That’s quite the achievement. Though a side note of comparison I can’t believe France and Belgium suffer power losses in the 5 to 6% range. Unless I’m misunderstanding what that means, it seems excessive for a modern economy.
It's embarrassing that it took so long. India has been crippled by decades of socialist government overreach. Unfortunately, even the purportedly right wing BJP is unable to keep the government out of places where it doesn't belong.
Being to the right of the current INC is not an achievement. The only people not in that position are Maoists.
Anyway, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of the wealthy and powerful. For instance, I personally quite dislike our new AI ruling class. But unfortunately, in India there was an attitude since independence that it is impossible to generate wealth in a legitimate manner. Which is going way too far! And has predictably bad outcomes for the country.
Definitely not nearly as vile. It certainly wasn't perfect, particularly things like the awful penal colonies, but jump-starting a giant civilisation, say, 1000+ years into the future is not straightforward either. India is experiencing a rise in nationalism, but would do well to imagine the counterfactual of what India would be like had Europe never visited.
It baffles me that country still has strong anti-capitalist views.
I wouldn't call the "license raj" of India as anti-capitalist.
India arguably has the strongest of institutions of all the countries in South Asia.
However, even its institutions and regulations are pathetically weak.
You probably also saw a previous post right here on this orange website
when someone tried to repatriate their business money outside of India.
It was painful just to read that they had to get approvals
from iirc sixteen different government agencies
to get their own money that they brought in from outside of India back.
Not profits, not proceeds, a fraction of what they put in.
Neither of these two cases is due to "anti-capitalist" views of India.
If you look at what was India before Moghul rule and British rule,
you could argue India has never been socialist before.
I think workers everywhere should have "strong anti-capitalist views",
because unrestrained capitalism is just anarchy.
I think that's a bad read of Indian institutions. They are incredibly powerful - in fact, they are far too powerful. That's the problem. The license raj is the epitome of authoritarian, centralized political and economic power. I suppose it was justified on socialist grounds, but it would be fair to say that saying so doesn't make it so! Before 91, nothing, and I mean nothing, could happen without government say-so.
The problem with Indian institutions is that they are far too powerful, centralized and bureaucratic. Just read the article - the problem was created by a lazy, corrupt, powerful and centralized bureaucratic system. The solution was to dismantle it and decentralize power.
I apologize I am not very good at expressing myself.
Could India be better?
Of course!
Anyone can be better than what they are.
Like a fish that lives in water doesn't ever think about water,
an Indian living in India does not think about the absurdity
of how powerful a District Collector / District Magistrate (DM) / Deputy Commissioner (DC) is in contemporary India.
I think that's a bad read of Indian institutions. They are incredibly powerful - in fact, they are far too powerful. That's the problem. The license raj is the epitome of authoritarian, centralized political and economic power. I suppose it was justified on socialist grounds, but it would be fair to say that saying so doesn't make it so! Before 91, nothing, and I mean nothing, could happen without government say-so.
> The problem with Indian institutions is that they are far too powerful, centralized and bureaucratic. Just read the article - the problem was created by a lazy, corrupt, powerful and centralized bureaucratic system. The solution was to dismantle it and decentralize power.
What you are saying is absolutely true.
the bureaucracy in India is absolutely lazy, corrupt, powerful, and centralized.
It is also arguably one of the biggest reasons why India has never had a (successful) military coup.
You could even argue the inefficiency and the sluggishness of the bureaucracy is a feature and not a defect.
I think this is a self-deprecating canard that's oft-repeated, but I think fails the credibility test and encourages a kind of fatalistic resigned attitude among Indians. Are we to take from this that efficient bureaucracies lead inevitably to coups? Is the pathetic state of most African countries a result of their stellar bureaucracies?
True it should never have gotten so bad, but when there is no incentive to invest, this is the result you can expect. This happened in Venezuela and South Africa too - though SA also suffers from massive corruption (officials pocketing moneys and diverting from investment in infra).
I am aware. The initial privatization push was initiated by Congress in 1991! My lament is that privatization has remained anemic, even under the so-called right wing BJP.
But you should also acknowledge that national electrical reform was done by BJP. The real problem for Indian politics was the re-entry of the Gandhi nepo-baby dynasty. We would be a lot better off if they hadn't gotten their claws back into the INC.
It's not surprising. For one, stated vs actual goals always differ and someone needs pockets to reach into. For the other, plenty of countries that listened to orgs like the World Bank saying "privatise everything immediately and reap the benefits!" just ended up handing the assets to cronies. Examples like Russia are of course well-known, but it's obviously happening under BJP in India as well.
It's once again lamentable, but somewhat predictable that even on a post about how privatization fixed, in five years, a problem that persisted for 50, you insist on spreading boogeyman tales about privatization. The Indian government is what American libertarians are afraid of, and in their defense, they should be afraid.
Boogeyman? Is the outcome of the World Bank's insistence on "structural adjustments" somehow in debate now?
I was in Delhi when this started and they began laying out the tamper-proof cable back in the early 2000s. At that time, railway food had been privatised, perhaps you recall. It wasn't better. The problem was not the privatisation or lack thereof, it was the complete lack of accountability.
I'm not referring to the World Bank, but rather the idea that BJP's privatization push is somehow benefiting cronies. This is a widely reported accusation by the INC, but like most of their accusations, it seems to be a matter of slinging mud at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Part of accountability is the possibility for failure and the associated consequences. PSUs have no fear of failure, since they're fundamentally parasitic, living as they are on the tax receipts of the beleaguered middle class. Private industry either increases efficiency to the point of profit, or goes under, simple as. Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the results!
Of course, if there is complete government capture by industry, then there is no more risk of failure, and you have privatized PSUs. But let's say this, from 1947-1991, India traded the British for the IAS. Hardly much of an improvement. The only way to reduce their power is to transfer it to the private sector, outside of areas where the utility of the activity is all externality (e.g. defense, scientific research). We have to move in this direction or risk returning to the License Raj era. Perhaps this will create more problems, but at least our children won't curse us for leaving them with our parents' problems.
30 years ago my local electric co-op was bragging they got transmission losses down to 4%, when the rest of US was 8% (I'm not sure if that is average or some other statistical term).
But yes, transmission losses exist and are surprisingly large
every step in the chain loses power. You lose power just in the power lines. Every trip through a transformer adds some more loss
Reducing the number of transformers, raising the high side of system voltage, and increasing conductor sizes are all ways to reduce the transmission losses. of course each of those requires investments so that's why it can be variable and also something to brag about
Correct. As I recall the did a customer survey and customers didn't like (among other things) the number of power outages. The main goal was fixing that, and several side effects of that resulting in less line loss.
In the 39 years I live here, the only power loss was due to lightning or planned power cuts because of work in the building where I live in the last 9 years ( rare - twice).
There is however incentive for our high chemistry industry to cut the power and they get re-imbursed. This is when we have too much electricity production ( solar power) vs. consumption. Otherwise the providers have to pay "fines" to lose the overproduction of electricity to neigboring countries ( who probably all have overproduction of electricity).
"The ones who pay will pay" is always true (from people using public transport without a ticket to "normal" tax payers having to shoulder the losses caused by loopholes and "incentives" for the upper 0.1%), but resigning to it so explicitly is rare.
I mean this is the case universally, even if the losses aren't in a specific line item the cost of generating that power has to be covered overall
There's usually an incentive to solve this though because this shrinkage, in retail terms, would be handled at the cost of power generated (without any profit margin) whereas if it was sold to a paying customer it'd have a margin built in. If the Greek utilities are allowed to make a profit on that losses line item, that is insane
I wonder how many HNers recall life in Delhi even 20 years ago? Cutting electricity loss is one thing, but getting rid of "load shedding" (unplanned power cuts) is the really revolutionary part. It was not uncommon for the power to go out several times a day and you had to rush to unplug expensive appliances (TV, laptop), because when the power came back it was often accompanied by a surge. My office was wired with two sets of electrical sockets, one connected to grid mains and the other connected to the UPS (for important equipment only).
Actually load shedding is planned power cuts. I have seen a schedule published in a newspaper with different regions of the city (not Delhi) and times when no electricity will be available. This is for ppl to plan their day
Load shedding = it was done on purpose, not that it was pre-planned. If a sudden problem occurs, some areas can be cut to prevent wider failure. I would expect this to be largely automatic.
I remember the inverse of that in Chennai -- scheduled running water for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evenings when we had to stockpile water in every container possible.
We've traded power cuts for pollution. The current government seems energetic enough in trying to fix the problem, but frankly it's something every single developed country in existence went through at some point, so there's probably no escaping it. Hopefully the pollution era will be shorter than it was in other places!
In areas where theft was particularly rampant and losses were as high as 83 percent, according to Tata, the companies took a different strategy. These pockets of Delhi were predominantly occupied by low-income families. Tata Power, and later BSES, worked to improve the water supply for these residents and provide educational opportunities, such as instruction in reading and writing in Hindi as well as financial literacy. These efforts focused on the women, who were at home more, and paid them to collect electricity payments from their neighbors. Bill payment rates from these areas are now on par with those of other parts of Delhi
Much has been made of Estonia having a high tech virtual government I’d. So many high tech start ups have come from Estonia, I’m a bit stunned that they have big electricity distribution problems.
It may be that they over-generate currently to account for the excess losses, which would be very costly given current fuel prices unless most of it is from environmental sources.
tldr; they passed the administration of power from the corrupt government officials to Tata power (part of the Tata conglomerate) and BSES (part of another conglomerate Reliance). They modernized the setup and closed loopholes and avenues of corruption and also made stealing of power by the corrupt sections of public difficult.
That’s quite the achievement. Though a side note of comparison I can’t believe France and Belgium suffer power losses in the 5 to 6% range. Unless I’m misunderstanding what that means, it seems excessive for a modern economy.
It's embarrassing that it took so long. India has been crippled by decades of socialist government overreach. Unfortunately, even the purportedly right wing BJP is unable to keep the government out of places where it doesn't belong.
It baffles me that country still has strong anti-capitalist views. I guess lack of education does that to people.
Also, BJP is slightly right of Congress (post 1991) when it comes to economics.
Being to the right of the current INC is not an achievement. The only people not in that position are Maoists.
Anyway, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of the wealthy and powerful. For instance, I personally quite dislike our new AI ruling class. But unfortunately, in India there was an attitude since independence that it is impossible to generate wealth in a legitimate manner. Which is going way too far! And has predictably bad outcomes for the country.
While the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company was, as a broad generality, not nearly so vile as (say) the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Am..., it certainly didn't leave many Indians with a favorable impression of European-style capitalism.
Definitely not nearly as vile. It certainly wasn't perfect, particularly things like the awful penal colonies, but jump-starting a giant civilisation, say, 1000+ years into the future is not straightforward either. India is experiencing a rise in nationalism, but would do well to imagine the counterfactual of what India would be like had Europe never visited.
Not sure what you are suggesting here.
I wouldn't call the "license raj" of India as anti-capitalist. India arguably has the strongest of institutions of all the countries in South Asia. However, even its institutions and regulations are pathetically weak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
You probably also saw a previous post right here on this orange website when someone tried to repatriate their business money outside of India. It was painful just to read that they had to get approvals from iirc sixteen different government agencies to get their own money that they brought in from outside of India back. Not profits, not proceeds, a fraction of what they put in.
Neither of these two cases is due to "anti-capitalist" views of India. If you look at what was India before Moghul rule and British rule, you could argue India has never been socialist before.
I think workers everywhere should have "strong anti-capitalist views", because unrestrained capitalism is just anarchy.
I think that's a bad read of Indian institutions. They are incredibly powerful - in fact, they are far too powerful. That's the problem. The license raj is the epitome of authoritarian, centralized political and economic power. I suppose it was justified on socialist grounds, but it would be fair to say that saying so doesn't make it so! Before 91, nothing, and I mean nothing, could happen without government say-so.
The problem with Indian institutions is that they are far too powerful, centralized and bureaucratic. Just read the article - the problem was created by a lazy, corrupt, powerful and centralized bureaucratic system. The solution was to dismantle it and decentralize power.
I apologize I am not very good at expressing myself. Could India be better? Of course! Anyone can be better than what they are. Like a fish that lives in water doesn't ever think about water, an Indian living in India does not think about the absurdity of how powerful a District Collector / District Magistrate (DM) / Deputy Commissioner (DC) is in contemporary India.
What you are saying is absolutely true. the bureaucracy in India is absolutely lazy, corrupt, powerful, and centralized. It is also arguably one of the biggest reasons why India has never had a (successful) military coup. You could even argue the inefficiency and the sluggishness of the bureaucracy is a feature and not a defect.
I think this is a self-deprecating canard that's oft-repeated, but I think fails the credibility test and encourages a kind of fatalistic resigned attitude among Indians. Are we to take from this that efficient bureaucracies lead inevitably to coups? Is the pathetic state of most African countries a result of their stellar bureaucracies?
True it should never have gotten so bad, but when there is no incentive to invest, this is the result you can expect. This happened in Venezuela and South Africa too - though SA also suffers from massive corruption (officials pocketing moneys and diverting from investment in infra).
The privatisation of Delhi power distribution was initiated by a Congress state government in 2000.
I am aware. The initial privatization push was initiated by Congress in 1991! My lament is that privatization has remained anemic, even under the so-called right wing BJP.
But you should also acknowledge that national electrical reform was done by BJP. The real problem for Indian politics was the re-entry of the Gandhi nepo-baby dynasty. We would be a lot better off if they hadn't gotten their claws back into the INC.
It's not surprising. For one, stated vs actual goals always differ and someone needs pockets to reach into. For the other, plenty of countries that listened to orgs like the World Bank saying "privatise everything immediately and reap the benefits!" just ended up handing the assets to cronies. Examples like Russia are of course well-known, but it's obviously happening under BJP in India as well.
It's once again lamentable, but somewhat predictable that even on a post about how privatization fixed, in five years, a problem that persisted for 50, you insist on spreading boogeyman tales about privatization. The Indian government is what American libertarians are afraid of, and in their defense, they should be afraid.
Boogeyman? Is the outcome of the World Bank's insistence on "structural adjustments" somehow in debate now?
I was in Delhi when this started and they began laying out the tamper-proof cable back in the early 2000s. At that time, railway food had been privatised, perhaps you recall. It wasn't better. The problem was not the privatisation or lack thereof, it was the complete lack of accountability.
I'm not referring to the World Bank, but rather the idea that BJP's privatization push is somehow benefiting cronies. This is a widely reported accusation by the INC, but like most of their accusations, it seems to be a matter of slinging mud at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Part of accountability is the possibility for failure and the associated consequences. PSUs have no fear of failure, since they're fundamentally parasitic, living as they are on the tax receipts of the beleaguered middle class. Private industry either increases efficiency to the point of profit, or goes under, simple as. Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the results!
Of course, if there is complete government capture by industry, then there is no more risk of failure, and you have privatized PSUs. But let's say this, from 1947-1991, India traded the British for the IAS. Hardly much of an improvement. The only way to reduce their power is to transfer it to the private sector, outside of areas where the utility of the activity is all externality (e.g. defense, scientific research). We have to move in this direction or risk returning to the License Raj era. Perhaps this will create more problems, but at least our children won't curse us for leaving them with our parents' problems.
The BJP is marginally less socialist than the Congress. On the positive side, they are definitely less corrupt than the Congress.
To me transformation efficiency and distance losses actually seem to make 5-6% pretty impressive?
30 years ago my local electric co-op was bragging they got transmission losses down to 4%, when the rest of US was 8% (I'm not sure if that is average or some other statistical term).
But yes, transmission losses exist and are surprisingly large
every step in the chain loses power. You lose power just in the power lines. Every trip through a transformer adds some more loss
Reducing the number of transformers, raising the high side of system voltage, and increasing conductor sizes are all ways to reduce the transmission losses. of course each of those requires investments so that's why it can be variable and also something to brag about
Correct. As I recall the did a customer survey and customers didn't like (among other things) the number of power outages. The main goal was fixing that, and several side effects of that resulting in less line loss.
I'm not sure what that percentage means, but power-cuts in Belgium are extremely rare.
You can't easily move energy from one place to another without losing some of it: https://www.ceer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/3rd-CEER-Repo... That doesn't necessarily result in power outages, though.
I don't think that number is correct?
In the 39 years I live here, the only power loss was due to lightning or planned power cuts because of work in the building where I live in the last 9 years ( rare - twice).
There is however incentive for our high chemistry industry to cut the power and they get re-imbursed. This is when we have too much electricity production ( solar power) vs. consumption. Otherwise the providers have to pay "fines" to lose the overproduction of electricity to neigboring countries ( who probably all have overproduction of electricity).
Vajpayee FTW?
In Greece there is no incentive to fix power losses since the electric bill has a power losses line item.
You can steal as much as you want. The ones who pay will pay.
"The ones who pay will pay" is always true (from people using public transport without a ticket to "normal" tax payers having to shoulder the losses caused by loopholes and "incentives" for the upper 0.1%), but resigning to it so explicitly is rare.
I mean this is the case universally, even if the losses aren't in a specific line item the cost of generating that power has to be covered overall
There's usually an incentive to solve this though because this shrinkage, in retail terms, would be handled at the cost of power generated (without any profit margin) whereas if it was sold to a paying customer it'd have a margin built in. If the Greek utilities are allowed to make a profit on that losses line item, that is insane
If a utility is regulated to a set profit outcome, it will make a profit on stolen electricity just via math.
Until solar panels came to liberate us from the utility overlords.
I wonder how many HNers recall life in Delhi even 20 years ago? Cutting electricity loss is one thing, but getting rid of "load shedding" (unplanned power cuts) is the really revolutionary part. It was not uncommon for the power to go out several times a day and you had to rush to unplug expensive appliances (TV, laptop), because when the power came back it was often accompanied by a surge. My office was wired with two sets of electrical sockets, one connected to grid mains and the other connected to the UPS (for important equipment only).
Actually load shedding is planned power cuts. I have seen a schedule published in a newspaper with different regions of the city (not Delhi) and times when no electricity will be available. This is for ppl to plan their day
Load shedding = it was done on purpose, not that it was pre-planned. If a sudden problem occurs, some areas can be cut to prevent wider failure. I would expect this to be largely automatic.
Do you remember the scheduled water cuts? We would stockpile water in buckets so we could flush the toilets. Good old days!
I remember the inverse of that in Chennai -- scheduled running water for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evenings when we had to stockpile water in every container possible.
It's so weird reading these comments, we didn't have either of these issues in Gujarat in early 2000s (left India in mid 2000s).
Modi hai to mumkin hai!
I still remember those summer midnights, without cooler
How's life these days over there?
We've traded power cuts for pollution. The current government seems energetic enough in trying to fix the problem, but frankly it's something every single developed country in existence went through at some point, so there's probably no escaping it. Hopefully the pollution era will be shorter than it was in other places!
This is... interesting on multiple levels.
I want to know what Singapore's grid operators have been up to. That seems to be the more interesting story based on the data in this article.
Singapore is a very small city. Distribution losses are linear with distance!
So basically theft and fixing overloaded infra. So this is policy based solutions for the most part.
Amazing that places have 50% power loss.
Estonia?!
Much has been made of Estonia having a high tech virtual government I’d. So many high tech start ups have come from Estonia, I’m a bit stunned that they have big electricity distribution problems.
This is some kind of totally wrong reporting. Maybe some other country was meant, or the author mixed us up with Elbonia from Dilbert.
We do not have issues with electricity here or planned power cuts or whatever else.
I would like to see where this professor got his data for losses from. Maybe his data is flawed.
It may be that they over-generate currently to account for the excess losses, which would be very costly given current fuel prices unless most of it is from environmental sources.
tldr; they passed the administration of power from the corrupt government officials to Tata power (part of the Tata conglomerate) and BSES (part of another conglomerate Reliance). They modernized the setup and closed loopholes and avenues of corruption and also made stealing of power by the corrupt sections of public difficult.