Table 11 gives the actual loss rates for each DISCO<sup>36</sup> for the period 2004 – 2017, and the target rates for the period 2012 – 2016. Certain DISCOs (IESCO, GEPCO and FESCO) have had low rates for the whole period and have shown a slow improvement and have followed the gradually tightening target values, but others (PESCO, SEPCO, QESCO) have shown no improvement and have consistently overshot the targets. For this aspect of performance, the use of target loss rates does not seem to have been effective in improving efficiency.

Table 11: Actual and target T&D losses for DISCOs 2004 – 2017 (percent)

|||**PESCO**|**TESCO**|**IESCO**|**GEPCO**|**LESCO**|**FESCO**|**MEPCO**|**HESCO**|**SEPCO**|**QESCO**|**KE**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**2017**|A|32.6|15.4|9.0|10.2|13.8|10.6|16.9|30.8|37.9|23.1|21.7|
||T|26.0||9.4|10.0|11.8|9.5|15.0|20.5|27.5|17.5|20.9|
|**2016**|A|33.8|19.0|9.1|10.6|13.9|10.2|16.5|26.5|37.9|23.9|22.2|
||_T_|_26.0_|_20.0_|_9.4_|_10.0_|_11.8_|_9.5_|_15.0_|_20.5_|_27.5_|_17.5_|_15.0_|
|**21**|A|34.8|21.7|9.4|10.7|14.1|11.0|15.5|27.1|38.3|23.1|23.7|
|**05**|_T_|_26.0_|_22.3_|_9.4_|_10.0_|_11.75_|_9.5_|_15.0_|_20.5_|_27.5_|_17.5_||
|**2014**|A|33.5|27.4|9.5|11.0|13.4|11.3|17.5|26.5|38.6|21.9|25.3|
||_T_|_26.0_|_18.5_|_9.4_|_10.0_|_9.0_|_9.5_|_15.0_|_15.0_|_17.0_|_18.0_||
|**2013**|A|36.0|-|9.5|11.2|13.5|10.9|17.9|27.7|39.1|20.6|27.8|
||T|_28.0_|_-_|_9.5_|_10.5_|_12.0_|_10.8_|_15.0_|_22.0_|_28.0_|_18.1_||
|**2012**|A|36.0|-|9.5|11.2|13.5|10.9|17.9|27.7|39.5|20.9|29.7|
||_T_|_28.0_|_-_|_9.5_|_10.5_|_12.0_|_10.8_|_15.0_|_22.0_|_28.0_|_18.0_||
|**2011**|A|40.2|-|9.7|12.0|13.3|11.2|18.3|33.8|-|20.4|32.3|
|**2010**|A|37.0|-|9.8|11.0|13.7|10.9|18.9|34.8|-|20.7|35.0|
|**2009**|A|37.4|-|10.8|10.7|13.3|10.7|18.4|35.1|-|20.4|38.5|
|**2008**|A|36.1|-|10.3|11.2|12.5|11.1|18.5|35.9|-|20.8|33.8|
|**2007**|A|35.2|-|12.2|11.6|12.8|11.6|18.6|37.0|-|21.3|34.2|
|**2006**|A|34.1|-|13.2|10.2|13.1|11.6|20.5|39.2|-|20.7|37.5|
|**2005**|A|32.1|-|12.9|12.4|13.2|10.1|20.3|37.0|-|19.6|38.1|
|**2004**|A|31.41|-|10.9|12.2|14.1|10.4|17.0|35.3|-|14.3|41.6|

Source: State of Industry Reports, various years. A= actual; T = target; - indicates no data.

The T&D loss data provide an interesting case where a state-owned utility had been unbundled but that no further reform step has been taken. The parallel existence of KE, that was privatized during the reform period, also provides a valuable contrast. On this variable the data strongly support the hypothesis that unbundling by itself does not improve performance, even when a price structure is used that makes inefficiencies explicit and visible. The profit motive, introduced by privatization, appears to be linked to limited efficiency improvement.

An indicator of the degree of **commercial efficiency** is rate of “recovery” (percent of billing collected), which is available for all the DISCOs for several years.<sup>37</sup> Table 12 presents a similar picture to Table 11. Many of the DISCOs (PESCO, HESCO, and QESCO) had low or very low

> 36 The 2016 State of Industry Report notes that two sources have been used for data on T&D losses. One source is the total of DISCOs under the supervision of PEPCO, and the other is the DISCOs themselves. The latter source has been used where it could be identified.

> 37 The Annual State of Industry Reports provide information for the different series over varying time periods, so it is not possible to construct all tables for the same years except by shortening many of the series used.

36