pg 43. interview: bhagirath choudhary pg 47. no...

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

[email protected]

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


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


High voltage transformer in operations at a substation

765kv substation operating in India


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___________________________________________


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


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


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


0.35 3.2 1.1 9.7 3.4062


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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



11th plan addition

11th plan end

Current (Apr,15)

12th plan addition

12th Plan end

13th plan addition

13th Plan end

Transmission Lines ckms


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




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


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


% 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).



11th plan addition

11th plan end

Current (Apr,15)

12th plan addition

12th Plan end

13th plan addition

13th Plan end



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




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


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


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.


11th plan addition

11th plan end

Current (Apr,15)

12th plan addition

12th Plan end

13th plan addition

13th Plan end



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




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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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)


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)


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


Annexure 2. Contd.


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)


Annexure 4. Eleven high capacity transmission corridors planned in 12th plan

Source: PGCIL


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)


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


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


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


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.


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.


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”?


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

pg 43. interview: bhagirath choudhary pg 47. no...

Documents