Reform Initiatives for Electrical Distribution Utilities in Jharkhand, India

  • Palacherla SrinivasEmail author
  • Rajagopal Peesapati
  • Muddana Harsha Vardhan
  • Katchala Appala Naidu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 655)


In order to lower the cost of power, many countries have started reforming their power sectors with the participation of private companies. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) has been restructured into four different companies in the year 2014. In this paper, the relative efficiencies of electrical distribution utilities (EDUs) of the state are evaluated for the period 2008–2011 through the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA). The analysis of the relative efficiencies reveals the need of efficient reform initiatives for the EDUs of JSEB. In this regard, the present work proposes few initiatives that are additionally useful for electrical distribution sector in the state Jharkhand, India. Grouping of similar types of EDUs and change of circle based on geographical nature are proposed as two efficient initiatives for the distribution sector of the state. The mean efficiency score is evaluated before and after the implementation of proposed initiatives to verify the effectiveness. The findings of the research show the improvement of efficiencies after the application of the proposed initiatives.


Reform initiatives Data envelopment analysis K-means cluster 


  1. 1.
    Dyner I, Larsen ER (2001) From planning to strategy in the electricity industry. Energy Policy 29:1145–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunekreeft G (2015) Network unbundling and flawed coordination: experience from electricity sector. Util Policy 34:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibarra-Yunez A (2015) Energy reform in Mexico: imperfect unbundling in the electricity sector. Util Policy 35:19–27Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thillai Rajan A (2000) Power sector reforms in Orissa: an ex-post analysis of the casual factors. Energy Policy 28:657–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kundu GK, Mishra BB (2011) Impact of reform and privatization on consumers: a case study of power sector reform in Orissa, India. Energy Policy 39:3537–3549Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kundu GK, Mishra BB (2012) Impact of reform and privatization on employees: a case study of power sector reform in Orissa, India. Energy Policy 45:252–262Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Totare NP, Pandit S (2010) Power sector reform in Maharashtra, India. Energy Policy 38:7082–7092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yadav VK, Padhy NP, Gupta HO (2011) Performance evaluation and improvement directions for an Indian electric utility. Energy Policy 39:7112–7120Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yadav VK, Chauhan YK, Padhy NP, Gupta HO (2013) A novel power sector restructuring model based on data envelopment analysis (DEA). Electr Power Energy Syst 44:629–637Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Badelt G, Yehia M (2000) The way to restructure the Lebanese electric power sector: a challenge for the transitional management. Energy Policy 28:39–47Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goto M, Ofsuka A, Sueyoshi T (2014) DEA (data envelopment analysis) assessment of operational and environmental efficiencies on Japanese regional industries. Energy 66:535–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2012) Efficiency-based rank assessment for electric power industry: a combined use of data envelopment analysis (DEA) and DEA discriminant analysis (DA). Energy Econ 34(3):634–644Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olanrewaju OA, Jimoh AA, Kholpane PA (2013) Assessing the energy potential in the South African industry: a combined IDA-ANN-DEA (index decomposition analysis-artificial neural network-data envelopment analysis) model. Energy 63(15):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bezdek JC (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xie Y, Raghavan VV, Zhao X (2002) 3M algorithm: finding an optimal fuzzy cluster scheme for proximity data. In: International proceedings of IEEE world congress on computational intelligence, Honolulu, HI, vol 1, pp 627–632Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunn JC (1973) A fuzzy relative of the ISODATA process and its use in detecting compact well-separated clusters. J Cybern 3:32–57MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simab M, Haghifam M-R (2010) Using integrated model to assess the efficiency of electric distribution companies. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 25(4):1806–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abbott M (2015) Reform and efficiency of New Zealand’s airport. Util Policy 36:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghosh S, Dubey SK (2013) Comparative analysis of k means and fuzzy c means clustering algorithms. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 4(4):35–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Palacherla Srinivas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rajagopal Peesapati
    • 1
  • Muddana Harsha Vardhan
    • 1
  • Katchala Appala Naidu
    • 1
  1. 1.Raghu Engineering College (A)VisakhapatnamIndia

Personalised recommendations