In its first report presented to the Lok Sabha on Saturday, committee chairman K Karunakaran observed that the production and net sales of ECIL had fallen short of the targets during 1996-98 as also the gross earnings, gross profit and net profit.

The committee was also `unhappy' to note that unrealistic physical targets had been fixed for the corporation since 1995-96. Therefore, it wanted that targets should be fixed realistically based on the actual performance of the corporation.

The committee suggested that the Planning Commission should `extend maximum budgetary support' to the atomic energy programmes since the department had not been able to raise funds from international markets due to the nuclear non-proliferation regime in force since the 1974 nuclear test. The capacity to raise funds fromdomestic market too was limited, it noted.

The committee was happy that scientists and engineers were able to make Rajasthan Atomic Power Station-II (RAPS-II) critical, using indigenous technology only.

"It is more heartening to note that in spite of embargoes put by foreign countries, the nuclear scientists had been able to demonstrate their skill and capabilities beyond doubt," the report observed.

The tariff structures were also not conducive to resource mobilisation. On account of corporation's small operating base, the generation of sizeable internal surpluses was not possible. The outstanding dues of as much as Rs 2,000 crore from state electricity boards had affected the liquidity of the corporation.

The strategic nature of operation of NPCIL prevented it from having access to foreign sources of funding. It was in this context that the benefits/incentives of infrastructural projects be extended to nuclear power stations and long-term loans and lower rate of interest be made applicable to them,the committee recommended.

As regards financing nuclear operated power generation units, the committee wanted that power generation entities, whether in hydel, thermal or nuclear sector "ought to be on equal pedestal". Therefore, the committee recommended that PFC should also extend term-finance to NPCIL for power generation projects.

In matters of tariff fixation, the committee was of the firm view that certain extend of freedom and autonomy should be provided to NPCIL especially in the matter of sale of power. The committee recommended that NPCIL be afforded an opportunity to market their bulk produce not only to SEBs but also to a cluster of industries, cooperatives or any other group entity through MoU route.

To recover outstanding dues of NPCIL, the committee suggested extension of `guarantee scheme' to central power entities under the atomic energy department on lines of power sector.