SOCIAL MULTI CRITERIA EVALUATION OF POWER SECTOR REFORM IN DELHI
by
HAR1SH KUMAR AHUJA
CENTRE FOR ENERGY STUDIES
Submitted
in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
to the
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI
MARCH, 2009
I. I. T. DELHI.
LIBRARY Acc. No
c'21
- S
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Social Multi Criteria Evaluation of Power Sector Reform in Delhi" being submitted by Harish Kumar Abuja to the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is a bonafide record of research work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance.
The thesis work, in my opinion, has reached the requisite standard fulfilling the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
The results contain in this thesis have not been submitted in part or full, to any other University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
(Prof. Avinash Chandra) Centre for Energy Studies
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi New Delhi - 110016
India.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I cannot begin my acknowledgements unless I express my deepest gratitude to Professor Avinash Chandra, My supervisor for showing trust in my capabilities and allowing me to write the thesis in the area of my interest i.e. the power sector. Professor Chandra not only acknowledged my interest in the power-sector reform but also inspired me to go ahead with the idea of applying social Multi-Criteria tool in the Delhi power reform process. Due to my job responsibilities and social commitments, a lot many times I could not meet certain deadlines however his kind and gentle approach always motivated me to push myself extra hard to meet his expectations. Without his continuous support, guidance and encouragements I would not have been able to complete this research work. I would like to use this occasion to express my gratitude to Professor S.C. Kaushik, HOD,CES, Professor G.N. Tiwari el Professor T.5. Bhatti for giving me gainful insights on presenting my research work in a meaningful and structured way. My special thanks to Centre for energy Studies for providing me institutional support.
The submission of thesis is the last phase of the journey that I began seven years ago in Andaman and Nicobar islands. My ambition of doing PhD from IIT Delhi started way back in 1994 when immediately after finishing my M.Tech. from IIT, Delhi I joined for PhD in Applied mechanics Department. But due to my selection in Indian engineering service examination, I could not carry it forward.
The idea of writing my thesis on power sector reform struck me sometime in the end of year 2005, when I started working as Deputy Secretary in Department of power, Government of Delhi. The criticism of DVB reform process initiated in 2002 by certain quarters and at the same time appreciation by other groups made me curious to evaluate and acquire understanding of inherent conflicts associated with entire reform process and for devising a new approach to apply and sustain the power reforms in the country. The multidimensional features of power sector and social conflict involved in the power reform encouraged me to apply social-multi-criteria evaluation technique on power reform process. My sincere thanks to Dr Simron jit Singh, Associate Professor in Department of interdisciplinary studies in University of Vienna, Austria. He was the first person to familiarize me with the concepts of social Multi-Criteria evaluation and Multiple-scale integrated assessment. The basic concepts and application of these techniques were explained to me by him only. It is because of Simron only that I could come into contact with Gonzalo Gamboa Jimenez, who had applied SMCE in Barcelona, Spain and Chile. My special thanks to Gamboa for not only giving me NAIADE software but also for devoting sufficient time on explaining the Application of software, mathematical concepts and result analysis. Without his support, this research work could not have seen the light of day.
The research would not have been possible without the support of various stakeholders who were associated during participation process. Without their valuable inputs, thought- provoking ideas, and frank opinions it would not have been possible to carry out the field studies. My sincere thanks to Shri K. Venugopal, Member, Delhi electricity regulatory commission, Shri Rakesh Mehta, chief secretary Government of NCT of Delhi, Hon Minister of Finance and Planning Dr. A. K. Walia, Government of NCT of Delhi, Shri 5 R Sethi,Ex Director(operations), Delhi Transco limited, Shri Arun Kanchan, Chief Executive officer of BSES RAJDHANI and BSES Yamuna power limited, Shri Sunil Wadhwa, Chief Executive officer, North Delhi power limited, Shri Ramesh narayan, senior vice president, BSES
Rajdhani Power limited, Shri N P Singh, executive director, IPGCL/PPCL, Shri R. K. Saxena, Director HR Delhi Transco limited, Dr Pawan Singh, Director(finance), Delhi Transco limited, Shri Alok Kumar, Secretary, Centre electricity regulatory commission, R. Krishnamurthy, central electricity regulatory commission, Shri Gupta. the president, Resident welfare Association, Rajendra Nagar, Justice RC Chopra, chairman, PG cell, shri V K Kapoor,Member, public grievance cell,Shri A K Kaul,Director,State Load dispatch centre. Shri Rajan Gupta, Member secretary DVB employee association. The list of the stakeholders is never-ending as there was contribution of lot many other people with whom I interacted in number of seminars, conferences, workshops and study tour. The significance of these people is not less as they also influenced my ideas when I was working on this work.
I would like to use this opportunity to offer my special thanks to Seniors Shri PK Tripathi, Shri Kailash Chandra, Shri Rakesh Mehta and Shri Rajendra Kumar for offering me their valuable support during the crucial period.
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Professor Ashok Banerjee, Professor, IIM, Calcutta, Ajay Pande, IIM Ahemdabad, Shri Proloy Majumadar Associate Professor of IIM,Calcutta who always clarified my queries relating to crucial aspects of finance especially on Corporate finance, Finacial management and other important issues relating to valuation and Investment banking. Thorough understanding of all these subjects was critical in generation of future scenarios.
The work on data compilation and analysis would not have been possible without the support of few institutions i.e. State Load dispatch centre, Delhi electricity regulatory commission, Delhi Transco limited, BSES Rajdhani power limited, B5E5 Yamuna power limited, North Delhi power limited, Central electricity regulatory commission, Planning Department government of NCT of Delhi etc. I acknowledge the support of all these institutions for their cooperation.
My wife Neetu and my kids Aditya St Henna deserve a special mention here as in past 5-6 years, lot many days/hours which truly belonged to my family were put into use for research work. My Apologies to 8 year old son Aditya who was always eager to play cricket with me but gradually accepted that at present PhD work is more important than his Cricket. My wife Neetu who was always stood by me and provided unconditional support necessitates a special mention here because without her belief in my idea I would not have been able to present this work. During difficult time and moment of despair it was my mother Savitri Ahuja who gave me the confidence and hope for completion of the studies.
At the end I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Shri Anil Taneja, my colleague who offered his precious time to meet various deadlines for submitting this thesis on time.' also acknowledge the contribution of Shri Raghuandan in this.
The sincere efforts which have been put into this work would not have been made possible without the blessing of my Guru Shri Appa Swami Ji, who always blessed one.
(Harish %umar Ahuja) Entry No.2002RES011
ABSTRACT
Sustaining momentum of growth of India's GDP consistently at 8% requires sustainable power sector development. The power sector will provide one of the biggest avenues to participate in the development of India's infrastructure.
Undoubtedly, it is fraught with multiple challenges and risks such as the Peak demand deficit of 12 to 15%, inadequate generation capacity, constrained transmission network, poorly managed distribution networks etc. To overcome this, there is a need to craft business models that will allow them to capture values in such an environment. Power-sector reform has been actively debated and much attempted in the early 1990s, the spate of independent power projects were negotiated and last only to be shelved over the years.
The most crucial infrastructure for India's economy growth is electricity sector. The Peak demand deficit of 12 to 15 %, inadequate generation capacity, constrained transmission network, poorly managed distribution networks elaborate this fact categorically that in all three segments of power sector Generation, transmission and distribution, Herculean task is to be performed.
The distribution sector is the weakest link in the power value chain. After 16 years of private power policy, in October 1991, there is now growing recognition of the fact that the right end of privatisation in electricity sector is the distribution side of electricity. It is also fully recognized now that unless the distribution and sale of electricity is properly managed so as to ensure realisation of sufficient amount of revenues, any of arrangement as mentioned or any other framework will not and cannot work.
Power Sector in Delhi is at crossroads, the past five years of successful reform at one place has led to lower A T & C. losses, sufficient capital investment, Power availability, evolving regulatory practices in place, conducive environment to proceed further with the reforms of earlier reform ,However at another place there is un- clarity on future path of reform process so that consumer not only get improved quality standards but at the same time reduced tariff, this is possible with only if competition is introduced with enabling regulatory and Power market structure.
The planning phase of DVB reform process though took three years but other than Techno- economic aspects related to power sector, no other aspects institutional, social or environmental were given due weightage while designing a reform model.
Technical and economical representations of governance reform process, also iv
legitimate, or on their own insufficient for specifying what should be done in practice in real world condition.
Delhi power sector reform process, which should have been treated and handled as a post-normal science problem, was handled with the normal science approach. The insight leading to post normal science is that in the sort of issues driven policy process relating to power sector reform debate, typically acts are uncertain, values in dispute, the stakes high and decisions urgent. The very nature of policy of power sector reform where technical and social incommensurability is evident, it is suggested to adopt post-normal science approach and take into consideration all important criteria into account while generating future Road map of reform. Therefore future scenarios of power distribution reforms in Delhi have been constructed on the basis of participatory techniques e.g. multiple scales integrated assessment and Social Multi- Criteria evaluation.
For post-normal science, quality becomes crucial, and quality refers to process even more than to outcome. It has been increasingly realised in policy circles that in complex Power sector reform related issues, lacking neat solutions and requiring support from all the stakeholders, the quality of decision-making process is absolutely critical for the acknowledgement of an efficient product in the design.
Therefore appropriate policy tool applying all aspects of deliberative democracy for design of future distribution business has been worked out well in advance for putting best institutional, regulatory, Technical & legal system in place. With this objective it was thought appropriate to construct the future scenarios of power sector in Delhi especially on distribution side taking into account the evolving nature of power sector reform policy.
The present research work was done for following: --
• Forecasting and generating future Business models for power distribution sector in Delhi by applying the social research techniques of Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation and Multiple Scale Integrated Assessment.
• Construction of Impact Matrix and Equity Matrix for future reform models of distribution sector using Participatory Techniques.
• Evaluation of alternative reform models according to a set of institutional, social, economic, technical, and environmental criteria.
v
• To carry out the simulation analysis of different reform models by applying Multi criteria evaluation software tool NAIADE (Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environment) for ascertaining their Credibility, Applicability, Ranking and acceptability.
The research results validate the assumptions that changing closely held equity structure of distribution companies to public listed company can make its function more transparent, participatory and accountable. The role of government in distribution companies however minimal it may be has significant impact on functioning of private companies whether closely held or public listed. The very presence of government in the board of directors generate lot of faith in public as they perceive that in spite of all lacunae in the governance system, ultimately it is government which will raise for their rescue if private distribution companies resort to extreme behavior of profiteering.
In the coalition formation then the ground is very clear that residential consumers and policymakers are closest at high credibility level while selecting future course of action, whereas strikingly even after 6 years of power reforms political group is farthest from domestic consumers to form a coalition credibly. Utilities and industrial and shopkeeper consumers are though close to each other but slightly away from domestic consumers, policymakers and regulator by forming coalition the credibility of which is very low. Consumer protection group and regulator show closeness in coalition formation, and are closest to group of Policy makers & Domestic groups. It means Commercial & Industrial consumer's interest is not on priority for policy makers, regulator even for consumer protection groups which is supposed not to differentiate between different categories of consumers.
Future scenario when government has no equity in Distribution business though perform better for most of other criteria vis a vis present system but its comparative disadvantage for criteria like Political commitment, regulatory risk, public faith, achievement & social objectives and social stress on poor, which are the sensitive areas for the power sector in this transitory stage of reform do not make political leaders comfortable in going for this alternative at this stage. Therefore alternative 3 which show comparative advantage on above criteria when government has presence in a public listed discom emerge as possible compromise solution.
vi
CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iv
CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
LIST OF TABLES xviii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xxii
CHAPTER -1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 POWER SECTOR 1
1.2 MULTI DIMENSIONAL FEATURES OF
POWER SECTOR 3
1.3 PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: SUSTAINABLE METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING LEGITIMACY
OF POWER REFORM POLICY PROCESS 3 1.4 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF POWER DISTRIBUTION
REFORM IN DELHI 5
1.5 THE NEED FOR REFORM OF REFORM 7 1.6 DISTRIBUTION SECTOR REFORM:
NEED OF NEW APPROACH 7
1.7 SOCIAL MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION 8
1.8 RESEARCH WORK 9
1.9 NAIADE 10
1.10 OBJECTIVE OF APPLYING SMCE 11 1.11 THE STRUCTURE OF THESIS 15 CHAPTER - 2: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION OF SMCE 19
2.1 POST-NORMAL SCIENCE 20
2.2 SOCIAL AND TECHNICAL INCOMMENSURABILITY 22
2.3 IMPACT MATRIX 24
2.4 DIFFERENT MULTI CRITERIA APPROCHES AND
MAIN PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL MULTI CRITERIA 25 EVALUATION
2.5 SMCE SCHEME 27
2.6 NAIADE (NOVEL APPROACH TO IMPRECISE
ASSESSMENT AND DECISION ENVIRONMENT) 30
2.7 SCENARIO CONSTRUCTION 31 CHAPTER — 3: POWER SECTOR REFORM: NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES 36 3.1 DRIVERS FOR POWER SECTOR REFORM 36 3.2 BASIC MODELS OF POWER SECTOR REFORM 37
3.3 DESIGN OF REFORM 38
3.4 POWER SECTOR REFORM: INTERNATIONAL
EXPERIENCE 40
3.5 POWER SECTOR Reform IN INDIA 42 3.5.1 Electricity Act in INDIA: A Historical Perspective 42
3.5.2 Role of Regulator 44
3.5.3 Power sector Reform: A new Beginning 44 3.5.4 Conceptualizing Distribution Reforms in India 47 3.6 DISTRIBUTION REFORM: STATE INITIATIVE 49 3.6.1 Common Reform Model for Distribution 49 3.7 ASSESSMENT OF POWER REFORM IN INDIA 50 CHAPTER — 4: DELHI POWER REFORMS: A CRITICAL EVALUATION 53
4.1 RESTRUCTURING OF DELHI VIDYUT BOARD &
PRIVATISATION OF DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS 53 4.2 SALIENT FEATURES OF DELHI DISTRIBUTION
REFORMS 55
4.3 MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF PRIVATIZATION OF 57 DISTRIBUTION SECTOR
4.4 ACHIEVEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTION POWER SECTOR
IN DELHI 58
4.5 THE CRITICAL EVALUATION OF POWER SECTOR 60 REFORM IN DELHI
4.5.1 Prerequisite institutions needed to be in place for enforcing 61 policies of reform not in place
4.5.2 No competition 62
4.5.3 Transparency and accountability of regulatory process 64
4.5.4 Regulatory inexperience 65
4.5.5 Tariff dilemma 67 4.5.6 Lack of credible commitment on part of state government 69
to raise domestic tariff
4.5.7 Time of day metering 71
4.5.8 Other SOE still milking cows 72
4.5.9 Social Stress 72
4.5.10 Consumer Empowerment: A Myth 73 4.5.11 Non transparency and Accountability of Private 74
Discom towards Public
4.5.12 Return to shareholders: 75
4.5.13 Unnecessary Litigation 76
4.6 THE NEED FOR REFORM OF REFORMS 77
4.7 ROAD AHEAD 78
CHAPTER — 5: SOCIAL MULTI CRITERIA EVALUATION IN PRACTICE APPROACHING AND PRESENTATION PHASE 79 5.1 OBJECTIVE OF SMCE: POWER SECTOR SUSTMNABILITY 79 5.2 CONFLICTS INHERENT IN POWER SECTOR 80
5.3 APPLICATION OF SMCE 84
5.3.1 Definition of Every steps in brief 85 5.4 SMCE IN PRACTICE: APPROACHING PHASE 88
5.4.1 Historical Analysis 88
5.4.1.1 Big Bang Approach of Delhi Reforms 88 5.4.1.1.1 Different Models of Public Private Partnership 88
5.4.1.1.2 Divestiture 90
5.4.1.2 Present Structure of three discoms 92
5.4.1.3 World Bank Study 94
5.5 DISTRIBUTION REFORM: WHAT NEXT 95 5.6 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF ALTERNATIVES 96
(FUTURE SCENARIOS)
5.6.1 Selection of Alternatives 96
5.6.2 Should Government remain a Joint owner of Discoms 97 5.6.3 PPP only an Interim arrangement 99 5.6.4 Is AT & C loss only Benchmark to evaluate
Performance of Discoms 100
5.7 DESIGNING NEW EQUITY STRUCTURE 101 5.7.1 Motivation for Public listing and choosing
other alternatives 102
5.7.1.1 Financial & Fiscal Reforms of Govt. of India 102 5.7.1.2 Domestic Pool of Middle-Class Indians Provide an 103
Attractive Opportunity for Sustainable Funding of Power Sector
5.8 REPRESENTATION PHASE 104 5.8.1 Identifying Social actors needs and expectations through
participatory Approaches 104
5.8.2 Different participative techniques 105 5.8.2.1 Selection of participatory technique adopted
for research work 109
5.8.3 Institutional Analysis for the Identification
of the Main Social Actors 110
5.8.3.1 Questionnaire of the in
-
depth interviews 1115.9 IMPACT MATRIX 116
5.9.1 Future scenarios and description of criteria 117
5.9.2 Design of Alternatives 118
5.9.2.1 Alternative 1 118
5.9.2.2 Alternative 2 118
5.9.2.3 Alternative 3 120
5.9.2.4 Alternative 4 124
5.9.3 Eliciting evaluation criteria from Needs and Expectations 128
5.9.4 Valuation of Criteria 132
CHAPTER — 6: SOCIAL MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION IN
PRACTICE:EVALUATION AND LEARNING PHASE 133 6.1 THE MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION MODEL IN SMCE:
ITS REQUISITES 133
6.2 UNDERSTANDING NAIADE 133 6.2.1 Multi criteria And Equity Evaluation 134
6.2.1.1Multi Criteria (Impact) Matrix Handle Technical
Incommensurability 135
6.2.1.2 Equity Matrix Handle Social Incommensurability 136 6.3 CHOICE OF WEIGHT: HOW IT HAS BEEN HANDLED 137 6.4 NAIADE : HOW IT OPERATES 138 6.5 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 142
6.5.1 Multi Criteria ranking 142
6.5.2 Analysis of Multi criteria results 143 6.5.3 Analysis Of impact matrix results 144 6.5.3.1 Alternative 4 vs Alternative 1 145 6.5.3.2 Alternative 3 vs Alternative 1 146 6.5.3.3 Alternative 3 vs Alternative 4 147 6.5.3.4 Alternative 2 vs Alternative 1 148 6.5.4 Criteria Aggregation scores for different pair-wise 149
preference relations
6.6 EQUITY MATRIX ANALYSIS 150
6.6.1 General Interpretation 151
6.6.2 Dendogram Analysis & Veto Analysis 151
6.6.2.1 For Point A 151
6.6.2.2 For Point B 152
6.6.2.3 For Point C 153
6.6.2.4 For Point D 154
6.6.2.5 For Point E 155
6.6.2.6 For Point F 156
6.7 Sensitivity analysis 158
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND ROAD AHEAD 161 7.1 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 162
7.2 LESSONS LEARNT 163
7.2.1 The regulator has the key to unlock the
future value of reform 164
7.2.2 Competition can take a back seat in short run 164 7.2.3 Government has a fundamental role to play 166
7.2.4 Real Consumer empowerment 167
7.2.5 Deliberative Democracy: 168
7.2.5.1 The desired features of public decision-making processes 169 7.2.5.2 Representation and legitimacy in SMCE 170
7.2.5.3 Limitation of Multi Criteria Model 171
7.2.6 Big-bang approach. 171
7.2.7 Public Private Partnership (PPP) 173 7.2.8 Corporate governance in a failing market 173
7.3 RECOMMENDATION 175
7.3.1 Government and regulator role in the short run (1-5 years) 177 7.3.2 Government and regulator role in competitive
markets (Medium Run) 178
7.3.3 Advanced Time Lines in place 179
7.4 SUGGESTED AREA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK 184
7.5 SOME FINAL WORDS 185
REFERENCES 187
APPENDICES
APPENDIX-A A-1
Part-I — Shareholders Agreement Between DPCL & Distribution Companies Article-X & Article-XIII A-1 Part —II — Features Of Golden Share As Adopted In UK Privatisation A-5 APPENDIX-B: CRITERIA: DEFINATIOIV, RATIONALE
AND VALUATION B-1
INSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA B-1
C-1: Regulatory Risk B-1
C-2: Need for Change in Tariff Setting Principle B-2
C-3: Political Commitment B-5
C-4: Equity Proceeds B-6
C-5: Retail Competition B-8
ECONOMIC CRITERIA B-13
C-6: Quantum of Subsidy B-13
C-7: The Reduction in Cross Subsidisation. B-17
C-8: Attraction to Investors B-22
TECHNICAL CRITERIA B-24
C-9: Availability of Funds B-24
ECONOMIC CRITERIA B-27
C-10: Corporate Governance B-27
C-11: Competition B-30
SOCIAL CRITERIA B-33
C-12: Consumer Satisfaction B-33
C-13: Public Faith on Corporate Ethics in Absence of Government B-34
C-14: Achievement of Social Objectives B-35
C-15: Social stress in poor people due to tariff hike B-36
TECHNICAL CRITERIA B-41
C-16: AT& C Loss levels B-41
C-17: Improvement in Distribution Infrastructure B-44
C-18: Quality of Power Supply (Shedding) B-50
C-19: Promotion Of Energy Audit And Accounting B-61
ENVIRONMENT CRITERIA B-64
C-20: Incentive for Introduction of new Product Range B-64 C-21: Adoption of green /clean technology B-66
C-22: Demand side management B-70
APPENDIX-C:
Part-I CONCEPT OF NAIADE C-1
1.1 What is NAIADE C-2
1.2 NAIADE: Concepts C-2
1.2.1 Impact Matrix C-2
1.2.2 Semantic Distance C-3
1.2.3 Preference Relations & Pair-wise comparison of
Alternatives C-3
1.2.4 Criteria Aggregation C-5
1.2.5 Ranking of Alternatives C-6
1.3 Equity Analysis C-7
Part-II APPLICATION OF NAIADE
2.1 INTRODUCTION C-8
2.1.1 Possible Courses of Action C-8
2.1.2 Set of Evaluation Criteria C-8
2.1.3 Interest Groups C-12
2.2. EXERCISE C
-
122.2.1. Filling in the Impact Matrix C-13
2.2.1.1 Defining a new alternative C-13
2.2.1.2 Defining a new criterion C-14
2.2.1.3 Filling in empty cells C-15
2.2.1.4 Filling other Empty Cells of Criteria C-16
2.2.2 Multi-criteria Analysis C-18
2.2.2.1. Changing the parameters C-18
2.2.2.2. Calculations and display of results C-19
2.2.3. Filling in the Group Matrix C-19
2.2.3.1. Defining a new group C-19
2.2.3.2. Filling in empty cells C-20
2.2.4 Equity Analysis C-21
2.2.4.1. Changing the parameters C-21
2.2.4.2. Calculation and display of results C-22 Part-HI RUNNING THE AGGREGATION C-23
3.1 SEMANTIC DISTANCE C-23
3.2 PREFERENCE RELATIONS AND PAIR-WISE
COMPARISONS OF ALTERNATIVES C-25
3.2.1 Presenting Credibility index value graphically C-26
3.3 CRITERIA AGGREGATION C-28
3.3.1Calculation of Preference intensity index C-28
3.4 ENTROPY C-30
3.5 RANKINGS C-31
3.6 RESULTS OF THE MULTI-CRITERIA
EVALUATION IN NAIADE C-32
3.7 DEGREE OF TRUTH C-33
REFERENCE-APPENDIX
BRIEF BIO-DATA OF THE AUTHOR
