Colombia - Third Power Expansion Project

Document of The World Bank FiLE COP FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 1654 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT COLOMBIA: THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM (LOAN 537 -CO) June 29, 1977 Operations Evaluation Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only In the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT COLOMBIA: THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM (Loan 537-CO) Table of Contents Page No. Preface Basic Data Sheet Highlights Project Performance Audit Memorandum 1 - 2 Attachment: Project Completion Report 1 - 14 Basic Information Al 15 Joint Financing Al 16 Project Description A2 17 Objective and Justification A2 18 Construction Schedule and Problems Encountered A3 19 Project Cost A4 20 Allocation of Loan Proceeds A4 21 Consultants A5 22 Main Contracts A5 23 Organization and Management A6 24 Operating Results A6 25 Financing Plan A8 26 Covenants A9 27 Forecast Financial Performance A10 28 Sectorial Relations A10 29 Lessons to be Learned All Annexes Annex 1 - Comparison of Actual and Projected Energy Sales and Demand Annex 2 - Comparison of Cost Estimates Annex 3 - Variations in: Average Rate, Consumers Price Index and Exchange Rate Annex 4 - Income Statements: Actual Compared with Appraisal Estimate Annex 5 - Balance Sheets: Actual Compared with Appraisal Estimate Annex 6 - Sources and Applications of Funds: Actual Compared with Appraisal Estimate This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT COLOMBIA: THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM (Loan 537-CO) Preface This report presents a performance audit of the Third Power Expansion Program for which Loan 537-CO was made to Empresa de Energia Electrica de Bogota (EEEB). The loan for US$ 18.0 million was signed in June 1968 and fully disbursed in April 1974. Under OED's abbreviated procedures, this audit is based on the Project Completion Report (PCR) prepared by Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office, on Bank files, and on discussion with Bank staff. The PCR offers a reasonably complete view of developments under the project; the audit memorandum summarizes the main findings of the PCR and expands on the project justification.  PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT BASIC DATA SHEET COLOMBIA: THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM (Loan 537-CO) KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Item Expectation Current Estimate Total Project Cost (US$ million) 39.3 44.2 1 Overrun 12% /2 Loan Amount (US$ million) 18.00 7 Disbursed ) 17.98 Cancelled ) 0.02 Repaid ) Feb. 28, 1977 3.70 Outstanding ) 14.28 Date Physical Components Completed 12/71 12/74 /4 Proportion Completed by Above Date 100% 50% Proportion of Time Overrun - 46% Incremental Financial Rate of Return n.a. 13% Financial Performance Satisfactory Lower Institutional Performance Satisfactory Similar OTHER PROJECT DATA Item Original Actual or Plan Revision Est. Actual First Mention in Files - - 12/27/65 Negotiations - - 4/ 8/68 Board Approval - - 5/28/68 Loan Agreement Date - - 6/ 3/68 Effectiveness Date 9/ 1/68 8/ 2/68 Closing Date 1/31/72 12/31/72 12/31/73 4/ 8/74 Borrower Empresa de Energia Electrica de Bogota Executing Agency Empresa de Energia Electrica de Bogota Fiscal Year of Borrower Calendar year Follow-on Project None MISSION DATA Item Month, No.of No. of Date of Year Weeks Persons Manweeks Report Identification 10/65 Preappraisal 2/67 3 3 10k 5/67 Appraisal 1/68 1 2 2 5/68 Total 1 Supervision I 7/70 2 1 7/70 Supervision II 3/71 4 2 1 4/71 Supervision III 8/73 k 2 1 8/73 Completion - - - - 10/76 Total l 3 COUNTRY EXCHANGE RATES Name of Currency (Abbreviation) Pesos Colombiano (Col.$) Year: Appraisal Year Average Exchange Rate: US$1 = Col.$16.3 Intervening Years Average US$1 - Col.$20.6 Completion Year Average US$1 = Col.$26.6 l Excluding interest during construction. /2 The actual project was increased in scope as more transmission work was included compared to the original project. /3 Plus exchange adjustment of US$6.1 7/ The hydrostations were completed in July 1970 and April 1972; the transmission work was completed by the end of 1974.  PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT COLOMBIA: THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM (Loan 537-CO) Highlights The project was successfully implemented and made a useful contribution to the development of the country's power sector. It had a cost overrun of about 12%. While its generation components were completed more or less on schedule, the transmis- sion and distribution component was delayed by about 3k years. The borrower's financial performance through 1974 was somewhat lower than projected at appraisal, but with the approved tariff increases and proposed fiscal measures, it is expected to im- prove in the future. The project's incremental financial rate of return, not calculated at appraisal, is now conservatively estimated at 13%. The following points may be of particular interest: Electricity tariff and its structure (PCR paras. 24.03 and 24.04). Rate of return and need for revaluation of assets (para. 6, and PCR paras. 24.07, 26.02 and 29.01). Financial impact of intrasectorial relations (PCR para. 29.03). w PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM COLOMBIA: THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM (Loan 537-CO) 1. The Bank has been participating in financing power develop- ment in Colombia for about 25 years. During these years, the Bank has made 19 loans to the country's power sector amounting to about US$344 million. With Bank support, the power sys.tems serving the major cities of Bogota, Cali, Medellin and Manizales were interconnected. The interconnection was completed in 1972. 2. Loan 537-CO of US$18 million equivalent was made to Empresa de Energia Electrica de Bogota (EEEB) to help finance part of its 1968-71 construction program. EEEB is an autonomous municipally-owned public utility which mainly serves the capital city of Bogota and its vicinity. EEEB's generating facilities comprise about 580 MW of hydro and 140 MW of thermal capacity. EEEB is also a shareholder of Interconexion Electrica, S.A. (ISA) which was incorporated in 1967 to own and operate the national generation and transmission system. 3. The project, presently audited, included: a) the construction of Canoas hydroplant with installation of one 50 MW unit; b) completion of the existing El Colegio hydroplant (partly financed by a previous Bank loan) by adding three 50 MW units to its existing 150 MW capacity; c) and expansion of transmission and distribution system facilitii (PCR para. 16.01). The actual co t of the project was US$ 44.2 million - compared to US$ 39.3 million - estimated at appraisal. 4. The two hydroplants were implemented as planned. El Colegio came into operation in July 1970, five months earlier than expected, and Canoas was completed in April 1972, only four months late (PCR paras. 18.02 and 18.03). However, the transmission and distribution works were increased slightly in scope (PCR para. 16.02) and completed about 31 years later than originally envisaged, mainly because of delays in tendering and evaluation of bids and problems in acquisition of land and rights of way (PCR paras. 18.04 and 18.05). These were the main causes for the increase in project cost of about 12% (PCR para. 19 and Annex 2) in money terms (about 5% in real terms). There have been no major operating difficulties with the hydroplants once they were commissioned, apart from displacement of the pen- stock at El Colegio which caused some interference with the plant operation for about two months until the situation was rectified. The two plants are now operating satisfactorily at a capacity factor of about 65%. 5. At appraisal, the installation of the three additional units at El Colegio hydro-station at about US$ 65 per kw installed and the construc- tion of Canoas hydroplant at US$ 245 per kw installed were estimated to be the least cost solution to providing the increased capacity required in the Bogota area and the interconnected system as a whole. The world-wide in- crease in fuel prices since appraisal combined with the fact that the actual 1/ Excluding interest. - 2 - cost per kw installed (based on the total cost of the 300 MW capacity of El Colegio) is about US$176 (1968 price level). At appraisal, the trans- mission and distribution work were assumed to be needed to meet the pro- jected demand in the Bogota system. Actual sales in the system were slightly higher than the appraisal estimate (PCR para. 24.01 and Annex 1) which, in retrospect, confirm the justification. The audited incremen- tal rate of return on the project has been conservatively estimated at 13%. No incremental return was made at appraisal. 6. The financial performance of EEEB daring the 6-year period 1968-74 was somewhat lower than expected mainly because tariffs were not increased commensurate with rising real costs (PCR paras. 24.05 and 24.06). Energy sales were, on the average, slightly higher than esti- mated. However, sales to the commercial group (which bears the highest tariff) were about 8% lower, while sales to the residential group (which bears the lowest tariff) were about 17% higher than their res- pective appraisal estimates (PCR paras. 24.01 and 24.04). The rate of return on assets, which are only partly revalued, was generally similar to the appraisal expectations and higher than the 9% stipulated in the loan agreement (PCR paras. 24.07 and Annex 4). Had the assets been fully revalued, the rate of return would have dropped by 15-20%; even then, it would have remained around 9%. The net internal cash genera- tion over the 6-year period was 18% greater than estimated. In relative terms, however, it contributed to only 45% (against an estimated 75%) of the construction expenditure, which itself had doubled from the estimated Col.$963 million to Col.$1,999 million (PCR paras. 25.01 - 25.03). In 1976 EEEB obtained approval of a series of tariff increases through May 1978. These, together with other proposed fiscal measures for the power sector, are expected to improve EEEB's future financial performance (PCR paras. 27.01 and 29.03). 7. The objectives of this project have been met. EEEB is a well- managed utility and the project was successfully executed. The project was inexpensive in terms of supervision missions, which were few and mostly combined with supervision of other utility projects in Colombia. Al Attachment PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT COLOMDIA EMPRESA DE ENERGIA FLECTRICA DE BOGOTA LOAN 537-CO THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM 1. Borrower: Empresa de Energia El'ctrica de Bogota' (EEEB) 2. Guarantor: Republic of Colombia 3. Loan Amount: US$18 million equivalent 4. Date Loan Signed: June 3, 1968 5. Effective Date: August 2, 1968 6. Closing Date: January 31, 1972, extended to April 8, 1974 7. Grace Period: 3-1/2 years 8. Term of Loan: 20 years 9. Interest Rate: 6-1/4% 10. Commitment Charge: 3/4% 11. Repayment: 33 semi-annual payments starting May 15, 1972 and ending May 15, 1988 12. Exchange Rate: Original (at time of appraisal) US$1 = Col$ 16.30 Rate at June 30 of each year: 1969, US$1 17.19 1970 US$1 = 18.31, 1971 US$1 = 19.70, 1972 US$1 = 21.69, 1973 US$1 = 23.38, 1974 US$1 25.56 1975 US$1 = 30.45 13. Appraisal Report: TO-637a, May 9, 1968 14. Fiscal Year: Calendar year 15. Joint Financing 15.01 Joint financing agreements were signed between EEB and four coun- tries (Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States) on a 50/50 basis between the Bank and the country in which contracts were placed, subject to each participating country receiving (a) contracts totalling more than the equivalent of US$1 million and (b) minimum individual contracts of US$200,000 equivalent. The joint financing worked satisfactorily. A2 15.02 A total equivalent to US$7,599,704.21 was financed by the following countries: Percent Amount of Total Country Bank (Equiv. millions of US$) Joint Financing Germany Kreditanstalt filr Wiederaufbau (KfW) 1.8 23.7 Italy Instituto Mobiliare Italiano (IMI) 2.7 35.5 Japan Export-Import Bank of Japan (EIBJ) 2.0 26.3 United States Export-Import Bank of the United States (EIBUS) 1.1 14.5 Total 7.6 100.0 16. Project Description 16.01 The original Project comprised: a) completion of the El Colegio hydroelectric plant involving a second penstock, three 50-MW units and associated transformers, switchgear and miscelaneous equipment; b) construction of the Canoas hydroelectric plant with one 50-MW unit; c) transmission and subtransmission line extensions and construc- tion of seven new substations with more than 200 MVA of transformer capacity; d) distribution system additions and street lighting; and e) , engineering services. 16.02 In its final form the project included eleven substations and improvements to four existing substations totalling 400 MVA added transformer capacity, and more additions to the distribution system and street lighting than contemplated during appraisal. 17. Objective and Justification 17.01 The capacity of El Colegio II and Canoas was expected to be required--and is actually, used-- to meet the increase in demand in the Bogota system, considered both in isolation and in the larger Bogota'-Cali-Medellin interconnected system. The two installations are part of the development of the Bogot6 River, utilizing existing reservoirs. A3 17.02 At the time of appraisal, the El Colegio hydroelectric plant was found to be justified in view of the low unit cost of about US$65 per kW. The Canoas hydroelectric plant was found to be justifCied when compared with an alternative thermal plant with a generation cost of 7.8 Col cts/Kwh, i.e. 17% higher than the generation cost of Canoas. It would appear that there is even greater justification for the project today, since: a) the cost of thq El Colegio and Canoas hydroelectric plants, measured in current dollars, is not much higher than at the time of appraisal; b) fuel costs at the international price are now at least four times higher. 17.03 The transmission and distribution expansions were needed to meet projected demand growth up to 1974. Actual sales in the Bogota system have confirmed this as they have been in line with the 1968-74 forecast -established at the time of appraisal (Annex 1). 18. Construction Schedule and Problems Encountered 18.01 a) Original completion date - end of 1971 b) Actual completion date - end of 1974. 18.02 The El Colegio II hydroelectric plant, initially scheduled to enter service by the end of 1971, came into operation in July 1970. The land through which the penstock passes proved to be extremely unstable, probably due to alterations brought about during construction, resulting in 1971 in displace- ments of the penstock that caused some interference with plant operation until the situation was rectified. 18.03 The Canoas hydroelectric plant originally scheduled to enter service by the end of 1971 was completed in April 1972. The delay was due mainly to: (a) delays in the final engineering and in the preparation of the bidding documents, and (b) a period of exceptionally heavy rains which meant that construction of the powerhosue took 18 months instead of the six months scheduled. Problems were encountered at this plant too, the first,being erosion along the by-pass channel. The channel was relined'with reinforced- concrete and the problem was solved. When the turbine was put into operation, vibration, cavitation and pressure fluctuation phenomena occurred in the penstock, which resulted in cavitation in the turbine runner. A preventive maintenance program is being run to control cavitation which is produced at low load conditions (operation at high load is about normal). 18.0 The transmission lines and substations originally scheduled for late 1971, were completed at end-1974, due mainly to: (a) delays in formulating the system of protection, (b) delays in the tendering and evaluation of bids, (c).delays in the manufacture of the equipment, and (d) problems in the acquisition of land and rights of way. 18.05 The distribution system and the street lighting installation which were to have been completed by the end of 1971 were not ready until the end of 1974, due to the same problems as those affecting tran3mission. A4 19. Project Cost 19.01 At the time of appraisal the project cost was estimated at US$39.3 million (ncluding contingencies but excluding interest during construction). The actual cost was US$44.2 million (an increase of 12.5%). In Annex 2 the appraisal estimate is compared with the actual cost, by category and source of financing. 19.02 The main differences between,the appraisal and actual costs are as follows: a) The cost of the El Colegio hydroelectric plant was,10% higher than estimated, due mainly to the works that had to be carried out to contain the earthslides which were endangering the penstock (para. 18.02). b) The Canoas hydroelectric plant cost 7% above the estimate because of higher local currency costs due,to the delays and internal inflation. c) The cost of the transmission lines and substations was 34% higher than estimated at appraisal because of the increase in transformer' capacity (from 240 MVA to 400 MVA) and the increase in local currency costs (delays and inflation). d) The cost of the distribution system and street lighting was 58% more because of the higher transformer capacity installed (451 MVA as opposed to 281 MVA) and the increase of the distribution lines, plus the increase in local currency costs (delays and inflation), and e) The cost of the engineering services rose by 57% because of the larger expansion of the transmission and distribution works and the problems encountered at the El Colegio hydroelectric plant (para. 18.02). 19.03 The increase in local currency cost, amounting to US$4.3 million equivalent (30% of the local costs originally estimated), was borne by EEEB. The increase in the foreign exchange cost, amounting to US$0.6 million (2.3% of the foreign cost originally estimated), was met under the joint financing arrangements. 20. Allocation of Loan Proceeds (in US$ equivalent) Category Original Final I. El Colegio Hydroelectric Plant 4,075,000 4,236,546.32 II. Canoas Hydroelectric Plant 3,110,000 2,859,573.03 III. Transmission Lines and Substations 4,500,000 5,334,976.21 IV. Distribution System and Street- lighting 4,225,000 '5,084,936.60 V. Engineering Services 140,000 467,688.99 VI. Unallocated 1 900,000 --- Total 000$000 17,983,721.15 Cancelled --- 1.6,278.85 TOTAL 18,000,000 18,000,000.00 A5 21. Consultants 21.01 EEEB's main technical consultant for the project was INGETEC Ltda. a Colombian firm which uses the services of foreign consultants in specific fields. The consultants in this case were Motor Columbus Electrical Manage- ment Co. of Switzerland, Woodward Clyde Sherard and Associates of the USA, J. Barry Cooke of the USA, Colombian Engineering and Investment Co. of the USA, Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy Stratton of the USA, Raul J. Marsal of Mexico and Coyne et Bellier of France. EEEB's staff believes that the problems encountered with El Colegio could not have been detected during the study phase. The consultant's performance appears to have been satisfactory. 22. Main Contracts 22.01 The main contractors for the different project components were: Category Item Contractor Country 1. El Colegio Penstock ATB Italy Turbines J.M. Voith Germany Generators Mitsubishi Japan Transformers Mitsubishi Japan Switchyard A.S.E.A. Sweden 2. Canoas Civil Works IMPREBER Italy Penstock B.V.S. France Turbines Escher Wyss Germany Main Electrical Equipment Mitsubishi Japan 3. Transmission Line and Substations Towers Vittorio Cecoli S.P.A. Italy Towers and Poles Sumitomo Japan Conductors Sumitomo Japan Insulators N.G.K. Japan Transformers Mi-tsubishi Japan A.S.E.A. Sweden Jeumont-Schneider France Ind-Elect. Brown-Boveri Colombia-Switzerland Substation Sprecher and Equipment Schuh Switzerland Cenemesa Spain Cogelex France Merlin Germn France Powell Electrical USA Westinghouse USA 4. Distribution and Street- lighting Transformers General Electric USA Siemens Colombians Colombia ACEC Belgium General Electric Espaiola Spain A6 Category Item Contractor CountrZ Meters AEG Germany Cable Sumitomo Japan Alcoa International USA Luminaires General Electric USA 23. Organization and Management 23.01 The Borrower, EEEB, is a public utility, owned by the municipality of Bogotd, serving the city and suburbs of Bogota. It is run by a Board of Directors headed by the Mayor of Bogotd and composed of seven members and their respective alternates. The Board of Directors appoints a General. Manager who is responsible for day-to-day operation. 23.02 EEEB's management, comprising the General Manager and four Assistant Managers, is competent, and has been so during project execution. The project has been executed properly and the problems which occurred (El Colegio and Canoas) are under control. 23.03 On the whole, EEEB's financial management is satisfactory. The company's activities are controlled by a General Auditor who is responsible to the Board of Directors and is appointed by the Mayor of Bogota. He is mainly concerned with internal auditing. External auditing is conducted satisfactorily by Arthur Andersen and Co. 24. Operating Results 24.01 Annex 1 gives a comparison of energy sales by consumption category, annual load factor, maximum annual demand and generation by source. Sales in the EEEB system were slightly higher than estimated in the appraisal (ranging from between 1.0% higher in 1972 to 4.0% in 1970). In 1974, industrial sales were as projected, commercial, official and street lighting sales were slightly lower (6.5%), while residential sales were substantially higher (17%) than projected during appraisal. The difference in residential use may be attributed to: (a) an inadequate rate structure with very low rates for the residential uses (para. 24.04), and (b) an increase in the population of Bogota faster than projected. Maximum demand was lower than estimated and the load factor was higher. Actual losses were higher than estimated (peaking at 11.1% in 1971) due to delays in the execution of distribution programs and to the fact that appraisal estimates were optimistic. Energy purchases were lower than estimated up until 1972 and higher than estimated in 1973 and 1974. The difference in the two gross energy values indicated in Annex 1 is attributable to purchases of energy made in order to increase the volume of water stored in the reservairs. 24.02 Because of the steady domestic inflation during the project execution period, the financial estimates at the time of the appraisal (1968) are not fully comparable with the actual results. However, com- parisons are made in the following paragraphs of the main items, adjust- ing results in constant terms to take into account the increase in cost of living (Annex 3) which rose 103% between 1969 and 1974. A7 24.03 Annex 3 shows the trend followed by the average tariff, which has declined by 24% in real terms over the period 1970-75.' The average tariff in 1975 was ].2 US cents per kwh, among the lowest in the world. Despite these low tariffs EEEB earned relatively sati4factory rates of return (para 24.07). This is because EEEB's costs are low due to the fact that it serves a dense market and has access to low-cost hydroelectric resources. Since EEEB's service area includes the country's most affluent residential consumers, it would normally be expected to produce a substantial financial surplus for investment in high priority projects which either require a large initial investment (e.g. major generation) or yield a relatively low financial return (e.g. rural electrification). However the lack of an effective mechanism for mobilizing these funds!' has led to Colombia's heavy reliance on foreign borrowings and budgetary allodations to finance such invescments. 24.04 The EEEB rates are not only low, relative to the sector's financial needs and to long-term marginal development costs, but also have a most inadequate structurei/ with residential prices being substantially lower than the industrial prices (see table below): Consumer Category Monthly Average prices in 1975 Residential Consumption in kWh Col$/KWh US$/KWh 3/ (a) 25 0.165 0.0054 (b) 100 0.165 0.0054 (c) 400 0.291 0.0094 Commercialh/ 0.530 0.0172 Industrial (d)i/ 2000 0.360 0.0117 (e)6/ 20000 0.402 0.0131 (f)I/ 1000000 0.370 0.0120 24.05 Annex 4 compares the actual income statements for the 1968-74 period with those estimated in the appraisal. Revenues from energy sales have been constantly higher than estimated. Hvwever, taking into considera- tion the increase in cost of living (Annex 3), revenues from sales of energy for 1974 in constant prices were 20% lower than estimated 1/ ISA was set up in 1967 to provide such a mechanism, but has experienced constant difficulties in,mobilizing funds (see para. 28.01). 2/ The rate structure was already inadequate at the time of appraisal but the Bank's established policy was then to focus solely on the average revenue and to leave it to the borrower decide how the overall cost of service was to be shared among the various consumer categories. 3/ At the average exchange rate in 1975 (us$1 = Col$ 30.8). 4/. Flat rate for all consumption. 5/ Without demand charce. / 70% of the consumption between 0 to 18 hrs and 30% between 18 to 24, and 45 kW demand. _/ With 2000 kW demand and 70% LF. A8 24.06 Operating income for 1974 was 24% lower (in constant prices) than estimated at appraisal, due to lower revenues from energy sales and an increase of 19% in constant prices in operating costs over the appraisal estimate. 24.07 Except for 1974, when it was 10.6% (as compared to a forecast of 12.4%) the rate of return was similar to that projected at the time of appraisal (Annex 4). The revaluation of assets, an operation only partially shown in EEEB's books, takes account of the revaluation of foreign currency debts consequent upon the devaluation of the Colombian peso (shown in the books) and revalues local financed assets in terms of the working class cost of living index in Bogota (not shown in books). The revalued assets thus obtained do not represent the cost of replacing the EEEB facilities. The real rate of return based on properly revalued assets could be between 15% and 20% less than the figure obtained with the procedure used. 24.08 In Annex 5 the actual balance sheets are compared with those estimated in the appraisal. Fixed assets are lower than the appraisal estimate in the first years because the latter was based on the assumption that a 30% revaluation would be made on December 1967, which in fact did not take place (see para. 26.02 for revaluation method agreed with the Bank during negotiations). Assets were partially revalued by the revaluation of foreign currency liabilities. Fixed assets are higher than the estimate in the appraisal in the later years because of the higher cost of the project and the execution of works not taken into account in the appraisal (see para. 25.01). 24.09 Long-term obligations are 133% higher than estimated, owing to the devaluation of the Colombian peso and the contracting of loans that were not considered at the time of the appraisal. IBRD loans account for 83% of the long-term obligations. The debt equity ratio for 1974 was 57/43. If the equity is increased in terms of the revaluation taken into account in the appraisal the debt/equity ratio would be 52/48, i.e. a higher ratio than the 34/66 estimated in the appraisal. 24.10 Receivables in respect of energy sales, which in 1967 accounted for 10% of energy sales that year, had increased to 21% in 1974. This increase is mainly due to the failure of Electrificadora de Cundinamarca (a small distribu- tion company buying all its energy from EEEB) to pay their black-power purchases. Negotiations are presently taking place whereby EEEB will take over this company. 25. Financing Plan 25.01 Annex 6 gives the appraisal estimates of the sources and applications of funds and the actual values for the 1968-1974 period, which are not fully com- parable because of the changes made in the investment program. The main changes in the investment program were: (a) increase in the scope of the project (para. 16.02) with increase in the cost (para. 19.01); (b) installation of the third unit at thi/Zipaquira thermoelectric plant (66MW), at cost of US$13.7 million equivalent- , (c) participation in the financing of Empresa de Acueducto y Alcantarillado de Bogota's (EAAB) Chingaza Water Project amounting to Col$ 80.5 mil- lion at December 1974; and (d) higher investments in Interconexion Electrica, S.A. (ISA) due to the increased cost of Chivor I. 1/ This was installed for reserve purposes because the installed capacity of the Bogota system is lower than the Bogota peak demand and due to the possibility of delays in the execution of other generation projects (Chivor and Guatape). The Bank agreed with the execution of the project. - A9 25.02 The actual financing plan and the appraisal estimate for the 1968-1974 period is summarized below: 1968-;97) -------------- Actual Appraisal estimate million of million of Col$ % Col$ % Financial Requirements Construction (including,interest during construction) 1,999.2 63.5 963.1 59.5 Investments 729.0 23.1 305.9 18.9 Increase ii working capital 421.5 13.4 349.4 21.6 Total 3,149.7 100.0 1,618.4 100.0 Sources Internal cash generation 2,744.5 87.1 2,072.9 128.1 Less: Debt Service 1,316.7 41.8 862.0 53.3 Net Internal cash generation 1,427.8 45.3 1,210.9 74.8 Borrowings 1,721.9 54.7 407.5 25.2 Total 3.149.7 100.0 1,618.4 100.0 25.03 The contribution from net internal cash generation to the investment program was 45.3% much lower than the estimate in the appraisal (74.8%) because operating income and depreciation (in constant prices) were lower than estimated and debt service was higher. This lower internal contribution and the increase in the investment program (para 25.01) required a substantial increase in borrowings. 26. Covenants 26.01 The Borrower has complied reasonably well with the covenants established in the Loan Agreement. 26.02 The rate of return obtained has generally been above the 9% set in side letter No. 2. It should be mentioned, though, that this rate of return covenant was not entirely satisfactory in this case because the method of asset revaluation resulted in an undervaluation of assets acquired abroad. The method adopted was agreed with the Bank "until a method satisfactory to the Bank for the maintenance of the value of the assets of public utilities shall have been introduced in Colombia and shall have been made applicable to the Borrower" (para. 5-of Side Letter No. 2). This eventually did not materialize. A revaluation procedure based on the cost increases in the international market would have shown a lower rate of return. 26.03 The amount of joint financing (US$7.6 million) was higher than estimated in the appraisal and made it posSible to cover the increase in the foreign exchange cost (US$0.6 million), Section 2.08 of the Loan Agreement provided that part of the Loan could be cancelled should joint - A10 financing funds exceed the original estimate, but the Bank elected not to cancel the US$0.6 million as this increase in joint financing was justified by the expanded scope of the project. 27. Forecast Financial Performance 27.01 The National Tariff Board has approved the following tariff increases for EIEB: (a) May 1976 18% (b) June 1976-April 1977 1.5% per month (c) May 1977 10% (d) June 1977-April 1978 1.5% per month (e) May 1978 8% 27.02 According to the data furnished by EEEB, and which has not been appraised by the Bank, these increases would generate the local currency funds needed to execute the investment program during 1977 and 1978. The cost of the 1977-81 investment program would be as followV: US$ million Foreign Local Total Generation and Transmissio1/ 106.9 51.7 158.6 Subtransmission and Urban Distribution 68.2 82.4 150.6 Subtransmission and Rural Distribution 4.6 9.3 13.9 Miscellaneous 6.9 3.7 10.6 Total at 1975 prices 186.6 147.1 333.7 Financing and Escalation 60.8 21.9 82.7 Grand Total 247.4 169.0 416.4 28. Sectorial Relations 28.01 As a shareholder of ISA, EEEB has participated in the financing of the Chivor I and II and San Carlos hydroelectric plants. EEEB, along with the other shareholders, is continually in arrears in the payment of its contributions and dues to ISA, which makes it difficult for ISA to operate normally. In this respect, EEEB has actually not complied 1/ Excluding the investments-.in ISA for generation and transmission. All with covenants established in Sections 3.01 and 5.01 of.the Shareholder's Agreement under Loan 681-CO granted to ISA to finance Chivor I. According to ISA's financial statements, EES owed ISA the following amounts: Cols millions 12/31/1974 on 2/31/1975 T. 11/30/76 Capital contribution 0.0 0.0 8.9 Purchase o f ISA bonds by EEEB 51.7 2/ 56.2 (24.9) Contributions to ISA's 0 and M cost 32.3 24.8 5.9 Depreciation of ISA assets 16.1 23.5 32.5 Transitory financing 2.3 1.8 3.4 Balance of energy sales between ISA and EEEB (8.2) 13.1 0.5 Total 94.8 119.4 26.3 29. Lessons to be Learned 29.01 The adoption of suitable procedures for the revaluation of assets is needed to ensure meaningfulness of the rate of return covenant and enable proper analysis of the company's efficiency. 29.02 In general the financial situation of EEEB has proved better than other municipal or regional public utilities in the country (electricity and/or mixed). This has been due to: (a) better management, (b) length of continuous service of the same company executives, (c) a board of directors that is less politicized, (d) a tari'ff-policy which (though less than satisfactory) has resulted in more effective generation of internal resources, and (e) provision of a single service (electricity) to a large and dense market. 29.03 Intrasectorial relations are extremely important when a sector is made up of a number of interrelated entities, in particular because the financial problems of any one of them are bound to have repercussions for the others. Although the Bank has given consideration to the problem of sectorwide strengthening, particularly in connection with the ISA inter- connection project (Loan 575-CO), considerable difficulties have been encountered, partly because *some of the utilities were pursuing regional objectives rather than overall sector objectives. One of the areas where major problems have been encountered in the past is that of tariffs/finance. 1/ Net values. 2/ Gross, without discounting interest on the bonds. Al2 Under existing procedures, whereby tariff setting is under the responsibility of the board of directors of the utilities, such factors as cost of supply and financial requirements have not been given the weight they deserve in the determination of electricity tariffs. The Bank has pointed out that further to taking into account the cost of supply, the Government should seek to develop mechanisms to channel funds from power consumers in the major cities (where most consumers should be able to pay charges higher than costs of supply) to high priority investments in major generatiou projects and rural electrification. The Government has recently presented a bill in the Congress, providing for the establishment of a national electricity fund which would receive the proceeds of a national power tax and which could act as an intermediary to channel external funds to 'the sector. If adopted, the bill promises to assist in resolving the financial problems of the sector. It would call for a 25% special tax imposed on all consumers using more than 200 kWh per month. The proceeds of this tax would be used to finance high priority investments, with one fifth being reserved for rural electrification. Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Ottice October 1976 OrMIIA EMPEA DE EEIA EIMRIC DC B000A ( EB) MOaa 537-0 THID IR EXPAJI0N PRGAM 00MPARISON 07 ACTUAL AND FROJECTED E2ER BAT28 AND DM~8AN (Guh aod ?ai) -------- 1968 ---------------------- 1969------ 1970-- - - - - 1971 ------- --------- 1972 --------- -------- 1973 - --19 Actual Appraishl Diffrence Actual appraisal Difference Actual Apprail Difference Actul Apraisal Dliffbrunce Actual Apprasal Difftrence Actual Aprisa1 Diffrn e Actul A~=raal DffeBneS ft.Id~ttal 438.0 422.0 16.0 494.0 475.0 19.0 567.0 533.0 34.0 641.0 589.0 52.0 702.0 649.0 53.0 782.0 717.0 65.0 923.0 791.0 132.0 C, rci.1 257.0 260.0 (3.0) 268.0 288.0 (20.0) 293.0 319.0 (26.0) 315.0 347.0 (32.0) 341.0 378.0 (37.0) 367.0 409.0 (42.0) 411.0 442.0 (31.0) industrial 449.0 422.0 27.0 494.0 476.0 18.0 561.0 537.0 24.0 620.0 594.0 . 26.0 676.0 660.0 16.0 742.0 733.0 9.0 809.0 813.0 (4.0) Official and Street Lighting 187.0 182.0 5.0 227.0 204.0 23.0 260.0 228.0 32. 252.0 249.0 .o 258.0 270.0 (12.0) 293.0 294.0 (1.0) 305.0 324,0 (19.0) Subtita.l B Sytem 1,331.0 i,286.0 45.0 1,483.0 1,443.0 40.0 1,681.0 1.617.0 64.0 1,828.0 1,779.0 49.0 1,977.0 1,957.0 20.0 2,184.0 2,153.0 31.0 2,448.0 2.370.0 78.0 Wole.le ad Interon~ection 122.0 144.0 (22.0) 207.0 280.0 (73.0) 344.0 317.0 27.0 366.0 474.0 (108.0) 529.0 646.0 (U7.0) 405.0 572.0 (167.0) 287.0 27.0 120 'lotal .1e 1,453.0 1,430.0 23.0 1,69o.0 1,723.0 (33.0) 2,025.0 1,934.0 91.0 2,194.0 2,253.0 59.0 2,506.0 2,603.0 (97.0) 2,589.0 2,725.0 (136.0) 2,735.0 2.645.0 90.0 c.any use 33.0 50.0 (17.0) 38.0 50.0' (12.0) 28.0 50.0 (22.0) 28.0 50.0 (22.0) 29.0 50.0 (21.0) 36.0 50.0 (14.0) 31.0 50.0 (19.0) I.98e6 143.0 140.0 3.0 193.0 167.0 26.0 216.0 196.0 20.0 277.0 217.0 60.0 286.0 247.0 39.0 296.0 255.0 41.0 307.0 245.0 62.0 Gro,, Energy A/ 1,629.0 1,620.0 9.0 1,921.0 1,940.0 (19.0) 2.269.0 2,180.0 89.0 2,499.0 2,520.0 (21.0) 2,821.0 2,900.0 (79.0) 2,921.0 3,030.0 (109.0) 3,073.0 2,940.0 133.0 A-nal n1-4 Factor 55.8 55.0 0.8 57.1 55.0 2.1 59.9 55.0 4.9 60.2 55.0 5.2 62.8 55.0 7.8 58.7 55.0 3.7 57.6 55.0 2.6 Annal Peak Dead 333.0 336.0 (3.0) 384.0 403.0 (19.0) 432.0 452.0 (20.0) 474.0 523.0 (49.0) 513.0 602.0 (89.0) 568.0 629.0 (61.0) 609.0 610.0 (1.0) Itydro Generation 1,488.0 1,492.0 (4.0) 1,763.0 1,503.0 260.0 2,120.0 1,717.0 403.0 2,351.0 2,099.0 252.0 2,689.0 2,400.0 289.0 2,659.0 2,600.0 59.0 2,902.0 2.540.0 362.0 Theroal Generation 141.0 128.0 13.0 158.0 337.0 (179.0) 149.0 363.0 (214.0) 148.0 321.0 (173.0) 132.0 400.0 (268.0) 262.0 430.0 (168.0) 171.0 400.0 (229.0) Pur2haed Energy 20.0 - 20.0 16.0 100.0 (84.0) 14.0 100.0 (86.0) 17.0 100.0 (83.0) 20.0 100.0 (80.0) 100.0 - 100.0 131.0 - 131.0 Groa Energy 1f 1,649.0 1,620.0 29.0 1,937.0 1,940.0 (3.0) 2,283.0 2,180.0 103.0 2,516.0 2,520.0 (4.0) 2,841.0 2,900.0 (59.0) 3,021.0 3,030.0 (9.0) 3,204.0 2,940.0 264.0 The difference id du" to the wergy purcha-ed for Inc-rsing the reserr level. COLOMBIA EMPRESA DE ENERGIA ELECTRICA DE BOGOTA (EKEB) LOAN 537-CO THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM COMPARISON OF COST ESTIMATES (US$ millions) .Actual ............. ...... Original Estimate ........ ......... Difference ........... .....Foreign ..... .....Foreign...... .....Foreign...... JOINT Local Total JOINT Local Total JOINT Local Total IBRD FINANCING EEEB IBRD FINANCING EEEB IBRD FINANCING EEEB 1. El Colegio Hydroelectric Plant 4.24 2.80 2.06 9.10 4.08 2.70 1.47 8.25 0.16 0.10 0.59 0.85 2. Canoas Hydroelectric Plant 2.86 1.90 4.72 9.48 3.11 1.80 3.92 8.83 (0.25) 0.10 0.80 0.65 3. Transmission System 5.33 1.21 4.41 10.95 4.50 1.52 2.14 8.16 0.83 (0.31) 2.27 2.79 4. Distribution System 5.08 1.69 3.96 10.73 4.22 0.98 1.59 6.79 0.86 0.71 2.37 3.94 5. Engineering Services 0.47 - 3.44 3.91 0.19 - 2.30 2.49 0.28 - 1.14 1.42 6. Unallocated - - - - 1.90 - 2.86 4.76 (1.9o) (2.86) (4.76) TOTAL 17.98 7.60 18.59 44.17 18.00 7.00 14.28 39.28 (0.02) 0.60 4.31 4.89 COLOMBIA EMPRESA DE ENER3IA ELECTRICA DE BOGOTA (EEl) LOAN 537-CO THIRD POWER EXPANSION PROGRAM Variations in: Average Rate, Consumers Price Index and Exchange Rate 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197h 1975 Average Annual Increase (decrea- S se) Average Rate (Col$cts/kWh) 18.6 18.7 20.9 22.5 26.7 28.1 36.2 11.7 Consumers Price Index (indice de costo vida obrero para Bogota) 425.5 L56.6 495.7 566.5 695. 864.0 1087.h 16.9 Average Rate (in constant Col$ of 1969) (%) 18.6 17.5 17.9 16.9 16.3 13.8 14.2 (5.2) Annual Average Exchange Rate 17.4 18.5 20.0 21.8 23.7 26.6 30.8 10.0 (Col$/US$) Average Rate (USmils/kWh) 10.7 10.1 10.5 10.5 11.3 10.6 11.8 1.6 June 1976 Col~(BiA EMPRESA DE ENEOIA EUECTRICA DE BOGOA (EB) Las 537-C TIRD P~WER EXPANSIOM PROGRAM INcoME STATEmTS - ACIAL COMPARED WITH APPAISI, ETIMATE (million. of ColC ytar Uns D~cebe 31 ---- 1968 ----------- ----------- 1969 -------- ----------- 1970 ----------- ---------- 1971------------ ------------ 1972 - ------- ----------- 1973 -----------. ----------- 1<976 ---------- Actual Apprial Diffre Actual A~r11 Differemne Actul Appr..l Difference Actual Appral.al Difference Actual Apprasal Diffrence A.tual ~läm.1 Differan- Actu1 Aa= Dåfftreo Energy B.l. (GMh) B.g.t. syste« 1,332.0 1.286.0 45.0 1,483.0 1,443.0 40.o 1,681.0 1,617.0 64.0 1,828.0 1,779.0 49.0 1,977.0 1,957.0 20.0 2,184.0 2.153.0 31.0 2,48.0 2,30.0 78.0 4Ieo t and ...sl 122,0 144.O (22.0) 207.0 280.0 (73.0) 344.0 317.0 27.0 366.0 474.0 (108.0) 529.0 646.0 (117.0) 405.0 572. (167.0) 287.0 27m.0 12,0 Total Energy ale. 1,453.0 1,430.0 23.o 1,690.0 1.723.0 (33.0) 2,025.0 1.934.0 91.0 2,194.0 2,253.0 (59.0) 2.506.0 2,603.0 (97.0) 2.589.0 2,725.0 (136.0) 2,735.0 2,6k5.1 W.0 Avrge Pr1. "er Kwh (rol) 18 0 18.0 0.0 18.6 17.5 1.1 18.7 17.5 1.2 20.9 17.1 3,8 22.5 16.7 5.8 26.7 16.9 9.8 28.1 17.9 - 10.2 operMting Revenu9 &nrgy fice. 261.3 257.7 3.6 313.5 301.5 12.0 379.2 337.9 41..3 458.3 385,9 72.6 562.5 633.6 128.9 691.9 460.2 3LT 767.3 473.7 293.6 Other Rev~nue 9.2 ,.0 6.2 18.8 2.0 16.8 29.5 -- 35.3 -- 35. 570 -- 5.0 - 1247 _- 71247 Total Oversting ag~enue* 270.5 260.7 9.8 332.3 303.5 28.8 408.7 337.9 70.8 493.6 385.9 107.7 619.5 33.6 185.9 ^.t 660.. 324.0 892.0 473.7 418.3 operating ECpn-@ opftratt.n and Netöant 72.8 62.6 10.4 91.0 73.3 17.7 106.0 77.9 28,1 136.7 79.9 56.8 170.6 85.7 84.9 201.1 91.A 109.7 245.3 95.A 149.9 Ekr.i8es to City 12.3 15.3 (3,0) 16,6 7.8 6.8 19.8 8.7 11.1 25.8 9.6 16.2 3L. 10.6 20.9 36.& 11.6 26.6 40.8 12.8 28.0 pueba~e 8or - - - 13.5 (13.5) -- 13.5 (13,5) -- 13.3 (13.5) -- 13.5 (13,5) -- - - -- -- etto of Inter',o - 0.5 10.5) 1.7 0.5 1.2 4.3 0.5 3.8 3.7 3.2 0.5 13.6 3.6 10.0 4.4k 3.A . 1.1 22.7 L9.7 DepreCiaton o 49.3 3.7 _60 5o-7 5.3 67.8 52.6 1 77.4 . 19 2 . 66.0 _,j 111.6- -w 40.9 133.0 72.2 60.8 Total operattan Epn0 136.1 127.5 10.6 163.3 145.8 17.5 197.9 153.2 b4.7 243.6 164.4 79.2 31.8 179. 132A 353.7 177.1 - 176.6 448 183. 258.4 Operattnj Inome 132.6 133.2 (0.8) 169.0 157.7 11.3 210.8 18.7 26.1 250.0 221.5 28.5 W7.7 254.2 53.5 4»4 I3.1 147,4 450,2 290.3 159.9 Ot4er .nc (Net) (0.3) 1.0 (1. )) (3.9) 1.0 .9) 3.0 o 2.o (9.8) 1.0 (10.8) .1.7) 1.0 .(12.) .U) _-J {10,5) (60,1) 1.0 (61.1) rooe Br. Intenegt Chanas 132.1 131.2 (2.1) 165.1 158.7 6.4 213.8 185.7 28.1 240.2 222.5 17.7 296.0 255.2 40.8 b21.0 %.1 ';136.9 390-1 291.3 98.8 Total 1ntcr~t 64. 77.2 (12.8) 78.9 81. (2.5) 92.4 83.0 9.4 89.9 82.2 7.7 1W?.9 16.3 31.6 us.8 73.0 55.8 158.8 69.6 89.2 tAga nlteret Daring 0,ntrut t 2.2 7.4 (5.2) 16.7 16.0 0.7 24.2 22.9 1.3 13.2 25.5 (12.3) ..8 - . 6.8 , .- 5.9 12.0 -- 12.0 Intermat ExOnön 62,2 69.8 (7.6) 62.2 65.1 (3.2) 68.2 60.1 8.1 76.7 _2j 2.0 101.1 76:j 24.8 . _.l 49.9 146.8 69.6 77.2 »et Incoma 69.9 6.1A 5.5 102.9 93.3 9.6 145.6 125.6 20.0 163.5 165.8 (2.3) 196.9 178.9 16.0 898.1 21.1 87.0 243.3 221.7 21.6 Plblic Lghti. 6.8 5.7 1.1 8.6 7.7 0.9 12.2 10.3 0.9 15.0 14.0 1.0 18.8 17.9 0.9 29.2 21.1 8.1 23.1 22.2 0.9 A-erage lot ABaete ReTaluatod 1,660.5 1,797.6 (137.6) 1,809.7 1,801 8.6 2,065.5 i,825.1 260A 2,377.1 1,991.0 383.1 2814.8 2.246.3 568.5 31457.7 2.365.7 1,092.0 4,237.6 2,353.6 1,88~.0 Rat. of Retum on A~enge lbt Plant () 8.0 7.5 1.5 9.3 8.8 0.5 10.2 10.2 - 10.5 11.1 (0.6) 10.9 11.4 (0.5) 12.5 12.0 0.5 10.6 12.A (1.8) EbPREA DE =EEMIA EICRIC DE DCA (EE) rWO2 537-co TRIRD P S EPAuoN PoGRAm AIe HE - ACTUAL COMPARED WITH AP~RAIBAL ESTINATE (.1110 of 01$) ----------- 1968 -- - ---------- 1969 ----------------- 1970 ----------- ----------- 1971 -------- ----------- 1972----------- ----------- 1973 ----------- ----------- 1974.--------- At.al Avprasal Diffrens Actal pprmial DIfferencc Atual Appraal Difference At..1 Appraläl DIfften Atua1 AWieal Difference Actual Appraisl Diffterene Atual Appralf Dflffrno rioed Asaet. plant In Gervice 1.665.8 2.125.1 (459.3) 1,797.2 2,145.1 (347.9) 2,134.4 2,276.5 (142.1) 2,369.2 2,593.6 (224.4) 2.877.1 2,905. 4 (28.3) 3 317.4 2.169.1 348.3 3.866.7 3.024.0 842.7 laga Ac~ilatsd Depreclatton 212.1 308.7 (96.6) 268.0 359.4 (1.4) 335.8 412.0 (76.2) 411.8 470.2 (58.4) 507.6 536.2 (28.6) 619.1 606,9 12.2 752.0 679.1 7 n.t Fised Asets t. 8~rvi9 1.453.7 1,816.4 (362.7) 1.529.2 1,785.7 (256.5) 1,798.6 1,864.5 (65.9) 1,957.4 2,123.4 (166.0) 2.369.5 2.369.2 0.3 2,649.3 2.362,2 336.1 3,114.7 2,344.9 769.8 Work In Progr.&o 201.0 362.8 (161.8 345.2 6034 (258.2) 248,6 688.1 (439.5) 358. 471.7 (113.4) 233.8 207.5 26.3 466.2 169.5 278.7 5". 183.2 361.6 fet rikmd Assets 1,654.7 2,179.2 (524.5) 1,874.4 2,389.1 (514.7) 2,047.2 2,552.6 (505.4) 2,315.7 2,595.1 (279.4) 2.603.3 2,576.7 26.6 3,166.5 2,551.7 614.8 3,659.5 2,528.1 1,131.4 Cret Ajmets Casb 28.7 28.0 0.7 46.1 1.1 45.0 32.0 7.0 25.0 74.5 49.8 24.7 66.8 134.8 (68.0) 61.5 249.4 (187.9) 70.5 370.2 (299.7) 106.9 68.6 38.3 1,9.0 75.3 63.7 199.1 81.3 117.8 238.1 89.3 148.8 349.3 98. 251.0 314.8 106.5 208.3 573.4 114.6 458,8 Tot. cu-r ~-Aaetå 135.6 96.6 39.0 185.1 76.4 108.7 231.1 88.3 142.8 312.6 139.1 173.5 416.1 233.1 183.0 376.3 355.9 20.4 643.9 484.8 159.1 Othwer Aaccta Inve .tmnts La IA - 14.3 (14.3) - 31.5 (31.5) 47.4 34.8 .12.6 12.7 64.7 47.8 193.9 136.1 55.8 337.0 221.1 115.9 532.8 306.9 225.9 chi- - - - - - - - - - 53.8 - 53.8 80.5 - 80.5 Other Aaats_ 41.8 33.7 8.1 50.8 33.7 17.1 94. 33. 61.0 79.6 33.7 46.1 61-1 33,7 27.4 9.4 33.7 5.7 23.7 33.7 _(10.0) Total other Aaut. 41.8 48.0 (6.2) 50.8 65.2 (14.4) 142.1 68.5 73.6 192.3 98.4 93.9 255.0 171.8 83.2 430.2 254.8 175.4 637.0 340.6 296.4 TOTAL A~98 I.832.1 2.323.8 (491.7) 2,110.3 25 (420.4) 2,420.4 2709.4 289.0) 2820.6 2.832.6 (12.0) 3.274.4 2.981.6 2 8 ,930 3162.4 810.6 4j90.4 3,5. 1.86.9 HqollTIE cavital an 8urpgus 550.9 538.2 12.7 668.8 631.5 37.3 810.9 757.1 53.8 97.5 922.9 54.6 1.182.7 1,101.8 8.9 1.466.7 1.312.9 153.8 1,7.1.0 1,534.6 176.4 Renerre for ~poe9 62.8 66.2 (3.4) 85.9 79.8 6.1 100.6 95.5 5.1 142.8 112.7 30.1 174.3 131.6 42.7 160.9 152.4 8.5 307.2 175.3 131.9 rserv for hevluation - 441.6 (441.6) - 41.6 (41.6) - 441.6 (41.6) - 44141.6 . (41.6) 6) - 441.6 (641.6) - 441.6 (441.6) Total Equtty 613.7 1,046.0 (432.3) 754.7 1,152.9 (398.2) 911.5 1,294.2 (382.7) 1,120.3 1,477.2 (356.9) 1,357.0 1,675.0 (318.0) 1.627.6 1.906.9 (279.3) 2,018.2 2,151.5 (133.3) long Tr Dbtt is 246-o 240.1 231.9 8.2 242.5 222.0 20.5 247.9 211.5 36.4 273.4 200.4 73.0 291.2 188.6 102.6 326.1 176.1 150.0 384.3 162.8 221.5 Iosn 313-00 753.7 727.9 25.8 767.8 702.9 64.9 792.8 676.9 115.9 837.7 648.4 189.3 899.4 618.7 280.7 952.4 587.3 365.1 1,068.1 554.0 514.1 Io. 537-00 and Jolt rinen~in 85.6 158.6 (73.0) 186.4 313.2 (126.8) 305.1 407.0 (101.9) 417.7 392.8 24.9 529.0 377.2 151.8 651.3 360.6 290.7 343.0 other Forciga Pnaoil- - - - - - - - - - 82.6 966.6 623.6 CoIlo 2ank >4.8 51.8 3.0 59.8 26.8 33.0 15.6 - 15.6 0.3 - 0.3 3.4 - 3.4 82.6 - 2.4 4.8 - 48.8 Total l.ng Term Debt 1.134.2 1,170.2 (36.0) 1,256.5 1,264.9 (8.4) 1,361.4 1,295.4 66.o 1,529.1 1,241.6 287.5 1,723.0 1,184.5 538.5 2,014.8 1.124.0 890.8 2,467.8 1.059.8 1408.0 Curren. libilltIos C-rrent 2aturihies 34.4 57.6 (23.2) 41.6 59.9 (18.3) 84.7 63.8 20.9 83.1 53.8 29.3 95.9 57.1 38.8 174.8 60.5 114.3 158.9 64.2 94.7 Short Tr- loan, - - - - - - - - - 14.6 - 14.6 2.0 - 2.0 16.0 - 16.0 - - - Other - 49.8 50.0 (0,2) 57.5 53.0 4.5 62.8 56.0 _6.8 73.5 60.0 13.5 6.5_ 65.0 31.5 139.8 71.0 o.8 29.5 78.0 217.5 Tot. Current Li.biliti.a 84.2 107.6 (23.4) 99.1 112.9 (13.6) 147.5 119.8 27.7 171.2 113.8 57.4 194.4 122.1 72.3 330.o 131.5 1~.-1 454.4 142.' 31:.2 1TrAL LLAiTMILB 1,832.1 2,323.8 (491.7) 2,110.3 2,530.7 (420.4) 2,420.4 2,709.4 (289.0) 2,820.6 2,832.6 (12.0) 3.274.4 2,981.6 292.8 3,973.0 3,122.4 31.6 4.4lc.4 3.353.5 1.556.9 t ~Equ ity t t. 66/34 54/46 - 64/36 53/47 - 61/39 51/149 - 59/41 47/53 - 57/43 43/57 - 57/43 31/6 , - 5 -/A 3 34/66 - Coia81A EMPRESA DE ENERGIA ELECTRICA DB BZGOTA (EEE) 14AN 537-00 THlRD PER EXPANSION PROGRAM SOURCES AND APPLICATICWS OF FUNDS ACTUAL COMPARED WITH APPRAIBAL EST~MATE (millions o CoI$) -------- 1968 -------- ------- 1969 --------- ------ 1970 --------- ------- 1971 --------- ------- 1972 --------- ----- 1973 --------- ------- 1974 --------- --------- T - ctual Apr. Differ. Actual Apr. Differ. Actual Apr. Differ. Actual Apr. Difter. Actual Apr. Difter. Actual Apr. Differ. Atual Apr. Difter. tl Apr. Difer. Internal Cash (heeration Inco~. bf.ore interst charge 132.1 134.2 (2.1) 165.1 158.7 6.4 213.8 185.7 28.1 240.2 222.5 17.7 296.0 255.2 40.8 421.0 284.1 136.9 390.1 291.3 98.8 1,858.3 1,531.7 326.6 Depreciation 53.0 49.3 3.7 56.o 50.7 5.3 67.8 52.6 15.2 77.4 58.2 19.2 96.1 66.0 30.1 111.6 70.7 40.9 133.0 72.2 60.8 594.9 419.7 175.2 Non-cash charges 9 1 12.4 (_.) 23.1 13.6 9j5 14.7 15.7 (1.0) 13.2 17.2 (0) 31.5 18.9 126 _3 208 32.6 146. 32 12 2 291.3 121.5 169. Total Internal Cash Generation 194.2 195.9 (1.7) 244.2 223.0 21.2 296.3 254.0 42.3 330.8 297.9 32.9 423.6 340.1 83.5 586.0 375.6 210.4 669.4 386.4 283.0 2,714.5 2,072.9 671.6 Debt Service Affrtization 79.5 38.4 41.1 56.7 57.6 (0.9) 83.1 59.9 23.2 i06.6 63.8 42.8 105.1 53.8 51.3 108.2 57.1 51.1 137.4 60.5 76.9 676.6 391.1 285.5 Internt charged to operatione 62.2 69.8 (7.6) 62.2 65.4 (3_2) 68.2 601 8.1 76.7 _j.1 20.. 101.1 .63 248 1229 _3.0 49.9 146. 69.6 7.2 640.1 47o. 169.2 Total Net Debt Borvice 141.7 108.2 33.5 118.9 123.0 (4.1) 151.3 120.0 31.3 183.3 120.5 62.8 206.2 130.1 76.1 731.1 130.1 101.0 284.2 130.1 154.1 1,316.7 862.0 454.7 Net inrterl Cash Generation 52.5 87.7 (35.2) 125.3 100.0 25.3 145.0 134.0 11.0 147.5 177.4 (29.9) 217.4 210.0 7.4 354.9 245.5 109.4 385.2 256.3 128.9 1,427.8 1,210.9 216.9 Borrvings Toreignans 163.0 158.6 4.4 100.0 154.6 (54.6) 204.4 94.3 110.1 266.4 - 266.4 287.6 - 287.6 140.4 - 140.4 130.5 - 130.5 1,292.3 407.5 864.8 leal tan 26.2 - 26.2 325 - 32.5 32.0 _ 32.0 31.6 _ 31 .6 31.9 - 31 9 103.6 103 . 171.8 - 171.8 2 429.6 -29.6 Total Borro.inga 189.2 158.6 30.6 132.5 154.6 (22.1) 236.4 94.3 142.1 298.0 - 298.0 319.5 - 319.5 244.0 - 244.0 302.3 - 302.3 1,721.9 407.5 1,314.4 TOTAL BOUMCEa 241 7 J 22 2J. £U U D 61_L 2288 > j1 445 1 2681 539 200 329 5 9 2 5 35 68 256 42 31*9T I "II 1,53 APPLICATIONS 3ontruction Program Construetior. 199.0 236.4 (37.4) 186.6 244.6 (58.0) 232.3 193.2 39.1 240.0 75.2 164.8 376.1 47.6 328.5 403.6 45.7 357.9 280.6 48.6 232.0 1,918.2 891.3 I,æ26.9 Interst during Conmtruction 2.2 7.4 (5.2) 16.7 16.o 0.7 24.2 22.9 1.3 13.2 25.5 (12.3) 6.8 - 6.8 5.9 - 5.9 12.0 - 12.0 81.0 71.8 9.2 Total Construction Program 201.2 243.8 (42.6) 203.3 260.6 (57.3) 256.5 216.1 40.4 253.2 100.7 152.5 382.9 47.6 335.3 409.5 45.7 363.8 292.6 48.6 244.0 1,999.2 963.1 1.036.1 Inve staent IBA 4.0 13.3 (9.3) 8.o 17.2 (9.2) 41.7 3.3 38.4 57.8 29.9 27.9 81.4 73.4 8.o 143.1 83.0 60.1 193.2 85.8 107.4 529.2 305.9 223.3 Other invetments - - - 0.7 - 0.7 51.4 - 51.4 61.o - 61.o - - - 51.0 - 51.0 35.7 - _J73 - 199.8 Total Inve.toants 4.0 13.3 (9.3) 8.7 17.2 (8.5) 93.1 3.3 89.8 18.8 29.9 88.9 81.4 73.4 8.0 194.1 83.0 1n.1 228.9 85.8 143.1 729.0 305.9 423.1 Increase in Working Capital Ca.h (12.7) (13.4) 0.7 28.4 (26.9) 55.3 (14.1) 5.9 (20.0) 42.5 42.5 (0.3) (7.7) 85.0 (92.7) (5.3) 14.6 (119.9) 9.0 120.8 (1.1.8) 40.1 328.8 (288.7) Other than cash 49.2 2.6 46.6 17.4 3 7 13.7 45.9 3.o 42.9 31.0 4.0 27.0 .3 4.U 76. 0.6 2.2 (1.6) 157.0 11 i jL2 381.4 20.6 360.! Total Increase i. Worklng Capital 36.5 (10.8) 47.3 45.8 (23.2) 69.0 31.8 8.9 22.9 73.5 46.8 26.7 72.6 89.o (16.4) (4.7) n6.8 (121.5) 166.o 121.9 44.1 421.5 369.4 79.1 TOTAL APPLICATrONS 241. j4.) 17 54 3. O 25 1 4 268 26 2 E2 2 5 68 256 1 7 .98 . 33 September 1976 Lde n i niie . FAIara oe€isa ndUer. Construction T'casmission te E61 Reservoir P,oposed t8RD projecte s7 C.p..0) SAiLTO0 72 MWT .b,li 66TO,5 MW Avj,01 Ad.ø U o 1, .£$E ,,.I R.619 'd Reseve,,Rose oa, - w L)e4 B/gm 11Ik SuoåTTOM R- -- $ T0 200 250 - A~~~ORIZONTA" INIS IN «0METIEJli_____________ CUNEFrÅ UtAsuftto £5WII0 RI"Rf BCD 60GOTA S.,s,,,, S:,p PANAPA COLOMBIA ~ ~ 80,IGOTA IaPROPOSED EXPANSION PROGRAM - - - - - - - - - - -of the EMPRESA DE ENERGIA ELECTRICA DE BOGOTA .'- PROFsLE PERU MAY - -lli'0 i