The people of Delhi may be in for a rude shock, following the new water pricing formula of AAP. They may have to shell-out 2-3 times more. Where meters are faulty, cost will be even higher
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has delivered on its electoral promise of providing 700 litres of free water per day per household even before they have proven their majority in the legislature. However, putting aside questions of political morality, no analysis of probable impact of this move on households and on fiscal health of the government, has been released by AAP so far. How genuine is the promise of free water? Could it be that the water bills are set to actually rise for a large number of people?
AAP claims to have pioneered the concept of “lifeline water” in India by promising minimum quantity of water required for survival. But how does the economics of water work in practice in Delhi as against what has been claimed conceptually? How does it impact household budgets? What probable behavioural changes could be expected from different sections of Delhi population because of this measure? Is it a subsidy for the poor or the middle class? Here is the reality.
There are three major components of water charge that is billed to domestic consumers (Category 1) in Delhi. (There are two more categories of consumers, residential with mixed commercial use (Category 1A) and commercial and industrial use (Category II) but we have kept them out of our analysis as subsidy is not applicable to them.)
There are two more components -- water cess charge and meter rent of Delhi Jal Board (DJB) which is negligible and hence not considered in this analysis.
The four slabs with progressively higher rates for each slab for both metered water consumption and fixed service charge are given in Table 1.1
Table 1.1
Consumption per month | Old Rates | Fixed charges |
1-10 KL | 2.42 | 60.50 |
10-20 KL | 3.63 | 121.00 |
20-30 KL | 18.15 | 181.50 |
30-above KL | 30.25 | 242.00 |
1 KL = 1,000 litres
Now, the AAP government has made consumption within first two slabs free of cost and increased rates for both metered water consumption and fixed service charge by 10% as per this ET report. Additionally, consumption beyond 20 KL in a month would be chargeable in full and it is implied in this report that such calculation would be on the basis of higher slab rates. The new rate brought in force by AAP is given in Table 1.2
Table 1.2
Consumption per month | New Rates | Fixed charges |
1-10 KL | 0 | 0 |
10-20 KL | 0 | 0 |
20-30 KL | 19.97 | 199.65 |
30-above KL | 33.28 | 266.20 |
1 KL = 1,000 litres
So, how does water billing change at different consumption points for Delhi households? Below is the table (Table 1.3) and graph (Graph 1.1) for comparison. Also, DJB claims to incur a cost of Rs28 per KL including sewerage maintenance cost for supplying water.
Table 1.3
S No | Consumption per month (In KL) | Billing Amount (Old Rate) | Billing Amount (New Rate) | Additional burden due to new rates | Increase in Billing |
1 | 10 | 99 | - | (99) |
|
2 | 15 | 189 | - | (189) |
|
3 | 20 | 218 | - | (218) |
|
4 | 21 | 308 | 871 | 563 | 183% |
5 | 22 | 337 | 903 | 566 | 168% |
6 | 23 | 366 | 935 | 569 | 155% |
7 | 24 | 395 | 967 | 572 | 145% |
8 | 25 | 424 | 999 | 575 | 136% |
9 | 26 | 453 | 1,031 | 578 | 128% |
10 | 27 | 482 | 1,063 | 581 | 120% |
11 | 28 | 511 | 1,095 | 583 | 114% |
12 | 29 | 540 | 1,127 | 586 | 109% |
13 | 30 | 569 | 1,159 | 589 | 104% |
14 | 31 | 678 | 1,278 | 600 | 88% |
15 | 35 | 872 | 1,491 | 620 | 71% |
16 | 40 | 1,114 | 1,758 | 644 | 58% |
17 | 45 | 1,356 | 2,024 | 668 | 49% |
18 | 50 | 1,598 | 2,290 | 692 | 43% |
19 | 55 | 1,840 | 2,557 | 716 | 39% |
20 | 60 | 2,082 | 2,823 | 741 | 36% |
What are the conclusions from this chart?
Faulty Meters
Apart from the steep hike, there is an additional problem of fast meters that many in Delhi complain about. We have monitored our meter for past three days and found it to be running faster by 25%-40% (showing a gain of 1.25 to 1.4 KL for filling a water tank of 1,000 litre). Any evidence for such faulty meters is largely anecdotal and a systematic study is required to establish it as a fact. However, complaints of fast-running faulty meter are widespread. If we assume it to be a factor, then actual consumption would have to be limited to less than 500 litres per day to take advantage of new tariff structure. Suspicion about faulty meters will get combined with incentive to stay below the punitive consumption threshold. This will force consumers into adopting means that are totally against the principle and philosophy of AAP. Talk of unintended consequences!
Over the course of the next few months, all this will get clearer to Delhi citizens. How will it impact the different consumer classes and what impact it may have on their behaviour?
As far as fiscal health of DJB is concerned, in the earlier tariff structure, DJB was giving a subsidy of Rs17-18 per KL up to 20 KL per month consumption and was recovering full cost for consumption between 20-30 KL and making a profit of ~40% on consumption beyond 30 KL. In the new tariff structure, DJB would be providing subsidy of Rs28 per KL up to 20 KL per month consumption and would not be able to recover any part of the cost, but would make profit of ~30% for consumption between 20-30 KL and super-profit of ~50% for consumption beyond 30 KL. Additionally, rate increase is expected across-the-board so billing for other two categories of consumers would also be higher so it may be possible that the new tariff structure actually bring additional revenues to DJB. (The ET report suggests that DJB officials expect a subsidy of Rs160 crore annually. However, this is not clear as household data for water consumption in Delhi is not available in public domain)
This policy definitely does not address concerns like water for all, assured supply, good quality, developing long-term sources as Delhi ‘imports’ 80% of its water from other states, cleaning river Yamuna, dual supply lines for potable and non-potable water, metering all connections, tackling tanker mafia, reducing distribution losses for long-term sustainable water availability and supply. Instead, AAP has taken the easy route to gain political mileage. Strangely, price of water was hardly an issue in Delhi (price of electricity was definitely an electoral issue). This move is of a piece whereby a supposed benefit has been provided to half of Delhi which was not asked for but would create a legacy that may be replicated elsewhere and would be difficult to eradicate in near future.
Another calling card of AAP, which has generated even more interest and debate, is their promise to reduce electricity rates by 50%. Given that electricity pricing, unlike water pricing, is not entirely in the hands of the Government of Delhi, AAP may want to replicate the same model for new power tariff structure as well. However, sensitivity to electricity bills is quite high in Delhi and any such move to cross-subsidise part of the population may have negative consequences
New water tariff structure has been approved for the period Jan-Mar 2014. The bills, therefore, would start hitting households in the month of April and would provide quite a shock just in time for parliamentary elections and a possible re-election in Delhi. AAP would be well-advised to re-think the tariff structure and at least continue with the earlier rates for 0-10 KL and 10-20 KL slabs for billing of consumption beyond 20 KL. Otherwise, the most vociferous backers of AAP, the middle class and young, may not be available to vote for AAP six months down the line.
(Vivek Khaitan is an MBA from IIM Calcutta and is working as a management consultant for past five years in New Delhi)
Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
Very good article. Can i have your mail id so that i can correspond with you.
Regards
Raghavendra Rao
Bangalore.
My Id: [email protected]
AAP has been in power for only a week. They will streamline all the above issues in due course. There is nothing wrong in taxing the rich (all of us are paying through our nose now for LPG, petrol etc. - isn't it?), who have wasted public money earlier while in power, collecting only 40% of the water bills! People would now take more care to ensure that they have properly working meters, and Govt. staff who do not co-operate will be taken to task by the Delhi Govt. quickly.
It is better if you post these issues in the AAP site for quicker attention. Pl. see the following video if you have missed out seeing it earlier, to know how Delhi Jal Nigam worked earlier: https://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elbvy3V87Is
If the slab rates change only by less than Rs. 3, how did you manage to project such a huge increase. What additional subsidy has been considered in Old rate calculation? And what additional costs for New rate calculation?
Is it a hoax to undermine AAP's policy impact?
Nothing wrong in some objective questioning, but go the extra mile with some individual effort (read all comments & use a calculator) --- before calling something a hoax in a public comment :(
AAG
PS: I have also explained some calculations in my own comments, but I sat with EXCEL. And although pricing is a research area for me, I had never seen such a scheme for water before.
bill of 20kl to 30kl range by more than 100%.
but that does not negate the need for supplying free water and if possible free power to those who can not afford the cost.
may be aap will rework the rates to redistribute the subsidy burden which should not be very difficult.
or decide to meet the subsidy from the tax funds.
either way it should not be such a big issue to warrant reconsideration of the free water promise.
as rightly pointed out in this article, aap should find time and expertise to reduce the cost and avoid waste. not only in water and power but also in all the segments of governance. which should not be difficult given the sincerity of aap leaders and involvement of the people
I wish that the author had shown the same sincerity to point out mistakes in previous government's policies.
If you have any facts different than this please enlighten us.
Kejriwal is no different than other politicians and he wants perks and power.We saw how he accepted the house and after people criticized he is willing to give it up.
Some one should write about his background.
From the consumer stand point, I believe this will help in water conservation especially by those families who would like to avoid the financial burden due crossing the 20KL, and for those who dont mind the large marginal increase, they will pay more due to the usage.
Also on the 50% reduction in power tariff. While this can be perceived as a populist move, it could very well be a valid number, given the example of what price Gujarat Govt could procure power for, if they wouldnt have opted for taking power from Adani Group for twice the rate.
Another key component of power tariff is cost due to power theft, which was not reduced due to the corruption. Fixing this also would contribute to Power tariff reduction.
https://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elbvy3V87Is
Those consuming more than 20,000 litres per month xwill need to foot the full bill according to the hiked tariff of 10%, also applicable from January 1.
The author should verify facts and correct his post.
As I have said in the article, the basis for the assumption is the news reports (hyperlinked in the article) after DJB press conference which implies that consumption beyond 20 KL would be charged at higher slab and not in respective consumption slabs as was the case earlier. Lots of people have already checked the calculations and found it to be absolutely correct. Please read full comments section for that esp. the exchange between me, Abhijeet Gosavi and Amitabh Kumar
The other thing, about getting the clarification on exact calculation method from govt or DJB, unless you write about such things, you don't get clarification. The purpose of this piece is to get that clarification. Otherwise, bills would start hitting in April 2014 without anybody being wiser about it. If indeed no new calculation method is proposed, a clarification needs to be issued
Can you please confirm the source of this because this is the inherent assumption in your calculations?
25 Kl will be charged 19.97 per KL (Table 1.2)
bill will be (19.97x25=499.25) +fixed surcharge + sever charges
( for 21KL fixed charge=199.65 table 1.2)
499.25+199.65 =698.9
now 60% of 499 is severage chages which will also add to bill
60% of 419.02 is 299.55
now total= bill + severage charges (which is 60% of bill)
= 499.25+199.65+299.55
= 998.45
where as in old bill it is
424Rs I think it is straight 50% rise in bill
the article seems to be legitimately right and Delhi Jal Board press release does not says any thing about these calculations
http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/...
and most of the people on AAP group or other places are doubting this article saying that author has assumed that if someone is using even 1 litre extra than 20K then he will have to pay full , I do not know what is an answer to that,except I learnt at some places that it is done to save water but what about tenants who live at the mercy of land lords
Increase is only 10%. The basis of the article is not correct.
Save natural resources which are anyways not abundant - whichever govt rules - nature rules over us all - What we NEED is <500 Litres - rest are wants