CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Stealing of electricity is an illegal act under the law. It adds up to the losses of the system and in effect, a larger amount of system loss charge is being passed on the consumers. Another consequence of this illegal activity is that it could lead to serious physical damage or even death. Many of the consumers are not aware of these consequences. Another is that electricity theft is done because of some factors. The most prevalent one is due to poverty. One could easily be tempted to perform electricity theft when he lacks resources to pay for his electricity consumption. This and many more factors tend to lead the consumers to engage in the perpetration of electricity theft. People living in the slums are more likely to commit electricity theft than from those who live in well-off urban areas. But this do not mean that occurrence of electricity theft is not present in the latter. The researchers generated some factors which they wanted to see if it was present to most of the consumers of SOCOTECO II. Those factors which may lead the consumers to engage in perpetrating electricity theft is low in presence but the occurrence of electricity theft was proven to be true. The inability of a utility to spread information regarding electricity theft will make the consumers blind from this issue. Another end result for not being able to spread information is that consumers wont be able to participate in the drive to trim down electricity theft.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Specifically, this study will be conducted in order to supplement answers to the following questions: 1.) How aware are the consumers on the system loss charge and to the Anti-Pilferage Act? 2.) How does the consumers knowledge in electrical applications and cases of electricity theft influence them to engage in electricity theft? 3.) What is the rating of the cooperative from the views of the residential consumers and to the technical employees of the cooperative?

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 1.) To evaluate the awareness of the consumers on the system loss charge and to the Anti-Pilferage Act. 2.) To evaluate the influence of the consumers knowledge in electrical applications and cases of electricity theft influence them to engage in electricity theft. 3) To rate the cooperative from the views of the residential consumers and to the employees of the cooperative.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The results of the study may address issues of importance to SOCOTECO II to as well as to the consumers.

The study will serve as a basis for the SOCOTECO II to promote actions in minimizing occurrence of electricity theft. It will lead them to the realization of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of their current operation. This study will also be an aid for the consumers to be more aware of the system loss of the cooperative. This will serve as a ground for implementing new policies by the electric distribution utilities that will impose sanctions and suppression activities against perpetrators. It may also serve as a reference for future studies.

1.5 Scope and Delimitation This study will be limited to the data gathered from SOCOTECO II and from the data gathered from surveying. The survey is done only in selected areas of Tupi, Polomolok, Glamang and Apopong in General Santos City.

1.6 Definition of Terms Electricity theft. It is defined as a conscience attempt by a person to reduce or eliminate the amount of money he or she will owe the utility for electric energy Consumer. It is a broad label that refers to any individuals or households that use goods and services generated within the economy. A consumer is a person who uses any product or service. System loss. It is the total of all energy lost or wasted on a system due to line loss and other forms of energy loss, unaccounted energy use and theft among other factors is referred to as system loss. In Philippine Distribution Code, system loss is the difference between the energy purchased and the electric energy sold by the distributor.

R. A. 7832. It is otherwise known as the Anti-Pilferage Act of 1994. It is an act penalizing the pilferage of electricity and theft of electric power transmission lines/materials, rationalizing system losses by system losses by phasing out pilferage losses as a component thereof, and for other purposes. MW. This is read as megawatt. This is the unit for electrical energy consumed by each consumer each month. Transmission and Distribution Charges. A charge added to a customer's electrical bill which is intended to cover the cost of transmitting energy over the transmission grid between the generating facility and the local utility's distribution facilities. Transmission and distribution charges may be rolled into other charges even in a deregulated market, but if they are billed separately, they will appear as line item charge on a customer's invoice, and will be paid as part of the total electrical bill. Electric Cooperative. It is a privately-held company, government agency, publicly-owned body or other entity that meets three specific criteria. It must own and/or operate facilities for provision of a service directly related to electric energy provision, it must sell electrical energy directly to end-use customers, and it must have the exclusive right to provide that service within a given area. Tampering -the practice, often illegal, or process that makes unauthorized access to a protected object easily detected. Electric meter or energy meter - is a device that measures the amount of electrical energy supplied to or produced by a residence, business or machine.

Distribution system It is the loss of energy in the physical hardware which required to deliver energy between high-voltage transmission lines and end-use customers. High voltage according to Philippine Distribution Code, it means a voltage level exceeding 34.5 kilovolts up to 230 kilovolts. Low voltage according to Philippine Distribution Code means a voltage level not exceeding 1000 volts.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Electricity theft has long been rampant in most parts of India (the annual losses due to electricity theft is estimated to be US$ 4.5 billion, about 1.5% of GDP) and the capital city of India. (Jayashree Srinivasan, February 2008)

Pakistan is losing Rs80 billion annually on account of electricity theft and system losses in the power sector.(Khaleej Times, April 2007)

The impact of electricity theft and non-payment in South Africa on the national electricity demand is about 3600 MW, which is equivalent to the output of a major coal-fired power station, or about 10% of the current national demand of around Ballantyne, April 2008) 36 000 MW. (Neil

The foregoing statements above are excerpts from articles circulating in the internet. They are the implications that electricity theft is really an international problem. Millions of dollars are stolen from utilities annually. These costs are routinely passed along to consumers in the form of higher rates. Awareness comes out in many forms. One is that many of the consumers are not aware of the added costs on their electric bills due to the losses incurred due to unaccounted energy use. Another is that Electricity theft is rampant because of certain factors present from the consumers which lead to their engagement in this activity. Most of the utilities are battling this problem, but there are also some which do nothing at all.

AWARENESS TO THE PROBLEM OF ELECTRICITY THEFT In terms of awareness, let us cite some of the drawbacks of electrical distribution utilities around the world. Let us begin with the problem being faced by an office in India. There is a problem on how Maharastra State Electricity Board adds up some amount to their consumers bills but the consumers were not properly informed. It was the utilities way of coping up with the losses of their system is by making extra charges to their consumers in the name of Transmission and Distribution Loss Charges. The utility charges up a particular amount to each of its consumers to recover the losses that came from electricity theft on their system. The endeavor was supposedly to be a joint venture of the utility with the public. But ironically the consumers have do not even had a single clue on this issue. One consumer had been interviewed and her statement is as follows: "I am regularly paying my MSEB bills with the additional amount but am not aware of any such movement. And another consumer said: "In case if is a joint venture of the authorities and the public, why is it that most of the consumers are still unaware of the charges?" These only show that most of their consumers are not aware on the issue of electricity theft and as well as to the effect on its economic aspect. This had been admitted by the utility due to lack of communication. (Manoj Badgeri, April 2003) An isolated area inhabited by tribal people is unaware of the consequences of perpetrating electricity theft. The tribal area of Dangs is plagued with the problem of power thefts and large-scale irresponsible use of power. This area has a 99 per cent tribal population. Power theft is very common in the Kantha region, which surrounds the riverbank. The tribal people here use the overhead electric lines to draw water from the river. Another problem in this area is that the people use electricity but do not think it essential to pay bills.

Therefore many do not take the initiative to pay bills for as long as a whole year. This only means that this area needs a sustained and continuous awareness program.

(http://www.urjarakshak.org/english/successstories_rbb.htm)

LEADING FACTORS There are many factors which leads the consumers to engage in perpetrating electricity theft. Let us cite some of these factors which were present in distribution utilities from other countries. In India, slum dwellers' unofficial hook-ups are the most visible sign of India's power theft crisis, but there are yet bigger problems dogging the country's energy sector. The problem is corruption and a vested electoral interest in turning a blind eye. Noone likes paying their utility bills, he says, so often politicians regard laxness about revenue collection as a vote-winner. And opportunities for personal enrichment through corruption related to industrial power theft have given them, as well as civil servants and utility officials, further incentives not to rock the boat. The political aspect is probably most blatant in rural areas. At least 20% of India's power is consumed by farmers' irrigation systems. Frequently they either get free power or pay low set charges that bear no relation to the amount of electricity used. The powerful farmers' lobby is hard for politicians to ignore in country where a majority of the population still makes its living from agriculture. (Mark Gregory, March 2006) Other factors leading to the perpetration of electricity theft are as follows. Sometimes the thefts take place with the assistance of employees of electricity companies. Employees turn a blind eye to some of the violations in return for money. This is one of the cases in

where perpetrators are protected and as a result, they are not easy to locate and apprehend. In some cases, communities prevent utility staff from doing inspections and disconnections, which escalates this problem even further. These cases happen when the area is hard to reach and that the inhabitants are groups of lowly people who threaten utility employees. In Lebanon, officials say that there are whole neighborhoods that do not pay electricity at all. Bill collectors are afraid to go to certain neighborhoods to remove the illegal connections because of the safety constraints.

PERFORMANCE OF DISTRIBUTION UTILITIES The utilities should most likely play a big role in reducing the cases of electricity theft in their perspective franchise area. Electricity theft isnt isolated to rural areas or to big cities. Its a problem utilities encounter from agricultural operations to housing complexes to business offices from coast to coast. Slum dwellers in Rohini, a residential district in North West Delhi, power theft is almost a way of life. The result is an illegal supply of free electricity that lasts until inspectors from the local power utility stage one of their periodic raids. And when that happens, people simply all wait for a few hours until the inspectors have gone before reconnecting. Also cited in the said article is that Delhi has been dubbed the power theft capital of the world and it is estimated that somewhere between a third and half of the country's electricity supply is unpaid for and the pervasive electricity theft means India is chronically short of power. The problem is likely to get worse as rapid economic growth leads to greater energy consumption. This is all because of the lack of effort from the utility in monitoring and inspection. (Mark Gregory, March 2006)

Poor service by electricity companies also can fuel up resentments that can be expressed through forms of customer protests which include theft or non-payment of bills. In Uganda, for instance, customers are frustrated with an electricity provider who routinely blames high theft for poor service. In Cameroon, where the U.S. electricity company AES owns the national provider, raids on organized thieves are common. Company security officials come prepared to tear down illegal networks and even raid businesses suspected of tapping lines. While use of force and the paramilitary is one way of theft reduction, the distribution companies are also attacking the issue by monitoring electronic meters. They are being installed on the premises of large consumers. To see if bypassing is taking place, consumption levels are being compared against established norms in other cities, and even by matching assets to usage. More inspections should take place more often and top technology should be deployed to monitor usage, to help reduce the theft. Other implementations made were the mandatory display of energy efficiency labels on electric equipment, subsidizing energy efficient equipment, a proper policy on energy saving devices. They also carried out regular inspections at points of consumption, especially at sites where it has detected irregularities in the consumption of electricity. These inspections determine whether the irregularities in consumption have been caused by the technical fault of a device, a change in the customers consumption habits, or because of the illegal consumption of electricity. This is an example of a utility which uses resources to trim down electricity theft. (Josh Romero, April 2008)

10

LOCAL PROBLEMS Here in the Philippines, electricity theft is also present. According to the Sunstar, power Pilferage is rampant in 14 mostly depressed barangays of Cebu City, The Visayan Electric Company (VECO) told the City Council. The problem persists because of difficulty in getting electrical permits, required electrification in areas without proper access to power, low conviction rate, and leniency in penalties by judges and natural propensity by people to commit crime. (Sunstar, August 2008) Electric companies and cooperatives are also doing its part in the reduction of cases of electricity theft. Just like for example in the case of the (VECO) in the problem of electricity theft in their area. VECO is closely coordinating with the local government and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to enforce vigilance over VECO's entire franchise area. This is only one way of reducing theft. The problem of electricity theft in SOCOTECO II is evident due to the increasing amount of system loss while the number of apprehended consumers perpetrating the said illegal activity is getting low. It can be seen from Table A1 that for the years 2005-2007, the distribution system loss (DSL) had been increasing each year. This DSL cost millions of pesos. This amount could have been used for the rehabilitation of old electrical equipments of the cooperative for a more reliable distribution of electrical energy. From Table B1, the number of apprehended consumers who perpetrate electricity theft decreased each year. Under R.A. No. 7832 otherwise know as the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994. Section 2 of the said Act, it states that: Illegal Use of Electricity

11

It is hereby declared unlawful for any person, whether natural or juridical, public or private, to: (a) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection with overhead lines, service drops, or other electric service wires, without previous authority or consent of the private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned; (b) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection to the existing electric service facilities of any duly registered consumer without the latter's or the electric utility's consent or authority; (c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter, jumper, current reversing transformer, shorting or shunting wire, loop connection or any other device which interferes with the proper or accurate registry or metering of electric current or otherwise results in its diversion in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; (d) Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment, wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electric current; and (e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of electric service obtained through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) above. Aside from the regular rates for the use of electricity, we can find an extra component in our electric bill which adds up to the total amount of our bill. This particular component is the system loss charge. Many dont even notice this component due to lack of information

12

from the cooperative. The consumers pay this system loss charge due to the provision stated in Section 10 of R. A. 7832. It states that: Rationalization of System Losses by Phasing out Pilferage Losses as a Component Thereof. There is hereby established a cap on the recoverable rate of system losses as follows: For rural electric cooperatives: (i) Twenty-two percent (22%) at the end of the first year following the effectivity of this Act; (ii) Twenty percent (20%) at the end of the second year following the effectivity of this Act; (iii) Eighteen percent (18%) at the end of the third year following the effectivity of this Act; (iv) Sixteen percent (16%) at the end at the fourth year following the effectivity of this Act; and (v) Fourteen percent (14%) at the end of the fifth year following the effectivity of this Act. Some of the factors that may lead the consumers to engage in electricity theft are knowledge in electrical wiring and other electrical applications; if they dont have knowledge in these applications, they might have known persons who are knowledgeable in electrical applications whom they will ask to perform electricity theft; and if the have known cases of

13

electricity theft in our area. These are some of the many factors leading the consumers to the perpetration of electricity theft. There are many different methods on how to perform electricity theft. Some of these methods are easy to perform but there are some which can only be done when one have knowledge in electrical applications. Inspection and monitoring on the part of the cooperative is one of the important tools in the reduction of electricity theft. Another is the constant dissemination of information to the consumers regarding the consequences of perpetrating electricity theft. These are only some of the ways that a cooperative can do in order to lessen the growing problem on electricity theft in the area.

14

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This portion will illustrate how this study was accomplished. Below is the flow chart of the procedures of this study. DATA ACQUISITION FROM SOCOTECO II

IDEA FORMATION

FORMULATING THE PROBLEMS

FORMULATE WAYS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS

SURVEYING

DATA ANALYSIS

CONCLUSIONS

PRINTED REPORT

COMPLETION

Figure 1 Research Flow Chart

15

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN This study will evaluate the awareness of the consumers of SOCOTECO II on the system loss charge which can be seen in their electric bills and the Anti-Pilferage Act. Furthermore, this study will also evaluate the influence of the consumers knowledge in electrical applications and cases of electricity theft influence them to engage in electricity theft. Finally, this study will rate the cooperative from the views of the residential consumers and to the employees of the cooperative.

3.2 RESEARCH PROCEDURE This study begun upon analyzing the data given by SOCOTECO II on their annual report regarding the distribution system loss and the number of apprehended consumers who perpetrated electricity theft. We found out that as the number of apprehended consumers perpetrating electricity theft decreased, the amount of distribution system loss increased. This only implies that the distribution system loss increased due to electricity theft. The annual distribution system loss of SOCOTECO II is considerably high which is about 14 to 15% of their total annual purchased energy. Some amount of these losses are then passed on to the consumers in the form of system loss charge. We believe that this component of the electric bill is not known to most of the consumers. Since the cause of the increased distribution system loss is electricity theft, we wanted to evaluate if the influence of the consumers knowledge in electrical applications and cases of electricity theft influence them to engage in electricity theft. The cooperative may have been or may have not been exerting enough effort in inspection and monitoring their distribution lines from high voltage down to low voltage lines where the cases of electricity theft are most likely to happen. We will know this through

16

the rating of the cooperative from the views of the residential consumers and to the technical employees. To address the arguments above, we decided to conduct a survey. In Figure 2 in t, we will see the complete design of the survey. This survey will be done through the use of questionnaires. We then formulated questions in relation to our generated problems. Each question is then followed by choices in which the respondents can pick their answers based on their views on the particular question. To evaluate the awareness of the consumers, we asked them if they notice the system loss charge of their monthly electric bill; if they are aware of the components of the components of their electric bill; and how well do they know the Anti-Pilferage Act. For the factors which may lead the consumers to engage in electricity theft, we have considered their knowledge regarding electrical applications; if they have known cases of electricity theft in their area; and we made also a supplementary question if they are aware of the schedule of the meter reader in reading their energy consumption. To find out the rating of the cooperative from the views of the consumers and the employees of the cooperative as well, we asked them to grade the cooperative in terms of accuracy in meter reading, in monitoring and inspection, and in dissemination of information regarding electricity theft. For the complete set of questionnaire as well as the letter to the respondents, refer to Appendix C.

17

Variables of the Study Awareness

Respondents

Procedure Finalization of the research instrument Data Gathering

System loss Electric Bill Components Anti-Pilferage Act Factors

Residential consumers which are supplied by Polomolok Substation and New Society Substation

Survey Questionnaires Data Presentation

Knowledge in Electrical Applications Have known people who have knowledge in Electrical Applications Have known cases of Electricity Theft Know the schedule of meter reading Rating of the Cooperative Accuracy in meter reading Inspection and Monitoring Dissemination of Information

Data Analysis

Data Interpretation

Conclusions Figure 2 Survey Design

18

The next step is to decide on where to conduct the survey. We again obtained data from SOCOTECO II regarding the amounts of distribution system loss on each of their substations. We chose two substations where the non-technical losses are relatively high. These particular substations are the New Society Substation and Polomolok Substation. The location of the places where these substations supply energy is then known from another data given by SOCOTECO II. After the data had been gathered, it was tabulated using tables consisted of rows and columns to see clearly see the outcome of our survey. The tabulated values are seen in Table D1. The tabulated data are then treated using statistical computations in order to obtain meaningful values. These values are then used for analysis and interpretation. After the analysis, we then came up with the conclusions regarding our formulated problems.

3.3 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS We used a statistical hypothesis in treating the data gathered. The structure of hypothesis testing will be formulated with the use of null hypothesis. This refers to any hypothesis we wish to test. We considered the test of hypothesis on mean using the test procedure for a single mean. We have the formula
z = ( x w - o) ( n )

Equation 1

where: is the weighted mean; is the variance; n is the mean; 19

o is the assumed weighted mean. We used the following weight assignments: 0.2 being the lowest and followed by 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 for the highest. For the level of significance, we used = 0.025. Then, we test the hypothesis based on the diagram showing the critical region. When the value of z falls into the critical region, there would be rejection of the hypothesis. A null hypothesis, , is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true. For this study, our null hypothesis is 20. To obtain the overall awareness of the consumers in their system loss charge, the components of their electric bill as we as the Anti-Pilferage Act we used the hypothesis test for the mean using our null hypothesis , as 20, the same also with the leading factors and the overall rating of the cooperative. We also used simple percentage distribution in analyzing each question of the survey questionnaire. The percentage is solved by

% = (f / N)(100)

Equation 2

where f is the frequency and N is the total number of respondents.

20

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This portion of the study will explain the values obtained from the computations using the statistical formulas stated above. First, we will analyze the data gathered in each of the questions asked to the consumers. For question 1. The table below presents the percentage distribution of the respondents on their awareness of their system loss charge in their monthly electric bill.

CHOICES Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always TOTAL

f 41 21 21 5 12 100

(%) 41 21 21 5 12 100

21

It shows that 41% of them were not aware at all, 21% stated that they seldom notice the system loss charge and also 21% stated that sometimes they try to look for it only 5% of the respondents often noticed it and 12% claimed that they always notice it monthly.

With this, can see that most of the consumers never seemed to notice the system loss charge that is included in their monthly electric bills. They prefer to look directly on their energy consumption and on how much they are going to pay. But a few of these consumers still check for their system loss charge. For question 2. The table below shows the percentage distribution on the awareness of the respondents on the components of their monthly electric bill.

CHOICES Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always TOTAL

f 39 23 15 8 15 100

(%) 39 23 15 8 15 100

22

Out of the 100 respondents, 39% answered that they never look the components of their monthly electric bill, 23% stated that they seldom notice it, 15% of the respondents would sometimes notice it, 8% often look at it while 15% of the always check the components of their electric bill. Most of these consumers never notice the different components of their bills being charged to them. They are not aware why they are paying too much or too less. But most of them agreed that their monthly total bill increases and sometimes decreases.

For question 3. The table below shows the percentage distribution of the knowledge of the respondents about the Ant-Pilferage Act. 38% said that they have no idea of this law. Also 38% of them answered that they do have knowledge of this Act but only at an average CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL f 38 38 16 6 2 100 (%) 38 38 16 5 2 100

23

level. 16% is at above average, 6% claimed to be satisfactory and only 2% stated that they are have exemplary knowledge on the said law. Majority of these consumers admitted that they have poor knowledge of the AntiPilferage Act. The contents of the Act are not clear to them due to the lack of efficient means in disseminating the law. Consumers, however, claimed that they know electricity theft or any form of tampering is a violation under the law. For question 4. The table below presents the percentage distribution of the respondents in terms of the knowledge they possess in electrical wiring and other electrical applications. We can see from the table that 38% of the respondents answered that they know nothing about electrical wiring and other electrical applications, 37% of the respondents

CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL

f 38 37 9 15 1 100

(%) 38 37 9 15 1 100

24

stated that they have and above average knowledge and 9% said that they are satisfactorily knowledgeable and 1 respondent claimed to be very knowledgeable in electrical applications. Several respondents of the survey have little knowledge in electrical wiring or other electrical applications. Some said that they know basic electrical wiring at home. For question 5. CHOICES None 1 2 3 4 and Above TOTAL f 14 35 16 17 18 100 (%) 14 35 16 17 18 100

The table shows the percentage distribution of the respondents considering the number of persons they know having knowledge in electrical wiring and other electrical applications. According to the table, 14% of these consumers dont know someone who had knowledge in electrical applications, 35% of them claims that they know 1 person , 16%

25

answered that they knew at least 2 persons, 17% said that they know 3 persons and 18% of the respondents stated that they know 4 or more people having knowledge in electrical wiring and other electrical applications. Most consumers answered that they know at least one person who is knowledgeable in electrical applications. This means that most of them could still have the chance to learn electrical wiring if they want to. For question 6. CHOICES None 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 and Above TOTAL f 56 24 6 7 7 100 (%) 56 24 6 7 7 100

The table above presents the percentage distribution of the respondents considering number of cases of electricity theft which they know in their area. Majority of them or 56% claimed that there are no cases of electricity theft in their area Respondents who answered that there are about 1-2 cases in their area comprise 24%, 6% stated that they know 3-4 cases

26

of cases, 7 stated that there are 5-7 cases and 7 of the testified that know more than 7 existing cases of electricity theft in their area. Majority claimed that there is no occurrence of electricity theft in their area. On the contrast, some consumers attested that there really is occurrence of electricity in their places. Though few, yet it could prove the fact that cases of electricity theft really exists. For question 7. The table below shows the percentage distribution of the respondents concerning to whether they know when the meter reading takes place or not. CHOICES Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always TOTAL f 5 11 24 36 24 100 (%) 5 11 24 36 24 100

From the table, 5 respondents dont know when a meter reader reads, 11 of them seldom know when would the meter reader comes, 24 answered sometimes they know, 36 stated often and 24 claimed to always know the schedule of the meter reading.

27

Most of them know the schedule of meter reading in there houses. These people who said that they really monitor the schedule of the meter reading because they wanted that the reading should be accurate and the bill should only be for one month of electricity consumption. For question 8. The table below presents the percentage distribution on the rating of the cooperative in terms of accuracy in meter reading from the views of the consumers. 2 of them said that the reading accuracy is poor, 19 said average, 26 said above average, 38 claimed that it was satisfactory and 15% said that the cooperatives meter reading ability is excellent.

CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL

f 2 19 26 38 15 100

(%) 2 19 26 38 15 100

28

This only means that SOCOTECO II rarely commits error in billing and meter reading. We can see that on the part of the consumers, SOCOTECO II rarely commits error in billing and meter reading although there are still times when error had occurred. Overall, most consumers are satisfied on the accuracy of the meter reading. For question 9. The table below presents the percentage distribution on the rating of the cooperative in terms of inspection and monitoring from the views of the consumers. 25 of the respondents stated that the cooperative is poor in inspection and monitoring, 42 said that the cooperative has an average rating, 17 said that it was above average, 14 stated that is was satisfactory, and 2 said the service in inspection and monitoring is exemplary. CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL f 25 42 17 14 2 100 (%) 25 42 17 14 2 100

Most of these consumers agreed that SOCOTECO II lacks efforts in terms of inspecting and monitoring. Consumers said that SOCOTECO II rarely inspects their area. But most of the time, they said, inspection never happens. 29

For question 10. Table D10 show the percentage distribution on the rating of the cooperative in terms of disseminating information regarding electricity theft from the views of the consumers. CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL f 40 39 9 8 4 100 (%) 40 39 9 8 4 100

40% of the respondents answered that the cooperative is poor in this service, 39 said average, 9 said above average, 8 of them said that it was satisfactory and only 4 said that the service was excellent. The SOCOTECO IIs effort in disseminating information on electricity theft is quite ineffective on the part of the consumers. The process of information dissemination is only through posters which can only be seen in their substations and during seminars conducted as a requirement for those who want to subscribe electricity from the cooperative.

30

After analyzing the data gathered from the consumers, we shall now proceed to the analysis of the data gathered from the employees of the cooperative regarding their performance in the field of meter reading, inspection and monitoring, and in the dissemination of information regarding electricity theft. For the question regarding accuracy in meter reading. The table below presents the percentage distribution on the rating of the cooperative in terms of accuracy in meter reading from the views of their employees. CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL f 0 2 1 13 6 22 (%) 0 9.0909 4.5454 59.0909 27.2727 100

None of them said that the reading accuracy is poor, 9.0909% said average, 4.545% said above average, 59.0909% claimed that it was satisfactory and 27.2727% said that the cooperatives meter reading ability is excellent.

31

Most of SOCOTECO IIs employees claimed that they rarely have errors in billing and meter reading. They make it sure that they charge their consumers correctly and that overcharging seldom happens.

For the question regarding the rating of the cooperative in inspection and monitoring.

CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL

f 0 3 1 15 3 22

(%) 0 13.636 4.5454 68.1818 13.636 100

The table presents the percentage distribution on the rating of the cooperative in terms of inspection and monitoring from the views of their employees. None of the respondents stated that the cooperative is poor in inspection and monitoring, 13.636% said that the cooperative has an average rating, 4.545% said that it was above average, 16.1818% stated that is was satisfactory, and 13.636% said the service in inspection and monitoring is exemplary.

32

SOCOTECO IIs effort in inspecting is satisfactory level as answered by most employees. But an added effort should take place in order to provide better service to the consumers. For the question regarding the rating of the cooperative in the dissemination of information. The table below shows the percentage distribution on the rating of the cooperative in terms of disseminating information regarding electricity theft from the views of their employees. None answered that the cooperative is poor in this service, 4.545% said CHOICES Poor Average Above Average Satisfactory Excellent TOTAL f 0 1 6 10 5 22 (%) 0 4.5454 27.2727 45.4545 22.7272 100

average, 27.272% said above average, 45.45% of them said that it was satisfactory and only 22.727% said that the service was excellent. The SOCOTECO IIs employees agreed that their efforts on the dissemination of information regarding electricity theft are effective and reliable.

33

Next, the questions in the awareness section are then treated as one using the hypothesis test for the mean. And seeing the result (refer to Appendix E for the calculations), the overall awareness of these consumers is poor. Most consumers claimed that they are now aware of the charges and the Anti-Pilferage Act. We shall then proceed to the treatment of the questions in the factors section. Upon evaluating the data gathered for the factors (see Appendix E), we can say that these factors doesnt influence the consumers in engaging to electricity theft. although not alarming in value, still there really is an existence of electricity theft. Lastly, in evaluating the performance of the cooperative as viewed by the consumers, we used the hypothesis test for the mean. Based on the results, the overall rating of the cooperative is poor. Actions are needed to be done to improve poor rating.

34

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS After analyzing the data gathered and computations are done, we have come up to the following conclusions: The consumers of SOCOTECO are poorly aware of the system loss charge in their monthly electric bills and to the Anti-Pilferage Act. This only means that most of the consumers do not understand what the system loss is all about and where did it came from. Another is that many of them dont even know anything about the Anti-Pilferage Act. The Act is vitally important for the consumers to know and to be familiar with for them to be fully aware of the consequences of electricity theft. The result of our considered factors is poor in terms of influencing the consumers to engage in electricity theft. But, we found out some of the consumers we interviewed exactly know that there are cases of electricity theft in their area. And this only proves the fact that electricity thefts do exist and is occurring on the areas where we conducted our survey. Lastly, there is an unmatched rating of the cooperative in meter reading accuracy, inspection and monitoring, and in the dissemination of information regarding electricity theft. From the consumers perspective, the rating of the cooperative is poor while the employees

35

said that their rating is satisfactory. But from the calculations, it was proved that the rating is really poor. The cooperative must really take actions to improve this rating to satisfy the consumers.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS For the consumers to be aware of the system loss and the Anti-Pilferage Act, SOCOTECO II should provide community lectures in order to suffice the consumers need for better understanding on these matters. With regards to the rating of SOCOTECO II in inspection and monitoring as well as in the dissemination of information regarding electricity theft, we would like to recommend that SOCOTECO II should provide or organize and inspection and monitoring teams that could regularly monitor and inspect random areas. Some of the consumers told us that electricity theft are occurring in their areas because there is lack of effort in the part of the cooperative in inspection and monitoring.

36

REFERENCES

REPORTS South Cotabato Electric Cooperative II, Segregated Distribution System Loss, 2005 South Cotabato Electric Cooperative II, Segregated Distribution System Loss, 2006 South Cotabato Electric Cooperative II, Segregated Distribution System Loss, 2007

BOOKS Walpole, Ronald. Introduction to Statistics Third Edition: Prentice Hall, January 1982

WEBSITES Electricity Theft and Vandalism. http://www.blachlylane.coop/news/story.php?ID=269

Mark Gregory. India Struggles with Power Theft BBC World Service http://news.bbc.con.uk/1/low/business/4892248.stm

37

Osama Habib. Electricity theft costs Eskom billion. The Daily Star http://www.1stlebanon.net/lebanon-news/news.

Josh Romero. Out of Africa: Persistent Plague of Electricity Theft. http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/2008/04/19/out_of_africa_persistent_plagu .html

Pakistan's Electricity Theft, System Losses Estimated at Rs80B http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp? xfile=data/business/2007/April/business_April110.xml&section=business&col=

Neil Ballantyne. Dedicated City Of Cape Town Team Combats Electricity Theft and Non-Payment. http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/MediaReleases/Pages/DedicatedCityOfCPTTeam.asp x http://www.sunstarcom.ph/static/ceb/2008/08/21/news/power.theft.rampant.in.14.brys

38

..veco.lectures.dads.on.bill.details.htmlS http://blog.doingbusiness.org/2008/02/stealing-electr.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/44546809.cms http://www.urjarakshak.org/english/successstories_rbb.htm http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/2008/04/19/out_of_africa_persistent_plagu html

39

APPENDICES

40

APPENDIX A SOCOTECO II DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSS FROM 2005-2007

TABLE A1. SOCOTECO II DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSS FROM 2005-2007 YEAR 2005 2006 2007 DSL (kWh)
71,583,328

73,141,301
78,136,977

41

APPENDIX B NUMBER OF APPREHENDED CONSUMERS FROM 2005-2007

TABLE B1. NUMBER OF APPREHENDED CONSUMERS FROM 2005-2007 YEAR 2005 2006 2007 No. of Apprehended Consumers 346 287 129

42

APPENDIX C LETTER AND SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

College Of Engineering Mindanao State University Tambler, General Santos City

Dear Respondents: The Department of Electrical Engineering requires the students to undergo a research as a requirement for graduation. In line with this we would like to conduct our study and will be having our own survey regarding this matter. This would aid us to come up with findings and results for better understanding of our study. In accordance with this, we request for some information we need to comply our research. We would like to ask for you to honestly answer the questionnaire. We would appreciate very much for the cooperation you will have with us to realize this research. Hoping for your consideration on this matter.

Thank you very much.

SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR THE CONSUMERS Name: __________________________________________________________ 1) I notice the system loss charge of my monthly electric bill. a) Never B) Seldom C) Sometimes D) Often E) Always

43

2) I am aware of the components of my electric bill A) Never B) Seldom C) Sometimes D) Often E) Always

3) How well do I know the Anti-Pilferage Act? A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

4) In line with electrical wiring applications, our knowledge is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

5) I know_______ person/s who is knowledgeable in electrical wiring applications. A) None B) 1 C) 2 D) 3 E) 4 and above

6) I know ____ cases of electricity theft in our area. A) None B) 1-2 C) 3-4 D) 5-6 E) 7 and above

7) I ____ know the schedule of when a meter reader reads. A) Never B) Seldom C) Sometimes D) Often E) Always

8) The rating of the cooperative in terms of: a) Accuracy in meter reading is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

b) Inspection and monitoring of meter and connections is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

c) Disseminating information regarding electricity theft is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF SOCOTECO II The rating of the cooperative in terms of: a) Accuracy in meter reading is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

44

b) Inspection and monitoring of meter and connections is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

c) Disseminating information regarding electricity theft is A) Poor B) Average C) Above Average D) Satisfactory E) Excellent

Signature:__________________

APPENDIX D TALLY OF DATA GATHERED FROM SURVEYING

ANSWERS

45

QUESTIONS AWARENESS 1 2 3 FACTORS 4 5 6 7 COOPERATIVE RATING FROM CONSUMERS 8 9 10 COOPERATIVE RATING FROM COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES 1 2 3

A 41 39 38 A 38 14 56 5

B 21 23 38 B 37 35 24 11

C 21 15 16 C 9 16 6 24

D 5 8 6 D 15 17 7 36

E 12 15 2 E 1 18 7 24

TOTAL 100 100 100 TOTAL 100 100 100 100

A 2 25 40 A 25 0 0 0

B 19 42 39 B 20 2 3 1

C 26 17 9 C 15 1 1 6

D 38 14 8 D 10 13 15 10

E 15 2 4 E 5 6 3 5

TOTAL 100 100 100 TOTAL 22 22 22

APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS Hypothesis test for the mean on the awareness of the consumers.

46

In Computing for the weighted mean, multiply the random variable with the weighted mean assignment 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0. We have now in our table, 1 2 3 8.2 7.8 7.6 8.4 9.2 15.2 12.6 9 9.6 4 6.4 4.8 12 15 2

For our null hypothesis we have, = 20 ; 20 being assumed as weighted mean answer corresponding to the weighted assignment 0.2 Solving for the weighted mean, Xw Weighted mean

=14.64 To solve for the variance, use equation

= = 8.91 To solve for z, we use

= -1.80 Locating the value of the computed value of z on the diagram of the critical region using 0.025 as the level of significance found in Table A1. 47

Figure 3 Critical Region Diagram

The assumed weighted mean answer is true.

Hypothesis test for the mean on the factors that may lead the consumers to engage in In Computing for the weighted mean Xw, multiply the random variable with the weighted mean assignment 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0. We have now in our table,

4 5 6 7 TOTAL

7.6 2.8 11.2 1 22.6

14.8 14 9.6 4.4 42.8

5.4 9.6 3.6 14.4 33

12 13.6 5.6 28.8 60

1 18 7 24 50

For our null hypothesis we have,

48

 = 20; 20 being assumed as weighted mean answer corresponding to the weighted assignment 0.2 Solving for the weighted mean, we use Weighted mean =

Using the equation

= 12.91 Solving for z, using equation

=-0.70 Locating the value of the computed value of z on the diagram of the critical region using 0.025 as the level of significance found in Table A1. 49

Figure 4 Critical Region Diagram

The assumed weighted mean answer is true.

In Computing for the weighted mean Xw, multiply the random variable with the weighted mean assignment 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0. We have now in our table,

8 9 10 TOTAL

0.4 5 8 13.4

7.6 16.8 15.6 40

15.6 10.2 5.4 31.2

30.4 11.2 6.4 48

15 2 4 21

For our null hypothesis we have, = 20; 20 being assumed as weighted mean answer corresponding to the weighted assignment 0.2

50

Solving for the weighted mean, we use Weighted mean =

Using the equation

=12.96 Solving for z,

= -0.68 Locating the value of the computed value of z on the diagram of the critical region using 0.025 as the level of significance found in Table A1.

51

Figure 5 Critical Region Diagram

The assumed weighted mean answer is true.

TABLE E1. CRITICAL VALUES OF THE z-DISTRIBUTION 0.10 V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.078 1.886 1.638 1.533 1.476 1.440 1.415 6.314 2.920 2.353 2.132 2.015 1.943 1.895 12.706 4.303 3.182 2.776 2.571 2.447 2.365 31.821 6.965 4.541 3.747 3.365 3.143 2.998 63.657 9.925 5.841 4.4604 4.032 3.707 3.499 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005

52

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1.397 1.383 1.372 1.363 1.356 1.350 1.345 1.341

1.860 1.833 1.712 1.796 1.782 1.771 1.761 1.753

2.306 2.262 2.228 2.201 2.179 2.160 2.145 2.131

2.895 2.821 2.764 2.718 2.681 2.650 2.624 2.602

3.355 3.250 3.169 3.106 3.055 3.012 2.977 2.947

TABLE E1 CONT. CRITICAL VALUES OF THE z-DISTRIBUTION 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Inf 1.337 1.330 1.338 1.325 1.323 1.321 1.329 1.318 1.311 1.316 1.315 1.314 1.313 1.311 1.282 1.746 1.740 1.734 1.729 1.725 1.721 1.717 1.714 1.711 1.708 1.706 1.703 1.701 1.699 1.645 2.120 2.110 2.101 2.093 2.086 2.080 2.074 2.069 2.064 2.060 2.056 2.052 2.048 2.045 1.960 2.563 2.587 2.552 2.539 2.528 2.518 2.508 2.500 2.492 2.485 2.479 2.473 2.467 2.462 2.326 2.921 2.898 2.878 2.861 2.845 2.831 2.819 2.807 2.797 2.787 2.779 2.771 2.763 2.756 2.576

This is taken from Table IV or R. A. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver & Boyd Ltd., Edinburgh, by permission of the author and publishers.

53

54