Smell of Scam

From this document, it's clear that how EESL distributes the LED bulb on installment mode. But the ground reality is different. Agency personnel distributed the bulbs without going due process mentioned in this document. They distributed bulbs without validating the datails of the consumer (Consumer bill no) from the DISCOMs.

Recently I got the EMI of the instalment of the LED bulbs in my electricity bill though I didn't buy any of LED bulb. On my compliant, the DISCOM waived of that amount. Mine is not an isolated case, DISCOM officials themselves said that many received such wrong bill and they waived of many. Now the question arises is that - Why DISCOM bear the loss of that amount? I want to find that answer but it requires a lot of time that I don't have right now.

What I suspicious about the thing is that - Agency distributed the bulbs by mentioning the random consumer number on random persons or they don’t sell any bulb at all. This is an exercise to shows the inflated numbers. And let me know you that as a consumer you have to spend lots of time to get your amount waived from DISCOM that only a few people can afford to do due to a busy life schedule.

Now how one can find out the reality?

One way and simple way is to find out how much money DISCOM waived of consumers regarding the LED bulbs? But I think it left out many of entries where consumer paid the bill due to known awareness of billing details or the busy life schedule where one has to find hours to get waived of the amount of Rs.50-60.

The second method is that - One can find out the number of bulb agency sell to the consumer of the X DISCOM for the duration of Jan 2016 to Jan 2018 and simultaneous find out the instalment money DISCOM collected between the March 2016 to March 2018. The difference of both is the missing amount which is Scam money or the Nonperforming asset of the DISCOM where consumer defaulted. ( Yes I know these words don’t suit context but its reality)

Street Light National Programme

Theory of this model goes like -

EESL replaces the conventional street lights with LEDs at its own costs and consequent reduction in energy and maintenance cost of the municipality is used to repay EESL over a period of time. The contracts that EESL enters into with Municipalities are typical of 7 years duration where it not only guarantees a minimum energy saving but also provides free replacements and maintenance of lights at no additional costs to the municipalities. The service model enables the municipalities to go in for the state of the art street light with no upfront capital cost and repayments to EESL are within the present level of expenditure. Thus there is no additional revenue expenditure required to be incurred by the municipality for change over to smart and energy efficient LED street lights. (Source - http://vikaspedia.in/energy/policy-support/energy-efficiency/street-light-national-programme . Vikaspedia -Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)

But the practice of the Ahmedabad municipal corporation (AMC) is like this one:-

From this, It's clear that AMC paid the total price of the bulb within the 30 days of the procurement. While the EESL model says that the municipality has to pay price over the period of time from the savings of the electricity bills due to LED bulb. So, payment term conditions for the AMC is different than a mention in EESL model?

Secondly what municipal corporations do with the existing bulb (a convention which replaces with LED). Mind that the number of such bulls in lakhs that municipals corporations changed over the period of the 30-40 days irrespective that those are in working conditions or not.

In case of this, it's quite easy to find discrepancy. The EESL model is in public. One just has to find out that how Municipalities procure and paid bulbs. I strongly suspicious that Municipalitites were pressuried to procure bulb casue EESL want to show inflated numbers of their sell.