mustard sufficient to offset a sizable amount
of imported edible oil. India imports approximately Rs 650bn
of edible oil, the third largest import after petroleum prod-
ucts and gold. Meanwhile, India is consuming roughly 4mn
tonnes of edible oil derived from biotech crops – 2.5mn
tonnes of imported soybean and canola oil, and 1.5mn
tonnes of domestically produced Bt cotton oil. Similarly, Bt
chickpea, developed jointly by Mahyco and Assam Agri-
cultural University (AAU) is undergoing field testing in India
— this can be a saviour for farmers who suffer considerable
losses in chickpea production due to heavy infestation of pod
borer. We see biotechnology as a potential tool to overcome
low yield and farm distress provided that they have choice
and access to new generation biotech crops.
Recently Maharashtra government gave approvals for
GM field trials for some crops and later withdrew it. The
GEAC and the government don’t seem to agree - what’s
your assessment on this?
The biggest concern of the scientific community is the
non-functioning of GEAC, which is the apex biotech regula-
tory body in India. In the last 14 months, there were hardly
three GEAC meetings (should have met every month) when
the Government gave approval for field trials of selected
crops including mustard, brinjal, cotton and chickpea, subject
to the non-objection certificate (NOC) from respective states.
The requirement of NOC was introduced by the former UPA
government by issuing a Gazette Notification that resulted in
the paralysis of field experiments of biotech crops.
In the past, respective states were represented on various
regulatory committees and contributed to the successful
approval of Bt cotton and field trials of many crops. The
NOC requirement from the states is not a regressive step,
but a condition that can’t be met in the absence of regula-
tory system at the state level. Biotech is regulated under the
EPA Rules 1989, and therefore, all the approvals including
commercial approvals, have to be granted by the MOEF in
conjunction with the states — they should not be left onto
the mercy of individual states. The states are a damp squib
on field trials of biotech crops — this is neither in their inter-
est nor in their major constituents’ (the farmers). The recent
decision of the Maharashtra government to grant approval
for field trials and later withdrawing it is a classic example of
the absence of a regulatory system at the state level.
47GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 46
There were huge expectations from the current govern-
ment to resolve many issues in the biotech sector, including
concerns relating to obtaining NOC. The situation has hardly
improved. We expect that the government will take appropri-
ate steps to resolve many pending issues, which are critical
for approval of biotech crops, to realize the second green
revolution.
How big is the opportunity in BT maize, brinjal or soya?
Can it get as big as cotton? Any timelines that you fore-
see for adoption of RR flex in cotton.
Approximately +7mn farmers who adopted Bt cotton are a
living example of what farmers can do if they are allowed
to use new generation biotech crops. They contributed an
additional income of approximately Rs 126bn annually by
growing Bt cotton. What if we empower remaining +110mn
farmers with new tools and techniques including the approx-
imately 15mn who grow maize and soybean? Our yield of
maize and soybean are the lowest in the world, except some
pockets of irrigated maize. I place maize and soybean as the
biggest farm opportunity for the country. Globally, major
countries growing maize and soybean have adopted biotech-
nology on a very large scale. India allowed the experiments
of Bt/HT maize and collected field-based evidence and
performance. Based on data generated in these field trials,
it is estimated that India could at least double its maize pro-
duction to 50mn tonnes from current 22mn tonnes if biotech
maize is adopted at the same level as biotech cotton (95%
prevalence in 2014). Unfortunately, India has not looked at
the potential of biotech soybean, which is not only surprising,
but shows our ignorance towards successful technologies in
the food sector.
Bt/HT cotton, which is the first stacked insect resistant and
herbicide tolerant cotton, is a near term opportunity for the
country. We expect at least three additional biotech crops
to see the day of light in the near to medium term includ-
ing biotech mustard, Bt/HT maize and Bt brinjal. There are
many other products that are pending field trials including Bt
chickpea, Bt rice, high yielding rice, NUE rice, NUE cotton,
salinity tolerant rice, LBR potato and groundnut. We hope
the country will utilize some of the breakthrough biotech
crops in reducing cost of cultivation, and increasing produc-
tivity and production to overcome the imminent challenges
of feeding India.
Can you help us identify some technically sound seed
companies?
Contrary to other developing countries, India fortunately
has very strong and robust private-sector seed companies.
Mahyco was the first established seed company that led to
many firsts including introduction of quality seeds in open
pollinated crops to hybridization of cross pollinated crops. It
introduced India’s first hybrid of millet and sorghum in 1980s
and first insect resistant Bt cotton in 2002. Similarly, there are
listed companies including JK Agri Gentics, Kaveri Seeds and
Nath Biogene. There are other companies that have estab-
lished R&D recognized by the DSIR including Nuziveedu
Seeds, Rasi Seeds,Advanta Seeds, Bioseeds, Metahelix, Bejo
Sheetal, Ankur Seeds and Ajit Seeds to name a few. The
new generation seed companies including Metahelix, a part
of TATA group, and Bioseeds, Shriram Group. Nuziveedu
Seeds is planning the largest IPO in the seed sector. Mahyco
is silently churning out new traits important for agriculture in
India including nitrogen use efficient (NUE) and drought and
salinity tolerant (DST). On the other hand, multinational com-
panies including Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and
Limagrain are engaged in supplying high yielding hybrids
of maize and rice, which has positively impacted yield and
production of rice and maize and many other crops in India.
These companies are also developing new traits in maize,
rice, and cotton.
What’s your personal take on adoption of GM in food
crops in India?
The current stagnation is largely because of the debate
around the usefulness of Bt brinjal and other genetically
improved crops. The debate has dwarfed the success of
Bt cotton technology and generated an overwhelming-
ly negative view in contrast to the use of this potentially
powerful technology. An enormous amount of funding has
been mobilized by national anti-biotech groups to oppose
the introduction of biotech crops in India. The opponents
have erroneously claimed that the technology is not safe and
misled society about the negative role of biotech crops. The
prevailing misinformation in society may restrict the intro-
duction of the new breeding technologies (NBT) that feature
a powerful new generation of non-transgenic biotech crops
utilizing genome-edited applications.
However, I am an optimist researcher. I believe in our scien-
tific community, our regulatory system, and our leadership.
I am confident they will not let down the +115mn farm
families. The country cannot risk the isolation that can further
divide rural and urban India. Urban India enjoys a sea of tech-
nological options allowing them to increase their efficiency
and improve standard of life. Rural India and particularly the
farming community would demand choices and technologi-
cal options if they are delayed and denied.
47GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 46
The average farmer of this country wants to move away from farming and does not
see farming as a future for his children. Let them move ahead,
let them challenge the world and contribute to it.
By Varun Kumar
No one wishes to struggle in the hinterland
I said it only half-jokingly. That was the end of the conversa-
tion, but it made me think about how some urban elite have
a romantic view of agrarian life as being “Close to Nature”.
I have a feeling that this elite romanticism of land and a life
close to nature is what fuels part of political rage towards
the Land Bill. Of course, the political game of appeasing the
voters is at work too.
My life story tells me how pointless this romanticism is. I have
first-hand experience in this topic. Before coming to Singa-
pore, before attending IIM Calcutta, and before going to IIT
Roorkee -- before all of this, I was born in a small village in
district Muzaffarnagar. Hospital births weren’t too common
then in my village, and I too was born at home. As a side
note, the house I was born in is still exactly the same, after 32
years! So much for the economics of farming.
My father had moved to Roorkee, another small town known
for its Aquaduct and to IIT Roorkee for his government job,
and I used to spend my summer vacations in my native
village. If I were to recall one single most powerful idea incul-
cated in me about my future since my childhood, it was this
- farming has no future and the only future I would have has
to be built through education. It was not just my parents who
had this rather pessimistic view on farming, it was all around
me — in the 20-25 villages around and the hundreds of ex-
tended relatives that I visited, every single person was trying
only one thing for their children — how to educate them and
enable them to move out of farming and out of the village.
It is not a hyperbole to again conclude from all that I have
said above — most farmers DO NOT want their children to
become farmers. In other words, most farmers don’t see any
future in farming. Put that yet another way, farmers should be
willing to exit given a fair deal. Interpreting that with prag-
matism would mean farmers should not be opposing a land
bill that entails proper compensation. Left on their own, away
from the machinations of elite politicians (for whom paddy
farms is a utopian concept of life ‘close to nature’, even if
they can’t tell their paddy farm from their wheat farm).
Coming back to the point of education and its importance
in transforming the outlook in villages. Prominent journalist
Vinod Dua once said that in India, a citizen could have three
types of power — the power of vote, the power of mon-
ey and if you don’t have power of money, you try to get it
through power of education.
Farmers, like everyone in the typical urban middle class, have
“I am going to Bali next week”, I told a friend. “Do stay at Ubud for a day or two”, he said. “What for”? “You can stay very close to the paddy fields, close to nature”. “I came to Singapore to escape the paddy fields and you want to send me back”?
49GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 48
understood the importance of education as a way out of
dismal farm economics. A few things on dismal farm eco-
nomics may be handy here. A small data point may dispel
the doubts — as highlighted by BJP MP Hukum Singh in the
Lok Sabha, the count of landless labourers has moved up
to 144mn in 2011 from 106mn in 2001, as per census data.
People wouldn’t become landless labourers if farming were
such a great vocation. From personal experience, we have
enough land to own two tractors but even with that much
land we have not been able to upgrade those tractors for last
two decades. Consider that again – A full twenty years and
we could not generate enough surplus to buy a new tractor!
Imagine the plight of very small farmers who are ploughing
the field with bullocks and then ask yourself - who would
want to remain in this profession?
The desperation to get out through education is seen in
numbers. ASER studies consistently show a dramatic rise in
private-school registrations in rural India. Imagine…in rural
India, people are shunning cheap government schools in
favour of expensive private schools – the willingness to take
that much financial burden itself shows the desperation to
get out of the village and to become part of the new econ-
omy being scripted in towns and cities of India. I have seen
many such private schools opening up 4-5 km outside a town
and cater to villages in 15-20 km radius through a fleet of
school buses. There is ample demand. In my own extended
family, all the kids who live(d) in villages have been educated
and are being educated at such schools.
I would very clearly conclude that this pattern of excessive
focus on education with a single aim to get to a city is not
consistent with the view that farmers are keen on farming
and have a romantic view of their land.
In addition, it is not just money that is the challenge about
a village life. Compared to an urban life, every day is a
challenge in the village — even basic things like cooking
fuel can be a hassle. The earthen chulhas that use wood and
cow dung as fuel produce a plumes of smoke every time
one cooks something. Who wouldn’t trade a clean LPG for
a smoke guzzling chulha? Or who would not trade a run-
ning tap for a laborious hand pump? Or daily market visits
for monthly market visit, that too after only a half hour trip
either side? Or who wouldn’t want to give up the daily chore
of bathing cattle, milking cows, feeding them three times a
day? Most city dwellers don’t realise that cows and buffaloes
don’t eat on their own when they are tied up all day. One has
to work to give them food. One has to pick up their faeces
as well, as many as 5-6 times a day if my memory serves me
well. I can count scores of such chores. Who would want this
hard life with little rewards?
Anyone who has seen and lived a village life does not
irrationally romanticise it. I believe it is only elite politicians,
who travel to a place like Ubud to be near paddy farms, who
harbour such notions. Make them bathe cows and buffaloes
in a farmer’s home for a week instead of hosting them for
a tasty fish dish and they might realize the real grind of a
farmer’s life.
This grind with little financial rewards is the precise reason I
have seen farmers wanting out and educating their children.
Whoever (including me and my father) has moved out has
absolutely no regrets and absolutely no nostalgic longing to
go back and plough the fields.
Specifically regarding industrialization and land bill, my belief
is that farmers do understand the value of industrialization
and the opportunities it can create. My relatives in Uttara-
khand presents interesting first-hand case studies for this
idea — due to the tax-friendly policies of the state govern-
ment, manufacturing took off really well in the state and I
have many young people being employed in semi-skilled
roles in these factories. This economic upliftment is for all to
see and people do understand that if not for these factories,
these youth would have been struggling to make ends meet.
The factories and the peripheral services that come up to
serve them (small establishments like colleges, hospitals,
banquet halls) need land and help create land wealth for the
sellers. At least in my experience, almost every farmer knows
the direct indirect and direct benefits of industrialization.
To sum up, what I have learnt from my unique experiences,
farmers of this country want to move away from farming
and don’t see farming as a future for their children. They
are looking at education and want to send their sons and
daughters to live in the city, to work for private companies
and build a bright future for themselves. They understand the
value of industry and have no irrational romance for the land.
Let them move ahead, let them realize their potential, let
them challenge and world and contribute to it. Do not keep
this mass of people with tremendous potential shackled in a
100-year-old world just because some petty politicians want
to play these farmers as vote banks or just because some
politicians have an irrational romance of the land and believe
that the farmer is happier being close to the nature.
The farmer of this country deserves to move ahead. Empow-
er them. Set them free.
49GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 48
People in Mumbai have to fight for many things.
Most of these fights relate to resources and
space—on the roads, in trains, on footpaths, and
now, even in the skies. So ingrained is this instinct
to fight, that I imagine every Mumbai baby is
evolved to be born with its elbow cocked out at a
slight angle, in readiness to create much-needed
breathing space for its lifelong battle ahead. I kid
of course, but only partly—it is not an uncommon
sight for a Mumbai nurse to nonchalantly pack
three or four screaming newborns under her arm
and carry them off for their first hospital baths
while anxious new mothers wring their hands and
hope that (a) their own baby is brought back to
them, and (b) in one piece.
The next training fields for the freshly minted tiny
Mumbaikars are playgrounds or what are com-
monly referred to as ‘gardens’ locally. Whatever
Mumbai doles out to its long-suffering weary den-
izens, playgrounds offer a mini glimpse of what’s
to come. The first fight for a child and its parents
is to find a playground in the first place. A bit of a
digression here—a common refrain of most urban
moms is that their children are not interested in
eating while most small-town or village moms I
know fervently wish their children stop demand-
ing food for at least for a couple of hours in the
day. Doctors (rightly) blame this lack of appetite
on the urban lifestyle and recommend increased
activity. Children in small towns and villages have
the space to play and the companionship of other
children and usually spend a good solid 4-5 hours
a day in rugged outdoor play. On the other hand,
urban children spend the same amount of time
watching Chota Bheem or Doraemon or the likes;
more affluent urban childrenwrangle ipads or
Mumbai A-Musings: Readiness Playgrounds
A light-hearted take on the many lives of Mumbai’s flustered denizens
By Roshan Sony
51GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 50
equivalent gadgets from their parents and spend
an inordinate amount of time playing games.
In any case, at some point, it dawns on every
urban mom and dad that their children need to hit
the playground for at least a couple of hours a day.
However, they discover that good playgrounds are
uncommon and are often filled to the rafters (or
rather to the tops of their jungle gyms). After much
hunting, trial and errors, once they do manage to
establish an evening routine in a good playground
(by good I mean where not more than one swing
is broken, not too many rusted pipes show, and
where there is not more than one slide that has
become so rough that children usually push them-
selves down using their hands)… the parents and
child are introduced to the ‘unofficial playground
rules’. These rules are not written anywhere, but
are nevertheless well understood, and yes, they
prepare the child for life in Mumbai. So here is
what they learn:
Number lagao: Swings are the most coveted play-
ground activity because, well let’s face it, there can
never be enough swings for our population. So
children and parents learn the fine art of ‘number
lagao’ for a swing ride. At any given point of time
you will have two to three kids hanging on to the
side poles of the swing looking longingly at the
child who is doing the actual swinging. What your
child quickly learns is to tell the bhaiya or didi
who are in queue, ‘aap ke baad mai, koi pooche
to batana (it’s my turn after yours, if anybody asks,
please confirm this)’ and then make the best use
of the waiting time by darting across to the other
activities with a keen eye out for his/her turn.
Another unwritten rule is that no child can swing
for more than three minutes if other children are
queued up (chalo aapka ho gaya, ab utarjao). Les-
sons learnt: Queuing with jugaad, booking seats
on locals (where are you getting down? Dadar? I
will take your seat ok?), patience, multi-tasking,
speed.
Survival of the fittest: In every playground there
will be those kids who will push other kids aside
for no particular reason—this is not a special
feature of Mumbai playgrounds. However, what is
unique to Mumbai is that if you want to complain
about these kids behavior and try to find their
parents, you will not succeed. However, try repri-
manding these kids and their parents will material-
ize out of thin air and ask you what your problem
is, instead of disciplining the child. In time, you
learn to let your child sort out its own battles.
Lesson learnt: Aggression or assertiveness, putting
oneself first — all essential Mumbaikar traits.
Playgrounds will also offer your child a mini-view
of how Mumbaikars treat resources available to
them…not very well, unfortunately. There will
always be kids twisting the swings around to
breaking point, putting mud or sand into the
round abouts central shaft until it grinds to a halt,
those that will climb slides from the opposite end
roughening the surface, and those that will throw
plastic snack bags and other garbage around with
impunity.
However, all is not lost. There will also be those
moments when the famous Mumbaikar spirit will
show through. When a child unexpectedly offers
your child the ride before him (Aunty, she is small
no? let her do it), or when your child falls and two
or three parents rush over to offer their water bot-
tles to wash the wound or provide much-needed
distraction from the pain.
This playground melodrama playing out every
single evening across scores of locations in
Mumbai begets one important question. Is there
tremendous scope for the private sector to step in
here and provide high-quality, well managed play-
grounds at a steep premium (entry-fee) to govern-
ment and quasi-government managed ones? Most
government-managed playgrounds are either free
or charge an entry fee of Rs 2-5. Even middle class
parents would easily pay 10 times that amount
to get access to better facilities. This unfulfilled
need is not restricted to just playgrounds—urban
parents seem to be perpetually on the lookout
for good facilities that provide a much-needed
physical outlet to their restless children (swimming,
skating, cycling tracks). Will the private sector step
in? Until then, let the playgrounds continue mak-
ing true-blue Mumbaikars out of our little ones.
51GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 50
Indian Economy – Trend Indicators
Monthly Economic Indicators
Quarterly Economic Indicators
Growth Rates (%) Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15
IIP -0.5 3.7 5.6 4.3 0.9 0.5 2.6 -2.7 5.2 3.6 2.8 4.9 2.5 4.1
PMI 51.3 51.3 51.4 51.5 53.0 52.4 51.0 51.6 53.3 54.5 52.9 51.2 52.1 51.3
Core sector 4.0 5.7 2.3 7.3 2.7 5.8 1.9 6.3 6.7 2.4 1.8 1.4 -0.1 -0.4
WPI 6.0 5.5 6.2 5.7 5.4 3.9 2.4 1.7 -0.2 -0.5 -0.9 -2.1 -2.3 -2.7
CPI 8.3 8.6 8.3 7.5 8.0 7.7 6.5 5.5 4.4 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.3 4.9
Money Supply 13.5 13.9 13.2 12.2 12.7 13.0 12.7 12.0 11.4 10.2 11.5 11.4 11.3 12.0
Deposit 14.6 15.1 13.8 12.2 12.7 13.2 13.0 12.4 12.2 10.6 11.9 11.8 11.6 12.8
Credit 13.9 13.9 12.5 12.8 12.8 10.4 9.2 10.6 10.5 10.4 10.2 9.9 10.2 12.6
Exports -0.7 5.3 12.4 10.2 7.3 2.4 2.7 -5.0 7.3 -3.8 -11.2 -15.0 -21.1 -14.0
Imports 0.8 -15.0 -11.4 8.3 4.3 2.1 26.0 3.6 26.8 -4.8 -11.4 -15.7 -13.4 -7.5
Trade deficit (USD Bn) -11.0 -10.1 -11.2 -11.8 -12.2 -10.8 -14.2 -13.4 -16.9 -9.4 -8.3 -6.8 -11.8 -11.0
Net FDI (USD Bn) 2.1 2.0 4.8 2.4 3.6 2.5 2.9 2.8 1.8 4.0 4.7 3.8 2.7 0.0
FII (USD Bn) 5.4 -0.1 7.7 4.8 5.4 2.1 2.4 1.7 4.8 -0.4 6.6 3.8 2.0 0.0
ECB (USD Bn) 3.6 3.2 1.5 1.9 3.7 0.5 3.2 2.8 3.5 0.6 2.6 2.3 2.7 7.3
Dollar-Rupee 61.0 60.4 59.3 60.2 60.1 60.9 61.8 61.4 62.0 63.0 61.9 61.8 62.5 63.4
FOREX Reserves (USD Bn) 303.7 309.9 312.4 315.8 320.6 318.6 314.2 315.9 316.3 319.7 327.9 338.1 341.4 344.6
Balance of Payment (USD Bn) Q3FY13 Q4FY13 Q1FY14 Q2FY14 Q3FY14 Q4FY14 Q1FY15 Q2FY15 Q3FY15Exports 74.2 84.8 73.9 81.2 79.8 83.7 81.7 85.3 78.2Imports 132.6 130.4 124.4 114.5 112.9 114.3 116.4 123.8 117.1Trade deficit (58.4) (45.6) (50.5) (33.3) (33.2) (30.7) -34.6 -38.6 -38.9Net Invisibles 26.6 27.5 28.7 28.1 29.1 29.3 26.8 28.5 30.5CAD (31.8) (18.2) (21.8) (5.2) (4.1) (1.3) -7.9 -10.1 -8.3CAD (% of GDP) 6.5 3.5 4.9 1.2 0.8 0.3 1.7 2.1 1.6Capital Account 31.5 20.5 20.6 (4.8) 23.8 9.2 19.8 18.7 23.1BoP 0.8 2.7 (0.3) (10.4) 19.1 7.1 11.2 6.9 13.1
GDP and its Components (YoY, %) Q1FY14 Q2FY14 Q3FY14 Q4FY14 Q1FY15 Q2FY15 Q3FY15 Q4FY15Agriculture 2.7 3.6 3.8 4.4 2.6 2.1 -1.1 -1.4Industry 5.9 4.2 5.5 5.5 8.1 7.2 3.8 7.2Mining and Quarrying 0.8 4.5 4.2 11.5 4.3 1.4 1.5 2.3Manufacturing 7.2 3.8 5.9 4.4 8.4 7.9 3.6 8.4Electricity, gas and water supply 2.8 6.5 3.9 5.9 10.1 8.7 8.7 4.2Services 8.9 9.7 8.3 5.6 8.4 10.2 11.1 8.0Construction 1.5 3.5 3.8 1.2 6.5 8.7 3.1 1.4Trade, hotels, Transport, & Communication 10.3 11.9 12.4 9.9 12.1 8.9 7.4 14.1Financing, Insurance, Real Estate& business services 7.7 11.9 5.7 5.5 9.3 13.5 13.3 10.2Public administration, defence, & other services 14.4 6.9 9.1 2.4 2.8 7.1 19.7 0.1GVA at Basic Price 7.2 7.5 6.6 5.3 7.4 8.4 6.8 6.1
53GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 52
Annual Economic Indicators and Forecasts Indicators Units FY8 FY9 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16E FY17E
Real GDP growth % 9.3 6.7 8.6 8.9 6.7 4.5 4.7 7.2 7.8 8.5
Agriculture % 5.8 0.1 0.8 8.6 5.0 1.4 4.7 0.2 3.5 3.5
Industry % 9.2 4.1 10.2 8.3 6.7 0.9 -0.1 6.6 6.9 7.9
Services % 10.3 9.4 10.0 9.2 7.1 6.2 6.0 9.4 9.2 10.0
Real GDP Rs Bn 38966 41587 45161 49185 52475 54821 57418 98271 105895 114881
Real GDP US$ Bn 967 908 953 1079 1096 1008 950 1611 1708 1915
Nominal GDP Rs Bn 49864 56301 64778 77841 90097 101133 113551 126538 142988 161576
Nominal GDP US$ Bn 1237 1229 1367 1707 1881 1859 1878 2074 2306 2693
Population Mn 1138 1154 1170 1186 1202 1219 1236 1254 1271 1302
Per Capita Income US$ 1087 1065 1168 1439 1565 1525 1519 1655 1814 2069
WPI (Average) % 4.7 8.1 3.8 9.6 8.7 7.4 6.0 2.1 2-2.5 6.0-7.0
CPI (Average) % 6.4 9.0 12.4 10.4 8.3 10.2 9.5 6.4 5.0 5.0
Money Supply % 22.1 20.5 19.2 16.2 15.8 13.6 13.5 12.0 14.0 15.0
CRR % 7.50 5.00 5.75 6.00 4.75 4.00 4.00 4.0 4.0 4.0
Repo rate % 7.75 5.00 5.00 6.75 8.50 7.50 8.00 7.50 6.75-7.0 6.75-7
Reverse repo rate % 6.00 3.50 3.50 5.75 7.50 6.50 7.00 6.50 5.75-6.0 5.75-6
Bank Deposit growth % 22.4 19.9 17.2 15.9 13.5 14.4 14.6 12.0 13.0 14.0
Bank Credit growth % 22.3 17.5 16.9 21.5 17.0 15.0 14.3 10.0 12.0 13.0
Centre Fiscal Deficit Rs Bn 1437 3370 4140 3736 5160 5209 5245 5019 5555 5655
Centre Fiscal Deficit % of GDP 2.9 6.0 6.4 4.8 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.0 3.9 3.5
Gross Central Govt Borrowings Rs Bn 1681 2730 4510 4370 5098 5580 5641 6000 6000 6408
Net Central Govt Borrowings Rs Bn 1318 2336 3984 3254 4362 4674 4536 4603 4564 4637
State Fiscal Deficit % of GDP 1.5 2.4 2.9 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.5
Consolidted Fiscal Deficit % of GDP 4.4 8.4 9.3 6.9 7.6 7.5 7.0 6.5 5.9 5.0
Exports US$ Bn 166.2 189.0 182.4 251.1 309.8 306.6 318.6 316.7 333.0 358.0
YoY Growth % 28.9 13.7 -3.5 37.6 23.4 -1.0 3.9 -0.6 5.1 7.5
Imports US$ Bn 257.6 308.5 300.6 381.1 499.5 502.2 466.2 460.9 476.4 519.3
YoY Growth % 35.1 19.7 -2.5 26.7 31.1 0.5 -7.2 -1.1 3.4 9.0
Trade Balance US$ Bn -91.5 -119.5 -118.2 -129.9 -189.8 -195.6 -147.6 -144.2 -143.4 -161.3
Net Invisibles US$ Bn 75.7 91.6 80.0 84.6 111.604 107.5 115.2 116.2 119.8 125.8
Current Account Deficit US$ Bn -15.7 -27.9 -38.2 -45.3 -78.2 -88.2 -32.4 -27.9 -23.6 -35.5
CAD (% of GDP) % -1.3 -2.3 -2.8 -2.6 -4.2 -4.7 -1.7 -1.4 -1.0 -1.3
Capital Account Balance US$ Bn 106.6 7.8 51.6 62.0 67.8 89.3 48.8 90.0 67.5 75.5
Dollar-Rupee (Average) 40.3 45.8 47.4 45.6 47.9 54.4 60.5 61.0 62.0 60.0
Source: RBI, CSO, CGA, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of commerce, Bloomberg, PhillipCapital India Research
53GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 52
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es (R
s mn)
EB
IDTA
(Rs
mn)
PAT (
Rs m
n)EP
S (R
s)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
) EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE
(%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
E
Baja
j Aut
oAu
tom
obile
s 2
,553
7
38,7
11
245
,399
2
79,2
66
49,
995
57,
327
38,
022
43,
350
131
1
50
15.
1 1
4.0
19.
4 1
7.0
6.0
5
.2
14.
6 1
2.8
30.
9 3
0.4
31.
9 3
1.6
Bhar
at Fo
rge
Auto
mob
iles
1,0
65
247
,926
8
2,89
8 9
5,14
1 1
9,02
8 2
1,99
3 1
0,48
0 1
2,62
2 4
5 5
4 2
6.6
20.
4 2
3.7
19.
6 6
.1
4.9
1
3.4
11.
4 2
5.9
25.
0 2
0.8
21.
5
Hero
Mot
oCor
pAu
tom
obile
s 2
,517
5
02,5
93
337
,606
3
91,4
23
50,
782
59,
674
36,
353
42,
425
182
2
12
34.
0 1
6.7
13.
8 1
1.8
6.0
4
.8
9.8
8
.4
43.
7 4
0.5
49.
7 4
5.7
Asho
k Ley
land
Auto
mob
iles
72
205
,045
1
41,3
03
175
,510
1
2,86
9 1
7,73
1 4
,796
8
,625
2
3
3
87.8
7
9.8
42.
8 2
3.8
3.7
3
.4
18.
5 1
3.2
8.6
1
4.2
7.1
1
0.6
Tata
Mot
ors
Auto
mob
iles
426
1
,360
,912
2
,838
,955
3
,575
,221
4
97,6
45
589
,946
2
17,2
78
258
,966
6
7 8
0 5
6.1
19.
2 6
.3
5.3
1
.4
1.1
3
.8
3.1
2
1.7
20.
6 1
3.9
13.
9
Mah
indr
a & M
ahin
dra
Auto
mob
iles
1,2
72
789
,967
5
14,5
18
602
,052
6
4,52
9 7
5,13
7 4
6,70
9 5
4,95
8 7
6 9
0 1
2.5
17.
7 1
6.7
14.
2 3
.3
2.8
1
2.3
10.
5 1
9.7
19.
5 1
7.7
18.
0
Mah
indr
a CIE
Auto
mob
iles
227
7
3,28
2 6
5,06
1 7
5,35
1 7
,769
1
0,13
8 3
,501
5
,203
1
1 1
6 9
8.0
48.
6 2
0.9
14.
1 3
.7
3.0
1
0.9
8.3
1
7.8
21.
6 1
1.9
15.
5
Apol
lo Ty
res
Auto
mob
iles
166
8
4,70
2 1
31,8
88
149
,178
2
0,24
5 2
3,49
6 1
0,85
7 1
3,01
3 2
1 2
6 7
.6
19.
9 7
.8
6.5
1
.3
1.1
4
.5
4.1
1
8.1
18.
5 1
5.4
15.
9
Mar
uti S
uzuk
iAu
tom
obile
s 4
,048
1
,222
,865
5
99,6
50
741
,759
8
2,51
8 1
03,3
42
51,
043
69,
561
169
2
30
42.
9 3
6.3
24.
0 1
7.6
4.4
3
.0
14.
1 9
.9
18.
3 1
7.0
18.
1 1
8.9
ACC
Cem
ent
1,4
21
266
,833
1
26,6
98
146
,510
1
7,79
3 2
2,46
0 1
1,60
6 1
4,32
4 6
2 7
6 -0
.1
23.
4 2
3.0
18.
6 3
.1
2.9
1
4.5
11.
5 1
3.4
15.
7 1
1.3
13.
2
Ambu
ja C
emen
tCe
men
t 2
27
352
,358
2
41,6
42
275
,729
4
1,86
7 5
4,50
5 2
1,93
4 2
7,30
0 1
1 1
4 1
4.8
24.
5 2
0.5
16.
5 2
.4
2.2
7
.8
5.9
1
1.5
13.
6 1
5.8
14.
5
Indi
a Cem
ent
Cem
ent
95
29,
136
58,
814
65,
319
8,2
24
9,9
26
966
2
,430
3
8
n
.a.
151
.7
30.
2 1
2.0
0.8
0
.7
7.0
5
.3
2.7
6
.0
4.6
6
.4
Man
gala
m C
emen
tCe
men
t 2
44
6,5
00
10,
756
11,
489
1,2
52
1,8
17
431
8
25
16
31
13.
8 9
1.5
15.
1 7
.9
1.2
1
.1
9.2
5
.8
7.8
1
3.5
6.4
9
.6
Shre
e Ce
men
tCe
men
t
11,2
88
393
,243
8
2,78
7 9
8,15
6 2
5,89
5 3
2,51
6 1
2,98
2 1
7,74
7 3
73
509
9
9.1
36.
7 3
0.3
22.
2 5
.9
4.7
1
4.8
11.
2 1
9.6
21.
4 1
8.9
23.
0
JK C
emen
tCe
men
t 6
54
45,
721
42,
133
53,
591
6,0
30
8,8
03
1,6
16
3,3
94
23
49
89.
8 1
10.0
2
8.3
13.
5 2
.4
2.1
1
1.9
7.8
8
.4
15.
5 6
.1
9.1
Dalm
ia B
hara
t Ltd
Cem
ent
595
4
8,33
6 4
1,09
0 5
0,46
2 8
,320
1
2,57
0 1
,770
4
,557
2
2 5
6 n
.a.
157
.5
27.
3 1
0.6
1.5
1
.3
11.
6 7
.3
5.5
1
2.5
5.5
8
.9
OCL I
ndia
Cem
ent
490
2
7,88
4 2
5,84
3 3
0,09
8 4
,866
6
,425
2
,395
3
,661
4
2 6
4 7
6.3
52.
8 1
1.6
7.6
1
.9
1.6
5
.7
3.8
1
6.7
21.
4 1
3.6
19.
6
JK La
kshm
i Cem
ent
Cem
ent
344
4
0,47
9 2
7,01
1 3
4,30
0 5
,266
7
,079
1
,905
3
,244
1
6 2
8 5
.7
70.
3 2
1.2
12.
5 2
.6
2.3
1
1.1
7.7
1
2.2
18.
1 8
.4
11.
5
Heid
elbe
rgCe
men
t Ce
men
t 7
3 1
6,55
4 1
9,01
2 1
9,94
3 3
,072
3
,567
8
62
1,3
18
4
6
159
.7
52.
9 1
9.2
12.
6 1
.7
1.5
8
.4
6.6
9
.0
12.
1 6
.3
7.8
Ultra
tech
Cem
ent
Cem
ent
2,9
50
809
,418
3
35,5
40
395
,684
6
9,59
4 8
5,44
4 3
8,78
7 5
0,11
2 1
41
183
8
4.8
29.
2 2
0.9
16.
2 3
.6
3.0
1
2.6
9.6
1
7.3
18.
8 1
3.1
15.
5
ABB
Indi
aCa
pita
l Goo
ds
1,3
27
281
,181
7
8,20
1 8
4,11
6 6
,863
7
,805
3
,861
4
,606
1
8 2
2 6
9.0
19.
3 7
2.8
61.
0 9
.2
8.5
4
1.1
36.
1 1
2.7
13.
9 1
2.2
13.
2
BHEL
Capi
tal G
oods
2
50
612
,145
2
86,3
07
345
,968
3
1,20
7 4
7,85
9 2
0,73
3 3
3,08
9 8
1
4 4
6.1
59.
6 2
9.5
18.
5 1
.7
1.6
1
6.3
11.
0 5
.8
8.7
4
.6
6.9
Alsto
m T&
DCa
pita
l Goo
ds
535
1
36,8
57
44,
867
53,
501
4,7
32
6,2
86
2,4
75
3,6
51
10
14
105
.4
47.
5 5
5.3
37.
5 9
.5
8.3
2
9.1
21.
6 1
7.1
22.
1 1
7.5
22.
2
Crom
pton
Gre
aves
Capi
tal G
oods
1
62
101
,627
1
35,5
33
162
,810
9
,898
1
3,34
8 4
,425
6
,757
7
1
1 1
40.3
5
2.7
23.
0 1
5.0
2.5
2
.2
12.
0 9
.2
10.
7 1
4.6
7.2
9
.9
Engi
neer
s Ind
iaCa
pita
l Goo
ds
226
7
6,06
3 1
8,23
9 2
0,21
5 2
,144
3
,374
3
,273
4
,199
1
0 1
2 1
1.2
28.
3 2
3.2
18.
1 2
.8
2.6
2
3.6
14.
8 1
1.9
14.
1 1
2.3
14.
7
KEC
Inte
rnat
iona
lCa
pita
l Goo
ds
131
3
3,62
7 8
8,55
1 9
8,38
1 6
,514
7
,820
1
,420
2
,241
6
9
1
01.3
5
7.9
23.
7 1
5.0
2.3
2
.1
8.2
6
.8
9.8
1
3.7
9.6
1
0.3
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tio
n Su
mm
ary
55GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 54
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tio
n Su
mm
ary
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es (R
s mn)
EB
IDTA
(Rs
mn)
PAT (
Rs m
n)EP
S (R
s)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
) EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE
(%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
E
Alsto
m In
dia
Capi
tal G
oods
7
25
48,
726
23,
419
28,
472
1,6
87
2,3
85
1,5
69
2,1
34
23
32
12.
5 3
6.0
31.
1 2
2.8
4.5
4
.0
23.
8 1
6.1
14.
4 1
7.3
15.
3 1
8.5
Lars
en &
Toub
roCa
pita
l Goo
ds
1,7
88
1,6
63,6
07
1,0
40,2
71
1,3
25,9
00
125
,938
1
69,0
44
42,
945
68,
319
46
73
-2.8
5
9.1
39.
0 2
4.5
3.7
3
.3
19.
9 1
5.2
9.6
1
3.5
4.7
6
.3
Siem
ens
Capi
tal G
oods
1
,334
4
74,9
04
103
,975
1
13,4
00
7,3
50
8,9
87
5,5
59
7,9
61
16
22
56.
6 4
3.2
85.
4 5
9.6
10.
2 9
.4
61.
3 4
9.1
11.
9 1
5.7
9.6
1
2.8
Cum
min
s Ind
iaCa
pita
l Goo
ds
900
2
49,4
80
50,
118
58,
687
8,0
88
10,
059
7,6
62
9,5
12
28
34
-2.5
2
4.1
32.
6 2
6.2
7.7
6
.8
30.
8 2
4.7
23.
7 2
6.0
21.
1 2
3.7
VA Te
ch W
abag
Capi
tal G
oods
7
31
39,
747
26,
765
30,
575
2,5
62
2,9
70
1,4
94
1,7
63
28
32
33.
6 1
8.0
26.
6 2
2.5
3.9
3
.4
14.
8 1
2.7
14.
7 1
5.3
12.
8 1
3.6
Ther
max
Capi
tal G
oods
1
,044
1
24,4
53
54,
538
57,
060
5,2
33
5,5
40
3,0
74
3,6
03
26
30
17.
3 1
7.2
40.
5 3
4.5
5.3
4
.8
23.
8 2
2.0
13.
1 1
3.9
10.
3 1
1.0
Volta
sCa
pita
l Goo
ds
320
1
05,7
67
58,
871
68,
893
4,7
86
5,8
98
3,8
38
4,8
63
12
15
12.
9 2
6.7
27.
5 2
1.7
4.4
3
.8
21.
6 1
7.4
16.
1 1
7.7
16.
5 1
8.1
Coal
Indi
aPo
wer
417
2
,630
,766
8
25,4
99
923
,637
2
23,1
45
254
,223
1
82,5
14
203
,039
2
9 3
2 3
3.0
11.
2 1
4.4
13.
0 5
.5
4.7
9
.2
7.7
3
8.1
36.
0 4
0.9
38.
6
NTPC
Powe
r 1
37
1,1
28,8
04
801
,747
8
36,6
39
184
,031
2
00,3
81
92,
713
100
,737
1
1 1
2 1
1.6
8.7
1
2.2
11.
2 1
.3
1.2
1
1.2
10.
9 1
0.8
11.
0 6
.4
6.3
Powe
r Grid
Powe
r 1
38
721
,698
2
07,1
47
250
,272
1
79,7
90
218
,812
6
2,46
9 7
4,54
1 1
2 1
4 2
4.3
19.
3 1
1.6
9.7
1
.7
1.5
9
.8
8.6
1
5.4
16.
3 6
.1
6.6
PTC
Indi
aPo
wer
68
20,
010
150
,838
1
67,9
91
10,
722
12,
733
3,2
03
3,6
73
11
12
-10.
0 1
4.7
6.2
5
.4
0.6
0
.6
7.2
6
.9
9.7
1
0.3
8.0
8
.1
Inox
Win
dPo
wer
427
9
4,84
8 4
8,87
4 5
6,15
9 8
,842
1
0,57
7 6
,199
7
,050
2
8 3
2 1
34.0
1
3.7
15.
3 1
3.5
5.1
3
.9
11.
4 9
.3
33.
2 2
9.3
26.
7 2
5.0
Cham
bal F
ertil
isers
Agri
Inpu
ts 5
8 2
4,26
3 1
04,0
67
99,
639
8,7
53
8,8
37
3,6
71
3,7
40
9
9
33.
7 1
.9
6.6
6
.5
1.0
0
.9
6.6
5
.8
14.
9 1
3.8
6.5
6
.6
Coro
man
del F
ertil
isers
Ag
ri In
puts
250
7
2,85
7 1
13,8
95
123
,564
1
0,39
7 1
2,27
7 5
,785
7
,128
2
0 2
4 4
2.7
23.
2 1
2.6
10.
2 2
.4
2.1
7
.8
6.1
1
8.9
20.
1 1
9.3
20.
8
Tata
Che
mica
ls Lt
dAg
ri In
puts
415
1
05,7
24
185
,584
1
90,0
64
24,
173
25,
159
8,9
04
9,5
93
35
38
11.
3 7
.7
11.
9 1
1.0
1.7
1
.6
6.1
5
.5
14.
6 1
4.4
9.0
9
.5
Kave
ri Se
eds
Agri
Inpu
ts 7
41
51,
159
14,
472
16,
884
3,7
65
4,4
70
3,7
75
4,5
72
55
67
24.
8 2
1.1
13.
4 1
1.1
4.8
3
.6
12.
6 1
0.1
35.
5 3
2.3
40.
2 3
6.1
PI In
dustr
ies
Agri
Inpu
ts 6
50
88,
775
22,
735
27,
086
4,4
53
5,2
99
2,8
54
3,5
96
21
26
16.
1 2
6.0
31.
1 2
4.7
7.8
6
.2
19.
6 1
6.1
25.
1 2
5.1
25.
9 2
5.7
Ralli
s Ind
iaAg
ri In
puts
241
4
6,80
9 2
0,83
2 2
3,79
9 3
,297
3
,978
1
,950
2
,448
1
0 1
3 2
4.0
25.
5 2
4.0
19.
1 5
.0
4.3
1
4.1
11.
4 2
0.7
22.
3 1
8.7
20.
4
Unite
d Ph
osph
orus
Agri
Inpu
ts 5
37
230
,353
1
33,7
99
147
,892
2
6,27
6 2
8,15
6 1
3,80
9 1
4,78
1 3
2 3
4 1
7.1
7.0
1
6.7
15.
6 3
.4
3.1
9
.5
8.3
2
1.8
20.
8 1
7.7
16.
8
Zuar
i Agr
oche
mica
lsAg
ri In
puts
192
8
,054
5
7,37
2 n
.a.
3,4
16
n.a
. 1
,016
n
.a.
24
n.a
. 5
54.2
n
.a.
7.9
NA
0.9
NA
8.7
NA
11.
4 -
10.
2 -
Deep
ak Fe
rtilis
ers
Agri
Inpu
ts 1
29
11,
405
33,
995
n.a
. 5
,176
n
.a.
2,6
10
n.a
. 3
0 n
.a.
13.
0 n
.a.
4.4
NA
0.6
NA
3.1
NA
15.
2 -
11.
6 -
Mon
sant
o In
dia
Agri
Inpu
ts 2
,837
4
8,96
7 6
,601
8
,154
1
,452
1
,686
1
,315
1
,546
7
6 9
0 2
3.3
17.
5 3
7.2
31.
7 1
2.6
12.
8 3
3.1
28.
4 3
3.8
40.
5 2
6.7
28.
5
Andh
ra B
ank
Finan
cials
68
41,
174
48,
149
56,
151
34,
980
40,
162
12,
330
15,
976
20
25
61.
0 2
9.6
3.5
2
.7
0.6
0
.5
1.2
1
.0
12.
8 1
4.7
0.6
0
.7
Bank
of B
arod
a Fin
ancia
ls 1
45
320
,225
1
65,8
25
171
,547
1
21,5
06
129
,317
6
3,24
1 6
3,18
6 2
1 2
9 2
7.8
37.
6 6
.8
4.9
1
.0
0.8
2
.6
2.5
1
5.2
14.
2 0
.8
1.0
Bank
of I
ndia
Fin
ancia
ls 1
73
114
,763
1
31,7
77
151
,856
9
8,08
9 1
09,8
96
31,
526
38,
568
49
60
25.
1 2
2.3
3.5
2
.9
0.5
0
.5
1.2
1
.0
10.
9 1
2.3
0.5
0
.5
Cana
ra B
ank
Finan
cials
281
1
44,8
22
107
,311
1
38,6
54
80,
092
102
,497
2
9,99
4 4
5,15
5 8
5 8
1 2
4.8
-4.8
3
.3
3.5
0
.6
0.6
1
.8
1.4
1
0.2
14.
0 0
.5
1.0
55GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 54
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es (R
s mn)
EB
IDTA
(Rs
mn)
PAT (
Rs m
n)EP
S (R
s)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
) EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE
(%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
E
Corp
orat
ion
bank
Finan
cials
52
43,
268
46,
373
55,
993
34,
976
42,
505
10,
776
15,
844
64
95
54.
0 4
7.0
0.8
0
.5
0.1
0
.1
1.2
1
.0
10.
0 1
3.6
0.4
0
.6
HDFC
Ban
kFin
ancia
ls 1
,058
2
,655
,867
2
64,0
87
314
,568
2
12,0
48
252
,451
1
20,8
21
145
,211
4
8 5
8 1
3.4
21.
0 2
2.1
18.
2 3
.8
3.3
1
2.5
10.
5 1
8.2
19.
0 1
.9
2.9
ICIC
I Ban
kFin
ancia
ls 3
09
1,7
93,1
50
212
,598
2
47,1
36
222
,955
2
52,8
19
118
,124
1
40,5
25
20
24
5.1
1
8.7
15.
2 1
2.8
2.1
1
.9
8.0
7
.1
14.
0 1
5.1
1.7
2
.7
IOB
Finan
cials
37
46,
017
73,
446
n.a
. 4
8,07
2 n
.a.
11,
896
n.a
. 8
-
72.
2 n
.a.
4.4
#D
IV/0
! 0
.5
NA 1
.0
NA 7
.1
- 0
.3
-
Orie
ntal
Ban
k Fin
ancia
ls 1
70
50,
824
58,
422
66,
674
48,
309
54,
419
14,
727
17,
875
47
57
15.
1 2
1.4
3.6
3
.0
0.5
0
.4
1.1
0
.9
10.
4 1
1.4
0.6
0
.9
PNB
Finan
cials
137
2
54,6
31
177
,394
2
04,4
70
124
,506
1
38,2
11
36,
739
48,
306
24
32
13.
1 3
5.9
5.8
4
.3
0.9
0
.8
2.0
1
.8
9.4
1
1.3
0.6
0
.7
SBI
Finan
cials
261
1
,976
,293
8
20,1
95
960
,397
5
33,2
83
622
,652
2
03,4
10
275
,029
3
0 3
6 2
3.4
23.
2 8
.8
7.2
1
.3
1.1
3
.7
3.2
1
1.4
13.
5 0
.7
1.3
Unio
n Ba
nk
Finan
cials
150
9
5,11
3 9
6,32
1 1
09,5
60
58,
239
65,
255
25,
584
34,
969
37
51
32.
8 3
6.7
4.0
2
.9
0.6
0
.5
1.6
1
.5
12.
3 1
5.0
0.6
0
.8
Indi
an B
ank
Finan
cials
141
6
7,48
1 5
5,36
7 6
4,17
3 3
3,96
3 3
7,94
0 1
4,41
5 1
7,60
1 3
1 3
8 1
8.1
22.
1 4
.5
3.7
0
.6
0.5
2
.0
1.8
1
1.3
12.
7 0
.7
1.1
DCB
Bank
Finan
cials
130
3
6,79
3 6
,249
7
,787
3
,634
4
,570
2
,094
2
,693
6
8
5
.3
24.
4 2
0.1
16.
1 2
.2
2.0
1
0.1
8.1
1
2.8
14.
3 1
.2
1.2
AXIS
Ban
kFin
ancia
ls 5
59
1,3
26,7
02
168
,176
1
98,3
43
155
,870
1
78,2
17
85,
058
98,
631
36
43
15.
7 1
8.9
15.
6 1
3.1
2.7
2
.3
8.5
7
.4
17.
6 1
7.6
1.7
1
.7
Indu
sind
Bank
Finan
cials
863
4
58,2
61
41,
944
52,
744
38,
784
47,
859
21,
535
26,
744
38
48
15.
5 2
4.2
22.
4 1
8.0
3.1
2
.7
11.
8 9
.6
16.
4 1
5.5
1.8
2
.9
HDFC
NBFC
1,3
01
2,0
50,8
76
317
,028
3
68,5
26
100
,750
1
17,9
12
69,
475
81,
488
33
40
20.
4 -
39.
3 3
2.9
5.9
4
.8
20.
4 1
7.4
21.
1 -
2.6
-
Shrir
am Tr
ansp
ort F
inNB
FC 8
67
196
,719
4
7,97
5 5
6,17
7 3
5,27
7 4
1,58
4 1
3,57
2 1
7,20
9 6
0 7
6 9
.6
26.
8 1
4.5
11.
4 8
6.7
86.
7 5
.6
4.7
1
3.6
15.
0 2
.1
2.3
SKS
Micr
ofina
nce
NBFC
472
5
9,62
9 1
1,18
6 1
5,08
2 3
,305
4
,450
2
,413
3
,239
1
9 2
6 2
9.1
34.
2 2
4.6
18.
3 4
.6
3.7
1
8.0
13.
4 2
0.7
22.
4 4
.4
4.3
LIC H
ousin
g Fin
ance
NBFC
454
2
28,9
15
126
,148
1
48,1
75
25,
655
30,
601
16,
734
19,
999
33
40
20.
4 1
9.5
13.
7 1
1.5
2.3
1
.9
8.9
7
.5
17.
8 1
8.2
1.4
1
.4
Chol
aman
dala
m Fi
nNB
FC 6
30
90,
561
20,
425
24,
510
11,
975
14,
938
5,2
58
7,3
13
34
47
16.
8 3
9.1
18.
6 1
3.4
2.7
2
.3
7.6
6
.1
15.
7 1
8.8
2.0
2
.4
Mah
& M
ah Fi
nNB
FC 2
78
158
,373
3
3,33
7 3
7,22
8 2
1,89
6 2
4,33
9 8
,715
1
0,93
4 1
5 1
9 1
5.9
25.
5 1
8.0
14.
4 2
.5
2.2
7
.2
6.5
1
4.7
16.
5 2
.5
2.8
Shrir
am C
ity U
nion
Fin
NBFC
1,7
43
114
,849
2
5,47
1 3
0,82
2 1
5,42
4 1
8,66
1 7
,092
8
,791
1
08
133
2
3.0
23.
9 1
6.2
13.
1 2
.5
2.2
7
.4
6.2
1
6.3
17.
7 3
.6
3.6
Hind
usta
n Un
ileve
rFM
CG 9
15
1,9
79,4
56
331
,592
3
70,9
07
67,
121
77,
951
45,
002
52,
062
21
24
17.
1 1
5.7
43.
9 3
8.0
50.
4 4
5.8
29.
0 2
4.9
114
.8
120
.6
118
.0
126
.7
Mar
ico In
dustr
ies
FMCG
449
2
89,6
43
64,
116
73,
375
10,
503
12,
555
6,8
94
8,3
07
11
13
20.
2 2
0.5
42.
0 3
4.8
12.
7 1
0.0
27.
4 2
2.5
30.
2 2
8.8
28.
5 2
8.2
Jubi
lant
Food
work
sFM
CG 1
,863
1
22,2
83
26,
437
34,
529
3,8
82
5,7
11
1,8
84
2,8
25
29
43
56.
8 5
0.0
64.
7 4
3.2
13.
9 1
0.5
31.
1 2
0.9
21.
5 2
4.4
23.
7 2
7.4
Godr
ej C
onsu
mer
FMCG
1,2
53
426
,602
9
2,16
1 1
04,7
87
15,
311
17,
654
10,
083
11,
689
30
34
15.
0 1
5.9
42.
3 3
6.5
8.5
7
.4
28.
4 2
4.3
20.
2 2
0.3
18.
0 1
9.4
ITCFM
CG 3
12
2,4
97,6
36
395
,481
4
31,4
98
145
,686
1
56,2
92
98,
101
109
,177
1
2 1
4 2
.2
11.
3 2
5.4
22.
8 7
.2
6.3
1
6.6
15.
1 2
8.3
27.
4 2
4.4
24.
2
Nestl
eFM
CG 6
,128
5
90,8
60
104
,457
1
15,9
19
21,
416
24,
118
12,
322
14,
099
128
1
46
3.9
1
4.4
48.
0 4
1.9
19.
0 1
7.4
26.
9 2
3.8
39.
7 4
1.4
41.
2 4
3.1
Colg
ate
FMCG
2,0
36
276
,875
4
4,60
8 5
0,69
8 1
0,02
0 1
1,49
0 6
,614
7
,771
4
9 5
7 2
3.4
17.
5 4
1.9
35.
6 3
7.7
33.
4 2
7.3
23.
8 9
0.0
93.
6 9
2.5
99.
3
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tio
n Su
mm
ary
57GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 56
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es (R
s mn)
EB
IDTA
(Rs
mn)
PAT (
Rs m
n)EP
S (R
s)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
) EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE
(%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
E
Glax
o Sm
ithkl
ine
Cons
FMCG
6,1
51
258
,690
4
5,36
5 5
2,03
0 6
,359
5
,161
6
,558
6
,558
1
56
156
1
0.1
-0.0
3
9.4
39.
4 1
1.0
10.
0 3
7.1
44.
5 2
7.8
25.
5 2
8.8
26.
5
Agro
Tech
Food
sFM
CG 5
80
14,
135
7,8
71
8,3
14
688
8
30
379
4
61
16
19
1.3
2
1.9
37.
3 3
0.6
4.1
3
.7
20.
7 1
6.7
10.
9 1
1.9
10.
6 1
1.7
Asia
n Pa
ints
FMCG
744
7
13,3
07
158
,237
1
90,3
30
28,
120
35,
717
17,
753
22,
383
19
23
28.
1 2
6.1
40.
2 3
1.9
12.
2 1
0.3
24.
7 1
9.3
30.
4 3
2.2
31.
6 3
3.6
Emam
iFM
CG 1
,160
2
63,2
71
25,
929
30,
315
6,7
33
8,0
70
5,9
29
7,0
18
26
31
22.
1 1
8.4
44.
4 3
7.5
15.
2 1
4.8
37.
8 3
1.2
34.
3 3
9.5
37.
0 3
5.3
Brita
nnia
FMCG
2,7
71
332
,453
8
9,03
1 1
02,6
63
9,7
96
12,
295
7,0
22
8,7
25
59
73
32.
0 2
4.2
47.
3 3
8.0
21.
8 1
6.3
33.
0 2
5.9
46.
2 4
2.7
41.
1 4
1.9
Baja
j Cor
pFM
CG 4
32
63,
646
9,6
77
11,
403
2,9
08
3,3
80
2,6
74
3,0
08
18
20
21.
1 1
2.5
23.
8 2
1.2
11.
6 1
0.2
21.
2 1
7.9
48.
8 4
8.1
42.
1 4
8.2
Apco
tex I
ndus
tries
FMCG
459
4
,759
4
,823
5
,918
6
47
875
3
78
515
3
6 4
9 5
3.5
36.
2 1
2.7
9.3
3
.7
2.9
7
.0
4.9
2
9.2
30.
8 2
8.0
30.
0
Dabu
rFM
CG 2
77
485
,761
8
8,06
3 1
00,8
62
15,
508
18,
672
12,
731
15,
104
7
9
19.
1 1
8.6
38.
2 3
2.2
11.
9 9
.9
31.
1 2
5.4
31.
1 3
0.7
28.
7 2
9.2
NCC
Infra
struc
ture
78
43,
529
82,
975
95,
418
7,0
53
8,5
88
2,9
28
4,1
53
5
7
161
.9
41.
8 1
4.9
10.
5 1
.2
1.1
8
.8
7.1
8
.4
10.
6 9
.7
11.
0
Asho
ka B
uild
con
Infra
struc
ture
177
3
3,06
6 2
8,27
6 3
5,48
7 7
,098
1
0,30
7 1
,156
1
,838
6
1
0 2
0.3
59.
0 2
8.6
18.
0 1
.7
1.6
1
0.0
7.0
5
.9
8.6
4
.1
6.1
GMR
Infra
struc
ture
Infra
struc
ture
14
74,
671
82,
008
98,
433
25,
769
39,
980
-15,
716
-1,4
81
-3
-0
-48.
6 -9
0.6
-4.8
-5
0.4
1.0
1
.0
18.
9 1
1.4
-20.
3 -2
.0
0.4
2
.6
GVK
Powe
rIn
frastr
uctu
re 1
0 1
5,08
1 2
6,96
2 4
8,60
5 1
7,95
0 2
8,26
4 -8
,105
-3
,880
-5
-2
5
9.3
-52.
1 -1
.9
-3.9
1
.1
1.2
1
3.6
8.7
-5
9.6
-31.
2 0
.8
3.3
IRB
Infra
struc
ture
Infra
struc
ture
233
8
2,04
6 5
1,99
5 5
6,31
6 2
8,92
7 3
2,12
4 5
,266
6
,646
1
5 1
9 -3
.0
26.
2 1
5.6
12.
3 1
.6
1.3
7
.6
7.4
1
0.1
10.
7 3
.5
3.6
KNR
Cons
tructi
onIn
frastr
uctu
re 5
25
14,
766
10,
514
12,
616
1,6
09
1,9
56
855
1
,155
3
0 4
1 1
7.1
35.
1 1
7.3
12.
8 2
.3
1.9
9
.8
7.9
1
4.0
16.
3 1
3.0
15.
2
J Kum
ar In
frapr
ojec
tsIn
frastr
uctu
re 6
97
22,
446
17,
058
22,
176
3,1
56
4,1
03
1,3
39
1,9
28
42
60
41.
9 4
4.0
16.
8 1
1.6
2.5
2
.1
8.5
6
.5
15.
8 1
9.6
12.
9 1
5.3
Adan
i Por
ts &
SEZ
Infra
struc
ture
308
6
38,4
74
70,
310
86,
162
47,
201
58,
344
26,
413
36,
307
13
18
14.
0 3
7.5
24.
2 1
7.6
4.9
3
.9
16.
7 1
3.1
20.
1 2
2.0
12.
8 1
4.5
HCL T
echn
olog
ies
IT Se
rvice
s 9
20
1,2
93,4
73
417
,377
4
80,4
84
96,
148
110
,356
7
6,03
7 8
7,46
0 5
4 6
2 5
.9
15.
2 1
7.1
14.
8 4
.6
3.9
1
3.4
11.
7 2
6.8
26.
1 2
7.1
27.
0
Info
sys
IT Se
rvice
s 9
91
2,2
75,2
39
584
,246
6
53,1
68
161
,729
1
79,9
95
127
,812
1
41,6
84
112
1
24
3.7
1
0.9
8.9
8
.0
2.0
1
.8
11.
7 1
0.3
22.
2 2
2.4
22.
7 2
3.4
TCS
IT Se
rvice
s 2
,570
5
,034
,714
1
,087
,258
1
,253
,966
2
99,2
99
331
,871
2
41,6
18
272
,053
1
23
139
2
3.0
12.
6 2
0.8
18.
5 7
.6
6.2
1
6.7
14.
9 3
6.5
33.
7 3
8.6
35.
5
Pers
isten
t Sys
tem
sIT
Serv
ices
610
4
8,79
2 2
1,03
4 2
3,74
0 3
,950
4
,544
2
,836
3
,193
3
5 4
0 -2
.4
12.
6 1
7.2
15.
3 3
.0
2.6
1
1.9
10.
4 1
7.5
17.
1 1
7.4
17.
2
KPIT
Tech
nolo
gies
IT Se
rvice
s 9
4 1
8,50
8 3
2,70
0 3
6,63
0 3
,079
4
,576
1
,666
2
,743
9
1
5 -2
9.8
64.
6 1
0.5
6.4
1
.2
1.0
6
.5
4.3
1
1.5
16.
2 9
.8
14.
4
Wip
roIT
Serv
ices
547
1
,351
,060
4
96,6
61
547
,774
1
04,4
85
110
,542
8
6,97
3 9
3,07
7 3
5 3
8 0
.5
7.0
1
5.5
14.
5 2
.9
2.6
1
1.9
11.
1 1
8.7
17.
7 1
8.9
17.
9
Tech
Mah
indr
aIT
Serv
ices
483
4
64,0
89
273
,204
3
20,7
08
45,
839
57,
124
29,
076
37,
478
30
39
19.
7 2
8.9
15.
9 1
2.3
2.9
2
.5
9.4
7
.3
18.
5 1
9.9
19.
6 2
1.4
NIIT
Tech
nolo
gies
IT Se
rvice
s 3
89
23,
770
26,
180
28,
821
3,8
09
4,4
01
2,1
81
2,7
16
36
45
91.
4 2
4.5
10.
8 8
.7
1.6
1
.4
6.0
4
.9
14.
5 1
6.0
14.
1 1
5.8
Zee
Ente
rtain
men
tM
edia
366
3
51,5
24
56,
763
66,
309
14,
738
19,
196
9,2
75
12,
117
10
13
-5.1
3
0.6
37.
9 2
9.0
6.5
5
.8
23.
3 1
7.9
17.
1 2
0.1
19.
6 2
2.1
HT M
edia
Med
ia 9
1 2
1,18
0 2
4,77
5 2
7,42
3 3
,318
3
,820
2
,262
2
,626
1
0 1
1 2
5.8
16.
1 9
.4
8.1
1
.0
0.8
6
.5
4.8
1
0.2
10.
4 1
1.0
11.
4
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tio
n Su
mm
ary
57GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 56
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es (R
s mn)
EB
IDTA
(Rs
mn)
PAT (
Rs m
n)EP
S (R
s)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
) EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE
(%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
E
Sun
TV N
etwo
rkM
edia
289
1
13,8
90
27,
024
30,
652
18,
625
21,
306
8,9
45
10,
767
23
27
21.
1 2
0.4
12.
7 1
0.6
3.2
2
.8
5.6
4
.6
24.
9 2
6.1
25.
4 2
7.1
Jagr
an P
raka
shan
Med
ia 1
19
38,
903
21,
300
23,
185
5,4
71
5,9
81
2,5
62
2,8
50
8
9
12.
6 1
1.2
14.
5 1
3.0
2.5
2
.2
7.7
6
.6
17.
5 1
7.2
14.
6 1
3.2
Hath
way C
able
Med
ia 4
9 4
0,36
2 2
7,80
4 4
0,40
1 6
,124
1
0,90
0 1
,270
5
,270
8
3
4 5
8.4
315
.1
5.9
1
.4
0.5
0
.4
8.2
4
.3
8.8
2
8.4
5.8
1
7.3
Den
Netw
orks
Med
ia 1
45
25,
839
23,
573
34,
431
6,2
03
11,
872
1,3
53
4,7
75
9
33
4.0
2
53.0
1
5.7
4.4
1
.0
0.9
3
.7
1.6
6
.6
19.
8 8
.6
19.
0
Dish
TVM
edia
103
1
09,3
36
32,
862
37,
377
9,7
18
11,
577
2,2
39
3,8
96
2
4
7,03
1 7
4.0
48.
8 2
8.0
-127
.7
35.
9 1
2.2
9.8
-2
61.8
1
28.1
5
4.9
59.
7
Hind
alco
Inds
Met
als
112
2
32,1
04
1,1
38,5
07
1,1
81,1
06
123
,862
1
32,8
46
34,
163
38,
605
17
19
22.
3 1
3.0
6.8
6
.0
0.6
0
.5
6.3
5
.5
8.2
8
.6
5.7
5
.9
NALC
O M
etal
s 4
0 1
03,0
90
78,
957
81,
109
16,
336
15,
547
12,
921
12,
101
5
5
10.
1 -6
.3
8.0
8
.5
0.8
0
.7
2.7
3
.4
9.5
8
.5
8.8
7
.8
Hind
usta
n Zi
ncM
etal
s 1
69
715
,135
1
46,6
25
152
,433
7
4,01
0 8
6,65
1 7
3,54
8 8
5,93
4 1
7 2
0 -4
.3
16.
8 9
.7
8.3
1
.5
1.3
4
.9
3.5
1
5.2
15.
6 1
5.1
15.
6
Tata
Ste
elM
etal
s 2
99
290
,636
1
,379
,552
1
,428
,575
1
44,8
55
162
,604
1
9,55
7 3
1,47
7 2
0 3
2 NA
6
1.0
14.
9 9
.2
0.9
0
.8
7.0
6
.1
5.9
8
.9
3.9
4
.6
JSW
Ste
elM
etal
s 8
73
210
,999
5
38,7
35
626
,165
1
02,7
42
125
,629
2
7,85
3 4
2,17
4 1
15
174
5
1.1
51.
4 7
.6
5.0
0
.9
0.7
5
.5
4.1
1
1.2
14.
7 7
.4
9.2
Jinda
l Ste
el &
Pow
erM
etal
s 8
7 7
9,32
2 2
53,1
20
275
,903
7
0,17
5 7
7,48
9 1
0,09
0 1
5,26
2 1
1 1
7 -1
6.3
51.
3 7
.9
5.2
0
.4
0.3
6
.7
5.7
4
.5
6.4
3
.9
4.5
SAIL
Met
als
61
250
,903
5
55,9
43
600
,778
7
8,00
6 8
9,47
8 3
5,37
4 3
6,63
7 9
9
8
5.9
3.6
7
.1
6.8
0
.5
0.5
6
.5
5.7
7
.7
7.5
5
.7
5.8
Sesa
Ste
rlite
Met
als
174
5
16,4
50
835
,428
9
10,8
22
242
,490
2
67,8
98
87,
981
112
,031
2
4 3
0 1
9.5
27.
3 7
.4
5.8
0
.9
0.8
5
.2
4.4
1
2.2
13.
8 8
.9
9.8
ONGC
Oil &
Gas
311
2
,662
,468
1
,575
,249
1
,847
,063
6
30,0
97
712
,597
2
77,1
27
333
,773
3
2 3
9 2
2.3
20.
4 9
.6
8.0
1
.3
1.2
4
.6
4.0
1
3.6
14.
6 1
1.7
12.
8
Petro
net L
NGOi
l & G
as 1
85
138
,750
2
87,8
04
368
,036
1
5,93
7 1
8,78
2 8
,186
1
0,41
7 1
1 1
4 -7
.2
27.
2 1
6.9
13.
3 2
.2
2.0
1
0.1
8.4
1
3.1
14.
9 9
.8
11.
1
Cairn
Indi
aOi
l & G
as 1
82
340
,473
1
23,0
92
149
,277
6
4,94
0 8
7,89
8 3
8,97
4 5
1,51
3 2
1 2
7 -3
6.9
32.
2 8
.7
6.6
0
.6
0.6
4
.5
3.1
6
.5
8.6
5
.9
7.7
GAIL
Oil &
Gas
398
5
04,8
54
583
,930
6
34,9
89
57,
593
70,
621
34,
491
43,
749
27
34
8.7
2
6.8
14.
6 1
1.5
1.6
1
.5
10.
2 7
.6
11.
0 1
2.9
7.8
9
.3
Indr
apra
stha G
asOi
l & G
as 4
26
59,
612
43,
984
48,
003
8,7
80
9,5
19
4,6
90
5,1
80
34
37
7.4
1
0.4
12.
7 1
1.5
2.5
2
.5
6.4
5
.9
21.
0 2
1.7
15.
7 1
6.3
Guja
rat S
tate
Pet
rone
tOi
l & G
as 1
16
65,
342
12,
888
13,
563
11,
501
12,
093
5,7
46
5,9
73
10
11
24.
0 3
.9
11.
4 1
0.9
1.6
1
.4
5.8
5
.0
13.
8 1
2.9
11.
4 1
0.8
Oil I
ndia
Oil &
Gas
448
2
69,5
19
119
,237
1
27,2
43
58,
603
63,
358
37,
321
40,
308
62
67
39.
0 8
.0
7.2
6
.7
1.1
1
.0
4.2
3
.8
15.
2 1
4.9
11.
1 1
1.2
Berg
er P
aint
sOt
her
196
1
35,8
15
54,
368
n.a
. 6
,498
n
.a.
3,8
68
n.a
. 1
1 n
.a.
22.
0 n
.a.
17.
6 NA
4.2
NA
21.
4 NA
23.
7 -
20.
8 -
Kaja
ria C
eram
icsOt
her
741
5
8,91
0 2
6,36
8 3
2,04
2 4
,509
5
,479
1
,778
2
,800
2
2 3
5 -1
5.8
57.
5 3
3.1
21.
0 7
.1
5.5
1
3.6
11.
0 2
1.3
26.
0 2
2.7
28.
5
HSIL
Ltd
Othe
r 3
49
25,
199
22,
797
26,
440
4,0
98
4,7
75
1,4
92
1,9
24
21
27
71.
4 2
8.9
16.
9 1
3.1
1.7
1
.6
7.8
6
.4
10.
3 1
2.0
6.6
8
.2
Have
lls Lt
dOt
her
275
1
71,7
93
59,
749
68,
906
8,4
20
9,7
83
5,5
47
6,5
48
9
10
19.
3 1
8.1
30.
9 2
6.2
6.3
5
.4
19.
8 1
6.7
20.
5 2
0.8
21.
2 2
1.7
Gree
nply
Indu
strie
sOt
her
828
1
9,98
4 1
7,57
9 1
9,87
0 2
,408
2
,822
1
,340
1
,583
5
6 6
6 1
9.3
18.
1 1
4.9
12.
6 3
.6
2.8
9
.4
8.1
2
3.8
22.
2 1
7.2
17.
5
Phoe
nix M
ills
Real
Esta
te 3
76
54,
475
23,
899
25,
955
13,
172
13,
601
4,3
45
4,3
52
30
30
203
.5
0.2
1
2.5
12.
5 2
.5
2.1
6
.3
6.0
1
9.6
16.
9 1
3.3
10.
1
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tio
n Su
mm
ary
59GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 58
CMP
Mkt
Cap
Ne
t Sal
es (R
s mn)
EB
IDTA
(Rs
mn)
PAT (
Rs m
n)EP
S (R
s)
EPS
Grow
th (%
) P
/E (x
) P
/B (x
) EV
/EBI
TDA
(x)
ROE
(%)
ROCE
(%)
Nam
e of
com
pany
Sect
orRs
Rs m
nFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
EFY
16E
FY17
E
DLF
Real
Esta
te 1
18
210
,134
9
2,06
9 1
03,8
75
39,
877
46,
228
8,4
84
11,
629
5
7
27.
5 3
7.1
23.
7 1
7.3
0.7
0
.7
10.
3 8
.9
2.9
3
.9
5.2
5
.8
Ober
oi R
ealty
Real
Esta
te 2
75
90,
112
18,
517
27,
170
9,0
20
14,
152
5,3
05
9,1
64
16
28
67.
3 7
2.8
17.
0 9
.8
1.8
1
.6
11.
2 6
.1
10.
7 1
6.2
12.
0 1
6.2
Unite
ch Lt
dRe
al E
state
8
20,
786
33,
596
44,
206
4,4
32
8,6
49
3,2
61
5,8
89
1
2
7.2
8
0.6
6.4
3
.5
0.2
0
.2
18.
9 9
.4
2.7
4
.7
1.9
4
.2
Futu
re R
etai
lRe
tail
103
4
2,13
6 1
16,8
53
133
,529
1
2,73
8 1
4,69
0 2
,704
4
,282
6
1
0.02
2
51.9
5
8.4
16.
3 1
0.3
0.8
0
.7
6.0
4
.8
4.9
7
.2
5.8
7
.1
Shop
pers
Sto
pRe
tail
393
3
2,78
8 4
7,54
4 5
3,34
1 2
,470
3
,585
2
60
869
3
1
0.44
-3
8.7
233
.9
125
.7
37.
6 5
.9
5.1
1
5.4
10.
6 4
.7
13.
6 4
.8
11.
2
Raym
ond
Ltd
Reta
il 4
55
27,
925
60,
731
68,
679
5,3
75
6,3
87
1,6
65
2,2
12
27
36
47.
7 3
2.8
16.
8 1
2.6
1.6
1
.5
7.5
6
.4
9.8
1
1.5
8.0
9
.0
Bata
Indi
aRe
tail
1,0
34
66,
449
24,
592
28,
451
3,2
22
3,8
41
1,8
17
2,2
93
28
36
-28.
1 2
6.2
36.
6 2
9.0
5.9
5
.2
19.
7 1
5.9
16.
1 1
8.0
17.
0 1
9.1
Titan
Com
pany
Reta
il 3
65
323
,998
1
35,0
27
160
,918
1
2,96
3 1
6,09
2 9
,151
1
1,68
8 1
0 1
3 1
2.1
27.
7 3
5.4
27.
7 8
.7
7.0
2
4.3
18.
6 2
6.8
28.
1 2
7.7
30.
0
Trent
Reta
il 1
,140
3
7,88
2 2
8,58
3 3
6,36
5 2
,305
3
,379
1
,654
2
,593
5
0 7
8 1
48.5
5
6.8
22.
9 1
4.6
2.8
2
.3
15.
5 9
.3
12.
1 1
5.9
9.7
1
3.0
Bhar
ti Ai
rtel
Tele
com
421
1
,684
,504
9
99,4
19
1,1
14,9
78
341
,732
3
84,2
92
69,
919
64,
217
17
16
15.
8 -8
.2
24.
1 2
6.2
2.3
2
.0
8.0
6
.8
9.5
7
.7
6.8
6
.5
Relia
nce
Com
mun
i-ca
tions
Tele
com
63
156
,308
2
34,4
48
n.a
. 8
2,81
0 n
.a.
14,
143
n.a
. 7
n
.a.
47.
7 n
.a.
9.2
na
0.4
na
5.5
na
4.8
-
4.2
-
Bhar
ti In
frate
lTe
leco
m 4
56
863
,958
8
0,09
9 8
7,24
4 5
6,48
3 6
3,55
5 2
3,15
5 2
7,39
0 1
2 1
5 1
6.3
18.
3 3
7.2
31.
4 5
.3
5.4
1
5.3
13.
5 1
4.1
17.
3 1
0.7
12.
3
Idea
Cel
lula
rTe
leco
m 1
73
622
,512
3
71,6
65
416
,001
1
27,4
77
147
,917
3
9,74
4 3
1,08
4 1
1 9
2
8.5
-21.
8 1
5.6
20.
0 2
.3
2.1
7
.5
6.0
1
4.7
10.
3 8
.1
7.4
Tata
Com
mun
icatio
nTe
leco
m 4
35
123
,890
2
20,7
36
233
,464
3
5,33
0 3
7,98
2 3
,003
4
,033
1
1 1
4 9
2.5
34.
3 4
1.3
30.
7 1
3.4
10.
7 5
.5
4.9
3
2.6
34.
8 5
.7
6.4
Auro
bind
o Ph
arm
aPh
arm
a 1
,426
4
16,3
67
139
,440
1
53,4
76
31,
653
36,
681
20,
003
23,
719
69
82
22.
7 1
8.6
20.
7 1
7.5
5.9
4
.5
14.
4 1
2.0
28.
2 2
5.5
24.
5 2
6.1
Bioc
onPh
arm
a 4
62
92,
480
34,
752
41,
143
8,4
24
10,
181
5,0
68
5,9
70
25
30
25.
1 1
7.8
18.
2 1
5.5
2.6
2
.3
10.
7 8
.5
14.
1 -
12.
5 -
Cadi
la H
ealth
care
Phar
ma
1,7
56
359
,497
9
7,44
1 1
11,2
34
20,
935
24,
513
14,
216
17,
213
69
84
20.
5 2
1.1
25.
3 2
0.9
6.6
5
.2
17.
8 1
4.8
26.
2 2
4.8
19.
4 2
0.6
Divi'
s Lab
orat
orie
sPh
arm
a 1
,855
2
46,2
22
36,
860
43,
461
13,
822
16,
472
10,
314
12,
257
78
92
19.
6 1
8.8
23.
9 2
0.1
5.8
4
.8
17.
9 1
4.8
24.
5 2
3.9
29.
9 2
9.4
Dr R
eddy
's La
bs.
Phar
ma
3,5
18
599
,553
1
77,0
59
201
,017
4
3,02
5 5
0,05
3 2
7,81
7 3
2,67
6 1
64
192
2
2.0
17.
5 2
1.5
18.
3 4
.2
3.5
1
4.2
11.
9 1
9.7
19.
0 1
4.0
14.
2
Glen
mar
k Pha
rma
Phar
ma
994
2
80,4
13
79,
162
94,
541
17,
419
21,
937
10,
246
13,
724
36
49
37.
3 3
3.9
27.
4 2
0.4
5.7
4
.5
17.
2 1
3.4
20.
9 2
2.1
14.
8 1
6.8
Ipca
Labo
rato
ries
Phar
ma
720
9
0,83
0 3
7,64
1 4
4,47
3 8
,639
1
0,52
4 4
,663
5
,941
3
7 4
7 7
4.2
27.
4 1
9.3
15.
2 3
.4
2.9
1
1.3
9.1
1
7.7
18.
8 1
5.3
16.
8
Lupi
nPh
arm
a 1
,860
8
36,8
05
144
,975
1
67,2
51
68,
866
83,
352
25,
641
31,
311
57
70
6.7
2
2.1
32.
6 2
6.7
7.5
6
.0
12.
2 1
0.0
49.
1 4
7.7
31.
0 -
Sun
Phar
ma
Phar
ma
870
2
,093
,175
3
12,0
39
353
,317
9
6,57
0 1
17,8
66
66,
579
77,
562
28
32
12.
2 1
6.5
31.
4 2
7.0
6.7
5
.6
21.
0 1
6.7
19.
7 2
0.8
16.
3 1
7.5
Conc
orM
idca
ps 1
,677
3
27,0
11
66,
073
78,
090
15,
456
18,
324
12,
091
14,
126
62
72
15.
4 1
6.8
27.
0 2
3.1
3.8
3
.4
19.
2 1
5.8
14.
0 1
4.6
14.
0 1
4.7
Praj
Inds
.M
idca
ps 9
7 1
7,23
2 1
1,85
2 1
4,70
0 1
,083
1
,691
6
48
1,0
72
4
6
42.
4 6
5.4
26.
6 1
6.1
2.7
2
.5
15.
5 9
.7
10.
2 1
5.8
8.6
1
3.2
Penn
ar In
ds.
Mid
caps
47
5,6
62
15,
728
19,
290
1,5
53
2,1
32
596
9
03
5
8
66.
0 5
1.6
9.5
6
.3
1.2
1
.0
4.2
3
.1
12.
5 1
6.4
15.
3 1
8.1
Allca
rgo
Mid
caps
312
3
9,45
0 6
3,63
4 7
2,95
3 5
,762
7
,150
2
,966
3
,772
2
4 3
0 2
3.7
27.
2 1
3.3
10.
4 1
.8
1.6
7
.2
5.4
1
3.7
15.
2 1
1.7
13.
4
Note
: For
ban
ks, E
BITD
A is
pre-
prov
ision
pro
fit
Phill
ipC
apita
l Ind
ia C
over
age
Uni
vers
e: V
alua
tio
n Su
mm
ary
59GROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 58
Disclosures and Disclaimers
PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. has three independent equity research groups: Institutional Equities, Institutional Equity Derivatives and Private Client Group. This report has been prepared by Institutional Equities Group. The views and opinions expressed in this document may or may not match or may be contrary at times with the views, estimates, rating, target price of the other equity research groups of PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This report is issued by PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. which is regulated by SEBI. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Phillip (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd. References to "PCIPL" in this report shall mean PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd unless otherwise stated. This report is prepared and distributed by PCIPL for information purposes only and neither the information contained herein nor any opinion expressed should be construed or deemed to be construed as solicitation or as offering advice for the purposes of the purchase or sale of any security, investment or derivatives. The information and opinions contained in the Report were considered by PCIPL to be valid when published. The report also contains information provided to PCIPL by third parties. The source of such information will usually be disclosed in the report. Whilst PCIPL has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that this information is correct, PCIPL does not offer any warranty as to the accuracy or complete-ness of such information. Any person placing reliance on the report to undertake trading does so entirely at his or her own risk and PCIPL does not accept any liability as a result. Securities and Derivatives markets may be subject to rapid and unexpected price movements and past performance is not necessarily an indication to future performance.
This report does not have regard to the specific investment objec-tives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person who may receive this report. Investors must undertake independent analysis with their own legal, tax and financial advisors and reach their own regarding the appropriateness of investing in any securities or investment strategies discussed or recommended in this report and should understand that statements regarding future prospects may not be realized. In no circumstances it be used or considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell the Securities mentioned in it. The information contained in the research reports may have been taken from trade and statistical services and other sources, which we believe are reliable. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. or any of its group/associate/affiliate companies do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Any opinions expressed reflect judgments at this date and are subject to change without notice
Important: These disclosures and disclaimers must be read in conjunction with the research report of which it forms part. Receipt and use of the research report is subject to all aspects of these disclosures and disclaimers. Additional information about the issuers and securities discussed in this research report is available on request.
Certifications: The research analyst(s) who prepared this research report hereby certifies that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect the research analyst’s personal views about all of the subject issuers and/or securities, that the analyst have no known conflict of interest and no part of the research analyst’s compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific views or recommen-dations contained in this research report. The Research Analyst certifies that he /she or his / her family members does not own the stock(s) covered in this research report.
Independence: PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd. has not had an investment banking relationship with, and has not received any compensation for investment banking services from, the subject issuers in the past twelve (12) months, and PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd does not anticipate receiving or intend to seek compensation for investment banking services from the subject issuers in the next three (3) months.
PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd is not a market maker in the securities mentioned in this research report, although it or its affiliates may hold either long or short positions in such securities. PhillipCapital (India) Pvt. Ltd does not hold more than 1% of the shares of the company(ies) covered in this report.
Suitability and Risks: This research report is for informational purposes only and is not tailored to the specific investment objectives, financial situation or particular requirements of any individual recipient hereof. Certain securities may give rise to substantial risks and may not be suitable for certain investors. Each investor must make its own deter-mination as to the appropriateness of any securities referred to in this research report based upon the legal, tax and accounting considerations applicable to such investor and its own investment objectives or strate-gy, its financial situation and its investing experience. The value of any security may be positively or adversely affected by changes in foreign exchange or interest rates, as well as by other financial, economic or political factors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance or results.
Sources, Completeness and Accuracy: The material herein is based upon information obtained from sources that PCIPL and the research analyst believe to be reliable, but neither PCIPL nor the research analyst represents or guarantees that the information contained herein is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Opinions expressed herein are current opinions as of the date appearing on this material and are subject to change without notice. Furthermore, PCIPL is under no obligation to update or keep the information current.
Copyright: The copyright in this research report belongs exclusively to PCIPL. All rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. No reprinting or reproduction, in whole or in part, is permit-ted without the PCIPL’s prior consent, except that a recipient may reprint it for internal circulation only and only if it is reprinted in its entirety.
Caution: Risk of loss in trading in can be substantial. You should carefully consider whether trading is appropriate for you in light of your experience, objectives, financial resources and other relevant circumstances.
For U.S. persons only: This research report is a product of Phillip-Capital (India) Pvt Ltd. which is the employer of the research analyst(s) who has prepared the research report. The research analyst(s) preparing the research report is/are resident outside the United States (U.S.) and are not associated persons of any U.S. regulated broker-dealer and therefore the analyst(s) is/are not subject to supervision by a U.S. broker-dealer, and is/are not required to satisfy the regulatory licensing requirements of FINRA or required to otherwise comply with U.S. rules or regulations regarding, among other things, communications with a subject company, public appearances and trading securities held by a research analyst account.
This report is intended for distribution by PhillipCapital (India) Pvt Ltd. only to "Major Institutional Investors" as defined by Rule 15a-6(b)(4) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Act, 1934 (the Exchange Act) and interpretations thereof by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in reliance on Rule 15a 6(a)(2). If the recipient of this report is not a Major Institutional Investor as specified above, then it should not act upon this report and return the same to the sender. Further, this report may not be copied, duplicated and/or transmitted onward to any U.S. person, which is not the Major Institutional Investor.
In reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Rule 15a-6 of the Exchange Act and interpretations thereof by the SEC in order to conduct certain business with Major Institutional Investors, PhillipCapi-tal (India) Pvt Ltd. has entered into an agreement with a U.S. registered broker-dealer, Marco Polo Securities Inc. ("Marco Polo").Transactions in securities discussed in this research report should be effected through Marco Polo or another U.S. registered broker dealer
PBGROUND VIEW GROUND VIEW 1 - 31 July 2015 1 - 31 July 2015 60