Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, June 21, 2001

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Entertainment | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home

National | Previous | Next

Panel-DPC meet makes little headway

By Mahesh Vijapurkar

MUMBAI, JUNE 20. A meeting between the Madhav Godbole Committee and the Enron- sponsored Dabhol Power Company yesterday did not make much progress mainly because the Centre's representative on the panel continued to insist that his brief was only to be a facilitator.

It was for the MSEB and DPC work out a new, attractive tariff regime to ensure other States pick up the power from the independent power producer.

In the absence of Mr. Godbole who is away overseas for a brief period, the sitting was handled by Mr. E. A. S. Sarma. The Centre's stand is that the two licencees should sustain the PPA and the DPC drop its tariff and then it would help find buyers.

The Centre does not want to pick up power or find a Central Government entity to do so and then sell it to those who need energy. The MSEB is quite averse to this because it cannot pick up power generated at Dabhol at say Rs. 7 per kwhr and then sell it to some State for about Rs. 2.50 and bear the loss.

Sources say that as of now, even the Centre's thinking is on the same lines and it would therefore, not be a common buyer.

As a facilitator it will find buyers if the MSEB is able to purchase power at a renegotiated lesser price from the DPC. Maharashtra Government sources say that the ``Centre should become a common buyer and become a seller. There is no other way.''

At the very second meeting, the Godbole Committee itself had sought to impress upon the Centre's representative, Mr. V. A. Gokak, that unless the Centre intervened, there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

The hope was that the Centre would be brought around to be more than a mere facilitator. That, apparently has not happened and those familiar with discussions within the panel say ``we are where we were''.

It is precisely because of the inability to absorb high costs that the MSEB moved to negotiate and sees no reason why it should bear the risk continually when its own finances are far from healthy.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail


Section  : National
Previous : Advancing of deadline to end VSNL monopoly
           puzzling
Next     : Ayodhya case: CBI challenges Special Court order

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Entertainment | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home

Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu

Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu