case no.2 of 2003 - infraline
TRANSCRIPT
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
1
Bef ore the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.mercindia.com
Case No.2 of 2003
IN THE MATTER OF Determination of Tariff [2003-04] applicable to various categories of consumers of the
Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Shri P.Subrahmanyam, Chairman Shri Jayant Deo, Member. Dr. Pramod Deo, Member
Date of Order: March 10, 2004
O R D E R
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 29 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, and after taking into consideration all the objections, responses of the MSEB, issues raised during the Public Hearings, and all other relevant material, determines the tariff for supply of electricity by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board for retail distribution as under.
BRIEF HISTORY:
The Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) submitted a Petition for approval of the Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2003-04 (ARR Petition)on April 7, 2003 under affidavit dated April 3, 2003 to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) for the revision of its Retail Distribution Tariff with effect from April 1, 2003, keeping in view the requirements of Section 59 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The MSEB filed only the ARR Petition in April 2003 as against the Commission's directive to file the ARR and Tariff Petition for FY 2003-04 by December 2002. On receipt of the ARR Petition, the Commission held an admissibility hearing in the presence of S.26 Consumer Representatives on April 24, 2003. Although a specific Tariff Proposal was not submitted by the MSEB, the Commission admitted the Petition to avoid delay in processing of the Petition, with the following conditions:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
2
(a) The Petition would be taken up for Technical Validation on May 13, 2003, subject to MSEB fulfilling data requirements; Consumer Representatives should submit their requirement of data by May 2, 2003 to MSEB through the Commission, for inclusion and submission by MSEB before May 9, 2003;
(b) MSEB should also prepare and submit a detailed Tariff Proposal taking into account, inter alia, the various directives and guidelines given by the Commission in earlier Orders, including the alternatives regarding T&D loss charges (Circle-wise and State-wide) as minuted in the Record of Proceedings held on October 7, 2002.
On receipt of the additional data and information and Tariff Petition from MSEB on June 30, 2003, the Commission held a Technical Validation Session in the presence of S.26 Consumer Representatives on July 1, 2003. During the Technical Validation Session held on July 1, 2003 at Mumbai, the following persons / officials were present: Sr. No. Name of person/ official
DESIGNATION AND INSTITUTION
MSEB Officials: - 1 Shri Asoke Basak Chairman, MSEB 2 Shri A.B. Shethji Technical Member (T&D), MSEB 3 Shri M.N. Bapat Technical Director (Distribution), MSEB 4 Shri G.P. Gunnapar Chief Engineer (Tariff Regulatory Cell),
MSEB 5 Shri V.L. Sonawane Superintending Engineer (Tariff Regulatory
Cell), MSEB 6 Shri M.R. Ambhore Technical Member (Generation), MSEB 7 Shri C.N. Gudap Chief Engineer (Distribution), MSEB 8 Shri Anil Deshkar Jt. Secretary, MSEB 9 Shri J.K. Shrinivasan Jt. Chief Accounts Officer, MSEB 10 Shri A.V. Deshpande Chief Accounts Officer, MSEB 11 Shri S.P. Vahalkar Dy Chief Accounts Officer, MSEB 12 Shri H.A. Patil Chief Engineer (Commercial), MSEB 13 Shri V.V. Kulkarni Accounts Officer, MSEB 14 Shri B.N. Farkade Chief Engineer (SLDC), Kalwa, MSEB 15 Shri S.S. Kulkarni Executive Engineer (SLDC), Kalwa, MSEB 16 Shri A. Krishna Rao Member (Accounts), MSEB 17 Shri P.V. Kulkarni Technical Director (EHVP), MSEB 18 Shri A.G. Khonde Executive Engineer, MSEB 19 Shri A.B. Chapalge Dy. Chief Engineer, (Generation
Works)MSEB
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
3
Sr. No. Name of person/ official
DESIGNATION AND INSTITUTION
20 Shri S.V. Ramakrishna Director (IT), MSEB 21 Shri B.M. Kumbhar Dy. Director, MSEB 22 Shri V.M. Baswante Executive Engineer, MSEB 23 Shri C.P. Katkuri Director of Accounts, MSEB 24 Shri R.N. Sonar Chief Accounts Officer (BA), MSEB 25 Shri S.J. Ambekar Dy Chief Accounts Officer (BA), MSEB 26 Shri U.S. Mane Addl. Director (IT) , MSEB 27 Shri V.W. Deshpande Jt. Director (IT) , MSEB 28 R.B. Kshirsagar Executive Engineer, MSEB 29 Shri P.H. Aher Executive Engineer, MSEB 30 Shri K.A. Sukumaran Steno, MSEB CONSUMER
REPRESENTATIVES: -
31 Shri R.B. Goenka President, Vidarbha Industries Association 32 Dr. Ashok Pendse Mumbai Grahak Panchayat 33 Dr. S.L. Patil Secretary General, Thane Belapur Industries
Association 34 Shri Shantanu Dixit Member, Energy Group, Prayas CONSULTANTS: -
35 Shri Sameer S. CRISIL 36 Shri B. Shesan CRISIL 37 Shri Palaniappan M. Manager, ICRA 38 Shri Suresh Gehani Manager, ICRA 39 Shri Ajit Pandit Manager, ICRA 40 Shri Anand Desai Manager, ICRA 41 Shri Jain Chirag A.F. Ferguson & Co. OTHER OFFICIALS: -
42 Shri M.S. Dave Assistant General Manager, Tata Power Company Ltd.
43 Shri T.P. Mohan Senior Manager, Tata Power Company Ltd. 44 Shri C.A. Colaco Tata Power Company Ltd. 45 Shri Vivek Kejriwal Manager, Tata Power Company Ltd.
During the Technical Validation session, the Commission and the Consumer Representatives identified several discrepancies and data gaps and directed MSEB to submit a consolidated ARR and Tariff Petition alongwith additional data and clarification. Subsequently, the MSEB, vide letter ref. TRC/TRP 03-04/24623, submitted the Revised ARR and Tariff Revision Petition (Petition) for FY 2003-04 on July 23, 2003 under affidavit dated July 21, 2003 in three volumes.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
4
In line with the Regulations and practice established by the Commission in previous tariff determination exercises, the Public Notice was issued in newspapers for inviting suggestions and objections from interested parties. The Public Notice was published in Asian Age, Economic Times, Financial Express, Maharashtra Times and Times of India in Mumbai; Indian Express, Dainik Samna, Gavkari, Kesari, Lok Mat, Lok Satta, Sakal, Tarun Bharat and Tudhari in all editions of Maharashtra and in leading local newspapers in each of the six Revenue Divisions of the State. The Public Notice appeared in most of the newspapers on August 4, 2003. Copies of the MSEB’s Petition and its summary were made available for inspection/purchase to members of the public throughout the State of Maharashtra in the MSEB's Executive Engineers' offices and on the MSEB’s website (www.msebindia.com). The last date for filing the written objections was fixed as September 3, 2003, which allowed a period of one month to the public to enable them to file their objections. The Public Notice specified that the suggestions/objections, either in English or Marathi, may be filed in the form of affidavits to the Commission along with proof of service on MSEB. It was specifically stated in the Public Notice that if any objector wanted to be heard in person, he would be invited to the Public Hearings. MSEB was given an opportunity to reply to the party's suggestion/objection by September 18, 2003. The concerned party was also allowed to submit a rejoinder to MSEB by October 3, 2003. By the above Public Notice, the Commission also admitted objections filed during the Public Hearing. To facilitate the interested objectors who find it difficult to submit their objections within the above stipulated time, it was also clarified that they were permitted to file their objections upto October 21, 2003 and could also participate in the Public Hearing at Mumbai. This was also announced during the Public Hearings held at various Divisional Headquarters. The Commission also made necessary arrangements to receive the affidavits and objections and to record all the oral submissions on audiotapes and videotapes at the Public Hearings.
The consumers, by a Public Notice, were also informed of the dates of the Public Hearings as follows:
Sl. Revenue Divisions Date of Public Hearing. 1 Amravati October 9, 2003 at 11.00 hrs 2 Nagpur October 10, 2003 at 10.00 hrs 3 Aurangabad October 13, 2003 at 10.00 hrs 4 Nashik October 15, 2003 at 10.00 hrs 5 Pune October 17, 2003 at 10.00 hrs 6 Mumbai October 20 and 21, 2003 at 11.30 hrs
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
5
The Commission received a large number of written objections expressing concern about the proposed upward revision in the Tariff charges, the working of the MSEB and a host of other issues. The Commission received a total of 792 objections, 628 on affidavit and 64 without affidavits. Those objectors who filed their affidavits and also indicated that they would like to be heard in person, were called for the Public Hearing at the respective headquarters of Revenue Divisions in which they were located.
The category-wise and revenue division-wise number of consumers/institutions who submitted their objections to the MSEB’s Tariff Revision for 2003-04 is detailed in the Table below:
Interest Groups Amra-vati
Aurang-abad
Konkan Nagpur Nashik Pune Total
Consumer
1 3 8 3 10 14 39
Consumer Association 1 2 8 1 8 7 27
Consumer Representative
3 1 1 5
Industry
2 3 10 2 7 11 35
Industry Association 3 2 14 2 4 8 33 Railway
2 2
Lift Irrigation Society 1 602 16 19
Political Party
2 3 4 2 11
Trade Union
1 1 2 1 1 6
Panchayat, Nagar Palika, Nagar Parishad, Municipality
1 1 5 7
Others
5 2 1 8
Total
8 13 56 11 643 61 792
The Commission, vide letter dated September 29, 2003, separately requested the Government of Maharashtra to indicate its commitment regarding subsidy with respect to Maharashtra
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
6
State Electricity Board's tariff. The GoM’s response, through its Industries, Energy & Labour Department, vide letter No. RCA, 2003/CR 174/NRG-3, is quoted below:
“Under Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is stated that, "If the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the State Commission under section 62, the State Government shall notwithstanding any direction which may be given under section 108, pay, in advance and in such manner as may be specified, the amount to compensate the person affected by the grant of subsidy in the manner the State Commission may direct, as a condition for the licence or any other person concerned to implement the subsidy provided for by the State Government."
It is clear from the above that the sequence as intended by the Act is that the Commission first determines the tariff under section 62 after which the State Government would decide about the grant of subsidy.
At the moment, the issue of granting subsidy for the year 2003-04 based on the existing rates is under consideration of Government. Before the issue is decided, it is very difficult for Government to take a view as to the subsidy it would like to give after revision of rates by the Commission. Usually Government would be anxious to know the net tariff payable by the subsidized consumers after accounting for the subsidy and hence would find it difficult to commit subsidy amount without knowing the tariff fixed by the Commission”.
The Commission has ensured that the due process contemplated under the law has been followed at every stage meticulously and an adequate opportunity was given to all the persons concerned to file their say in the matter. The Commission, after taking into consideration all the objections, including the submission of the Government of Maharashtra, responses of the MSEB, issues raised during the public hearings, and all other relevant material, has issued the Operative part of the Order on December 1, 2003. The Commission hereby makes the following Tariff Order. 1. The revised tariffs will be applicable from December 1, 2003, and will continue to be in
force till further revision in tariffs. The net increase in revenue to the MSEB from the revised tariffs is Rs. 186 crore, if the revised tariffs had been made applicable from April 1, 2003, which amounts to an average tariff increase of around 1.5%.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
7
2. The matter of specifying the ‘Terms and Conditions of Supply’ for the MSEB is before the Commission, which is being taken up separately.
3. The Commission had directed the MSEB to comply with its directives given in the earlier Tariff Orders and issued separately from time to time. However, the Commission is very unhappy with the performance of the MSEB in this regard. Despite the Commission’s strong warning that it would be constrained to take serious action if there was slippage in compliance with the directives, the MSEB has not shown its willingness to comply with these directives in the true spirit. The Commission expresses extreme displeasure with the MSEB’s non-compliance of its directives, despite several reminders in this regard. The top management of the MSEB is urged to take urgent steps to comply with these directives expeditiously.
4. The Commission also directs that henceforth, the Commission will conduct quarterly reviews of the MSEB’s compliance with the directives. The MSEB’s senior officers would be expected to attend these compliance review meetings. Further, in case the MSEB desires any clarification on any directive issued by the Commission, the MSEB should request such clarification within a month of the directive being issued, failing which it will be assumed that the MSEB does not require any clarifications, and the MSEB will be required to comply with the directives expeditiously, both in letter and in spirit.
5. Energy accounting by itself has no meaning, unless the MSEB analyses the energy accounting data and holds the concerned officers responsible for the excess losses in that zone/circle. The Commission has noted that there are several instances where the meters installed are not being read on a monthly basis. The Commission reiterates that the MSEB should hold the concerned employees responsible for the T&D losses in the respective circles/zones, and consider departmental proceedings against these employees after following due disciplinary procedure. The monitoring of the circle-level losses should continue and the MSEB should continue to submit the circle-level energy accounting data on a monthly basis, and circles should operate on ‘profit centre’ basis.
6. For projecting the energy requirement, the Commission has considered the T&D loss level of 36.62%, which is the T&D loss level proposed by the MSEB despite the uncertain quality of data in this regard, for want of a better alternative. With the sales during FY 2003-04 projected by the Commission at 39710 MU, the total energy requirement to be met through generation and power purchase is expected to be about 62652 MU. This is in line with the energy handled by the MSEB’s system in the recent past.
7. The net generation from MSEB’s own stations as projected by the Commission is 46470 MU as compared to 45983 MU projected by the MSEB. The Commission has considered
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
8
the generation from Hydel Stations at the same level achieved during FY 2002-03, and the generation from the thermal stations based on the ‘ability to generate’ factor.
8. Considering the actual power purchase from April to July 2003 and the month-wise purchase based on merit order scheduling, the total power purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2003-04 is 16182 MU.
9. Though the MSEB has projected load shedding of 1079 MU in FY 2003-04, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no need to resort to load shedding in FY 2003-04, as there is sufficient energy available through own generation and power purchase to meet the projected sales at the T&D loss levels considered by the MSEB.
10. The MSEB had considered a 5% increase in the fuel costs and power purchase costs over the actual costs incurred in FY 2002-03, while projecting the expenditure for FY 2003-04. The Commission has approved the total generation and power purchase costs for FY 2003-04 considering the quantum of actual generation and power purchase for the period of April to July 2003 and estimating the generation and power purchase costs from August 2003 to March 2004 based on a simulation of merit order dispatch and actual average generation and power purchase costs for the period of April to July 2003, subject to heat rate norms and transit loss component. As the actual costs have been considered, the Commission has not considered any escalation in the fuel prices and power purchase costs for the balance period. Further, if there is any change in the fuel prices and power purchase costs vis-à-vis the costs considered by the Commission, the MSEB will recover/refund the same through the FOCA mechanism.
11. The Commission has considered a reduction of 1% in the station heat rate over the levels considered in the Tariff Order for FY 2001-02, as it still continues to be above the norm.
12. In previous Tariff Orders, the Commission had disallowed the transit loss component as a legitimate expense while computing the generation cost. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai has held that transit losses are a legitimate expense, and the permissible level of transit losses should be determined by the Commission. The Commission has considered transit losses based on the actual level of station-wise transit losses and has assumed a trajectory for reduction in transit losses.
13. The Commission has considered drawal of additional long-term loans to the extent required for capital expenditure and to fund the shortfall in repayment obligations vis-à-vis the provision for depreciation, if any. The opening balance of long-term loans for FY 2003-04 has been computed accordingly, leading to a reduction in the interest costs. Further, the Commission has also disallowed the interest on bonds raised for investment in Dabhol Power Company (DPC), on principles consistent with those considered in the earlier Tariff Orders.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
9
14. The net working capital requirement has been estimated as Rs. 546 crore, by applying the
same principles as in the previous Tariff Order. Considering an average interest rate of 10% for working capital loan, which is the interest rate considered by the MSEB for such loans, the working capital interest allowable has been projected as Rs. 54.6 crore.
15. The Commission has considered provisioning for bad debts at the rate of 1.5% of the sales billed during FY 2003-04, in line with the principles considered in the past Tariff Orders.
16. The Commission has projected lower level of ‘Other expenses’ as compared to the MSEB’s projections, as it has considered interest on security deposit at the average of the past three years’ and lower level of miscellaneous expenses.
17. The Commission has considered the mandatory surplus at the rate of 4.5% of the Net Fixed Assets, at Rs. 433 crore.
18. The net revenue to be recovered through tariffs on sale of electricity have been projected after reducing the Annual Revenue Requirement, due to the following reasons: Revenue earned through FOCA for additional expenses in FY 2003-04 Other Income
19. The Commission has deducted the amount recovered through FOCA for additional expenses incurred in the months of April, May and June 2003 amounting to Rs. 135 crore, from the revenue requirement of FY 2003-04, as the actual generation and power purchase costs incurred during this period have been considered for projecting the total costs in FY 2003-04. Any additional amount recovered by the MSEB through the FOCA formula for increase in costs in FY 2003-04 after June 2003, if any, will be adjusted against the FOCA recoverable henceforth.
20. The Commission has considered a higher Other Income of Rs. 1067 crore as compared to the MSEB’s projection of Rs. 1022 crore, mainly on account of higher projection of interest on delayed payment and recovery from theft of power and wheeling charges.
21. All the directives issued by the Commission in the previous Tariff Orders issued in May 2000 and January 2002 are still applicable, and the MSEB is directed to comply with the same in letter and in spirit.
22. The net revenue requirement allowed by the Commission for FY 2003-04 to be recovered through tariffs is Rs. 12174 crore. The revenue from existing tariff works out to Rs. 12030 crore, leaving an uncovered gap of Rs. 144 crore, with the existing tariff. If the revised tariffs were to be charged for the entire year, then the additional revenue recovered through revised tariffs would be Rs. 144 crore. However, in the current year, the revised tariffs will be in force for only four months of FY 2003-04.
23. The Commission has introduced high load factor incentive and reclassified certain consumer categories, the impact of which cannot be assessed accurately at this point in
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
10
time with the available data. The Commission has hence determined the category-wise tariffs such that the additional revenue recoverable in the remaining four months of FY 2003-04 with revised tariffs is around 62 crore, as compared to the requirement of Rs. 48 crore. However, in case there is any revenue shortfall compared to the Commission’s projections due to the tariff classification changes and other rebates given in this Order, the Commission will consider it in the future.
24. The Commission has adopted certain principles, which are in continuation of the process of tariff rationalisation initiated in the previous Tariff Orders. In general, the movement of tariffs towards the average cost of supply has been maintained, such that inter-class cross-subsidy is reduced gradually, while at the same time ensuring that no consumer category is subject to a tariff shock. The Commission has also further reduced the intra-class cross-subsidy, by reducing the difference between the highest and lowest slab rates.
25. As all the hitherto un-metered consumer categories have been metered, except LT agriculture, the Commission has specified flat rate tariffs only for the un-metered LT agriculture category. The difference in metered tariff and the flat rate tariffs has been increased to incentivize un-metered consumers to opt for metering.
26. The Commission has considered an average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year in case of flat rate LT agricultural consumers, based on the available sample energy audit data submitted by the MSEB. The Commission has attempted to determine the flat rate tariffs for agriculture category such that the tariffs reflect the actual consumption pattern. This has been done by specifying circle-wise differential flat rate tariffs linked to the agriculture consumption norm as established by the energy audit data for that circle. To start with, the Commission has specified two tariff levels, viz. lower tariff for circles with consumption norm lower than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year, and higher tariffs for circles with consumption norm higher than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year. The Commission hopes that this will incentivize the shift to metered consumption at a faster rate.
27. In the Tariff Order issued in January 2002, the Commission had initiated the process of levying the ‘T & D loss Charge’ for all consumers, in proportion to the average realisation from that category. By introducing this charge, the Commission intended to create awareness among the consumers regarding the additional cost of the excess T&D losses by levying this charge in an explicit manner. Hence, a more or less uniform T & D loss charge had been levied to start with. Moreover, the Commission had declared its intent to differentiate between the various circles/zones for the levy of the T & D loss charge, based on the T & D losses exhibited by the circle/zone in question. As an interim measure, in January 2003, the Commission had declared that 11 circles with T&D loss levels lower than the target loss level of 26.87% would be exempted from payment of
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
11
T&D loss charges. It should be noted that T&D loss charge was not an additional charge and was a part of the regular tariff, which the consumers were always paying though the separation of tariff due to excess T&D losses was not indicated explicitly earlier.
28. The Commission is of the view that the T&D loss charge concept has achieved a certain level of success in that the stakeholders are certainly much more aware of the extent of the problem, and atleast some circles have shown some improvement in the T&D loss levels. However, the Commission is of the view that the T&D loss charge concept cannot be a long-term solution and the problem has to be addressed in some other manner, and hence the T&D loss charge has been withdrawn for all consumer categories in all circles, with effect from December 1, 2003.
29. The problem arises in the assessment of the losses itself. Even if the Commission were to take a strict view that only the technical losses should be allowed and all the commercial losses should be to the MSEB’s account, the problem remains with the assessment of the technical losses. Though the MSEB has submitted in the past that the technical losses could be in the range of around 21%, this number has to be verified through load flow studies. In the absence of any certainty on this issue, the Commission is constrained to accept the target loss level at 26.87% for the purposes of this Order.
30. If the cost of all the excess losses were disallowed, then it is most likely that the MSEB will be unable to meet its daily requirements and will be unable to supply power to its consumers. This is not in the consumers’ interest, and till a viable alternative emerges, the MSEB has to continue to supply electricity to the consumers in the State. The Commission is of the opinion that a pragmatic decision has to be taken in the best long-term interest of the electricity consumers in the State as well as the MSEB. Moreover, this is a transition period and the MSEB is likely to be restructured in line with the principles enunciated in the EA 2003.
31. In this context, the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP), a S.26 consumer representative has suggested that if the MSEB needed ‘Oxygen’ in the form of tariffs to recover the cost of the excess losses, the consumers would be willing to contribute the same, provided the Commission treated this contribution as a Regulatory Liability owed by the MSEB to the consumers, as this was not part of the MSEB’s rightful revenue requirement. The Commission has given serious thought to this suggestion, and is of the opinion that this may solve the current predicament.
32. The Commission is of the opinion that only subsidizing consumers should contribute to the Regulatory Liability, which would have to be returned by the MSEB in future. Hence, the Regulatory Liability Charge (RLC) has been designed such that all the subsidizing categories contribute the same amount of RLC to keep the MSEB afloat. Subsidized categories cannot be expected to contribute to the Regulatory Liability as they have yet to
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
12
move towards the average cost of supply. Thus, for subsidizing categories, a separate component of tariff has been shown as ‘Regulatory Liability Charge’ which will be used by the MSEB for funding the cost of the excess T&D losses, which will be returned to these consumer categories in future through tariffs.
33. The Regulatory Liability requirement is equal to the cost of the excess losses, i.e. the cost of additional power purchase required on account of the higher energy input requirement. The T & D loss level proposed by the MSEB for FY 2003-04 is 36.62%, as compared to the target of 26.87% set by the Commission. The balance losses of 9.75% equivalent to 6107 MU are thus excess losses vis-à-vis the targets.
34. The net cost of the excess energy input requirement is Rs.947 crore (6107 MU at an average rate of Rs. 1.55 per unit). Thus, there is a need to contribute Rs. 947 crore towards the Regulatory Liability over a period of one year. The average rate of contribution works out to 50 paise per unit for the subsidizing categories, viz. LT commercial, LTPG, HTP I, HTP II and Railways.
35. In future, when the T&D losses are reduced, then the RLC will be returned to these consumer categories through reduction in tariffs. The Commission clarifies that the contribution through RLC will not be recorded and maintained separately for each individual consumer and the category as a whole is expected to get the contribution back.
36. The average cost of supply for FY 2003-04 works out to Rs. 2.83 per unit, which is lower than the average cost of supply considered in FY 2001-02, on account of the lower level of T&D losses considered for tariff determination, as well as the removal of the cost of excess losses while computing the average cost of supply.
37. The Commission has reduced the cross-subsidy between different consumer categories and tariff for all subsidised categories has been specified at least equal to 50% of the average cost of supply.
38. The Commission has attempted to increase the recovery from fixed charges, which ranged around 35% of the fixed costs in the existing tariffs, to around 40% in the revised tariffs. The energy charges have been adjusted in such a way that the average realisation from each consumer category approaches the average cost of supply, while at the same time ensuring that no consumer category faces a tariff shock.
39. The energy charge to be levied for net sale to the TPC has been increased to match the highest cost of power purchase, i.e. 299 p/u.
40. The tariff applicable for sale to Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society (MPECS) has been retained at the existing levels. The Commission is separately forwarding a Report on the viability of the MPECS to the Government of Maharashtra (GoM).
41. The rebates/incentives such as power factor incentive, bulk discount and prompt payment incentive have been retained at the existing levels. The power factor penalty has been
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
13
modified such that the penalty is levied in a graded manner similar to the power factor incentive.
42. The Commission is of the opinion that the MSEB faces a threat from movement of consumers having very high consumption to captive generation, under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA 2003). In order to incentivize such high consumption consumers who also contribute a steady load to the MSEB system, the Commission has introduced a Load factor incentive for consumers having Load Factor above 75% based on contract demand. Consumers having load factor over 75% upto 85% will be entitled to a rebate of 0.75% on the energy charges for every percentage point increase in load factor from 75% to 85%. Consumers having a load factor over 85 % will be entitled to rebate of 1% on the energy charges for every percentage point increase in load factor from 85%. The total rebate under this head will be subject to a ceiling of 15% of the energy charges for that consumer. Further, the load factor rebate will be available only if the consumer has no arrears with the MSEB, and payment is made within seven days from the date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later.
43. The Commission directs the MSEB to compile data on reactive power consumption by all consumer categories where electronic meters are already installed, as the Commission intends to introduce kVARh tariffs in the subsequent Order. The kVARh consumption data for each billing cycle should be submitted alongwith the next ARR and Tariff Petition.
44. The Commission has increased the differential between tariff applicable for peak hour consumption and off-peak hour consumption by 20 paise per unit, respectively, and off-peak times for the HTP-I and HTP-II categories by 10 paise per unit for peak. The Commission also directs that MSEB should install ToD meters for all consumers with a connected load of over 20 kW, so that ToD tariffs can be availed by these consumers at their option.
45. In the FY 2000-01 Tariff Order, the Commission has directed the MSEB to charge domestic tariffs from certain professional categories if these professionals were using part of their residences for professional work. The Commission clarifies that the domestic tariffs will be applicable only to residential premises used by professionals like Lawyers, Doctors, Chartered Accountants, etc. except for nursing homes and surgical wards/clinics, in furtherance of their professional activity in their residences.
46. The Commission has reclassified the HTP I category to include only those HT industrial and other HT consumers situated in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Pune Metropolitan Region (PMR), as defined by the State Government. The balance HT industrial and other HT consumers would be classified under HTP II category.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
14
47. In line with the recently announced IT and ITES Policy announced by the GoM and the stated philosophy of the Commission in previous Orders, the Commission has included the Low Tension IT industry and IT enabled services (as defined in the GoM Policy) in the LTPG category, for purposes of tariff.
48. The seasonal category will include all consumers who opt for a seasonal pattern of consumption, without the need for further approval from the Commission. The consumers should approach the MSEB for classification under the seasonal category if their business is such that electricity requirement is seasonal in nature. The shift from seasonal to normal connection and vice-versa can be done only once each year, at the beginning of the year.
49. The additional standby charges of Rs. 20 per kVA per month will be applicable to HT industrial consumers with captive generating units synchronized with the MSEB grid, only on the extent of standby demand, and not the entire contract demand as prevalent currently.
50. The Commission had initiated the process of levying a ‘Reliability Charge’ to begin with, on HTP-I and HTP-II consumers who have been provided with ToD meters, within urban agglomerations in the State, on consumers receiving power supply through Express Feeders and also those within MIDC areas. The MSEB was allowed to impose an additional charge of 25 paise per kWh to these consumers and ensure that they get uninterrupted power supply. However, the MSEB has not progressed very far in implementing the Reliability Charge, even though it would have resulted in additional revenue, which could have been gainfully employed in strengthening/augmenting the system to improve the quality of supply to consumers. MSEB should use the revenue realised from the Reliability Charge to create a fund which can be used to improving the voltage profile and reliability of supply.
51. Conservation of energy through energy efficiency is very essential, to bridge the gap between demand and supply. The objective of energy efficiency is two fold, viz. to increase the generation through energy efficiency at the generation level, and to manage the demand through Demand Side Management (DSM) techniques, which include load shaping as well as reduction in the consumption levels through use of energy efficient devices. The detailed plan should be submitted to the Commission within three months of this Order.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
15
Table 1: Tariff Hike for FY 2003-04
Description MSEB Proposal MERC Approval
Tariff Increase in Rs. Crore* 1462 186
Overall Tariff Increase in %* 12.5% 1.5%
* - if revised tariffs were applicable for the entire year
Table 2: Energy Input Requirement (MU)
MSEB Commission
Sales
Metered 32112 32818
Unmetered 8403 6893
Total Sales 40515 39710
T&D Losses 23407 22942
Energy Input Requirement 63922 62652
T&D loss as a % of energy requirement 36.62% 36.62%$
$ - Based on MSEB’s submission, against target level of 26.87%
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
16
Table 3: Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2003-04
Sr No
Expense Head MSEB Proposal
(Rs. Crore)
MERC Approval (Rs.Crore)
Remarks
1 Generation 4243 4104 MSEB has considered higher than normative heat rate, transit losses, and escalation in fuel costs
2 Power Purchase 3493 3132 MSEB has considered higher power purchase quantum and escalation in power purchase costs
3 Employee Costs 1695 1655 MSEB has projected higher employee costs despite reducing trend
4 Administration & General expenses
145 139
5 Operation & Maintenance 738 737 6 Depreciation 1585 1578 MSEB has considered a higher
weighted average rate 7 Interest cost 1308 1126 MSEB has considered higher loans
and higher interest on working capital 8 Lease Rental 85 85 9 Provision for doubtful debts 250 181 MSEB has considered provisioning at
the rate of 2% of revenue from sale of electricity
10 Other Expenses 248 206 MSEB has considered higher interest expenditure on consumers’ security deposit
Total Expenses 13790 12943 Add: Surplus 433 433 Total Revenue Requirement 14223 13376 Reduction in Revenue Requirement Revenue earned through
FOCA for FY 2003-04 135 April to June 2003
Other Income 1022 1067 MSEB has projected lower income from interest on delayed payment
Net Revenue Requirement to be recovered through tariffs
13201 12174
Revenue from Existing tariff
12030
Tariff Increase Required 144 Cost of excess T&D losses 947 Average Cost of Supply –
excluding cost of excess T&D losses (Rs./unit)
2.83
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
17
Table 4: Summary of LT Tariff (Effective from December 1, 2003)
Consumer Category Demand Charge (Rs/KVA/month) or
(Rs/HP/month) or (Rs/service connection per month)
Energy Charge
(p/u)
Regulatory Liability Charge
(p/u)
Domestic (LD 1) 0-30 Units Rs. 20 per service connection 125 31-300 Units 290 Above 300 units (only balance Units)
Single Phase: Rs. 40 per service connection; Three Phase: Rs. 100 per service connection; Additional Fixed charge of Rs. 100 per 10 KW load or part thereof above 10 KW load shall be payable.
400
0
Non Domestic (LD2) 0-100 Units 240 101-200 Units 315 Above 200 units (only balance Units)
Single Phase: Rs. 100 per service connection; Three Phase: Rs. 150 per service connection; Additional Fixed Charge of Rs. 150 per 10 KW load or part thereof above 10 KW load shall be payable. Optional LTMD based Tariff will be available for all consumers.
410
50
General Motive Power (LTP-G) – Base Tariff 0-1000 Units 230 Above 1000 Units (only balance Units)
Rs. 60 per HP (Rs. 80.5 per kW) per month for 50% of sanctioned load; Optional MD based tariff will be available for all consumers, irrespective of Contract demand, at Rs. 220/kVA/month
250 50
OPTIONAL TOD TARIFF
2200 hrs – 0600 hrs -75 0600 hrs – 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs – 1200 hrs 50 1200 hrs – 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs – 2200 hrs
0
90 Public Water Supply Urban P. W. Schemes
Rs. 60 per HP per month 240 0
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
18
Consumer Category Demand Charge (Rs/KVA/month) or
(Rs/HP/month) or (Rs/service connection per month)
Energy Charge
(p/u)
Regulatory Liability Charge
(p/u)
Rural P. W. Schemes
Grampanchayat Rs. 25 per HP per month 100 Metered Tariff (incl. ‘C’ Class Municipal Council)
Rs. 35 per HP per month 150
Street Light Tariff Grampanchayat & Municipal Council
210
Municipal Corporation
Rs. 30 per kW per month
250
0
Agriculture Flat Rate Tariff Category 1 circles* Rs. 180 per HP per month Category 2 circles$ Rs. 150 per HP per month
0 0
Metered Tariff (incl. Poultry Farms)
Rs. 15 per HP per month 110 0
*Category 1 Circles (with consumption norm above 1300 hours/HP/year)
1 Chandrapur 4 Latur 7 Osmanabad 2 Jalna 5 Nanded 8 Parbhani 3 Kolhapur 6 Nashik 9 Sangli
$Category 2 Circles (with consumption norm below 1300 hours/HP/year)
1 Ahmednagar 10 Buldhana 19 Pune (U) 2 Akola 11 Dhule 20 Ratnagiri 3 Amravati 12 Gadchiroli 21 Satara 4 Aurangabad 13 Jalgaon 22 Sindhudurg 5 Aurangabad (U) 14 Kalyan 23 Solapur 6 Beed 15 Nagpur (R) 24 Vasai 7 Bhandara 16 Nagpur (U) 25 Wardha 8 Bhandup 17 Pen 26 Vashi 9 Bhiwandi 18 Pune (R) 27 Yavatmal
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
19
Notes: FOCA shall be applicable to all categories of consumers. FOCA will be determined
monthly based on the FOCA Formula approved by the Commission. Billing Demand for LTPG and other LT categories opting for MD based tariff :
Monthly Billing Demand will be the higher of the following:
i. Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours ii. 75% of the highest billing demand recorded during preceding eleven months
iii. 50% of the Contract Demand.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
20
Summary of HT Tariff Effective from December 1, 2003
Consumer Category Demand Charge (Rs/KVA/month)
Energy Charge
(p/u)
Regulatory Liability
Charge (p/u)
HTP – I (Industrial - BMR/PMR) Base Tariff
350 215 50
HTP – II (Industrial – Others) Base Tariff
330 210 50
ToD Tariff (for HTP-I & HTP-II)
2200 hrs – 0600 hrs -85 0600 hrs – 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs – 1200 hrs 60 1200 hrs – 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs – 2200 hrs
0
100 Seasonal Category 350 300 0 HTP – III (PWW-BMR/PMR)
350 215 0
HTP – IV (PWW-Others) 330 210 0 ToD Tariff (for HTP-III & HTP-IV)
2200 hrs – 0600 hrs -85 0600 hrs – 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs – 1200 hrs 60 1200 hrs – 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs – 2200 hrs
0
100 HTP - V (Railway Traction) 0 335 50 HTP – VI Residential Complex 220 Commercial Complex
125 350
0
HTP VII (Agriculture)1 Metered Tariff (incl. Poultry, agriculture High tech)
25 130 0
Tata Power Company 600 299 0 Mula Pravara Electric Co-op Society
200 150 0
Inter State Sale 0 260
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
21
Notes:
1. HTP VII category includes HT Lift Irrigation Schemes irrespective of ownership 2. FOCA shall be applicable to all categories of consumers. FOCA will be determined
monthly based on the FOCA Formula approved by the Commission 3. Billing Demand definitions:
HT Categories (HTP-I, HTP-II, HTP-III, HTP-IV) Monthly Billing Demand will be the higher of the following: i) Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours
ii) 75% of the highest billing demand recorded during preceding eleven months
iii) 50% of the Contract Demand.
Seasonal Category
During Declared Season
Monthly Billing Demand will be the higher of the following:
i) Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours
ii) 75% of the Contract Demand
iii)50 kVA.
During Declared Off-season
Monthly Billing Demand will be the following:
i) Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours
4. HT Industrial consumers having captive generation facilities synchronized with the grid will pay additional demand charges of Rs. 20 per kVA per month only for the standby contract demand component.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
22
5. Incentives
5.1.2 a) Power Factor Incentive
Whenever the average power factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be given at the rate of 1% (one percent) of the amount of the monthly energy bill (excluding FOCA charge, demand charge, electricity duty and regulatory liability charge) for every 1% (one percent) improvement in the power factor above 0.95. For PF of 0.99, the effective incentive will amount to 5% (five percent) reduction in the energy bill and for unity PF, the effective incentive will amount to 7% (seven percent) reduction in the energy bill. The power factor incentive is also applicable for LTP-G consumers who opt for LTMD tariff. Such incentives shall not be applicable for the Railways.
5.1.2 b) Bulk discount
If the consumption of any industrial consumer (availing TOD tariff and having no arrears with the MSEB) exceeds one million units per month, the consumer will get a rebate of 1% on his energy bill (excluding FOCA charge, demand charge, electricity duty and regulatory liability charge) for every one million unit consumption above one million unit subject to a maximum of 5%. The rebate will, however, be allowed only if the bill is paid within seven days from the date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later.
6. Disincentives
6.1.1 a) Power factor Penalty
Whenever the average power factor is less than 0.9, penal charges shall be levied at the rate of 2% (two percent) of the amount of the monthly energy bill (excluding FOCA charge, demand charge, electricity duty and regulatory liability charge) for first 1% (one percentage point) fall in the power factor below 0.9, beyond which the penal charges shall be levied at the rate of 1% (one percent) for each percentage point fall in the power factor below 0.89. Such disincentives shall not be applicable for the Railways. The power factor penalty is also applicable for LTP-G consumers who opt for LTMD tariff.
After issue of the Operative Order, the Commission issued a Clarificatory Order on the newly introduced Load Factor Surcharge, in response to queries raised by the MSEB and certain consumers, the details of which have been reproduced below:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
23
The Load Factor incentive is limited to HTP-I and HTP-II categories only. Further, the load factor rebate will be available only if the consumer has no arrears with the MSEB, and payment is made within seven days from the date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later. However, this incentive will be applicable to consumers where payment of arrears in instalments has been granted by the MSEB, and the same being made as scheduled. The MSEB has to take a commercial decision on the issue of how to determine the time frame for which the payments should have been made as scheduled, in order to be eligible for the Load Factor incentive. The Load Factor has been defined below:
Load Factor = Consumption during the month in MU___________
Maximum Consumption Possible during the month in MU
Maximum consumption possible = Contract Demand (kVA) x Actual Power Factor
x (Total no. of hrs during the month less planned load shedding
hours*)
- Interruption/non-supply to the extent of 60 hours in a 30 day month has been built in the scheme.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
24
OBJECTIONS ON POINTS OF LAW AND PROCEDURE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION
Acceptance of Petition in the context of Pending Public Interest Litigation
N.N.Kale and Associates have requested the Commission not to accept the present Proposal until Public Interest Litigation (PIL) dated March 15, 2003 and application for rejecting the Proposal dated May 5, 2003 have been disposed off. The Commission appreciates the points made by N. N. Kale and Associates regarding the acceptability of the Tariff Petition in the background of the pending PIL and also because of the fact that the MSEB’s Tariff Petition has not been certified by a Cost Accountant. However, the Commission is of the opinion that the mere fact that there is a pending litigation is not sufficient reason for not accepting the Tariff Petition. Moreover, the High Court has not granted any stay on the filing of the Tariff Petition by the MSEB. Approval of Terms and Conditions of Supply Several consumer associations have pointed out that the Proposal has been submitted before approval of the Terms and Conditions of Supply. They have highlighted that MSEB has not submitted the Terms and Conditions of Supply before August 30, 2003 for approval of the Commission. They have pointed out that the Mumbai High Court has ordered the State Commission to necessarily take into consideration the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electricity in so far as they add to the cost of electricity. They have stated that the Terms and Conditions of Supply cannot be separated from the tariff determination process as SLC charges, service connection charges, supervision charges would have an impact on revenue requirement. Various remedies suggested by consumers to deal with the situation are - reject the Tariff Proposal, consider existing "Terms and Conditions of Supply" while approving tariff, carry out public hearing for both the Proposal and the Terms and Conditions of Supply and Commercial Circulars together. The MSEB has submitted that a proposal in respect of the ‘Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for Supply of Electrical Energy’ as well as Commercial Circulars as prescribed in previous Tariff Order shall be submitted to the Commission in due course. As regards the Terms and Conditions of Supply, the Commission has been of the view that any delay in the issue of the Tariff Order by the Commission would make the implementation
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Introduction & Salient Features
25
of the Tariff Order difficult, as only 4 months of the current year are remaining. Thus, the Commission is severely constrained to consider this Tariff Order without processing the Terms and Conditions of Supply. The Commission will approve the Terms and Conditions of Supply separately.
ORGANISATION OF THE ORDER
The Order of the Commission regarding the determination of tariff is broadly divided into three parts. The first part consists of a brief history of the tariff determination process and the subsequent quasi-judicial process that it underwent and the operative Order of the Commission passed on December 1, 2003, and the clarifications thereon issued by the Commission. It also gives the framework used by the Commission in evolving the tariff policy, Order and the schedule. It also contains the various objections raised on points of law and procedure during both the phases of public hearings before the Commission and the Commission’s findings thereon. For the sake of convenience, a list of abbreviations with their expanded forms is appended. The second part of the Order lists out the various objections raised by the Objectors in writing as well as during the Public Hearings before the Commission. They have been broadly categorized into seventeen issues and, for the sake of convenience, the various points have been classified under an index, along with page numbers, where the relevant objections have been dealt with. The various objections have been stated briefly, the response of the MSEB has also been stated and the findings of the Commission on each of these points have also been given. The third part of the Order comprises the Commission’s analysis and its decisions on the MSEB’s proposal for revision of Retail Distribution Tariff for FY 2003-04. It briefly enumerates the tariff issues involved, examines the revenue projections of the MSEB, the various cost estimates for the year 2003-04 and the Commission’s reasoning for arriving at acceptable figures with reference to the figures given by the MSEB. Part three also comprises various annexures to this order, comprising of Annexure-I and Annexure-II. Lastly, the philosophy of the determination of domestic tariff, LT tariff and HT tariff has been specified to estimate the income of the MSEB.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Abbreviations 26
List of Abbreviations used in the Tariff Order
A&G Administration & General ABT Availability Based Tariff AP Andhra Pradesh APDRP Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme APERC Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission ARR Annual Revenue Requirement BEE Bureau of Energy Efficiency BSES Bombay Suburban Electric Supply CAG Comptroller And Auditor General CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate CBR Conduct of Business Regulations CEA Central Electricity Authority CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CII Confederation Of Indian Industry CIL Coal India Ltd. CPP Captive Power Plant CPSU Central Public Sector Units DPC Dabhol Power Company DPS Delayed Payment Surcharge E(S) Act or ESA Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 EA 2003 The Electricity Act, 2003 EDP Electronic Data Processing EHV Extra High Voltage ERC Act Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 FC Fixed Cost FCA Fuel Cost Adjustment FOCA Fuel and Other Cost Adjustment FY Financial Year GFA Gross Fixed Assets GoM Government of Maharashtra HP Horse Power HT High Tension (or High Voltage) HTP High Tension Power Hz Hertz
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Abbreviations 27
ICWAI The Institute of Cost and Works Accounts of India IEGC Indian Electricity Grid Code IPP Independent Power Producer IREDA Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency IT Information Technology Section IT & ITES Policy, 2003 IT & ITES Policy, 2003 issued by Energy & Labour Department of the
Government of Maharashtra vide Resolution No. ITP-2003/CR-3311/IND-7, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 dated July 12, 2003.
IWEA Indian Wind Energy Association kcal Kilo Calories kg Kilograms kV Kilo Volt kVA Kilo Volt Ampere kW Kilo Watt kwh Kilo Watt Hour LD1 Residential or Domestic LT category LD2 Non-Domestic LT category LDC Load Despatch Centre LIS Lift Irrigation System LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LS Load Shedding LT Low Tension (or Low Voltage) LTP-G Low Tension Motive Power Group – General Motive Power MD Maximum Demand MEDA Maharashtra Energy Development Agency MES Military Engineering Services MGP Mumbai Grahak Panchayat MIDC Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation MkCal Million Kilo Calories MMP Master Metering Plan MMR Mumbai Metropolitan Region MOD Merit Order Dispatch MPECS/Mula Pravara Mula Pravara Electricity Co-operative Society MSEB Maharashtra State Electricity Board MU Million Units (million kWh)
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Abbreviations 28
MVA Mega Volt Ampere MW Mega Watts NFA Net Fixed Assets NGO Non Government Organisation NPC Nuclear Power Corporation NTC National Textile Corporation NTPC National Thermal Power Corporation O&M Operation & Maintenance OLC On Line Capacity PD Permanently Disconnected PF Power Factor PFC Power Finance Corporation PLF Plant Load Factor PMR Pune Metropolitan Region PPA Power Purchase Agreement PWW Public Water Works REC Rural Electrification Corporation, New Delhi REDAM Renewable Energy Developers Association of Maharashtra RLC Regulatory Liability Charge ROR Rate of Return RR Revenue Requirement SD Security Deposit SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commission SLC Service Line Charges SSI Small Scale Industry STP Software Technology Park T&D Transmission & Distribution TDL charge T&D Loss charge ToD Time-Of-Day TPC Tata Power Company TPS Thermal Power Station UI Unscheduled Interchange VC Variable Cost WTO World Trade Organisation
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Index 29
PART II: OBJECTIONS RECEIVED, MSEB’s RESPONSE AND THE
COMMISSION’S RULING
1 TARIFF CATEGORY-WISE REPRESENTATIONS .............................................. 32
1.1 INDUSTRY................................................................................................................... 32
1.2 SEASONAL CONSUMERS ............................................................................................. 35
1.3 DIFFERENTIATION BASED ON LOCATION .................................................................... 36
1.4 POWER LOOM............................................................................................................. 38
1.5 AGRICULTURE............................................................................................................ 39
1.6 RAILWAY TRACTION .................................................................................................. 42
1.7 DOMESTIC POWER SUPPLY TO RAILWAYS................................................................... 44
1.8 HTP-VI CATEGORY................................................................................................... 45
1.9 MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (MPECS) ................................ 47
1.10 OTHER CATEGORIES ................................................................................................ 48
1.11 CONSUMER CATEGORIZATION ................................................................................ 50
2 TARIFF DESIGN AND RATES .................................................................................. 54
2.1 GUIDELINES, COST OF SUPPLY/CROSS SUBSIDY, SUBSIDY......................................... 54
2.2 LEVY OF FIXED CHARGES .......................................................................................... 57
2.3 FUEL AND OTHER COSTS ADJUSTMENT (FOCA) ....................................................... 62
2.4 TIME OF DAY (TOD) TARIFF ...................................................................................... 63
2.5 BULK DISCOUNT ........................................................................................................ 65
2.6 POWER FACTOR (PF) INCENTIVE/PENALTY CHARGE ................................................. 67
2.7 RELIABILITY CHARGE ................................................................................................ 68
2.8 OTHERS ...................................................................................................................... 69
3 TARIFF SETTING PROCEDURE............................................................................. 70
4 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LOSSES .................................................. 73
5 REVENUE/REVENUE ARREARS ............................................................................. 78
6 QUALITY OF SUPPLY/SERVICE............................................................................. 83
7 GENERATION AND POWER PURCHASE ............................................................. 88
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Index 30
8 EXPENDITURE ............................................................................................................ 93
9 INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND METERING ....................................................... 98
10 T&D LOSS CHARGE (TDL).................................................................................. 101
11 SECURITY DEPOSIT (SD) .................................................................................... 103
12 SERVICE LINE CHARGES (SLC) ....................................................................... 104
13 CAPITAL INVESTMENT ...................................................................................... 105
14 ENERGY CONSERVATION AND DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT(DSM) 106
15 TRIFURCATION OF MSEB.................................................................................. 108
16 DATA DISCREPANCY/INSUFFICIENCY.......................................................... 109
17 NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION DIRECTIVES............................ 110
PART III: COMMISSION’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION ON THE MSEB’S
PROPOSAL
18 APPLICABILITY OF TARIFF REVISION FOR REMAINING PART OF THE
YEAR................................................................................................................................... 114
19 AVERAGE COST OF SUPPLY ............................................................................. 115
20 GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA SUBSIDY............................................. 115
21 CROSS-SUBSIDY REDUCTION........................................................................... 116
22 RATIONALIZATION OF CATEGORIES ........................................................... 117
23 TIME OF THE DAY TARIFF ................................................................................ 117
24 METERING .............................................................................................................. 119
25 COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION’S DIRECTIVES BY MSEB................ 120
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Index 31
26 PROJECTED ENERGY INPUT REQUIREMENT............................................. 124
26.1 SALES PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................. 124
26.2 ENERGY AUDIT ANALYSIS AND T&D LOSSES ...................................................... 131
26.3 ENERGY INPUT REQUIREMENT.............................................................................. 168
27 EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS.......................................................................... 169
27.1 GENERATION AND POWER PURCHASE COSTS........................................................ 169
27.2 OTHER HEADS OF EXPENDITURE........................................................................... 193
27.3 ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ....................................................................... 200
28 REDUCTION IN ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT................................ 202
28.1 REVENUE EARNED THROUGH FOCA .................................................................... 202
28.2 OTHER INCOME..................................................................................................... 202
28.3 NET REVENUE REQUIREMENT............................................................................... 202
29 TARIFF DESIGN PRINCIPLES............................................................................ 203
29.1 TREATMENT OF EXCESS T&D LOSSES .................................................................. 204
29.2 GENERAL TARIFF DESIGN PRINCIPLES .................................................................. 207
29.3 ENERGY CONSERVATION ...................................................................................... 213
29.4 RELIABILITY CHARGE ................................................................................... 214
30 REVENUE PROJECTIONS ................................................................................... 221
31 TARIFF HIKE FOR FY 2003-04............................................................................ 221
32 INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES ................................................................. 222
32.1 INCENTIVES........................................................................................................... 222
32.2 DISINCENTIVES ..................................................................................................... 223
32.3 OTHER CHARGES .................................................................................................. 224
33 APPENDIX I 34 APPENDIX II 35 APPENDIX III 36 APPENDIX IV 37 APPENDIX V 37 ANNEXURES
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 32
PART II: OBJECTIONS RECEIVED, MSEB’s RESPONSE AND THE
COMMISSION’S RULING
1. TARIFF CATEGORY-WISE REPRESENTATIONS
1.1 Industry
1.1.1 Objections
The industrial sector has strongly objected to the tariff increase proposal of MSEB on the
grounds that the Proposal is against the basic principles of cost reflective tariff and
progressive elimination of cross subsidy established by the Commission in its past Tariff
Orders.
They have contended that the current tariff has been restricting their ability to compete in the
domestic as well as global market. Captive Power Producers Association has pointed out that
the HT consumption has declined by 2.8% during the past year as industry has been moving
through recession and being forced to pay above the average cost of supply. Several small-
scale industry associations have also brought out that the present tariff is affecting their
viability and existence of their units. Pimpri Chinchwad Small Industries Association has
mentioned that 4,000 out of 7,000 SSIs within Pimpri Chinchwad have closed down. The
objectors have submitted that the MSEB, like any other industrial organisation, must accord
the highest priority to cost reduction and productivity improvement to enable reduction in the
tariffs which would help industries in Maharashtra to remain economically viable.
Mahratta Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Finolex Industries Limited and several others
have pointed out that the effective tariff increase proposed by the MSEB for HT industrial
category works out to 23-26%, considering increase in MD charges and energy charges, as
against the average tariff increase of 12.5% projected by MSEB. They have added that if the
proposed increase in HT industrial tariff is accepted, then the tariff to HT industrial
consumers would move further away from the average cost of supply.
The Indian Ferro Alloy Producers’ Association has represented that Ferro Alloy industry
should be accorded a separate category with a special tariff considering high cost of power in
total cost of finished product. Presently, the industry has been operating at 50% of its total
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 33
capacity, mainly due to rock bottom prices in international market and high power tariff
prevailing in India. The Association has submitted that to be competitive in the international
and domestic markets, the industry requires power at competitive prices. Power cost in
Maharashtra, at equivalent rate of 8 -10 cents, has been 3-4 times that of Europe, South
Africa, Australia, USA and Canada. Power cost in Maharashtra has to be also competitive
vis – à - vis other States such as Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh,
Meghalaya, etc., which have implemented special tariffs for the ferro alloy industry. The
Association has suggested that industry should be offered tariffs such that it is the lower of
international tariffs and NTPC rates. The tariff should be based on actual T&D losses incurred
by MSEB in supplying power to these industries and should not account for any cross
subsidies.
R L Steels Limited has brought out that the steel industry, whose major inputs are steel and
electricity, is faced with severe competition from China, whose end product price is at the
same level as the raw material cost in India, and has hence been facing a survival problem. If
the industry has to close down on account of higher tariff, MSEB would lose paying
consumers.
Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Limited has requested the Commission to consider telescopic
incentive for maintaining high load factor. They have proposed a discount of 40% for a load
factor range of 50 to 60%, and 50% for load factor greater than 60%.
Maharashtra State Coop Textile Federation Limited has also represented that under the
Agreement on Textile and Clothing (ATC), all quotas restricting textile trade are going to be
eliminated by December 31, 2004 with one global market. To compete effectively, they
would need electricity at internationally competitive rates.
Century Enka Limited, Garware Polyester Ltd, R L Steels Limited and several other
industrial consumers have requested for a separate tariff category for EHV consumers, with
lower tariff as compared to tariff of other industrial consumers supplied at 11kV and 33kV
connection. Lower tariff to EHV consumers is justified on account of lower investments in
infrastructure, lower cost of maintenance and substantially lower transmission and
distribution losses.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 34
Industry has also brought out that any further increase in tariff may force them to opt for
cheaper sources of power such as CPP or other sources in pursuit of competitiveness.
1.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has responded that the Tariff Proposal has been used as a means of informing the
Commission and the public as to how the MSEB intends to improve its financial viability
through tariffs. The MSEB has added that the Tariff Proposal has detailed the reasons that
have compelled it to propose the tariff hike.
On the issue of separate tariff category for ferro-alloy industries, MSEB has pointed out that
such a move is against the principles of tariff rationalization established by the Commission
in its earlier Tariff Orders.
1.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission is aware of the problems faced by the industrial consumers and has taken
due care while framing the tariffs. The Commission has rejected MSEB’s Proposal for
increasing tariff for subsidizing categories and has continued the process of gradually
reducing the cross-subsidy burden on subsidizing consumers, including industrial consumers.
The aim of the Commission, while determining the tariffs, has been to ensure that the overall
tariff for the subsidizing consumers is reduced in relation to the average cost of supply.
The Commission is of the opinion that the MSEB faces a threat from movement of
consumers, having very high consumption, to captive generation, under the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (EA 2003). In order to incentivize such consumers with high level of
steady consumption to remain with the MSEB, the Commission has introduced a Load factor
incentive for consumers having Load Factor above 75% based on contract demand. The
details of the Load factor incentive have been elaborated in the Section on General Tariff
Design Principles, subsequently.
As regards determination of separate tariffs for the EHV and HV category, the Commission
earlier had commissioned a study to determine the voltage-level wise cost of supply. The
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 35
study has remained inconclusive on account of data inadequacy. Hence, the Commission has
been constrained to continue, except for rationalising definition, the present tariff
categorisation for HT consumers. However, the Commission would progressively work
towards determining voltage-wise cost to serve and subsequently consumer-wise cost to
serve. The Commission hereby directs MSEB to start maintaining Voltage-level wise asset
classification.
1.2 Seasonal Consumers
1.2.1 Objections
Freshtop Fruits Limited has requested to categorize themselves as HTP-II Seasonal Consumer
Category as their export activity is limited to grape season which lasts for a period of 60 days
in a year. Several other consumers have also approached the Commission to categorise them
as Seasonal Consumers and approve the same status.
1.2.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has refrained from responding on this issue, stating that no specific objection has been
raised with reference to the Tariff Proposal.
1.2.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission clarifies that the seasonal category will include all such manufacturers /
processors who opt for a seasonal pattern of consumption, including but not restricted to those
as defined by the Commission earlier, without the need for further approval from the
Commission. The consumers should approach the MSEB for classification under the seasonal
category if their business is such that electricity requirement is seasonal in nature. The shift
from seasonal to normal connection and vice-versa can be done only once each year, at the
beginning of the year. Further for a seasonal consumer during Declared Off-season.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 36
1.3 Differentiation based on Location
1.3.1 Objections
Adv. M. G. Kimmatkar of Vidarbha Statutory Development Board (VSDB) has suggested
that the ‘tariff’ should not be uniform across the MSEB’s license area. The consumers in
regions away from the generating stations must pay the transmission and distribution
expenses. Vidarbha Iron and Steel Corporation Limited has pointed out that industry in their
region have been incurring cost of transportation on its inputs and outputs as it is away from
source and market. However, they do not get any compensating benefit for being closer to
electricity generating units. The principle of “User Pays” should be rigidly applied to ensure
financial and economic justice to Vidarbha. Further, VSDB has pointed out that the tariff
should be structured to compensate the Vidarbha Region for the economic loss and
environmental degradation arising out of generation of power. Industries in Vidarbha region
have sought relief to boost their commercial viability on the grounds that the generation assets
of the MSEB are primarily concentrated in the Vidarbha region, while the load centres are
located in Western Maharashtra. Thus, consumers of Vidarbha region should not be required
to bear the cost of T&D losses sustained in the transport of energy to Western Maharashtra.
Other consumers in the region have requested to extend this concept to categories other than
industrial HT tariff category as well.
VSDB has pointed out that the large cross-subsidies to specific sections such as, power loom
industries and lift irrigation schemes, which are located in Western Maharashtra, directly or
indirectly results in cross-subsidy by underdeveloped region to developed regions of Western
Maharashtra. To prevent such a situation, the different cross-subsidy should be calculated for
each region separately and the tariff increase for each region should be made proportional to
the subsidy level received by the region.
Chamber of Marathwada Industries and Agriculture has requested the Commission to clarify
applicability of HTP-I category to Nashik, Aurangabad, Waluj, Chikalthana, Chitegaon in
light of the Commission’s Order to consider all industrial consumers even above 500 kVA
outside Mumbai and Pune under HTP-II Category.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 37
Citizens Forum has represented that reducing the difference in tariff between HTP-I and HTP-
II category would have an adverse impact on backward areas. Several objectors have also
complained about the acute discrimination in load shedding practiced by the MSEB between
Mumbai/Pune and other less-developed areas, despite the same tariffs being proposed for the
two regions.
1.3.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has submitted that it has adhered to the stand taken by the Commission in its
previous Tariff Orders that the consumers located near pit head sites should not be charged
lower rates than those situated farther away. The MSEB has added that the Generating
Stations happen to be in the eastern part of the State, as the fuel source is available there
locally, while the generation is done for the benefit of the entire State and should be made
available on equitable basis without any preferential treatment to any of the grid constituents.
Further, the Maharashtra State grid is being treated as a single unit with pooled resources.
MSEB has submitted that the current classification of HTP-1 and HTP-II has been based on
classification as per tariff circular approved by the Commission. MSEB has further clarified
that narrowing gap in fixed charges for HTP I and II is essential to facilitate tariff
rationalisation and reduction of categories in near future.
1.3.3 Commission’s Ruling
As discussed in the earlier Orders, the Commission is of the opinion that differential tariffs
for selected regions is not advisable, as this can give rise to similar demands from other
regions as well. The Commission is of the opinion that VSDB’s suggestion that the tariff for
each region should be computed separately based on the cross - subsidy given by that region
is not practical, as each region has a different consumer mix, and the inter-region cross-
subsidy is difficult to assess. However, the Commission has decided to retain the HTP-I and
HTP-II categories, with higher tariffs for HTP-I category. The Commission has also
reclassified the HTP I category to include only those HT industrial and other HT consumers
situated in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Pune Metropolitan Region (PMR),
as defined by the State Government. HTP-I tariff will not be applicable to urban
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 38
agglomeration and units having a contract demand of over 500 kVA outside MMR/PMR
region. The balance HT industrial and other HT consumers would be classified under HTP II
category.
The Commission has continued to reduce cross subsidy for subsidizing categories and has
correspondingly reduced tariff for the HTP-I and HTP-II categories. However, tariff
differential between these two categories has been continued.
1.4 Power Loom
1.4.1 Objections
The power loom Associations have submitted that the situation in the textile industry is
already bleak because of the recession and have requested the Commission to reduce demand
charges to Rs.15 to 40/HP/month as against the prevalent demand charge of Rs.60/HP/month
and MSEB Proposal of Rs.100/HP/month. They have also requested to maintain tariff at
Rs.2.9/unit. Some others have proposed a reduction upto Rs.1/unit.
Janata Dal (Secular) has highlighted that against the norm of 182 units/HP/month, estimated
consumption including load shedding works out to only 160 units/HP/month based on actual
consumption of 141 units evident from meter reading and 19 units of unmet demand on
account of load shedding. They have requested the Commission to consider this fact while
levying a flat rate tariff.
Mill Owners Association has represented against special treatment being given to power loom
industry. They have pointed out that same power tariff rate should be applicable to producers
of the same article, regardless of their size.
1.4.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has submitted that the current proposal for tariff revision for all categories is
based on a certain level of revenue gap and tariff principles. By this proposal, the MSEB has
been trying to achieve a mandatory surplus of 4.5% and not been targeting super normal
profits. If any category feels that the tariffs are unreasonable, it can approach the State
Government for subsidy.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 39
1.4.3 Commission’s Ruling
The ERC Act, 1998 and the EA 2003 clearly state that the Commission cannot show undue
preference towards a particular consumer category. At the same time, the Commission is
bound to safeguard the interests of the consumers while maintaining the financial viability of
the MSEB. The Commission has been revising tariff in accordance with the principle of
gradual reduction of cross subsidy without exposing any consumer category to tariff shock. If
consumers find that the tariffs determined by the Commission cannot be borne by them, they
can approach the State Government for a sector specific subsidy.
The Commission has discontinued the practice of flat rate tariff for power loom category as
the MSEB has confirmed earlier that all the consumers in this category have been provided
with meters. On the issue of demand charge, the Commission clarifies that it has maintained
demand charge at the same rate, which is applicable on 50% of sanctioned load in case of
LTP-G category, under which the power loom industry is classified. In addition, the
Commission has also offered the option of demand charges based on billing demand instead
of sanctioned load.
1.5 Agriculture
1.5.1 Objections
Prof. N D Patil of Maharashtra Rajya Veejgrahak Shetkari Sabha and Bhartiya Shetkari
Kamghar Paksh has submitted that the flat rate charged to agriculture pumps and cooperative
irrigation scheme in Maharashtra has been on higher side as compared to other States in India.
This has resulted in closing down of several cooperative lift irrigation schemes. Indoli
Paradashik Nal Pani Purvata Sansthan has submitted that increase in tariff through last Order
has increased their bill from Rs.12,000-14,000 to Rs.75,000-85,000, which they cannot
afford. If such a tariff increase continues, they would be forced to resort to tanker water
distribution. They have pleaded to reduce tariff to Rs.500/HP/year. Harishchandra Sahakari
Federation Limited has submitted that all cooperative lift irrigation schemes should be
considered under LT tariff category instead of HTP VII category to maintain parity with other
individual offtakers. They have also highlighted that MSEB has been saving Rs.40,000 per
connection by supplying at a single point.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 40
Harishchandra Sahakari Federation Limited has submitted that the agriculture tariff category
should not be formed with HP rating of pump as a basis. HP rating of a pump typically
depends on water depth, and distance in addition to area under irrigation. Classification based
on HP rating of pump amounts to differentiation amongst farmers who has no control over
either water level or distance. Hence, instead of charging higher to farmer with higher HP
pump, all the farmers should be charged at the same rate. Some agriculture consumers have
also submitted that electricity charge should not be levied on standby pumps.
Janata Dal (Secular) has represented against MSEB’s claim of usage of agricultural pump for
1,477 hours for FY 2001-02 and 1,576 hours for FY 2002-03. They have quoted MSEB’s
metered consumption for agriculture as a reference. Metered LT agriculture pumps, with a
total load of 1,211,822 HP had shown consumption of 584,089,013 units for FY 2002-03.
This translated to 646 hours of usage. Similarly, HTP-VII category, a100% metered category,
demonstrated usage for only 2,346 hours as against norm of 3,600 hours. Pravara Institute of
Research and Education in Natural and Social Science has also submitted that the proposed
consumption norm for irrigation pump does not take into account actual hours of availability
of water due to prescribed rotation and allowed hours for lifting water and hence appears to
be on higher side.
Some of the sugarcane cultivators have submitted that the State Government should subsidise
cost of power beyond Rs.900/HP as the State Government is earning Rs.13,152/Acre of
sugarcane crop as against farmer’s earning of Rs.1800/Acre.
Shri. Shriram M Sane has objected to MSEB’s proposal to not increase HP based tariff for
agriculture. He has requested the commission to specify a formula to remove cross
subsidisation in a time bound manner.
1.5.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has submitted that the current proposal for tariff revision for all categories is
based on a certain level of revenue gap and tariff principles. By this proposal, the MSEB has
been trying to achieve a mandatory surplus of 4.5% and not been targeting super normal
profits. If any category feels that the tariffs are unreasonable, it can approach the State
Government for subsidy.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 41
On the suggestion of levy of uniform rate for all metered agriculture consumers, MSEB has
submitted that the uniform rate per HP is in place for all LT Agricultural consumers since
January 2002.
On the issue of mismatch in the number of hours of operations of unmetered and metered
agricultural, MSEB has explained that the metered consumer would be more conscious of the
level of consumption than the unmetered consumers. It may also be the case that higher the
level of annual electricity consumption, the more profitable it would be for the consumer to
pay unmetered tariff. With this background, MSEB has proposed to make unmetered tariffs
higher than metered tariff.
1.5.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission would like to highlight that the flat rate tariffs charged to LT/HT agriculture
and Lift Irrigation Schemes are substantially lower than the average cost of supply and these
categories are being cross subsidized by other consumer categories such as HT industries,
LTP-G, commercial and Railways. The Commission is of the view that the tariffs should
gradually move towards the average cost of supply and had initiated the process of increasing
the agricultural tariffs in the past two Tariff Orders, towards this objective. The Commission
has always ensured that the tariff increase is gradual, so that no consumer category is faced
with a tariff shock. The increase in agricultural tariffs towards the average cost of supply has
been continued in this Order also; however, the rise is gradual so as to avoid tariff shock. If
consumers find that the tariffs determined by the Commission cannot be borne by them, they
can approach the State Government for a sector specific subsidy.
Further, slabs based on the HP rating of the pumpset have been eliminated in the previous
Tariff Order based on suggestions received from consumers and the same flat rate tariff per
HP was made applicable to all LT agricultural consumers, irrespective of the connected load
rating of the pump.
Based on the improved metering of agriculture feeders and consequent availability of
consumption information, the Commission has decided to levy differential flat rate tariffs for
different consumption bands. As a first step, the Commission has decided to levy differential
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 42
flat tariffs in two slabs based on average consumption of group of circles. The Commission
would further fine-tune this tariff during the next review with improvement in metering of
agriculture feeders. The ultimate objective is to move all consumers to metered tariff and
abolish flat rate tariffs.
Due to difficulty in distinguishing between stand-by pumps and working pumps for the
purpose of flat-rate tariff, the Commission is not in a position to specify tariffs separately for
working pumpsets only. The Commission advises consumers to shift to metered tariff so that
they get billed on actual consumption, and avoid being billed on flat rate basis on the entire
connected load including standby charges.
1.6 Railway Traction
1.6.1 Objections
Railways have strongly objected to the tariff increase proposed and have pointed out that they
are a bulk consumer and the single largest consumer of electricity and are likely to consume
980 Mn units and pay Rs.431 Crore during FY 2003-04. The principles of “higher the
voltage, lower the tariff” for HT supply should be applied to Railway traction as well.
Railways have argued that supplying power to Railway traction load is comparatively more
economical to MSEB than supplying similar power to other bulk consumers as bulk of power
is supplied at higher voltage and corresponding cost of transmission is also lower due to
lower network length. Cost of billing and collection is also less due to bulk consumption at
single location. They have also quoted Article 287 of the Constitution stating that prices
charged to the Railways should be less than that charged to other bulk consumers. However,
MSEB has increased railway traction tariff with an average annual hike of 13.7% over past 13
years and charged Railways 85% more than their average cost of supply during FY 2002-03.
They have argued that the unreasonably high traction tariff would make the operation of
electric traction costlier than diesel, which would not be in the national and environmental
interest. Railways have proposed to reduce the tariff to a reasonable level taking into account
MSEB’s average cost of supply to Railways either based on own generation (estimated
around Rs 3.5/unit) or based on power purchased from CPSUs (estimated at Rs 3.12/unit).
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 43
Railways have requested the Commission to extend ceiling on bulk discount to maximum of
5% as available to other bulk consumers. Presently they have been offered 1% rebate if their
consumption exceeds one million units. Railways have also pointed out that they have been
using electricity at off-peak hours thereby indirectly helping MSEB to improve overall load
factor. They have requested for the Time of Day Tariff option.
Railways have requested that interest should not be charged Delayed Payment Surcharge
(DPS). DPS and interest amounts to double penalty. DPS should be applicable after 15 days
of the date of delivery of the bill to the consumer. They have further requested that the
surcharge at the same rate should also be levied for delay in payment of charges by MSEB as
well.
Central Railways have pointed out that they are forced to pay PF penalty as electronic meters
erroneously record PF below 0.72 by adding both leading and lagging kVArh. Since leading
kVArh is beneficial to MSEB grid, they have submitted that meter should be programmed
such that leading kVARH is either ignored or subtracted from lagging kVARH while
measuring overall Power Factor.
Western Railways have requested the Commission to direct MSEB to improve the billing
system so as to generate single consolidated bill for all the 90 connections of Western
Railway, which could save administrative load of both Western Railway and MSEB and
avoid any delay in payment arising out of postal delays.
1.6.2 MSEB’s Response
On the issue of tariff revision for Railways, MSEB has submitted that it has already detailed
the reasons that have compelled it to propose tariff hikes for categories currently paying
above the average cost of supply.
On the issue of ToD tariffs for Railways, MSEB has submitted that ToD tariff cannot be
levied for Railways as Railways are being levied a single part tariff without demand charges.
Further, the demand is for a very short period.
With reference to the practice of charging DPS and penal interest for late payment, MSEB
has submitted that the MSEB has been levying DPS as a deterrent to prompt the consumer to
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 44
pay energy bills in time. Any reduction in this charge or its removal might result in delaying
the MSEB’s dues, which is not desirable. The DPS is a one-time levy charged by the MSEB.
In case the consumer continues to default, a penal interest is then charged.
On the issue of installation of electronic meters, MSEB has submitted that they have issued
necessary instructions to the SE (TCC), Pune to investigate the matter.
1.6.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission had initiated the process of tariff rationalization and cross-subsidy reduction
through its previous Tariff Orders, and has continued the process in this Order as well. The
Railways’ tariff has been determined such that there is a reduction in the tariff in relation to
the average cost of supply. Further, the Commission has also maintained bulk discount and
prompt payment incentive at the same rate and conditions.
The Commission has offered the Time of Day rate to categories, which are capable of shifting
their load. Since, the schedule of trains is determined based on need of common public and
not based on optimization of electricity tariff, the Commission has not offered ToD rate to the
Railways.
The Commission clarifies that the DPS is levied for only the first month, and thereafter the
interest is levied on the outstanding amount for continued delay in payment.
1.7 Domestic power supply to Railways
1.7.1 Objections
The Railways have brought out that not much progress on segregation of meters for staff
quarters in MSEB area has been achieved despite Commission’s initial Order dated May 5,
2000 and further directive to expedite the same vide last Tariff Order. The Railways have
requested the Commission to direct MSEB to expedite segregation of domestic load. Till such
time that the segregation is done, all such connections where Railways have already paid
segregation charges, the Commission should direct MSEB to charge at LD-1 rates with
retrospective effect.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 45
1.7.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has not addressed this issue in its response.
1.7.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has taken serious note of the MSEB’s lapse in not implementing the
Commission’s Order. The Commission directs MSEB to explain this non-compliance by
submitting to the Commission the status report and the reasons for failure. The Commission
hereby directs MSEB to apply LD-1 tariff for connections where Railways have already paid
segregation charges with effect from date of initial commitment by MSEB. In line with EA
2003 provisions i.e., principle of fixation of tariff on the basis of cost-to-serve and franchisee
model, MSEB in future can prepare a scheme beneficial to both.
1.8 HTP-VI Category
1.8.1 Objections
Several representations have been received from HTP-VI category for reduction in existing
HTP-VI tariff to promote bulk purchase and retail distribution by third party such as local
authority, panchayat institution, users association, cooperative societies, NGOs and
franchisees. This could reduce subsidy by converting lower consumption LD category to HT
category and promote efficiency as well.
Military Engineering Services (MES) has requested the Commission to introduce separate
tariff category for bulk supply to MES in the cantonments/military/naval/air force
stations/defence establishments in Maharashtra State against present categorisation of their
load as HTP-VI-domestic or HTP-VI-commercial and industrial. They have pointed out that
load in Defence Establishment is predominantly domestic. They have also sought a further
relief of Rs.0.97/unit as they maintain their own distribution system. They have requested for
a levy of tariff to Military/Airforce/ Naval hospitals at a lower rate as that of Ashwini
Hospital of Defence. They have sought a higher incentive for maintaining high power factor
and load factor. They have also pointed out that electricity consumed by MES should be
exempt from any taxes/duties as per provisions of the Article 287 of the Constitution of India
and ED levied erroneously by MSEB should be refunded/adjusted against their future
electricity bills. MES has brought out that though MSEB had agreed to apply HTP-VI tariff
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 46
for all establishments since September 1, 1998, they have substantially delayed levy of tariff
at HTP-VI rate for some of their connections and has accordingly sought refund of around Rs.
5 Crore for excess tariff charged.
1.8.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has pointed out that creation of new tariff/category for MES would be against the
principle of tariff rationalisation. MSEB has submitted that it has classified the connections
based on the nature of the load. The MSEB had taken into consideration the advantages that it
enjoys on account of connection to MES while classifying the connection to a particular
category. MSEB have pointed out that MES cannot be a deemed to be a licensee as the phrase
“Government Company or the company” (under Section 14, paragraph 6 of EA 2003) are for
entities which may be formed under Section 131(2) of EA 2003. MSEB has further clarified
that MES have not been enjoying power factor incentive as it has been offered to consumers
having power factor above 95%.
MSEB has responded that it collects the duty on behalf of the State Government, which
decides the rate and concessions on duty to be given, if any.
1.8.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has maintained the effective average tariff for HTP-VI category at earlier
levels, in line with the principle espoused in the previous Tariff Order. The HTP-VI category
specifically promotes bulk purchase and retail distribution and the Commission agrees with
the merit of bringing tariff for this category to the level of Cost to Serve. In the absence of
reliable data to work out Cost-to-Serve for each of the category, the Commission has
maintained tariff at earlier levels, and not charged Regulatory Liability Charge (as applied to
industrial and commercial category). It has also rationalised industrial tariff, thereby reducing
the difference between domestic and industrial tariff in line with philosophy of moving
towards average cost of supply.
As regards the delay in converting some of the connections to HTP -VI category, it amounts
to a billing dispute and the MES should approach the Forum separately under the appropriate
Regulations, viz. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations,
2003, under S.181 of the EA 2003. As regards the levy of taxes and duties including
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 47
electricity duty, it is outside the purview of the Commission, and the MES may approach the
GoM in this regard. In line with EA 2003 provisions i.e., principle of fixation of tariff on the
basis of cost-to-serve and franchisee model, MSEB in future can prepare a scheme beneficial
to both.
1.9 Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society (MPECS)
1.9.1 Objections
The Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society (MPECS) has opposed the current tariff of
Rs.1.50/kWh as energy charge and demand charges of Rs.200/kVA for the Society. The
MPECS has submitted that 82% of its consumers are from the agricultural category, and, as
the MSEB tariff is applicable to its consumers also, the current tariff would result into a loss
of around Rs.90 Crore for the society. On the other hand, other objectors have requested to
increase the tariff for MPECS such that it reaches average cost of supply by January 10, 2007
as per previous Order. They have further requested to freeze supply level of all defaulting
customers till they settle their dues.
1.9.2 MSEB’s Response
As regards freezing of supply to Mula Pravara, MSEB has submitted that it had issued a
disconnection notice to MPECS. On submission of proposal by Government of Maharashtra
(GoM) to the Commission in this matter, a hearing was held on August 29, 2003. The
Commission had observed during the hearing that MSEB might reconsider the action in light
of the steps proposed by Government of Maharashtra.
MSEB has submitted that no tariff hike has been proposed for Mula Pravara as it is a bulk
consumer of the MSEB having different mix of consumer, predominantly agriculture. As per
the MSEB’s understanding, Mula Pravara classifies its consumers on the same basis as the
MSEB’s consumers and levies the same tariffs.
1.9.3 Commission’s Ruling
The tariff applicable for sale to Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society (MPECS) has
been retained at the existing level. The Commission has separately forwarded a Report on the
viability of the MPECS to the Government of Maharashtra.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 48
1.10 Other categories
1.10.1 Objections
Several Consumer Associations have represented against increase in rates for residential,
commercial, small-scale business, cooperative lift irrigation scheme, small power loom, small
flour mills, etc. The objection is on the ground that increase in tariff is unaffordable,
unsustainable and in several cases tariff proposed has been higher compared to other States.
Khamgaon Nagar Parishad has opposed tariff increase to HTP IV category stating that any
increase is not affordable since they are a ‘no profit, no loss’ organisation. Several Municipal
Corporations have represented against proposed hike in tariff for water supply scheme and
street lighting categories. Savada Nagarpalika has requested to revert back to flat rate tariff
instead of metered tariff for water supply schemes since these schemes are operated on ‘no
profit, no loss’ basis.
Several domestic consumers have stated that effective rise for this category works out to
24.52% as compared to overall increase of 12.5%. One of the consumers has suggested
reducing number of slabs to 3 from 4 for LD 1 category. Slabs should be categorised as a first
slab for single bulb consumers (0-30 units); second slab for consumers using lamps, fans, TV,
refrigerator, iron, heating pad/oven, water geyser (30-250 units); and third slab for consumers
using additional accessories such as air conditioner, microwave (>250 units). Third slab
should subsidise first slab and middle slab should be charged at the average cost of supply
and category as a whole should be charged at the average cost of supply. Janata Dal (Secular)
has suggested creation of a separate category for single bulb consumers, public association
and Software Technology Park (STP) to give them special benefit.
Kolhapur District Cine Distributors Association has requested the Commission to maintain
tariff at earlier rate of Rs. 3.59/unit to enable their survival. Citizens Forum has also brought
out that the proposed increase of Rs.0.65/unit for LD 2 category will adversely affect small
shopkeepers and small commercial establishments. They have added that the increase in
charges for the slab of 201-500 units under LD 2 category could have been avoided by
improving efficiency of the system.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 49
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has suggested that HTP VII, Power looms, agriculture (10-25 HP
and >25 HP) should only be offered metered tariff instead of unmetered tariff at option.
1.10.2 MSEB’s Response
With reference to the objection that the proposed tariff revision is unsustainable, MSEB has
stated that it has proposed tariff hike in accordance with Section 59 of erstwhile E(S) Act,
which states that the MSEB needs to set its tariffs in such a way that it can recover a
minimum of 4.5% of its Net Fixed Assets in any year of account over and above all expenses
chargeable to revenue in that year. The MSEB has not proposed tariff revision to make
supernormal profits. Also, linking the level of tariff revision for a consumer category to the
affordability of the same to the members of that consumer category is not a principle required
either under the erstwhile ERC Act, 1998 or EA 2003. If any consumer category feels that the
tariffs are unaffordable, it can approach the State Government for providing of subsidy as
required under law.
MSEB has further submitted that comparison of tariffs in isolation would not be proper since
determination of tariff inter alia would depend upon many factors, such as generation
capacity, hydro-thermal ratio of generation capacity, cross-section of consumer mix,
availability and quality of supply, the quantum of statutory revenue surplus, socio-economic
condition of the respective State, geographical situations, etc. Since, all these factors differ
across various States, a simple comparison of the electricity tariff is not proper.
With reference to billing based on flat rate tariff, the MSEB has submitted that meterisation of
all consumers is a directive given by the Commission. Further, the EA 2003 also mandates
the meterisation of all consumers within a specific time period.
1.10.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has considered all representations from various consumer categories and
has ensured that the tariff revision is within reasonable limits. Due care has been taken to
ensure that there is no tariff shock to any consumer category while implementing the revised
tariffs.. At the same time, the Commission is committed to reducing cross-subsidies over a
period of time, by moving the tariffs applicable to various consumer categories towards the
average cost of supply. The Commission has reduced the effective tariff for subsidizing
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 50
categories viz. commercial, LT and HT Industrial, HT Public Water Works and Railway
Traction categories. The Commission has reduced tariff for HT Public Water Works such that
they converge to the average cost of supply. The Commission has increased the tariff
applicable to LT Public Water Works and street-lighting categories, as the average tariff is
below the average cost of supply, while ensuring that these categories are not subject to a
tariff shock.
The Commission has limited the average tariff increase for LD 1 category to 6% and moved
the tariffs closer to the average cost of supply. Intra-class subsidy amongst domestic
consumption slabs has been further rationalized. The intra-class cross subsidy for the first slab
(i.e. upto 30 units of consumption) has been continued as this slab affects consumers in the
lifeline category.
The Commission has discontinued flat rate tariff for HTP-VII category as 100% metering has
been achieved, and the entire consumption of this category is metered. However, flat rate
tariffs have been continued for the agriculture category, as most of the LT agricultural
consumers (around 18 lakh) are yet to be metered. The Commission has discussed the issues
related to metering in a subsequent Section.
1.11 Consumer Categorization
1.11.1 Objections
There are several representations for clarity on definition and differentiation amongst various
tariff categories.
Vidarbha Industries Association has pointed out that MSEB has been refusing to apply
General Motive Power tariff to industries having industrial registration but not having motive
load. For software industries, non-domestic tariff is being applied instead. They have
suggested that the name of LTP-G category should be changed to L.T. Industrial tariff. As per
the IT and ITES policy, 2003, Easypack Software Inc. has pointed out that IT and IT Enabled
Service units will be entitled for the supply of power at industrial rates.
Vidarbha Industries Association has requested for permitting connected load upto 100 HP
under LTP-G category. Additionally, they have sought a clarification on validity of MSEB’s
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 51
approach of applying HT tariff, if connected load is found more than 67 HP/50 kW during
spot inspection. Hotel and Restaurant Association has also requested the Commission to
enhance the limit from 50 kVA to 100 kVA for categorisation as a HT consumer, as many
small-scale industrial and commercial establishments, including hotels and restaurants, have
been burdened with the cost of becoming a HT consumer.
Rashtriya Grahak Sanghatana has highlighted several other issues related to billing
categorisation. Residential accommodations in residential schools are being charged
according to LD-2 commercial tariff. The offices of professionals such as advocates, doctors,
practicing engineers etc, are being charged as per LD-2 tariff in spite of the direction of the
Commission.
Nashik Flora Private Limited has objected to MSEB’s restrictive application of concessional
tariff category to a limited class of consumers who undertake restricted activities like, ‘Tissue
Culture’, ‘Green House’, and ‘Mushroom Cultivation’. It has pointed out that Department of
Agricultural and Co-operative, Government of India, has defined ‘High-Tech Agriculture’ as
“any agriculture/horticulture technology, which uses modern technology making it less
environment dependent and has the capacity to produce high quality of any
agriculture/horticulture crop”, and which can inter-alia include (other than Tissue Culture,
Green House, Mushroom) such other technologies like genetically modified crop varieties,
micro-propagation, production and use of F1 Hybrid seeds, drip-irrigation/fertigation, organic
farming, vermiculture, bio-fertilisers, mechanical production systems, hi-tech post harvest
technologies, etc.
Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Ltd has represented that though HTP VII tariff category
covers poultry, MSEB has been applying this definition selectively to activities of producing
eggs and broilers but not for operations connected with breeding and hatching. It has
requested to extend HTP VII to cover entire operations of poultry. They have also quoted the
Supreme Court verdict in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Venkateshwara Hatcheries
Private Limited that stated that poultry, being a natural process, does not qualify to be treated
as an industrial undertaking.
New Era Development Institute has requested the Commission to clarify whether HTP VI
category includes residential schools/charitable or religious institutions as they are supplied
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 52
electricity through HT connection. They have pointed out that MSEB is wrongly applying
HTP-II tariff to the Institute while they are not an industry.
Shree Om Estate Developers has requested to clarify the tariff category for electricity
provided to open spaces/play grounds in housing societies/gardens. It has requested to
consider them either under LT-AG or Street Lighting category. Rashtriya Grahak Sanghatana
has pointed out that public gardens and open spaces created as per the directions of Town
planning authorities have been charged as per LD-2 tariff, which is erroneous.
1.11.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has submitted that it is classifying consumers based on detailed tariff booklet, which
has been approved by the Commission. MSEB cannot change the classification of any
consumer without permission of the Commission. As a result, the MSEB has suggested that
the objector can separately approach the Commission for change in classification.
MSEB has clarified that tariff applied to LTP-G consumer having sanctioned load upto 67 HP
(100 HP wherever applicable) is the same as LTP-G tariff approved by the Commission.
With reference to the objection on levying residential tariff to Advocates and Doctors, MSEB
has submitted that the Commission has approved the tariff consumer categorisation.
MSEB has responded that the Street Lighting tariff is applicable for street lighting services of
Gram Panchayats, Municipal Councils and Corporations. Hence, even if part of the
requirement is for lighting the roads inside the premises of the objector, it cannot be allowed a
Street Lighting tariff. Likewise, the private gardens within the premises cannot be allowed
LT-AG tariff.
1.11.3 Commission’s Ruling
The consumers in the Information Technology (IT) and Information Technology Enabled
Services (ITES) sector are currently classified under the commercial category and charged
accordingly. As the commercial category is a subsidizing category, the tariffs are high for
these categories. The Commission has been receiving applications from such consumers
requesting that they should be classified under LT industrial category, for the purposes of
tariff determination. In July 2003, the GoM announced the IT and ITES Policy, 2003 for
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 53
promoting business and enterprise in the IT industry, to make Maharashtra the most favoured
destination for investments in the IT and ITES industry. In the context of the infrastructure
support to the IT and ITES sector, the Policy specifies under Clause 4.2 (h) that, “Levying of
power charges on IT and ITES units at industrial rates and notifying IT and ITES units as a
separate category of consumers through MERC”.
In line with the IT and ITES Policy announced by the GoM and the stated philosophy of the
Commission in the previous Orders, the Commission has included the Low Tension IT
industry and IT enabled services (as defined in the GoM Policy) in the LTP-G category, for
purposes of tariff determination. The Commission has decided against creation of a new
category for IT and ITES sector, in line with its stated philosophy of reducing the number of
consumer categories and consumption slabs, over a period of time.
On the issue of categorizing industries with higher connected load under LTP-G category, the
Commission is of the view that the existing classification should be retained. The
Commission has already stated its intention of moving towards voltage-level cost based tariffs
in the future. As the cost of supply at higher voltages is lower, the consumers will benefit if
connections are taken at higher voltages. Moreover, for serving higher loads, HT connection
is desirable due to lower T&D losses. Hence, the Commission has retained the existing
provisions of classification of industries having connected load over 100 HP under HT
category.
In the FY 2000-01 Tariff Order, the Commission has directed the MSEB to charge domestic
tariffs from certain professional categories if these professionals were using part of their
residences for professional work. The Commission clarifies that the domestic tariffs will be
applicable only to residential premises used by professionals like Lawyers, Doctors,
Chartered Accountants, etc. except for nursing homes and surgical wards/clinics, in
furtherance of their professional activity in their residences.
The Commission also clarifies that the existing definition of ‘High-Tech Agriculture’, viz.
units undertaking tissue culture, green house, mushroom cultivation, etc. activities, shall
continue to be in existence. The Commission hereby clarifies that the existing definition of
Poultry shall continue to be retained for the purposes of tariffs.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 54
As regards tariff applicable to residential accommodation within residential schools, the
Commission clarifies that the levy of tariff at LD-1 rate is not possible as they are not metered
separately. The Commission directs the MSEB to segregate the residential connections and
levy LD-1 tariff on such residential accommodations.
The Commission clarifies that certain public gardens and open spaces that have been created
as per the directions of Town Planning authorities would continue to be charged at LD-2
tariffs or tariff applicable to temporary connections as at present, if they are used for non-
commercial activities. The MSEB cannot be expected to subsidize such consumer categories
that are used normally for commercial purposes.
2. TARIFF DESIGN AND RATES
2.1 Guidelines, Cost of Supply/Cross subsidy, Subsidy
2.1.1 Objections
TARIFF GUIDELINES
Several objectors have stated that the tariff revision proposal is against the provisions of the
Indian Electricity Act and erstwhile E(S) Act. Tata Motors as well as several Consumer
Associations have brought out that MSEB’s Tariff Proposal is a violation of basic guidelines
such as, tariff reflective of cost of supply, complete removal of cross-subsidy/subsidy by 2005
and inefficiency on part of utility not being passed on to diligent consumers. Industry
Associations have suggested rejecting the Proposal on the ground that it is arbitrary,
discriminatory, illegal and violating the spirit and objective of the legislation. All the
consumers of subsidising categories have strongly objected to the tariff increase proposed for
subsidising consumers on the ground that they are paying consumers.
Several Consumer Associations have requested to adopt Multi-Year Tariff system of 3 to 5
years. This would enable industry to work with a long-term perspective.
COST OF SUPPLY/CROSS SUBSIDY
Several industries and the Railways have vehemently opposed the tariffs proposed, as they
are not aligned to the costs incurred to serve them. They have argued that HT consumers
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 55
have to bear a much higher burden in comparison to the cost of supply. The Railways have
further contended that being an EHT consumer, the cost of supply to the Railways is
considerably lower than that for other consumer categories. Industry Associations have
further argued that the non-computation of consumer category-wise costs is not allowing the
design of tariffs based on cost imposed by different categories on the system. They have
stated that this is in violation of the statutory provisions of the EA 2003, ERC Act, and E(S)
Act.
Industrial Associations have argued that cross-subsidy is being provided to subsidised
categories at the expense of industry. They have put forth that cost of such subsidy should be
borne by the Government rather than being loaded onto industry. The current proposal is seen
as further increasing the cross subsidy provided by industry. Several consumers have
contended that it is necessary to curb inefficiency in the MSEB than allowing across the board
hike for all categories of consumers. Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and Industry has
presented a view that cross subsidy should not exist as Constitution of India specifies, “for act
of one person, other persons cannot be held responsible”. Thane Small Scale Industries
Association and Kalyan Ambernath Manufacturers’ Association have highlighted that MSEB
Proposal does not meet basic requirement of the ERC Act, 1998 of charging atleast 50% of
the average cost of supply by 2002 (i.e. within 3 years after 1/4/98, i.e. the date of ERC
ordinance/Act went into effect).
Industrial consumers have requested to continue reduction in cross subsidy for HT consumes
in line with the Commission’s guidelines.
SUBSIDY
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat has pointed out that amount of subsidy/subventions from
Government has not been accounted while proposing the tariff hike. Several consumers have
highlighted that if the Government wishes to subsidise particular categories, it should
explicitly fund that subsidy out of the State budget and deposit the same with MSEB in
advance. Prayas has specifically sought clarity on decision of offering subsidy for agriculture
and power loom consumers with quantum and schedule of their payment.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 56
Government of Maharashtra has stated that it would decide about the grant of subsidy after
determination of tariff by the Commission under section 62 of EA 2003. The issue of granting
subsidy for FY 2003-04 based on existing rate is under consideration of the Government.
Government is anxious to know the net tariff payable by the subsidised consumers after
accounting for the subsidy and hence would find it difficult to commit subsidy amount
without knowing the tariff fixed by the Commission.
2.1.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has submitted that the current proposal for tariff revision for all categories is
based on a certain level of revenue gap and tariff principles. By this proposal, the MSEB has
been trying to achieve a mandatory surplus of 4.5% and not been targeting super normal
profits. If any category feels that the tariffs are unreasonable, it can approach the State
Government for subsidy. The MSEB has added that the rationale for the proposed tariff
revision has been explained in detail in the Tariff Petition, and it has been forced to propose
tariff increase even for subsidizing categories as these are paying categories and tariff
increase for subsidized categories does not result in significant additional revenue for the
MSEB.
On the issue of the Government subsidy, MSEB has submitted that the Government declares
subsidy separately for each year. While the subsidy for FY 2000-01, FY 2001-02 and FY
2002-03 has been declared, the Government is yet to declare the subsidy amount for FY
2003-04 to the MSEB or to the Commission.
2.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission is of the view that determination of category-wise cost of supply at this
point in time is not possible considering the quality of data available with the MSEB. Such
an exercise will involve a lot of assumptions, and the results may not be reflective of the
actual conditions prevailing. In the present tariff determination exercise, the Commission has
continued tariff determination, such that the average tariffs for subsidising categories is
reduced and the average tariffs for subsidised categories is increased in relation to the
average cost of supply. The Commission has increased tariff for all subsidised categories
such that no category pays below 50 % of the average cost of supply. The Commission
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 57
accepts the MSEB’s reasoning that it is not appropriate to compare the average cost of supply
across Utilities/Countries, without considering the impact of other factors influencing the cost
parameters. As the Commission had indicated in the previous Tariff Orders, the reduction of
cross-subsidy is a gradual process and cannot be achieved overnight.
The Commission is in agreement with the merit of adopting Multi-Year Tariff system and is
actively considering the same. The Commission believes that a regulatory oversight is
essential during the transition period to facilitate speedy implementation of adequate metering
and billing systems, loss reduction/efficiency improvement initiatives and cost reflective
tariffs. These measures would improve the quality of data available to enable long-term
projection of costs and revenues to consider multi-year tariff implementation at an appropriate
time. Therefore, the Commission believes that ‘Cost-Plus’ basis of regulation with regulatory
oversight is appropriate to ensure prudency of expenditure during the transition period.
2.2 Levy of Fixed Charges
2.2.1 Objections
Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce has submitted that there should be no fixed charge levy
on consumers since consumer bears fixed cost at the time of taking up meter connection.
Since, HT connection has a higher utilisation ratio as compared to that of LT connection,
Hotel and Restaurant Association have requested to adjust levy of demand charges to HT
consumer such that the rate would be discounted by atleast 25% to that of LT consumer rate
in a phased manner over 2 years.
Most consumer categories have represented against proposed hike in demand charges.
Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and Industry has pointed out that proposed demand charge
increase is quite steep for single shift and double shift industries. For example, proposed
increase for HTP-I and II category translates to 180 % increase for single shift category of
100 kVA billing demand. They have requested for consideration of differential demand rate
for different time zones to flatten the load curve. They have proposed to levy 30 % of
demand charge for A shift (0600-1400 hrs) operations, 50% of demand charge for B shift
(1400-2200 hrs) operations, and 20% of demand charge for C shift (2200-0600 hrs)
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 58
operations. Industries Association of Young Entrepreneurs has also pointed out that with
current level of demand charges, many SSI units and HTP-II consumers have been paying as
much as 100% to 200% of energy charges as fixed charges per month.
Industries Association of Young Entrepreneurs has represented that the method for
determining connected load by adding up the rated load of all the installed equipments is
faulty, as most machines in engineering and small scale industries are provided with over
capacity motor and many machines are service machines sparingly used for 8-10 hrs in a
month. IDEA Cellular Limited has objected to MSEB Proposal for withdrawal of optional
LTMD Tariff for LD-2 (Commercial) category.
Garware Polyester Limited has requested to compensate proposed increase in fixed charges
by reduction in energy charges. MIDC Industrial Association has suggested implementing
concept of minimum charges instead of fixed charges such that minimum charge is recovered
only when energy consumption is on lower side.
Vidarbha Industries Association has brought out that profitability should be linked to
production and supply. Janata Dal (Secular) has pointed out that urban areas and rural areas
have been facing average load shedding of 3-4 hours and 6-8 hours per day, respectively.
Several consumers have requested the Commission to not levy demand charges atleast for the
period MSEB is not able to supply reliable electricity, citing basic commercial principles.
Several industrial consumers have pointed out that demand charge, based on 75 % of highest
billing demand for last 11 months, penalise consumers for next 11 months. While consumer
can be penalised for that particular month when it exceeds maximum billing demand, it is
unfair to penalise him for subsequent 10 months. Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce and
Industry has also requested to exempt payment of demand charges for the period of industry
shutdowns with a cap of 1 month in a year.
Several industrial consumers such as Finolex Industries Limited, Pudumjee Pulp and Paper
Mills Limited with Captive Power Plant have represented against levy of standby demand
charges of Rs 20/kVA by highlighting that the said charge is against the recent policy
initiative of promotion of Captive Power Plants. Levy of such additional charge is
unjustified as MSEB is not burdened with additional demand when the captive generating
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 59
unit is non-functional, so long as consumer’s Maximum Demand does not exceed Contract
Demand. Pudumjee Pulp has added that the MSEB is charging the additional Rs. 20/kVA on
the entire Billing Demand, even though the Billing Demand has never exceeded the Contract
Demand, which effectively means that no standby facility is being provided. As the Company
is already paying demand charges on the Billing Demand, the Company has stated that levy
of additional demand charges on Rs. 20/kVA on the entire billing demand, simply because the
Company’s captive generation facility is synchronized with the grid, is unfair. A similar
charge towards synchronisation is not envisaged under EA 2003 either. Maharashtra
Elektrosmelt Limited has requested to levy such additional demand charge of Rs 20/kVA only
on declared capacity of CPP and not on full monthly billing demand.
Tata Power Company (TPC) has requested that the MSEB Proposal of standby charge to TPC
for tariff of Rs. 600/kVA on a quantum of 550 MVA should not be firmed up while
considering revenue requirement since the matter is subjudice. They have also highlighted
that they are being charged Rs. 600/kVA while HTP-I consumers are being charged
335/kVA/month as demand charge.
2.2.2 MSEB’s Response
On levy of fixed charges, the MSEB has submitted that, for supplying power to any
consumer, the MSEB is required to incur capital expenditure to put up the required
infrastructure and should, therefore, have a right to receive at least some assured revenue
from the investment. The MSEB has contended that it cannot reduce or remove the
infrastructure created for the consumer, if he is likely to consume less energy. Further MSEB
has been carrying out load shedding, if at all, to maintain the grid frequency within acceptable
levels and preventing damage to infrastructure and inconvenience to consumers. It is not the
MSEB’s infrastructure, which is incapable of supplying the power, rather there is inadequate
supply to match the consumer demand. Thus, the fixed/demand charges should not be linked
to the level of load shedding.
On the issue of LTMD tariff for Non-Domestic i.e L.D.2 category, MSEB has confirmed that
they have not proposed any change in existing scheme of allowing LTMD tariff to
Commercial connections.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 60
With reference to levy of additional standby demand charge for captive plants synchronised
with the grid, MSEB has submitted that MSEB grid is required to provide short-term
assistance to the captive generator whenever CPP connected to grid is out for
repairs/overhaul. This casts an obligation on the MSEB to maintain additional reserve
capacity for all the CPPs in the State, which will be used when the need arises. Hence, the
captive generator is required to pay Rs. 20, as demand charges per month per kVA of the
installed capacity of the CPP and standby generating sets, to the MSEB, in addition to the
normal monthly contract demand charges if connected with MSEB system.
With reference to putting on hold the approval of standby charge to TPC, MSEB has
submitted that it has been providing the standby facility to TPC even at the cost of not
supplying to its own consumers whenever circumstances have demanded for it. For this
facility, according to the MSEB, the existing standby charges are justified.
2.2.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has already elaborated the rationale for levy of demand charges in its
previous Tariff Orders. A major part of the costs of the MSEB, apart from the cost of fuel for
own generation and variable cost of power purchase, is fixed in nature and the ratio of fixed
to variable costs currently stands at 53:47. Though the consumer accesses electricity at any
time he desires, the MSEB’s infrastructure (physical infrastructure as well as employees,
administration, etc.) has to be permanently available, and related costs incurred irrespective of
the level of consumption by individual consumers, and these expenses thus comprises the
fixed costs of the MSEB.
The Commission has continued the process of increasing the recovery of fixed costs by levy
of fixed charges to consumers, to safeguard the MSEB from steep fluctuations in revenue
with varying consumption over time. The revised fixed/demand charges have been designed
to recover around 40% of MSEB’s fixed costs, as compared to the existing level of recovery
of around 35% of fixed costs. The balance fixed costs are recovered through energy charges.
Thus, for any disruption in supply, the MSEB is effectively losing out on the recovery of
fixed costs to that extent. If MSEB is not allowed to recover fixed cost for the period of
interruptions and low voltage period, it would further affect the financial viability of MSEB.
At the same time, the Commission does not intend that the consumers should suffer for the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 61
poor quality of supply from the MSEB, and hereby directs the MSEB to take all possible
measures to maintain the voltages within the prescribed limits, and to limit the load shedding
hours to the minimum.
The Commission has reduced the cross-subsidy by reducing the effective tariff to industry
(for both LT and HT categories). As regards the suggestion of flattening of load curve
through restructuring of demand charges, the Commission has increased the differential in
Time of Day tariff between peak and of-peak hours, to further incentivize consumers to shift
to off-peak hours. Higher consumption during peak hours puts considerable investment
burden on MSEB to make available additional generation, transmission and distribution
facilities which remains unutilised during off-peak hours of operation. The Commission has
continued recovery of fixed charges through demand charges, as against the suggestion of
introducing minimum charges, as the Commission is of the view that recovery of fixed charge
through demand charge mechanism is more scientific as compared to minimum charge
mechanism. The detailed rationale for removal of minimum charges that has been given in the
first Tariff Order issued by the Commission in May 2000 still holds good.
As regards levy of demand charges to LT Industrial category, the Commission would like to
clarify that demand charges are levied only on half of the connected load to consumers opting
for HP based tariff. However, this category has also been offered Optional MD based tariff,
irrespective of connected load. As regards definition of connected load, the Commission
clarifies that the connected load shall mean “the sum of the rated capacities of all energy
consuming apparatus duly wired and connected to the power supply system, including
portable apparatus in the consumer’s premises, excluding standby devices connected through
change-over switches” or as prescribed under Supply Code under EA,2003. The connected
load shall not include the load of spare plug sockets, stand by or spare energy consuming
apparatus installed authorisedly through change over switch which cannot be operated
simultaneously, and load exclusively meant for fire fighting purposes. The equipment which
is under installation and not connected electrically, equipment stored in
warehouse/showrooms either as spare or for sale is not to be considered as “connected load”.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 62
The Commission has considered the representations of several industrial consumers in the
context of charges applicable for stand by facility extended to the consumers by the MSEB.
The Commission hereby orders that the additional standby charges of Rs. 20 per kVA per
month will be applicable to HT industrial consumers, with captive generating units
synchronised with the MSEB grid, only on the extent of standby demand, and not the entire
contract demand as prevalent currently. Moreover, the Commission accepts the rationale put
forth by Pudumjee Pulp, that the standby charges should be levied only if there is actual
standby facility being extended by the MSEB. There is no merit in the MSEB’s practice of
levying additional demand charges of Rs. 20 /kVA on the entire billing demand, despite the
fact that the billing demand has never exceeded the contract demand. In such cases, the
MSEB is not really offering any standby facility, and is only supplying within the consumer’s
contract demand. Hence, standby charges will be levied on such consumers on the standby
component, only if the consumer’s demand exceeds the contracted demand.
The Commission retains the standby charge to TPC at the existing levels, as the matter is
subjudice.
2.3 Fuel and Other Costs Adjustment (FOCA)
2.3.1 Objections
Solapur Manufacturers Association has pointed out that the current mechanism of levy of
FOCA charges might lead to a discrepancy in recovery vis-à-vis actual excess cost incurred
by MSEB since it is being levied on future consumption of units for next quarter instead of
actual consumption in the past quarter. They have requested to modify FOCA recovery
mechanism to account for actual consumption of each consumer for respective period.
Shetkari Sahakari Sooth Girni Ltd has requested for intimation of FOCA charges in advance
to help them in their budget planning.
Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Limited has sought a confirmation from MSEB that no
FOCA charge would be applicable immediately upon revision of MSEB tariff. Additionally,
they have suggested recovering FOCA charges only from subsidised categories, as a measure
to bridge the gap between average cost of supply and tariff charged.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 63
2.3.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has said that the FOCA is being implemented as per the Formula approved by the
Commission from time to time. The projections for determining Annual Revenue
Requirement are based on the best estimates of the MSEB. If the actual expenses during the
period match with the projected figures, the FOCA would indeed turn out to be zero. The
FOCA formula itself has a crosscheck such that the MSEB does not over recover or under
recover any amount included for levy under FOCA.
2.3.3 Commission’s Ruling
After due consideration, the Commission has specified levy of FOCA charge on current
consumption of units and not on past actual consumed units. Matching of FOCA recovery
with the actual “Fuel and Other Cost Adjustment” is ensured for MSEB as a whole. Any over
or under recovery of FOCA is adjusted on rolling basis. Recovery of FOCA is not matched at
the consumer level to maintain simplicity of billing process.
The consumers will appreciate that since FOCA charge represents variation in actual costs
from the Commission’s estimates to determine Annual Revenue Requirement and Tariff, it
cannot be calculated in advance. As regards the suggestion of levying FOCA charge only on
subsidised consumer categories, the Commission is not inclined to adopt this approach, and
the FOCA will be applicable to all consumer categories. Reduction in cross-subsidy is being
undertaken through the tariffs, and it does not make economic sense to levy FOCA charges
only to subsidized categories. The MSEB incurs higher/lower costs for the entire generation
and purchase of energy which is supplied to all the consumers, and hence all the consumers
should be levied FOCA charges, as applicable.
2.4 Time of Day (ToD) Tariff
2.4.1 Objections
Industry has objected to MSEB Proposal of hiking tariff during peak hours, without giving
any corresponding rebate in the off-peak and night hours. Continuous process industry has
represented against increase in peak hour charges without corresponding reduction in off -
peak charges, as it would affect them substantially as they have no control over shifting of
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 64
load. Vindhya Paper Mills Limited has suggested that ToD tariff should not be made
applicable to continuous process industry.
Saf Yeast Company Private Limited has pointed out that incentive offered for nighttime
consumption is not commensurate with the sacrifice it has to make to modify its production
programme. Several industrial consumers, such as Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Limited and
Tata Motors, have suggested increasing the concession during off-peak hours. They have also
suggested making night concession rates applicable for full 24 hours on national holidays and
weekly off days.
The Railways have argued that they should be offered ToD tariff in line with HT consumers
as their consumption improves the load factor during off-peak hours.
2.4.2 MSEB’s Response
Keeping in mind the significant increase in peak loads, MSEB has proposed to increase the
difference between peak period and off-peak period tariffs to further incentivise shift in
consumption. This would also help relieve the existing levels of load shedding that the MSEB
has to resort to during peak period for maintaining system frequency between 49.5 Hz to 50.5
Hz.
On the issue of ToD tariffs for Railways, MSEB has submitted that ToD tariff cannot be
levied for Railways as Railways are being levied a single part tariff without demand charges.
Further, the demand is for a very short period.
2.4.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission had introduced ‘Time of Day’ (ToD) tariffs for HT consumers in the first
Tariff Order, with a view to flatten the demand curve. The Commission had increased the
differential between tariff applicable for peak hour consumption and off-peak hour
consumption in the previous Tariff Order, on the basis of the encouraging response to the
implementation of the ToD tariffs in the first Order. This has resulted in further reduction in
the difference between the peak and off-peak loads, and hence the Commission has further
increased the differential between tariff applicable for peak hour consumption and off-peak
hour consumption by 20 paise per unit.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 65
The Commission also directs MSEB to take steps in installing ToD meters for all consumers
with a connected load of over 20 kW by December 2004. Such ToD meters will be read
every billing cycle for all parameters and monthly-consolidated information shall be
submitted by MSEB to monitor the trend. However, billing will be done as per the option
exercised by the consumer.
The Commission has offered the Time of Day tariff to categories which are capable of
shifting their load. In case of Railways, since the schedule of trains is determined based on
need of mass public movement and not based on optimisation of electricity tariff, the
Commission has not offered ToD rate to the Railways, as the Railways will not be able to
shift their load. Moreover, the Commission has reduced the tariffs applicable to Railways
based on the principle of gradual reduction in cross-subsidy.
2.5 Bulk Discount
2.5.1 Objections
Chamber of Marathwada Industries and Agriculture has brought out that the reduction in bulk
discount to 50% of existing levels for HT consumers proposed by MSEB might result in
further fall in consumption of HT category at a higher rate. Industry Associations and
consumers have requested the Commission to continue with current bulk discount scheme.
Vidarbha Industries Association has also requested to apply such discounts on T&D loss
charges, FOCA charges, and demand charges in addition to the energy charges. They have
also suggested relaxing eligibility criteria of bulk discount from 10 lakh units to 5 lakh units
of consumption and applying graded structure with higher incentive for higher consumption.
Western Railway has also requested for bulk discount at par with other industrial consumers.
Ispat Industries has argued that if discounts are not provided to consumers who are in arrears,
it will only discourage them to make prompt payments, as they will feel that these arrears can
be adjusted against their security deposit with the MSEB. However, if the discounts are
offered, it will ensure that the consumer makes prompt payment for the current bill. They
have further suggested that billing process should be de-linked from the credit control
process, as both are separate issues.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 66
2.5.2 MSEB’s Response
Over past 3 years, MSEB has observed that the discounts given were of a substantial level,
which has defeated the primary objective of providing liquidity to the MSEB. Also, higher the
level of bulk discounts, higher is the level of tariff hike required for other categories as well.
However, keeping in mind that the bulk discounts in a way have been providing a lower
effective tariff for bigger consumers whose realisation was above the average cost of supply,
the MSEB has proposed that current discounts be halved.
MSEB has strongly opposed to de-linking billing process from the credit control process.
2.5.3 Commission’s Ruling
The ERC Act, 1998 as well as the recently enacted EA 2003 provide for differential tariff for
different consumers on the basis of the total consumption. The bulk discount is a rebate given
to consumers who have very high consumption, and need to be retained in the MSEB fold to
ensure adequate revenue to the MSEB. Hence, the Commission had introduced the bulk
discount in its first Tariff Order, which has been continued in this Order also.
The Commission has rejected MSEB’s Proposal of reduction in bulk discount and continued
bulk discount in its present form. The discount is offered only on the energy charges, and is
not offered on other elements of tariff as other tariff components have a specific purpose. The
Commission has decided to continue with the existing practice of linking the bulk discount
incentive to prompt payment, to improve the liquidity of the MSEB. It is the duty of the
consumers to pay their bills on time. Further, the bulk discount will be available only if the
consumer has no arrears with the MSEB, and payment is made within seven days from the
date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later. However, this
incentive will be applicable to consumers where payment of arrears in instalments has been
granted by the MSEB, and the same being made as scheduled. The MSEB has to take a
commercial decision on the issue of how to determine the time frame for which the payments
should have been made as scheduled, in order to be eligible for the Bulk Discount.
The Commission clarifies that the Railways are bulk consumers and are eligible for the bulk
discounts, provided that separate metering points would continue to be treated as separate
consumers for the purposes of computing the bulk discount.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 67
2.6 Power Factor (PF) Incentive/Penalty Charge
2.6.1 Objections
Prayas has expressed its agreement with MSEB Proposal of reduction in PF incentives as it
has achieved its purpose. However, several industrial consumers have objected to reduction in
PF incentive to 50% of existing levels, as such reduction would not reward customers
appropriately for investments made by them. Ispat Industries Limited has further pointed out
that increase in power factor has a positive impact on MSEB as it increases the billed units of
MSEB. Consumers have suggested adopting graded incentive structure to provide maximum
benefits for better utilisation of power. Vidarbha Industries Association has requested the
Commission to pass on the benefit of PF incentives to LT consumers including LTP-G
consumers.
Vidarbha Industries Association has pointed out that MSEB has been charging PF penalties
even to LTP-G consumers as per the Terms and Conditions of Supply even while the same
has not been provided in Commission’s Tariff Orders. Vidarbha Chamber of Small Scale
Industries has suggested introducing penalties for power factor on all categories of
consumers.
2.6.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has responded that presently average power factor for HTP-I and HTP-II is at
97% in any month. As the system power factor has improved over the past 3 years since the
first Tariff Order, the MSEB has proposed to reduce the extent of incentive/penalty so that
overall financial burden on the consumers through tariff is reduced.
MSEB has clarified that the PF penalty applied on LTP-G consumers having LTMD meters
but not opting for LTMD tariffs for the month of July 2003 was Rs. 2,82,731 and the total
number of such consumers who were levied the penalty was 164.
2.6.3 Commission’s Ruling
An appropriate tariff signal in the form of a Power Factor (PF) incentive can be a key driver
for optimum utilisation of resources and Energy Conservation. The Commission introduced
the PF incentive in May 2000 by way of a 1% rebate in energy tariff for every %
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 68
improvement in PF above 0.95. In the January 2002 Tariff Order, the incentive was further
enhanced for industrial users achieving a PF level of 0.99 and unity. The PF then improved
dramatically from 0.94 to 0.97 and has remained steady at that level ever since, indicating that
industries are making a determined effort to conserve energy by improving the efficiency of
their power usage. The Commission has estimated that this has resulted in a release of around
100 MW of generating capacity, and recurring savings of over 200 million units in
Transmission & Distribution losses alone.
The Commission has hence decided to continue the PF incentive, as consumers would have
envisaged continuity of incentive to offset the cost of installing capacitors to improve the PF.
In addition, the Commission has revised PF penalty to a graded structure to further incentivize
consumers to commit investments to maintain high power factor. The PF penalty would be at
2% for PF of 0.89, and further additional 1% for every percentage point decrease in PF. The
Commission also clarifies that the PF incentive and disincentives are applicable to LTP-G
consumer who opt for LTMD tariff.
2.7 Reliability Charge
2.7.1 Objections
Vidarbha Industries Association has represented against levy of reliability charge of 25 paise
per unit for consumers who get uninterrupted power supply in any billing cycle on the
grounds that MSEB should not get rewarded for performing its basic duty of providing
uninterrupted supply within a band of declared voltage and declared frequency, as per Rules
54 and 55 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. Instead, several consumers have requested for
levying a penalty on MSEB for its failure to supply reliable and quality power. Maharashtra
Chamber of Commerce and Industry has suggested levying a penalty charge on MSEB in
form of “Load Shedding - Discount”. Vindhya Paper Mills Limited has requested for
Tripping Rebate to compensate consumers drawing supply from express feeders for any trips.
Anjangaon Surji Grahak Panchayat has further requested to make MSEB responsible for
failure of consumer’s equipment attributable to voltage/frequency fluctuations.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 69
2.7.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has submitted that it is waiting for the Commission to finalise exact definition of
reliability, before levying the Reliability Charge. Further, the MSEB has clarified that it
makes all efforts to maintain the voltage at the specified levels. As regards frequency,
however, the MSEB has stated that it is a constituent of the Western Grid and the frequency
of the entire Western Grid is subject to fluctuations on account of the supply and demand
mismatches in the grid, and hence it has no control over the frequency, beyond a certain level.
2.7.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission had initiated the process of levying a ‘Reliability Charge’ to begin with, on
HTP-I and HTP-II consumers who have been provided with ToD meters, within urban
agglomerations in the State, on consumers receiving power supply through Express Feeders
and also those within MIDC areas. The MSEB was allowed to impose an additional charge of
25 paise per kWh to these consumers whenever it is able to supply uninterrupted power
supply. Collection of reliability charge would have resulted in additional revenue, which
could have been gainfully employed in strengthening/augmenting the system to improve the
quality of supply to consumers. However, the MSEB has not progressed very far in
implementing the Reliability Charge. The Commission’s detailed analysis and directions in
this context are discussed in the subsequent Section dealing with the levy of Reliability
Charges.
2.8 Others
2.8.1 Objections
Citizens Forum has requested for extension of concession on electricity duty beyond 7 years
for Marathwada region to avoid any adverse impact on industries.
Janata Dal (Secular) and several other consumers have objected to interest on delayed
payment at 12-18% as ruling deposit interest rate is of the order of 9%.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 70
2.8.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has clarified that it collects electricity duty on behalf of the State Government, which
fixes the rate and concessions.
MSEB has submitted that the interest on delayed payment is being levied as per the
Commission Order dated January 10, 2002.
2.8.3 Commission’s Ruling
As regards the extension of concession in electricity duty for the Marathwada region, the
matter is outside the purview of the Commission, and is a subject matter to be discussed with
the GoM.
As regards the interest on delayed payment, the Commission is of the opinion that the interest
rate on delayed payment should be higher than the ruling interest rate to discourage
consumers from delaying payment, as it is the duty of the consumers to pay the electricity
bills on time. The consumers should not treat the MSEB as a source of working capital
funding.
3. TARIFF SETTING PROCEDURE
3.1.1 Objections
N.N.Kale and Associates have requested the Commission to reject the MSEB’s Petition on
account of the delay in submission of the Proposal by approximately 8 months. Alternatively,
they have requested the Commission to not grant retrospective tariff revision and/or make
revised tariff valid upto March 31, 2005. Janata Dal (Secular) has also requested to not
implement the tariff revision with retrospective effect.
They have requested the Commission to not accept the Proposal on the ground that the
Proposal cannot be utilised for determining tariffs in the absence of certification by a Cost
Accountant. They have also objected to the appointment of a specific foreign management
accounting firm by MSEB despite the matter being under consideration of the Commission.
They have requested the Commission to issue guidelines for appointment of foreign
consultants.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 71
Tata Power Company (TPC) has requested to defer revenue filing till the Commission frames
its Regulations under the EA 2003. They have pointed out that MSEB is a deemed State
Transmission Utility and a Licensee under EA 2003, and the MSEB’s tariff determination
would be governed by S.64 of EA 2003, which states that the Tariff Petition should be made
in the manner specified by the Regulations. TPC has stated that hence, the Proposal cannot be
considered until the Commission frames its Regulations.
Anjangaon Surji Grahak Panchayat has pointed out that MSEB has not adhered to the Commission’s Order of submitting the Proposal in Marathi in addition to English. Submission of Part III of the Proposal only on CD has affected people without access to computers. Electricity Consumers Association has suggested circulating the Proposal upto Subdivision Office for ensuring higher public participation in the tariff setting process. They have also requested for 45 to 60 days time to file objections. Association of Regular Payers of Electricity Bills has brought out that the cost of filing an objection is Rs. 440, which is unaffordable to most consumers.
3.1.2 MSEB’s Response
On the issue of submitting the Proposal under EA 2003, MSEB has pointed out that under
Section 61 of EA 2003, the Commission will have to specify the terms and conditions for
tariff determination. While making this terms and conditions, the Commission would be
guided by CERC specified principles and methodologies and the National Electricity Policy
and Tariff Policy. Section 61 also specifies that until such Terms and Conditions are framed
by the Commission or the passage of one year after the appointed date (June 10, 2003),
whichever is earlier, the Terms and Conditions for determination of tariff under E(S) Act,
1948 and ERC Act, 1998 as they stood immediately before the appointed date, shall continue
to apply. Thus, the MSEB’s Proposal under Section 59 should be acceptable under law.
The MSEB has said that Section 59 of the erstwhile E(S) Act, 1948 states that the MSEB can
adjust its tariffs every year, such that it earns the mandated surplus on the Net Fixed Assets.
However, it is within the purview of the Commission to decide on the issue of Multi-Year
Tariffs.
On the issue of retrospective tariff revision, MSEB has submitted that it has neither requested
for tariffs to be charged retrospectively nor requested to fill the revenue gap within 4-6
months for which the Tariff Order would be applicable during FY 2003-04.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 72
With regards to the cost audit, the MSEB has submitted that it has already appointed ICWAI
for studying the existing accounting and costing records at Nashik, Uran and Koyna power
stations and devising a system to facilitate compliance with the directives of the Commission.
The implementation of the scheme at above 3 stations was expected to start from Sep-03 and
at balance stations from Dec-03. With regards to the objection to the appointment of a certain
firm, MSEB has submitted that the process was carried out transparently through a
competitive bidding process and need not be questioned by the objector.
MSEB has submitted that it has filed the Proposal in English as per Conduct of Business
Regulations of the Commission. Further, it has publicised salient features of the Proposal in
Marathi.
3.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
As brought out in earlier Orders, the Commission is of the opinion that no tariff hike should
be allowed with a retrospective effect and has accordingly issued the Tariff Order effective
from December 1, 2003. The Commission is aware of the implications of not allowing the
tariff hike with retrospective effect on the financial viability of MSEB and accordingly
repeats its advice to MSEB to approach the Commission for a tariff hike, if needed, for the
ensuing year before commencement of December of the previous year.
As regards the certification of the Tariff Petition by a Cost Accountant, the Commission had
directed the MSEB to get the Tariff Petitions as well as the FOCA Applications certified by a
Cost Accountant. Though the MSEB has been submitting FOCA statements certified
accordingly, it has not done so for the Tariff Petition. However, the Commission is of the
opinion that this is not sufficient ground for rejecting the Petition, more so, considering the
MSEB’s financial health and urgent need for additional revenue. The Commission reiterates
its directive to MSEB to submit subsequent Tariff Petitions after certification by a Cost
Accountant. It should also be noted that once the MSEB’s successor entities are corporatized,
the Utilities will have to ensure certification by Cost Accountants.
As regards the formulation of Regulations by the Commission under the EA 2003, a
Committee has been formed, which has representation of the Utilities in the State as well as
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 73
the S.26 consumer representatives. Under the guidance of the Committee, the Regulations are
being drafted in line with the requirements of the EA 2003, for the Commission’s
consideration and guidance. It should be noted that the existing regulations that are not
inconsistent with the EA 2003 will continue to be in existence.
The Commission does not wish to specify any procedure for appointment of consultants by
the MSEB, as the MSEB is subject to regular audits by the concerned authorities and would
have to adhere to the guidelines in this regard that have been specified by the relevant
authorities.
4. TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LOSSES
4.1.1 Objections
Janata Dal (Secular) has pointed out that though MSEB had agreed to reduce T&D loss by
7.5%, MSEB has actually achieved only 0.9% reduction. Hence, excess loss of 6.6%
translating to cost of Rs. 1,254 Crore should be disallowed. Navi Mumbai Action Committee
has highlighted that MSEB should have reduced losses by 15% by FY 2002-03, which could
have translated to savings of Rs 1,506 Crore obviating the need for tariff hike in this Proposal.
Vidarbha Chamber of Small Scale Industries has requested to restrict T&D losses to 21.87%
for tariff consideration and disallow power purchase expenses on account of excess T&D
losses.
Tata Motors has requested to set T&D loss reduction target of atleast 5% per annum.
Examples cited, from actual performance of other electricity utilities on loss reduction target
per year in percentage terms, are Andhra (3.4%), Haryana (4.44%), Karnataka (4%), and
Rajasthan (3.75%). MSEB’s effort of bringing down losses in Pune from 29% to 15% should
be institutionalised across Maharashtra. Several other consumers have also suggested higher
reduction target of 6% to 10% per annum.
Several consumers have objected to MSEB stand of focusing on metering benchmark for
accurate estimation of T&D losses rather than targeting reduction of T&D loss. Janata Dal
(Secular) has brought out that both should be independently pursued to achieve the end goal.
Prayas has highlighted that focus on T&D loss reduction cannot be deferred till MSEB
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 74
completes metering as it might take around 5 years to complete metering at the present rate.
In addition, issue of continuous reading of meter has to be separately addressed.
Estimation of agriculture consumption: Prayas has brought out that to improve the accuracy
of estimation of T&D losses, estimation of agriculture consumption is an important element.
To improve the estimates of agricultural consumption, Prayas has requested the Commission
to direct MSEB or outside agency to collect data on crops and water source in the sample
areas under 5,000 DTs, and to direct MSEB to ensure monthly readings of all Distribution
Transformers being sampled for agricultural estimates. They have further requested the
Commission to commission a census of agricultural pumps in the State.
Energy Audit: Prayas has suggested that the Commission should initiate an independent audit
of the EA system of MSEB for a sample of two urban and two non-urban circles so as to
familiarise itself with ground realities and validate MSEB data. Regulatory scrutiny should
also include things such as billing software.
Tata Motors has stated that MSEB is complacent on reduction of T&D losses. They have
highlighted that against estimated theft of Rs.2,868.85 Crore, MSEB has claimed recovery of
Rs. 11 Crore in FY 2001-02 and set a target of just Rs. 5.09 Crore for FY 2002-03 and Rs.
7.03 Crore for FY 2003-04. Navi Mumbai Action Committee has requested MSEB to
announce the improvements carried out through the vigilance machinery. Tata Motors has
further requested to direct MSEB to put before all the consumers the efforts/actions taken by
MSEB to arrest the theft of electricity under the following heads:
a. Number of FIRs filed. b. Number of Panchnamas. c. Number of people arrested. d. Number of cases filed in the Court of Law. e. Organisational structure created by MSEB to drive the movement to arrest the theft. f. Amounts recovered.
Solapur Manufacturers Association has highlighted several points, which indicate inadequacy
of efforts on part of MSEB to control theft and reduce line losses:
Faulty meters for RCI consumers are still almost 11% of total consumers. Average billing for 22.36% of consumers is still being continued.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 75
Many meters in sub-stations are not working, or having errors. The accuracy level of meters and C.T.P.T.s are not as specified for consumers.
Several suggestions have been offered by various consumers to control technical portion of T&D losses:
Utilise portable truck mounted unit fitted with instruments to spot T&D problems. Involve private organisations for metering. Use of Aerial Bunched Cable could reduce theft by tapping. Use of small step down transformer with supply from secondary side reduces chances by
tapping/hooking. Use of ACSR/AS conductor with lower electrical resistance. Meter each distribution transformer (total 1.84 Lakh) and month wise reporting of energy
billed and energy measured at each transformer. Use of ‘Songir’ pattern, developed by a MSEB employee, across the State.
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat has suggested charging 50% of T&D loss to concerned
employees instead of consumers. MSEB Workers Federation has brought out the constraints
in curbing commercial portion of T&D losses in terms of not getting proper co-operation
from Government authorities, police protection and help to implement the measures.
Several consumers have stated that MSEB should identify authorities and responsibilities for
implementation of Jan Mitra scheme, incentives/disincentives for the reduction/increase in the
distribution losses of the DTCs, and the reduction in the distribution losses achieved.
During the public hearings, several objectors stated that the level of corruption within MSEB
is very high, and that MSEB should take strict action against such employees, to facilitate
reduction in T&D losses, and reduce the extent of tariff revision required.
4.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has taken a stand that the target specified by the Commission is not achievable within
a short time frame, and that T & D loss can be better estimated and controlled through
increase in metering and systems improvement. The MSEB has submitted that it has
proposed improvement in the proportion of the metered consumption (which is measurable)
as a benchmark in lieu of reduction in T & D losses, which are only estimates and guesswork.
In this regard, the MSEB has set for itself a target for increasing metered consumption from
44 % in FY 2001-02 to 47 % in FY 2003-04 as a percentage of net energy input. The MSEB
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 76
has further submitted that the high level of T&D losses can be attributed to the following
reasons:
Overloading of T&D lines due to higher reactive power flow over the lines Overloading of power and distribution transformers Inadequate sub-transmission and distribution network High HT to LT ratio which is 1:2.26 as against the maximum acceptable ratio of 1:1
On the issue of focusing on reduction of T&D losses as the performance parameter instead of
metered consumption, MSEB has submitted that exact level of losses in a system can be
measured only when 100% metering is achieved, when all the meters are accurate, all the
readings are taken accurately and at the same instant. MSEB has submitted that unless T&D
losses are accurately established, a reduction trajectory cannot be prescribed for the MSEB. In
Maharashtra, almost 18 lakh consumers (agricultural) are unmetered which causes additional
uncertainty in the determination of T&D losses. The MSEB has added that it is currently
undertaking efforts to achieve 100% meterisation and improvement in metering and billing
efficiency through a variety of measures detailed in Section 3 of the Proposal.
The MSEB has submitted that the agricultural consumption estimate has been based on a
sample of 4,668 DTC meters whose readings are being taken on a monthly basis. The MSEB
has further submitted that its estimates of agricultural consumption are based on the ‘official’
connected load of the pumps. However, numerous instances have been found where the actual
load is higher than that officially registered with the MSEB. The MSEB has added that it is
not physically possible to police such a vast distribution network, in order to prevent illegal
tapping by certain consumers.
With reference to the issue of not utilising the Songir pattern, MSEB has submitted that the
practice is only useful in order to check that actual load by consumer does not exceed the
sanctioned load, and does not directly help in controlling the T&D losses and is practically
difficult to implement all over the State. Further, the MCB is normally being provided along
with the meter. The MSEB has submitted that it has initiated ‘Jan Mitra’ concept amongst its employees. On
implementation of this concept, the Lineman/Asst. Lineman/Helper would become the local
guardian for the area under their control with respect to DTCs and consumers. The concept
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 77
would help to drive the performance of the MSEB right from the grass root level. The Jan
Mitra would be responsible and accountable for the metering, billing and collection
performance for the entire Subdivision.
4.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission is deeply concerned with the continuing high level of T&D losses in the
MSEB system, and has taken a serious view of the MSEB’s non-compliance of the
Commission’s directive to reduce the T&D loss. In order to determine the level of allowable
T&D losses, in today’s field condition, one has to assess the total T&D losses within the best
possible accuracy level instead of envisaging an ideal situation. Even if the Commission were
to take a strict view that only the technical losses should be allowed and all the commercial
losses should be to the MSEB’s account, the problem remains with the assessment of the
technical losses. Though the MSEB has submitted in the past that the technical losses could
be in the range of around 21%, this number has to be verified through load flow studies. In
the absence of any certainty on this issue, the Commission is constrained to accept the target
loss level at 26.87% for the purposes of this Order.
If the cost of all the excess losses were disallowed, then it is most likely that the MSEB will
be unable to meet its daily requirements and will be unable to supply power to its consumers.
This is not in the consumers’ interest, and till a viable alternative emerges, the MSEB has to
continue to supply electricity to the consumers in the State. The Commission is of the opinion
that a pragmatic decision has to be taken in the best long-term interest of the electricity
consumers in the State as well as the MSEB. The mechanism for addressing the cost of excess
losses has been explained in detail while discussing Regulatory Liability Charge in the
section on Tariff Design.
The Commission does not find merit with MSEB’s suggestion on focusing to the extent of
metering rather than the T&D losses, since it is observed that even in fully metered area (such
as Pune, Nagpur) or category (such as residential, industrial and commercial) there are
substantial billing errors indicating deficiency of management. Hence, the Commission
directs MSEB to achieve the T&D loss reduction target as well as the metering targets.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 78
The Commission is of the opinion that energy accounting by itself has no meaning, unless the
MSEB audits and analyses the energy accounting data and holds the concerned officers
responsible for the excess losses in that zone/circle. The Commission is extremely concerned
about the allegations of corruption within the MSEB, and directs the MSEB to verify these
claims and initiate strict disciplinary action against such employees found guilty of indulging
in corrupt practices. The Commission has noted that there are several instances where the
meters installed are not being read on a monthly basis. The Commission reiterates that the
MSEB should hold the concerned employees responsible for the T&D losses in the respective
circles/zones, and consider departmental proceedings against these employees after following
due disciplinary procedure. The monitoring of the circle-level losses must continue and the
MSEB should continue to submit the circle-level energy accounting data on a monthly basis,
and circles should operate on ‘profit centre’ basis.
The Commission further directs the MSEB to devise and widely publicise efforts
undertaken/actions taken by MSEB to control theft of electricity, on a quarterly basis. The
Commission also directs MSEB to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of various suggestions
for controlling technical portion of T&D losses and to submit to the Commission cost-benefit
analysis and investment proposal.
5. REVENUE/REVENUE ARREARS
5.1.1 Objections
BILLING
Consumers have complained that MSEB has been avoiding meter reading by charging
consumers on estimated consumption basis under the pretext of faulty meter. To control such
practices, Janata Dal (Secular) has suggested that MSEB should not be allowed to raise a
second consecutive bill on the basis of estimated consumption wherever a faulty meter is
reported. Meter replacement should be made mandatory before raising second bill. In
addition, meter reading/checking should be carried out in presence of consumer. Mumbai
Grahak Panchayat (MGP) has suggested that practice of average bill/estimate bill should be
gradually discontinued by ensuring monthly billing. Prayas has requested that MSEB should
be directed to follow the Commission’s Order regarding discontinuation of average billing.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 79
Prayas has observed that B-80 billing1 seems to be very large in certain circles such as
Pune(U) of around Rs 80 Crore. Prayas has requested MSEB to clarify the stage at which
these adjustments reflect in actual billing. Consumers have suggested delegating B-80
adjustment approval at the Divisional level from the current Zonal level. Prayas has requested
MSEB to specify reasons that lead to credit billing for consumers and amount of credit bill for
all LT consumers in each zone.
Prayas has observed that the temporary customers such as construction meters have been
highly problematic and responsible for a large revenue loss. MSEB should immediately
explore ways of giving pre-paid meters to such customers. MSEB should provide a
connection to the applicant of temporary connection only for the period for which other
associated permissions (such as Corporation’s permission for construction) are available.
Tata Motors and several Consumer Associations have suggested several improvements in
billing/metering. Some of the suggestions are spot billing, offer of prepaid meters, bill using
digital camera, employ automatic meter reading system, map consumers to a
meter/pole/transformer/block/taluka/district to improve analysis, use of check meters for HT
consumers, use of meter with MRI prints for HT consumers and use of hi-precision, hi-tech
electronic meters for all LT consumers.
Pimpri Chinchwad Small Industries Association has objected to the attitude and conduct of
the Flying Squad. It has requested that an engineer having knowledge of theft detection
should accompany such Flying Squads.
REVENUE GENERATION
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has suggested that MSEB should look at alternative sources of
revenue such as, utilisation of existing sites for advertisement; offering consultancy services
to third party for generation, transmission and distribution and reallocation of offices,
establishment for revenue, to improve viability of its operations.
1 B-80 billing refers to the practice of adjusting the consumers’ bills based on representation by the consumers. As the revenue has already
been booked based on the original bill sent to the consumers, the MSEB records the change in the consumer’s bills in a Form known as B-
80. At the end of the year, the amount of adjustment under B-80 is adjusted against the revenue billed to correctly record the actual amount
billed by the MSEB.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 80
REVENUE ARREARS
Vidarbha Industries Association has highlighted that MSEB has not complied with directive
of reducing receivables to 5 months of sales. Revenue arrears have actually been increasing
over past 3 years. It has increased from Rs. 5,907 Crore in FY 2000-01 to Rs. 7,113 Crore in
FY 2001-02 and Rs. 8,765 Crore in FY 2002-03. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has further
highlighted that revenue arrears of top 20 defaulters have increased to Rs. 341 Crore in FY
2002-03 from Rs. 326 Crore in FY 2001-02. These arrears are outstanding for months ranging
from 2 to 175. Moreover, Prayas has pointed through ‘aging analysis’ that close to 40%
arrears (about Rs. 3,300 Crore) are more than 3 years old. This has been interpreted as a lack
of commitment to collect receivables, improper and inadequate billing and failure to curb
theft of electricity. The objectors have stated that this would lead to a strain on the finances of
the MSEB and would punish paying consumers.
Prayas has highlighted that the arrears of Rs. 865 Crore with government and public bodies
are high and a problematic issue. As it is being argued that they cannot be disconnected, being
public services, the Commission should direct Government of Maharashtra to pay the
electricity bills of local bodies directly to MSEB rather than giving money to these bodies to
pay to MSEB. Nashik Industries and Manufacturers Association has also highlighted the need
for recovering revenue arrears from bulk consumers like Mula Pravara, water supply
schemes, Municipal Corporations, Grampanchayat. Prayas has also highlighted that the
GoM’s policies and actions have affected recovery from agriculture and power loom
consumers and arrears from these categories have reached around Rs.3,300 Crore.
Tarapur Industrial Manufacturers’ Association has objected to practice of prompt
disconnection followed by MSEB for collection of revenue arrears while late payment is
attributable to MSEB for reasons such as a wrong bill, a cumulative bill for 4-5 months at one
go, a misplaced bill by MSEB, bill not reaching in time, etc. They have suggested that MSEB
should not disconnect the power for atleast 48 hours as customer is anyway paying DPS for a
month’s period. Janata Dal (Secular) has pointed out that as MSEB has security deposit
equivalent of 1 bill’s amount, they should disconnect only after outstanding exceeds 2 bills’
amount. Anjangaon Surji Grahak Panchayat has also suggested that atleast 15 days notice
should be given prior to disconnection.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 81
5.1.2 MSEB’s Response
With reference to various issues related to metering/billing, MSEB has submitted that the
practice of average billing has been carried out under certain conditions such as faulty meter,
locked premises, meter not at site, meter changed, etc. Presently, average billing on account
of faulty meters is around 10.98%. The MSEB has also submitted that they have been
undertaking all measures to reduce the level of average billing through meter replacement
drive. The MSEB has further stated that the T&D losses have actually reduced in areas where
such drives have been completed with full cooperation of the consumers.
With reference to problems of billing, MSEB has submitted that it is in the process of
decentralising printing of bills by creating facilities at billing unit level. This would reduce
burden at each centre and help early correction of abnormal bills leading to reduction in
consumer complaints. Along with energy audit, this would greatly facilitate introduction of
accountability at the billing unit level. This system is being introduced in phased manner and
has been implemented at 50 locations at sub-division level. The remaining locations are
targeted to be covered during FY 2003-04 in a phased manner.
On B-80 adjustments, MSEB has submitted that it has been undertaking conscious efforts to
ensure that the adjustment practice does not give rise to inefficient practices. The level of B-
80 adjustments has been brought down over the years.
With regards to credit billing, the MSEB has clarified that credit billing has been undertaken
in following circumstances:
The consumer may have been billed a higher amount which is paid by him fearing disconnection but subsequently the consumption and billing has been corrected, The consumer have paid an advance amount for a period longer than the billing cycle, The consumer has been charged higher amount on account of practice of rounding off to the nearest ten rupees.
On the objection that flying squads harass the people, MSEB has submitted that the flying
squads have been established to check consumers’ load and also detect cases of energy
pilferage. The MSEB has added that it is not the intention of the MSEB to cause
inconvenience the consumers through such checks.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 82
MSEB has objected to two months notice for disconnection stating that it would lead to
increase in its liquidity problems. On the issue of 15 days notice period for payment of bills,
MSEB has submitted that current practice is as per law. Even EA 2003 prescribes a period of
15 days before effecting disconnection.
The MSEB has submitted that it is taking all effective steps to improve its arrears position in
exercise of the powers conferred to it under section 24 of the erstwhile Indian Electricity Act,
1910. The growth in arrears with respect to those categories where MSEB has a free hand in
effecting disconnection has actually been negative in recent times. The MSEB has been able
to exercise control over the arrears from Domestic, Commercial and Industrial consumers
through disconnections. In other categories, there are inherent constraints in effecting
disconnections such as social reasons and law and order problems. Additionally, a MIS
program has been initiated for effective, efficient reporting and working. Energy Audit
Systems have been installed in 400 kV to 66 kV, express feeders and MIDC feeders. MSEB
has added that it has initiated disciplinary action against erring employees. MSEB has also
undertaken an aggressive metering program.
5.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission had given a directive to MSEB to discontinue the practice of billing
consumers on the basis of average billing. The Commission hereby emphasises that the
MSEB is required to comply with the directives expeditiously, both in letter and in spirit.
MSEB should also try and incorporate the suggestions on improving billing practice after
undertaking the cost benefit analysis.
As regards the suggestions regarding the qualifications of the flying squad, the Commission
advises MSEB to define the qualification criteria for the team, and impart the necessary
training to the team to increase the effectiveness of the flying squad.
The Commission has taken serious note of the increase in receivables. The Commission
reiterates its directive to disconnect all defaulting consumers who are having high
receivables. At the same time, the Commission also appreciates that disconnection will be
difficult in case of Mula Pravara, Street Lighting and PWW consumers. The GoM should
support the MSEB by directing these Public Utilities to pay their dues on time. To this
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 83
effect, the Commission had recommended in the previous Order that the GoM should create a
separate budgetary provision for payment of electricity dues, at the time of determining the
budget for these local bodies, as against the existing practice of clubbing the electricity
payments under ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’. Subsequently, the GoM has already issued such
Orders. However, the Order is not being implemented fully, resulting in mounting arrears
from these consumers. The Commission directs that the Order should be implemented in
letter and in spirit, to ensure that the MSEB’s receivables are brought under control.
6. QUALITY OF SUPPLY/SERVICE
6.1.1 Objections
LOAD SHEDDING
Prayas has questioned the reliability of quantum of load shedding claim by MSEB. MSEB has
claimed that out of total load shedding of 7,836 MU, only 34% of it can be considered as
actual loss. Analysing this, Prayas has pointed that with claimed shift of load, off-peak hour
load should have increased by 2,500 MW. However, this does not tally with actual increase
observed in off-peak load. Prayas has highlighted the need for installation of electronic data
storage meters for all 11 kV feeders at estimated cost of Rs. 40 Crore to remove inaccuracy in
Energy Audit data and load shedding.
Some of the consumers have requested for equitable load shedding across all areas of the
State. Additionally, they have requested the Commission to make MSEB accountable for load
shedding and make it pay compensation to the consumers.
QUALITY OF SUPPLY
Industry has put forth several problems related to interruptions, voltage and frequency
fluctuations and has requested the Commission to direct MSEB to improve power reliability
and consistency to achieve benchmark figures. Due to the poor quality of supply and low
voltage, the meters tend to record a higher consumption as compared to the actual usage.
Finolex Industries Limited has pointed that it experienced few hundreds of power
failures/voltage dips over last 10 years on 220 kV supply, which resulted in tripping of their
plant. Despite having 2 circuits of 220 kV feeders, it experienced 10 shutdowns of long
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 84
duration, simultaneously on both circuits in second quarter of 2003. They have requested for a
small quantum of power, necessary for safeguarding critical equipment, during cascade
tripping. Several agricultural consumers have highlighted that the intermittent supply has
affected them by making them redraw water multiple times, as water reached only partial
distance at the time of interruptions.
Western Railway has requested the Commission to direct MSEB to compensate Railway for
losses incurred by Railway due to requirement of regulating trains during the period of
interruptions.
Industry has pinpointed maintenance-related problems causing interruptions and has
requested the Commission to direct MSEB to improve their maintenance. Tarapur Industrial
Manufacturers’ Association mentioned that the increase in power interruptions in Tarapur
region is attributable to partial execution of planned maintenance activities. Tata Motors has
highlighted that MSEB has not used facility of APDRP as effectively as that of many other
SEBs. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has highlighted that MSEB has been spending 2% of
revenue for operation and maintenance of power system as compared to 5% by TPC, 11% by
BSES, 11% by BEST. Unless and until MSEB improves O&M expense on distribution,
availability would not improve. Prayas has pointed that the Commission should seek
compliance from MSEB that it actually spends allowed O&M costs for the purpose of
maintenance.
Finolex Industries and some other Associations have made several technical suggestions to
improve reliability such as,
Carry out hot line washing (instead of dry wiping) of insulators 4-5 times during January to May period to protect them against high humidity and salty weather condition.
Consider replacement of present disc type insulators alongwith their hardware by long-rod type insulators to have a long creepage length
Replace corroded GI earthing conductors Make adequate spares available to carry out maintenance/replacement of old overhead
lines, wires, jumpers etc. Repair 35,000 failed transformers which are currently lying in un-repaired condition to
reduce overloading of grid system. Use 3 phase scheme in rural areas instead of single phase scheme to reduce failure rate.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 85
QUALITY OF SERVICE
Several consumer associations have requested the Commission to direct MSEB to issue a new
connection within stipulated time after receipt of payment based on ‘demand estimate’, and
also to simplify the procedure of issuing new connections. Consumers have complained that
for obtaining a new connection for a building, they end up submitting the same papers to 4
level of offices viz. Circle office, Division office, Subdivision office and Section office.
Nashik Industries and Manufacturers Association has observed that MSEB’s inefficiency in
quick processing of HT and LT applications could be a reason for the lower growth rate in
sales. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has requested to introduce a Tatkal scheme for meeting
requirement of immediate connection albeit with an additional charge, say, 25% more.
Consumers have complained that MSEB does not have a proper system to attend to customer
complaints, and the MSEB sometimes takes 6 to 10 hours for restoration of power even in
case of line faults.
Consumers have also pointed that MSEB many a times did not purchase and install certain
equipment, which were mandatory to use. While issuing a connection, if consumer is required
to employ his own equipment, the same should be adjusted in his bill.
6.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has accepted that it has been resorting to load shedding whenever frequency deviations
are beyond a limit to ensure the security and avoid collapse of entire grid. With reference to
load shedding and loss of sales data, the MSEB has clarified that any shifting of load can
happen in off-peak hours in addition to night hours. Further, almost 70-80% of the 11 kV
feeders have been installed with electronic meters and the rest would be metered in due
course.
On frequency and voltage fluctuations, the MSEB has submitted that, presently, there is a gap
between the demand and online capacity in the system. The demand is skewed with high
peaks in the daily pattern leading to frequency deviations. The MSEB has further submitted
that it is working in the integrated grid of Western region at EHV level and the frequency
profile of the system is not entirely under its control. However, the MSEB has added that it
continuously makes efforts to have proper coordination with the grid partners. The MSEB has
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 86
put forth that the low voltage problems arise in situations where power needs to be supplied to
remote locations and distribution transformers are overloaded in those locations. It has added
that addressing these problems would require significant capital expenditure.
The MSEB has listed down the reasons for less on-line capacity as under:
Restrictions on the use of water in Koyna Hydro stations Less supply of gas to Uran Gas Turbine Power Generating Station Poor coal quality Overloading of Transmission and Distribution Network and transformers Pre-arranged shut downs for routine maintenance More reactive loading on the T&D system
On reliability of supply, the MSEB has submitted that it has been putting in sincere efforts to
provide reliable power. However, interruptions are unavoidable due to inherent technical
problems such as natural breakdowns, maintenance works, local transmission/distribution
capacity constraints, forced load shedding to match supply with demand, etc. Further, its
transmission and distribution network is mostly overhead and is, therefore exposed to natural
as well as human interference resulting in breakdowns. The MSEB has further submitted that
new projects are being carried out for increasing capacity in generation and T&D network
augmentation.
On the issue of disruption in supply leading to burning of pumps, MSEB has submitted that
all the electrical components have to be designed for voltage and frequency fluctuations as
per IS specifications. The grid frequency has been within the permissible levels. Therefore,
the electrical component should not cause production loss unless they do not have the
requisite tolerance levels. Therefore, there is no question of the MSEB giving any
compensation to the consumers.
To address the quality problems, MSEB has submitted that it is carrying out new projects
such as, R&M and augmentation schemes, execution of Parli and Paras TPS extension, for
increasing generation capacity to bridge the demand-supply gap. It has also initiated projects
for augmenting T&D network, e.g. construction of new EHV sub stations, increase in
transformation capacity, additional EHV capacitors, APDP and APDRP programs in six
districts each, district integration programs, etc.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 87
With reference to inadequacy of expenditure on R&M, the MSEB has pleaded that the
Commission should not set unrealistic targets. To take care of the disallowed expenses in
Tariff Orders, the MSEB has been cutting down on R&M works and borrowing more funds
than planned, for financing its expenses not included in the Revenue Requirement. Such
practices, if continued, would have long-term implications for the efficiency of the MSEB’s
infrastructure and its ability to render good quality service to its consumers.
With reference to the specific problems of reliable supply pointed out by Finolex Industries
Limited, MSEB has submitted that the failures were attributable to stormy weather, heavy
rains and the presence of red soil. The interruptions were due to bad weather and not bad
maintenance. The MSEB has however taken up the matter and has decided to replace the
insulators on this line. This would need the active cooperation of the objector too.
6.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has taken up the matter of load shedding separately with MSEB. The
Commission has discussed this aspect in detail in the Section on Generation and Power
purchase expenses.
The Commission has taken a serious note of the complaints against the MSEB’s quality of
supply. The Commission would like to stress upon the MSEB that the consumers’
expectations of reliable supply is justified in the context of demanding year-on-year increase
in tariffs. The Commission has also approved O&M expenditure equivalent to 3% of the
opening level of Gross Fixed Assets and directs the MSEB to utilise this budget for the
approved purpose so as to meet consumers’ expectations.
Issues related to grant of connection shall be taken up alongwith the approval of the “Terms
and Conditions of Supply”, and the revised Regulations on “Supply Code” being drafted in
line with the provisions of the EA 2003. Under the EA 2003, the Commission has to approve
the Supply Code and the regulations thereof. Also, Regulations for redressal of consumer
complaints and grievances have been issued in December 2003, viz. Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations, 2003, under S.181 of the EA 2003.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 88
7. GENERATION AND POWER PURCHASE
7.1.1 Objections
Rashtriya Grahak Sanghatana has pointed out that the increase in generation expenses of Rs.
151 Crore and power purchase expenses of Rs. 726 Crore amounting to total Rs. 877 Crore
should not be considered as additional expense as it would also earn additional revenue. Tata
Motors has questioned the steep rise of 11% in generation costs. In their assessment, cost of
generation should be around Rs. 3,955 Crore as against Rs. 4,143 Crore projected by MSEB
based on generation cost of Rs. 0.86/unit in line with earlier years.
GENERATION:
Several consumers have objected to low capacity utilisation of Uran Generating Plant, despite
it being the lowest variable cost generator available with the MSEB. N.N.Kale and Associates
has highlighted that Uran plant is under utilised with PLF of 55.29% despite incremental
capital cost for use of alternate fuel being only Rs. 20 Crore.
Maharashtra Rajya Consumers Association and others have suggested various measures for
improvement of availability and overall reduction of generation cost. Some examples are
optimum utilisation of available generation capacity, import of better quality coal (estimated
additional availability of 400 MW), setting up of coal washaries, utilisation of balance Uran
capacity (400 MW), improvement of power factor in rural area (estimated additional
availability of 1,000 MW) and use of “circuit breaker” as suggested under “Songir” pattern.
Ispat Industries Limited has pointed that an increase in the plant load factor of the generating
station to a reasonable level of 80% would imply an additional availability of 319.7 Mn units
and a resultant saving of Rs. 71 Crore in the power purchase cost.
N.N.Kale and Associates has pointed that Honourable High Court has upheld transit loss of
coal as a component of generation cost and requested the Commission to ascertain actual
transit loss after accounting for liability of coal suppliers for supplying lower quality coal.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 89
POWER PURCHASE:
N.N.Kale and Associates has brought out that MSEB needs to depend on Central Sector share
to the extent of 35.07%. They have requested the Government of Maharashtra to publish
long-term plan for achieving no load shedding and self-sufficiency.
Tata Motors has brought out that the cost of power purchase should come down to Rs. 3,247
Crore (@Rs 1.81/unit) as against Rs. 3,494 Crore projected by MSEB as DPC is not in
operation. It also pointed that the MSEB has included income tax of Rs. 140 Crore payable to
NTPC and of Rs. 11 Crore payable to NPC in the purchase cost even though the Commission
in its Order dated July 31, 2001 disapproved it.
Nashik Industries and Manufacturers’ Association has pointed that the rate of ad-hoc power
purchase of 480 MUs from sugar mills/windmills at Rs. 3.17/unit is high as compared to PTC
rate of Rs. 2.29/unit which has resulted in a burden of Rs. 43.6 Crore to consumer. As this
burden has been arising out of the Government Policy, the burden should be recovered from
State Government as a subsidy instead of passing on to the consumers.
Tata Motors has suggested that MSEB should pay a rebate of minimum Rs 2/unit for units
generated during peak period and abolish synchronisation charge of Rs 20/kVA/month for HT
industrial CPP for encouraging consumers to run their DG sets during peak hours.
MERIT ORDER DESPATCH:
N.N.Kale and Associates has requested comparison of merit order despatch approach
followed by Maharashtra with that of other States in India to ensure adoption of best suitable
approach.
UNSCHEDULED INTERCHANGE (UI) CHARGES
Balaji Electro Smelters Limited has pointed that MSEB has paid UI charges of Rs. 150
Crore for the period Dec ’02 to Mar ’03 and of Rs. 18 Crore for the period Apr ’03 to May
’03. They have sought detailed justification for month-wise UI charges. Balaji Electro
Smelters Limited has requested to clarify whether UI charge is levied as a penalty or as a
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 90
part of tariff as claimed by MSEB. If UI charge is a penalty on MSEB, the same should not be
passed on as a component of NTPC tariff.
OBJECTIONS OF TATA POWER COMPANY (TPC)
MSEB is currently charging Rs. 600 per kVA per month for a standby support to TPC of 550
MVA. TPC has submitted to the Commission that it should not firm up quantum and rate of
standby charge to TPC till such time the matter has been conclusively resolved by
Honourable High Court of Bombay. TPC has highlighted that though the Commission has
approved a rate of purchase of Rs. 2.65/kwh by MSEB from TPC with effect from September
15, 2001, whereas MSEB’s Proposal has built up purchase cost at Rs. 2.5/kWh. Further TPC
submitted for the Commission’s consideration that the rate of Rs. 2.5/kWh should be linked to
fuel price of Rs. 9,500/Ton. TPC has requested the Commission to equate the rate payable by
MSEB to TPC for purchase of power with the rate payable by TPC to MSEB since such sale
amounts to inter utility exchange. It also highlighted that the MSEB Proposal did not envisage
any revenue income from such sales to TPC. Alternatively, it suggested that the energy rate
payable by TPC to MSEB should be fixed based on weighted average fuel cost of MSEB per
unit plus extra high tension transmission losses.
TPC has also requested that the generation of 32 MUs from Supa wind power plant should be
accounted in non-conventional purchase indicated by MSEB without deduction of wheeling
charges of 12% in accordance with the Wind Power Policy in force.
7.1.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has submitted that it has achieved the highest ever thermal generation in FY 2000-
01 with the PLF improving from 72.78% in FY 2000-01 to 74.34% and 71.94% in FY 2001-
02 and FY 2002-03, respectively. However, because of lower hydro generation capacity and
load pattern, thermal capacity was required to be backed down during low load period and,
hence, higher PLF could not be achieved. It has further submitted that all its thermal power
plants have qualified for cash awards from the Government of India for FY 2000-01 for
reduced specific oil consumption.
With reference to the objection that generation at Uran has not been increased, the MSEB
has submitted that out of 912 MW of capacity, only about 450 MW is being utilized. A
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 91
significant amount of capacity of Uran Plant is lying idle because of lack of supply of gas. 4
units of 120 MW each in association with 240 MW of WHR have been commissioned in
recent years and the plant availability has been greater than 90%. Barring, 1 unit of 60 MW,
all other units are available. If the supply of gas is increased, it can lead to higher generation
at Uran Plant. This would help the MSEB in addressing the problems of load shedding to
some extent. The MSEB is taking up the matter of additional gas supply on a continuous basis
with Ministry of Power and Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
With reference to use of imported coal and option of coal washery, the MSEB has submitted
that it has recently procured imported coal for usage at Koradi and Nashik thermal power
plant. Further, a proposal for washed coal from SECL is under consideration.
MSEB has responded that Income Tax to NTPC/NPC has been paid as per CERC Tariff
Orders and the same has been passed on to MSEB’s consumers.
On the cost of power purchase from TPC, MSEB has submitted that the purchase rate has
been assumed based on average rate of power purchase in FY 2002-03. Any changes in per
unit cost of power purchase from TPC would only increase the revenue gap for the MSEB.
Further, this rate should be compared with rates from alternate sources such as PTC before
considering their proposal. With reference to proposed tariff for sale of energy to TPC, the
MSEB has strongly opposed such a suggestion. With reference to suggestion that generation
at Supa wind farm should be accounted as a power purchase by MSEB without deduction of
wheeling charges, MSEB has submitted that the existing treatment of the windmill is as per
the existing Policy and cannot be relaxed in a particular case.
7.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
While computing the generation and power purchase cost, the Commission has given due
weightage to the objections received. The MSEB had considered a 5% increase in the fuel
costs and power purchase costs over the actual costs incurred in FY 2002-03, while
projecting the expenditure for FY 2003-04. The Commission has approved the total
generation and power purchase costs for FY 2003-04 considering the quantum of actual
generation and power purchase for the period of April to July 2003 and estimating the
generation and power purchase costs from August 2003 to March 2004 based on a
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 92
simulation of merit order dispatch and actual average generation and power purchase costs for
the period of April to July 2003, subject to heat rate norms and transit loss component. As the
actual costs have been considered, the Commission has not considered any escalation in the
fuel prices and power purchase costs for the balance period. Further, if there is any change in
the fuel prices and power purchase costs vis-à-vis the costs considered by the Commission,
the MSEB will recover/refund the same through the FOCA mechanism.
The Commission has considered a reduction of 1% in the station heat rate over the levels
considered in the Tariff Order for FY 2001-02, as it still continues to be above the norm. In
previous Tariff Orders, the Commission had disallowed the transit loss component as a
legitimate expense while computing the generation cost. However, the Honourable High
Court of Mumbai has held that transit losses are a legitimate expense, and the permissible
level of transit losses should be determined by the Commission. Relevant paragraphs of the
Honourable High Court’s Order have been quoted below:
“While we agree with the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that MSEB should
strive to bring down the loss under this head, at the same time, we cannot ignore that transit
loss of coal claimed by MSEB is consistent with the Accounting rules. Even the Central
Electricity Authority has in its report of October 2001 opined that coal loss in transit at 3%
will have to be considered while calculating the tariff. According to MSEB, the transit loss is
caused mainly due to loss of moisture in the coal during transit. This loss according to Board
is beyond their control. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Diwan. In our view, MERC
was in error in denying the claim to MSEB for transit loss in coal. However, the percentage
of loss has to be necessarily determined by MERC on the basis of evidence before it and after
hearing the parties. It is not disputed that the exercise to determine coal transit loss for the
year 2000-2001 is academic as period is already over. Needless to say that MSEB will have
the right to claim coal transit loss for subsequent years”.
The Commission has considered transit losses based on the actual level of station-wise transit
losses and has assumed a trajectory for reduction in transit losses. It has accordingly
determined transit losses for 2003-04 and subsequently.
The Commission is of the opinion that the Uran gas plant should be utilised to the maximum
capacity to obviate the need for load shedding. It is ironic that generating capacity remains
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 93
idle due to lack of fuel, despite a part of the State being in darkness. The Commission had
directed the MSEB to submit the detailed Cost-Benefit-Analysis of converting the Uran plant
into a multi-fuel generating facility, as well as the economics of operating the plant with
different fuels. The MSEB has submitted its Report, wherein it has stated that the conversion
of the Uran plant into a multi-fuel generating facility is unviable, considering the lack of gas
availability. The Commission is of the opinion that though gas availability is a constraint at
present, in the near future, additional gas is likely to be available, and the MSEB should
utilize the additional gas to fully utilize the generation capacity at Uran.
The Commission has noted the effort undertaken by MSEB for import of coal and use of
washed coal. The Commission directs MSEB to submit a complete implementation plan for
partial replacement of domestic unwashed coal with imported coal/washed coal to the extent
feasible. MSEB is also advised to evaluate the option of sourcing surplus power from
consumers having captive generation facilities, during peak hours and off-peak hours.
The Commission’s ruling on UI charges is detailed in the section on Generation and Power
Purchase, subsequently.
The Commission retains the standby charge to TPC at the existing levels since the matter is
subjudice. The energy charge to be levied for net sale to the TPC has been increased to match
the highest cost of power purchase, i.e. 299 p/u.
8. EXPENDITURE
8.1.1 Objections
Krishna Valley Chamber of Industry and Commerce has highlighted that actual expense for
FY 2001-02 has been at a variance of Rs. 988 Crore with that of the Commission’s Order
indicating laxity in curbing expenses. They have argued that the MSEB has always been
harping on tariff increase without any mention of efforts undertaken for curbing expenses.
INTEREST EXPENDITURE
Navi Mumbai Action Committee has pointed that the average interest cost at 13% is quite
high. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) has specifically pointed that the interest rate of
14.62% and 14.36% on PFC and Private bonds respectively has been high in the current
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 94
interest rate regime. If a call option is available for these bonds then interest cost can reduce
by Rs. 108 Crore by assuming 3% reduction in interest rate. MGP has requested the
Commission to direct MSEB to restructure borrowings. Prayas has further brought out that
the interest and guarantee fees for SPA Bank and private bonds worked out to 17% and 32%
of the principal amount. As it seemed at a higher level, MSEB should specifically clarify
these expense items. Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Limited has highlighted that the interest
on loans taken by MSEB for buying DPC equity should not be allowed.
Tata Motors has pointed that the interest on working capital should be Rs. 26.84 Crore against
MSEB’s claim of Rs 51.77 Crore. This is estimated based on working capital requirement of
1 month of HT Consumers Bill, 2 months of LT consumers bill, 15 days of fuel oil and coal
stock and 15 days of generation costs less available Security Deposit with MSEB.
Tata Motors has highlighted that the interest paid on Security Deposit was Rs. 41.61 Crore for
FY 2001-02 against a claim of Rs. 75.39 Crore for FY 2003-04. Based on FY 2001-02
expense, this interest element would work out to Rs. 41.61 Crore on security deposit base of
Rs. 1455 Crore for FY 2003-04.
Mr. K B Dange has requested to reduce interest burden of Rs. 466.19 Crore on Government
loans by converting State Government loan to equity as such loans were granted for various
developmental activities, such as development of Harijan Bastis, rural electrification, release
of connections to agriculture pumps, etc., which were obligatory on part of the State
Government.
ADMINISTRATIVE, EMPLOYEE AND OTHER EXPENSES (A&G EXPENSES)
Rashtriya Grahak Sanghatana has brought out that actual A&G expenses for FY 2001-02
were higher by Rs. 111 Crore than the approved expenses. MSEB has further proposed an
increase of Rs. 234 Crore for FY 2003-04, which is not justifiable. Another consumer has
submitted that the MSEB should find ways and means to reduce the salary and wages to
bring them in line with commensurate salary level in society. MSEB has currently been
spending Rs. 1,87,000 per employee as against prescribed minimum wage of Rs. 45,000 per
annum. Nashik Industries and Manufacturers’ Association has pointed that the employee
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 95
expense should have reduced by Rs. 52 Crore as approximately 3,500 employees have been
retiring every year and there has been no significant recruitment.
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has submitted that the MSEB should not be allowed any increase
in manpower unless a broad bench marking, such as, number of employees per circuit km,
number of employees for every lakh consumers, etc., is carried out. Navi Mumbai Action
Committee has requested MSEB to pubilcise system for improving employee efficiency such
as, productivity norms, stiff targets, and process for monitoring targets.
Mr. S. M. Sane has pointed that the National Productivity Council (NPC) Report, submitted
by MSEB on January 23, 2001, stated that except for one ratio relating to manpower, all the
other ratios (around 30) were higher for the MSEB in comparison to the national average. The
Report did not mention the application of Industrial Engineering techniques for assessment of
manpower requirement. MSEB Workers Federation pointed that the Report was not adopted
by MSEB, as it was established that the conclusions drawn were based on wrong data and
information. Maharashtra State Apprentice Kruti Sameeti (affiliated to MSEB Workers
Federation) has requested to remove freeze on employee addition as work has increased on
account of supply at additional levels of voltage; operationalisation of Khaparkheda and
Chandrapur power station; increase in number of consumers, etc. It has requested permission
for filling up some important vacant posts, having an impact on delivery of service. They
have also suggested giving a chance to young apprentices alongwith a possibility of
permanent absorption if they are found to contribute positively.
REVENUE SURPLUS
Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Limited has objected to Revenue Surplus allowed by the
State Government, as EA 2003 does not provide for it. They have requested the Commission
to review technical/commercial performance before allowing the Revenue Surplus. They have
pointed that in a competitive market, MSEB should not ask for the Revenue Surplus while it
has not been able to recover bills.
OTHERS
Vidarbha Industries Association has pointed that the Consumer’s contribution towards
capital costs and outright contribution, which is a non-refundable amount, should not be
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 96
projected as a liability. They have suggested considering it as revenue against sale of power
wherever corresponding capital expenditure has not been committed.
Vidarbha Industries Association has opined that the depreciation claimed should have been
lower by Rs. 156 Crore, as depreciation should not be allowed on consumer contribution,
grants and subsidies, which were projected at Rs. 3,027.74 Crore. Vidarbha Industries
Association has also pointed that the MSEB Balance Sheet carried an excess gratuity liability
of Rs. 235.71 Crore based on actuarial valuation. They have suggested adjusting this excess
liability against revenue requirement for FY 2003-04.
Nashik Industries and Manufacturers’ Association has pointed that the amount of Rs. 91.81
Crore has been paid to the State Government as guarantee charges. Since power development
work is obligatory duty of the State Government, the guarantee charges should be waived off.
Vidarbha Industries Association has highlighted that there has been a reducing trend of write
off of bad debts for past 2 financial years. They have opined that the provision should have
been less than Rs. 170 Crore. Nashik Industries and Manufacturers’ Association has pointed
that the provision for bad debt should be limited to 1.5% of revenue from sale of electricity as
per the Commission’s guideline.
8.1.2 MSEB’s Response
With reference to exercising put option for bonds having high interest rates, MSEB has
submitted that it has consistently been interacting with various financial institutions for
exploring avenues for interest rate reduction. Many institutions, like HDFC, PFC, IFCI, REC
and DCC banks, etc., have effected the interest rate reduction. However, certain other lenders,
such as LIC and the Government of Maharashtra, whose lending rates are 14% and 14.25%
respectively, have been unwilling to reduce the interest rate despite efforts by the MSEB.
With regards to the guarantee fees, the MSEB has clarified that this fee has been levied on
interest payable plus the average loan outstanding. With regards to the interest payable on
DPC bonds, the MSEB has submitted that the inclusion is sought taking into consideration
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 97
that the DPC plant is currently lying idle and is locked in litigation. Until the plant is revived
and starts operation, the Commission should allow the interest outgo.
On the issue of working capital interest, MSEB has clarified that there are also consumers
having billing cycle of 3 and 6 months in addition to billing cycles of 1 and 2 months.
Additionally, even for HT consumers with 1 month billing cycle, actual working capital
requirement ranges from 1 to 2 months since bill is not immediately raised upon consumption
by HT consumers.
The MSEB has submitted that the growth in administrative expenses has been partly arrested
by not filling in vacant posts and reduction in overtime payment. This has been made possible
through measures such as banning recruitment (in Class III and IV), stopping payment of
overtime to administration staff, deploying additional staff to certain areas/activities in order
to give better service to consumers, imposing travel discipline amongst the employees, etc.
On recruitment, the MSEB has submitted that it has been currently under directive of the
Commission to cut down on its recruitment in the Pay Group III and IV categories. The
MSEB has proposed hike in Salary and DA as per recent trends in employee expenses.
On the issue of bad debts provisioning, the MSEB has submitted that keeping in mind the
age-wise position of expected arrears, it has decided to make adequate provisioning of
doubtful debts at Rs. 250 Crore for FY 2003-04.
8.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has analysed each head of expenditure in detail with a view to determine the
prudency of the same. The Commission’s detailed analysis and rationale for approved
expenditure against each head is discussed in the Section on Expenditure Projections.
In the context of the high interest rates on GoM loans, the Commission, in its previous Order,
has already directed the MSEB to reduce the interest cost by renegotiating and refinancing the
high interest bearing loans, including that given by the GoM.
As regards freeze on employment imposed by the Commission, it should be noted that the
Commission has not frozen employment. The Commission had directed the MSEB to
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 98
conduct industrial engineering studies in this connection, as recommended in the
Rajadhyaksha Committee Report. However, the Commission noted that its directives
restricting recruitment to Group III and IV posts had been interpreted as preventing MSEB
from filling the backlog of vacant posts reserved for backward classes, inspite of State
Government Orders from time to time. The Commission hence issued a Clarificatory Order
dated 21.4.2003 to the Tariff Order issued by the Commission in May 2000. In the
Clarificatory Order, the Commission clarified that its directives restricting recruitment in
Groups III and IV of MSEB did not apply to recruitment to fill the backlog of posts reserved
for backward classes to the extent of the vacancies carried forward upto May 5, 2000, i.e. the
date of the Commission’s original Order, since such vacancies have been carried forward
from recruitment exercises which predate that Order. However, this was subject to the
condition that the total number of employees in Groups III and IV as on May 5, 2000 would
not exceed as a result.
MSEB is directed to complete the industrial engineering study and submit the new norms
within six months.
9. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND METERING
9.1.1 Objections
INFORMATION SYSTEM
Janata Dal (Secular) has submitted that all MSEB offices should maintain a copy of official
Circulars, display Commercial Circulars on Notice Board in the MSEB’s local offices and
make them available to consumers on payment of nominal charges.
Prayas has highlighted the need for authentic reporting and streamlining of reporting. Prayas
has pointed that the change in reporting format by MSEB has been making comparison and
analysis difficult. They have requested the Commission to direct MSEB to submit all periodic
reports, including monthly energy audit reports, billing and revenue reports on affidavit. Any
change in the numbers should be taken up by the Commission seriously. It has requested the
Commission to direct MSEB to submit progress reports in specific formats, which would
improve the information available with the Commission and the public.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 99
It has been highlighted that the MSEB has not submitted Audited Balance Sheet for FY 2002-
03. Mr. S R Paranjape has further requested the Commission to direct MSEB to provide
audited statements alongwith a specific explanation for violation of approved limit on
expenditure on each of the sub-heads and a specific note on shortfall in projected revenue
under various sub-heads. Tata Motors has also suggested that the MSEB should start
publishing financial results every 6 months like a corporate.
METERING
Finolex Industries Limited has pointed that the MSEB has stopped testing of HV/EHV Meter
(TOD). They have suggested checking of all parameters (kWh, kVAh and kVA MD) for
accuracy atleast once a year. They have requested that the data from TOD meters should be
retrieved once a month and copy should be made available to HT consumer on chargeable
basis for study of load pattern.
Consumers have highlighted that the MSEB has not come up with 100% meterisation
programme and have requested MSEB to provide time schedule of Meterisation program.
Hotel and Restaurant Association (Western India) has requested the Commission to lay down
a specific time frame for MSEB to switch over to metered system. Panchayat Sameeti,
Baglan, has requested to carry out metering of all agriculture transformers to enable more
accurate estimation of losses and agriculture consumption.
Hotel and Restaurant Association has requested the Commission to direct MSEB to consider
installing common meters for building/society/industrial estate wherever the consumer is
willing to take up retail distribution responsibility.
Tata Motors and several Consumer Associations have suggested several improvements in
metering. Some of the suggestions offered are:
Use prepaid meters. Employ automatic meter reading system. Map consumers to a meter/pole/transformer/block/taluka/district to improve analysis. Use check meters for HT consumers. Use meter with MRI prints for HT consumers and use hi-precision, hi-tech electronic
meters for all LT consumers.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 100
9.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has submitted that except for a base of about 18 lakh LT agriculture consumers, all the
remaining consumers have been metered. However, the meterisation program for LT
agriculture is slowing down due to resistance from cultivators and local leaders. There have
also been instances of removal of installed meters forcefully by mobs as reported by the field
offices. The MSEB has indicated that as such, the meterisation program may not be
completed by December 2004. Out of 18,793 agriculture consumers above 10 HP, 8,757
numbers are metered and 10,011 are unmetered as on June 30, 2003. In HT LIS category, all
the consumers are provided with meters.
MSEB has further submitted that an aggressive metering program is underway wherein the
procurement of meters is being increased manifold. This would help the MSEB in better
measurement of its T&D losses and taking appropriate actions to curb such losses. The
MSEB has further adopted target of metered consumption at 50.2% of the proposed energy
input for FY 2003-04 against 44.2% in FY 2000-01 and 46.4% in FY 2002-03.
On the issue of providing a copy of the meter data retrieved for billing purpose, MSEB has
submitted that such data is retrieved in doubtful cases. As such, the data can be provided to
the consumer if he requires it for a particular month and for a specific purpose.
9.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission agrees with the need for authentic reporting and streamlining of reporting.
The Commission directs MSEB to submit all periodic reports, including monthly energy audit
reports, billing and revenue reports on affidavit. The Commission has noted that in the past,
the MSEB has been submitting periodic reports in different formats for different periods,
making it difficult to analyse the data submitted. The Commission directs the MSEB to
submit all periodic reports in a consistent format.
The Commission is of the opinion that 100% metering is a must to ensure proper energy
accounting and identification of losses, and had set targets accordingly, in previous Tariff
Orders. The Commission directs the MSEB to adhere to the deadline for achieving 100%
metering. The MSEB may consider innovative solutions like group metering, feeder level
metering, etc. to achieve the metering targets.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 101
As brought out by several consumers, the MSEB should ensure operation of all connected
meters by necessary testing. MSEB should also ensure reading of meters during every billing
cycle. As the meter data is retrieved in all cases, particularly for consumers with ToD meters
MSEB should share the recorded meter data with the consumers if the consumer desires to
have a copy.
10. T&D LOSS CHARGE (TDL)
10.1.1 Objections
Several consumer associations have represented against levy of T&D charge, its
implementation and MSEB’s Proposal to introduce uniform T&D loss charges across the
State. They have submitted that a common consumer should not be penalised for MSEB’s
sole failure in controlling T&D losses. They have pointed that Rs. 868 Crore out of total gap
of Rs. 1,463 Crore is attributable to excess T&D losses.
Several Consumer Associations have further requested to fine tune application of T&D loss
charge by considering loss level at a smaller geographic unit such as, MSEB division, sub-
station, distribution transformer, etc. The industrial segment has also represented against
clubbing of industry with others in determination of loss level and requested to fine-tune it
according to loss level attributable to them at its incoming feeder such as, EHV feeder, MIDC
feeder, feeder associated with industrial belt, etc. Further fine-tuning is suggested to account
for population mix of HT, LT, domestic, commercial and agricultural consumers; distance of
consumer from generating units; distance of consumer from substation. Industry in Vidarbha
region has sought an exemption from this charge, as T&D loss attributable to them would be
quite less on account of their proximity to generation units.
Shetkari Sahakari Sooth Girni Limited has brought out that selective charging of T&D loss on
certain circles creates unfair difference in cost between competitors for no direct fault of
honest manufacturers. Vidarbha Industries Association has suggested structuring of T&D loss
charge as incentive rather than as a penalty. Century Enka has pointed that the practice of
billing transformer losses at 220 kV to EHV consumers in addition to TDL charge amounts to
double accounting and hence should be discontinued.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 102
Several consumers have mentioned that the MSEB has not paid its share of 50% of T&D Loss
charges i.e. Rs. 636 Crore. So, MSEB should not be allowed to charge the same to other
consumers.
Prayas has requested the Commission to rework the T&D Loss (TDL) charge and make the
revenue neutrality (or lack of it) explicit in the Order. They have extended their support to
graded TDL charge as linked to losses in the area with a ceiling of Rs. 0.50 per unit.
The Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP), a Section 26 consumer representative, has suggested
that if the MSEB needs ‘Oxygen’ in the form of tariffs to recover the cost of the excess losses,
the consumers would be willing to contribute the same, provided the Commission treated this
contribution as a Regulatory Liability owed by the MSEB to the consumers, as this is not part
of the MSEB’s rightful revenue requirement.
10.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has submitted that it is against the philosophy of differential T&D loss charges. MSEB
has opined that such a proposal would be inequitable on its part and discriminating against
certain sections of the society. The factors responsible for variation in T&D losses across
areas are HT consumption as a percentage of total consumption; the ratio of length of HT
distribution lines to the length of LT distribution lines, and consumer mix. It would be unfair
to levy differential T&D loss charge on consumers who have no control on these factors.
With regards to bearing of 50% of excess T&D loss, MSEB has mentioned that the monetary
component of the 50% i.e. Rs. 636 Crore was reduced from the ARR while determining
tariffs.
10.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
T&D losses are a very critical factor affecting the tariff determination process. The
Commission has dealt with all these issues in detail in the Section on T&D losses, which also
includes a detailed analysis of the energy audit data submitted by the MSEB and the T&D
loss levels at various levels.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 103
11. SECURITY DEPOSIT (SD)
11.1.1 Objections
Nagpur Power and Industries Limited has objected to recovery of security deposit to the
existing level of billing cycle plus 1 month. Consumers have strongly objected to MSEB’s
Proposal of increasing security deposit from 1-3 months to 2-6 months while MSEB pays
interest at the rate of 3.5%. MIDC Industrial Association has found the requirement of 2-3
months of security deposit for LT consumers discriminatory as compared to 1 month
requirement for HT consumers.
Anjangaon Surji Grahak Panchayat has pointed that the MSEB has been required to pay
interest at the rate applicable to bank deposits on consumer’s deposits as per EA 2003. Some
consumers have suggested that the MSEB should pay interest at a rate of 9% to 18%. Some
other consumers have requested linking this interest rate to postal savings interest rate or bank
interest rate or penal interest rate charged by MSEB.
Century Enka Limited has suggested that the MSEB should accept Bank Guarantee or
revolving Letter of Credit in place of deposit. Century Enka has also observed that if the
security deposit earlier paid becomes excess of one month’s consumption, MSEB has not
been granting or subsequently delaying refund of the excess deposit. They have submitted
that the MSEB should lay down transparent procedure for calculation of refund of excess
security deposit and refund the same within one month of claim by way of adjustment in the
electricity bill/direct payment.
11.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has pointed that the Commission has allowed security deposit corresponding to the
average of 3 months of billing or the billing cycle period, whichever is lower. On the issue of
proposed change in security deposit, MSEB has clarified that the change in levels of security
deposit is being proposed for only those categories whose billing cycle is more than 3 months.
The change is not proposed for industrial consumers.
The MSEB has also submitted that the Supreme Court, in one of its rulings, has found the
collection of security deposit from consumers as justified. Though it is not binding on the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 104
MSEB to pay any interest on such security deposits, the MSEB has argued that it still pays
interest to the consumers at the rate of interest allowed on post office savings account. The
MSEB has further argued that it recovers this interest paid through the Annual Revenue
Requirement, and thus any further increase in the interest rate payable would only result in a
higher revenue requirement and consequently higher tariffs.
MSEB has further submitted that it prefers security deposit from consumers as it provides it
with ready cash for meeting the working capital needs. If bank guarantee/letter of credit
facility were to be extended, then the need for working capital borrowings would be higher
which would also increase the revenue requirement of the MSEB and the tariffs.
11.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission had reduced the rate of interest on delayed payment in the past Tariff
Orders. The consumers should appreciate that if the MSEB starts paying a higher rate of
interest on the Security Deposit to match the rate of interest on delayed payment, then the
additional expense incurred on this account will have to be adjusted through tariffs. The
Commission has also retained the quantum of Security Deposit at earlier levels so that the
consumers are not burdened further. The issue of refund of Security Deposit shall be
addressed alongwith the approval of the Terms and Conditions of Supply.
12. SERVICE LINE CHARGES (SLC)
12.1.1 Objections
Vidarbha Industries Association has suggested that the Service Line Charges should not be
linked to Connected Load as loading of network is determined by specified Maximum
Demand by consumer rather than the Connected Load, which could be three to four times
higher than the Maximum Demand established by the consumer. The Service Connection
Charges in addition to the Service Line Charges should not be levied. The supervision charges
of 15% should be linked to labour component only as provided in the Model Conditions of
Supply in IE Rules 1956 Schedule VI (5). The Schedule states that ‘if a consumer desires to
have the position of the existing service line altered, the Licensee shall carry out the work and
charge the consumer the cost of the additional material used and the labour employed plus
15% of the latter as supervision charges.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 105
Additionally, they have requested the Commission to consider refund of Service Line Charges
since service line becomes the property of Licensee.
Vidarbha Chamber of Small Scale Industries has pointed that the MSEB should not charge
Service Line Charges for restoration of Contract Demand wherever they have been collected
once from the consumer and not refunded at the time of reduction of Contract Demand, which
is the prevailing practice.
Tata Motors has pointed that the MSEB has not considered Service Line Charge and Service
Connection charge as revenue generated in the Tariff Petition. Tata Motors have estimated the
revenue from these heads at Rs 38.54 Crore and Rs 21.04 Crore, respectively.
12.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has submitted that the Service Line Charges and Service Connection Charges are of
capital receipt nature and hence cannot be included in the Revenue Income projection.
12.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission is of the opinion that the determination and payment of Service Line
Charges is within the scope of the ‘Terms and Conditions of Supply’. The Commission will
take up this issue alongwith approval of the ‘Terms and Conditions of Supply’ after the issue
of this Tariff Order. The Commission also clarifies that the income from SLC and service
connection charges are a capital receipt in the books of the MSEB, and cannot be recorded as
revenue receipts. Further, the Capital Base is reduced to that extent, while computing the
reasonable return.
13. CAPITAL INVESTMENT
13.1.1 Objections
Prayas has submitted that it would be the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the
consumers are protected from high cost of an investment and ‘usefulness’ and ‘prudence’ of
the investment has been established in advance to avoid improper investment decisions.
‘Disallowance’ at a later stage could be costly for MSEB and would also affect service
quality. To cite an example, Prayas has pointed that the expansion plan for Parali and Paras
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 106
Generating Unit has been projected at a cost of nearly Rs 5 Crore/MW, which would be too
high for an expansion plan.
Prayas has also requested to establish prudence and usefulness test for all new EHV
investments in past 3 years. They have requested the Commission to obtain details of loading
of the EHV substations and lines and availability of the equipment (in % time). They have
further requested to investigate and disallow capitalisation of a part of such investment where
new EHV substation is highly unloaded to ensure protection of consumer interest.
MSEB should seek the Commission’s permission on capacity addition and provide advance
information on its plans, options considered, and competition encouraged during the process.
13.1.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB has submitted that per MW cost for expansion project is actually Rs. 4.21 Crore
including interest during construction. Further, the expansion project has been located at Parli
to utilise existing facilities.
13.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission agrees that the ‘usefulness’ and the ‘prudence’ test have to be established in
advance to avoid improper investment decisions. The Commission hereby directs the MSEB
to provide details on its investment plan for approval of the Commission. The Commission
will evaluate all prospective investments. Though the Commission has been asking the MSEB
to justify its investments in the past, the MSEB has not come forward and given the requisite
Cost-Benefit Analysis.
14. ENERGY CONSERVATION AND DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT (DSM)
14.1.1 Objections
Vrikshawallee, a ‘not for profit’ NGO, has highlighted that existing tariff structure does not
provide enough incentive for widespread implementation of DSM schemes across the State.
Citing international experience, it has suggested that the MSEB should adopt principles of
integrated resource planning and strive to acquire demand-side resources, renewable energy
resources alongwith traditional supply-side resources. Demand-side resources include
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 107
measures to change the electricity load shape by adopting a wide range of end use
technologies or options. The demand-side technologies and options that are likely to be most
cost-effective in Maharashtra are those that reduce the load during MSEB’s peak period, such
as, peak clipping, load shifting, strategic energy conservation, etc. Examples include
improving efficiency of Irrigation Pump (IP) sets; installing energy-efficient lamps and
lighting systems; replacing domestic electric water heaters with solar thermal water heating
systems; improving efficiency of street lighting by installing solar photovoltaic systems, LED
lighting, high efficiency sodium vapour lamps, or combinations thereof; installing energy
efficient pumping systems in Municipalities; inducing industries to shift electricity loads from
peak to non-peak periods. For development of such demand-side resources, MSEB should
pay an amount equal to alternative cost of an equivalent amount of supply-side resources for
measures that provide sustained, quantifiable and measurable benefits to system.
14.1.2 MSEB’s Response
The MSEB had submitted that it had initiated pilot schemes for demand side management and
energy conservation. However, in the meantime, since MEDA has been designated as the
implementation agency to carry out all energy conservation measures in the State of
Maharashtra, the MSEB has shared details of the planned pilot schemes with MEDA.
14.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
Managing the demand through DSM techniques, which include load shaping as well as
reduction in the consumption levels through use of energy efficient devices, is very essential,
to bridge the gap between demand and supply. The World Bank has already conducted studies
in this regard, which should be used by the MSEB to formulate appropriate DSM schemes.
The Commission directs the MSEB to come forward with concrete schemes to implement
DSM in the State. This will also enable the MSEB to undertake Least Cost Planning in the
future, and will enable the MSEB to manage its demand to match its supply. The MSEB
should encourage the use of energy efficient devices, and publicize the benefits to the
consumer through appropriate publicity media.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 108
15. TRIFURCATION OF MSEB
15.1.1 Objections
N.N.Kale and Associates has requested the Commission to advise MSEB for formation of an
Expert Committee to facilitate trifurcation. The Committee should ensure coordination with
the GoM, the MSEB and the Commission to expedite the process of trifurcation and do the
auditing of valuation of assets, valuation of intangible assets, valuation of inventories,
physical verification of the fixed assets and its valuation, valuation of shares, study of the
remarks of the auditors, funds from the GoM, Loans and advances, etc.
Kolhapur Zilla Dalap-Kandap Girni Malak Sangh has opposed the privatization of MSEB.
Maharashtra State Apprentice Kruti Sameeti (affiliated to MSEB Worker’s Federation) has
objected to trifurcation as well as privatisation. They have expressed the view that more
autonomy and freedom from political interference would enable MSEB to provide better
service. However, several consumers have suggested that atleast distribution wing of MSEB
should be privatised immediately. Vidarbha Chamber of Small Scale Industries has suggested
decentralising manpower and responsibilities of MSEB in their failure areas for sometime to
improve their performance. However, it has also requested that the Commission should not
allow privatisation wherever efficiency is demonstrated by MSEB.
15.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has not addressed this issue in its response.
15.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The EA 2003 has mandated the corporatization of the vertically integrated Utilities and the
separation of the State Transmission Utility (STU). The Government of Maharashtra and
MSEB have been working on the restructuring of the MSEB and the corporatization of the
MSEB’s successor entities. Under the EA 2003, the Commission has a proactive role in this
process and the Commission will offer its suggestions to the GoM at the appropriate time.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 109
16. DATA DISCREPANCY/INSUFFICIENCY
16.1.1 Objections
Prayas has highlighted a large variation in the T&D losses as given in the Energy Audit
reports and losses reported in the Tariff Proposal. It has pointed that such variation would
have large financial implications for the Transmission Utility and end consumers in the open
access regime.
Vidarbha Industries Association has questioned revenue calculation for sub-categories of LD-
1. It has argued that considering 29,24,493 consumers in sub-category of 0-30 units, and
considering maximum consumption of 30 units, annual consumption could work out to
around 1,052.8 Mn units. However, MSEB has mentioned sale of 2,932 Mn units against this
sub-category. If these additional units were considered as part of next sub-category,
incremental revenue generation would be Rs. 310 Crore with average sale price of Rs.
2.75/unit.
Tata Motors has questioned reliability of number of customers and units sold pointing out
data discrepancy. They have requested MSEB to submit correct data with proper backup.
Ispat Industries Limited has highlighted that MSEB has not provided cost of supply either on
HT/LT basis and/or on consumer category basis. Tata Motors has also pointed that consumer
category wise revenue data has not been provided. Consumers have brought out that data
related to ToD tariff, power factor incentive and penalty, bulk discount and captive and
seasonal consumers have been clubbed together with parent category. Each of these data
elements needs to be separated for each category to get a realistic realisation of all tariff
categories.
Vidarbha Industries Association has pointed that the MSEB is required to provide open
access on chargeable basis under EA 2003 and such charges are to be determined by the
Commission. Since, this will have an impact on tariff, open access proposal should be cleared
before tariff revision. Vidarbha Industries Association has also requested MSEB to submit
provisional accounts for FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 for public hearing.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 110
16.1.2 MSEB’s Response
With reference to inference on the domestic category consumption, MSEB has submitted that
the consumption of 2,932 MU pertained to not only the consumers in the first slab but all the
other slabs too. This is because the domestic tariff is telescopic in nature, and the first 30 units
for all consumers are charged at the same rate.
On the issue of variation in number of consumer, connected load and units consumed, MSEB
has clarified that comparing numbers that were projected for a year to the numbers that
actually materialised is not proper.
MSEB has submitted that the items of ToD tariff, power factor incentive, bulk discount,
captive and seasonal consumers have been kept together as these
incentives/penalties/additional charges have been uniformly applied across the relevant
categories and hence have been kept together instead of showing them separately for each
category.
On the issue of open access revenues, the MSEB has submitted that the distribution level
open access, timing and extent, needs to be granted by the State Commission while taking
into consideration existing levels of cross-subsidies. Any revenue arising out of transmission
level open access can be taken care of in the future Filings.
16.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission has considered all these issues and the MSEB has submitted necessary
clarifications on the same to the Commission.
17. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION DIRECTIVES
17.1.1 Objections
N.N.Kale and Associates has pointed that the MSEB compliance report excludes directives
from May-02. Additionally, MSEB should submit compliance report certified by Cost and
Management Accountant.
Prayas has pointed out that the MSEB has not complied fully with following directives of the
Commission:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 111
Directive Status and implication
DSM and Fund for agricultural DSM
MSEB has not completed work as per schedule given in the directive. MSEB has not implemented DSM plan for buildings. MSEB has not created fund for agricultural and PWW DSM.
Application of “Reliability Charge” on HT industry
MSEB has not implemented this Order. Prayas has estimated the loss to MSEB in the range of Rs. 200 Crore per annum.
Discontinue average billing
MSEB has continued to issue bills based on average consumption. The excess money charged due to this method (especially for the very small rural residential consumers) should be refunded.
Audit of express feeders and MIDC areas
Nearly 70 express feeders (out of around 200) have demonstrated consistent problem for 4 out of 12 months even though MSEB claimed that it has been doing energy audit for past 3 years.
Cost audit of MSEB generation plants
MSEB has given only limited consultancy and actual audit expected to start only by end of 2003.
Feasibility studies for Uran liquid fuel and imported coal
MSEB has started importing coal in limited quantity.
Janata Dal (Secular) has pointed that the MSEB has not complied with the following
directives issued by the Commission in previous Orders:
Reduction in T&D loss Reduction in load shedding Spot billing, reduction in billing cycle time Reduce outstanding to 5 months Reduce T&D losses by 5% every year, and15-16% within 2-3 years Take action against employees responsible for T&D loss Promote energy saving devices
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 112
Other consumers/associations have also pointed that following additional directives have also
not been complied with:
• Pay fine of Rs. 7 Crore as prescribed in last Tariff Order
• Improve system reliability
Prayas has urged the Commission to fix responsibility for non-compliance of the
Commission’s Order by MSEB. In case of ‘Cost Audit’ and other such cases, where the
Utility has not taken timely action of carrying out required studies, the Commission should
directly appoint consultant and ask the Utility to pay for the costs.
Tata Motors have submitted that the MSEB should submit implementation plan for “Jan
Mitra Concept”. They have opined that not more than 1 year should be allowed for
implementation in totality.
17.1.2 MSEB’s Response
MSEB has submitted that it has undertaken all possible efforts to comply with the directives
of the Commission. The MSEB has further submitted that it may take more time (than
directed) for achieving certain directives over others, however, the MSEB has never wilfully
disobeyed the Commission’s directives.
With regards to the ‘Cost Audit’, the MSEB has submitted that it has already appointed
ICWAI for studying the existing accounting and costing records at Nashik, Uran and Koyna
power stations and devising a system to facilitate compliance with the directives of the
Commission. The MSEB has added that the system suggested by ICWAI is being
implemented in a phased manner at the above stations.
17.1.3 Commission’s Ruling
The Commission had directed the MSEB to comply with its directives given in the earlier
Tariff Orders and issued separately from time to time. However, the Commission is very
unhappy with the performance of the MSEB in this regard. Despite the Commission’s strong
warning that it would be constrained to take serious action if there was slippage in compliance
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Objections Received, Mseb’s Response And The Commission’s Ruling 113
with the directives, the MSEB has not shown its willingness to comply with these directives
in the true spirit. The Commission expresses extreme displeasure with the MSEB’s non-
compliance of its directives, despite several reminders in this regard. The Commission may be
constrained to reject further Tariff Petitions if the Commission’s directives are not complied
with.
The MSEB should submit compliance reports on a quarterly basis. Henceforth, the
Commission will conduct periodic reviews of the MSEB’s compliance with the directives.
Further, in case the MSEB desires any clarification on any directive issued by the
Commission, the MSEB should request such clarification within a month of the directive
being issued, failing which it will be assumed that the MSEB does not require any
clarifications, and the MSEB will be required to comply with the directives expeditiously,
both in letter and in spirit.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 114
PART – III: COMMISSION’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION ON THE MSEB’S PROPOSAL
18. APPLICABILITY OF TARIFF REVISION FOR REMAINING PART OF THE YEAR
S.59 of the E (S) Act states that the MSEB shall adjust its tariffs so as to ensure that the total
revenues in any year of account shall, after meeting all properly chargeable expenses, leave
the mandatory surplus on its Net Fixed Assets. The MSEB has requested the Commission to
grant tariff revision effectively for all twelve months of the year, which would imply a overall
tariff increase of 12.5%.
The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had clearly indicated to the MSEB that it
should file the Tariff Petition for FY 2003-04, by December 2002, to enable the Commission
to issue the Tariff Order by March end, and the revised tariff could be applicable for the entire
year. However, for various reasons, the MSEB has delayed filing the Tariff Petition, and
consequently, the Commission has been forced to issue the Tariff Order on December 1,
2003.
The Commission has been consistently of the view that the tariffs should not be applied
retrospectively. Acceptance of the MSEB’s proposal to apply the revised tariffs such that the
entire year’s additional revenue requirement is recovered in the balance period of the year,
would amount to levying retrospective tariff on the consumers, and the Commission has
hence rejected this request of the MSEB. Moreover, if the tariffs are determined in such a
manner, then there is a real possibility of the MSEB over-recovering its revenue in the
coming year, as the monthly revenue generation is likely to be higher than its expenses.
Further, MSEB is entitled to recover any difference between actual generation and power
purchase expenses (equivalent to 55-60% of total expense), including certain other expenses
(under ‘Z’ category with prior approval) and the expenditure projected by the Commission on
these heads, through the approved FOCA mechanism, subject to performance benchmarks.
Thus the Commission has enabled the Board to recover permissible expenditure from time to
time (monthly) avoiding any adverse impact on MSEB’s finances or refund excess recovery
facilitating consumer to pay towards actual approved expenditure.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 115
The Commission thus rules that the revised tariffs would be applicable for 4 months of FY
2003-04, i.e., from December 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004, and till such further time as the
MSEB does not approach the Commission for tariff revision.
19. AVERAGE COST OF SUPPLY
The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order dated January 10, 2002, had stated that the
tariffs would gradually approach the average cost of supply, and that the Commission would
attempt to continue the process of elimination of the cross-subsidy in five years. The
Commission is of the view that considering the data availability, the average cost of supply
method is the most suitable methodology for the present. However, in the long-term, the
Commission desires to link the tariffs to the voltage-wise and category-wise cost of supply, as
they reflect the true cost incurred to supply to different consumer categories. The MSEB is
directed to maintain cost details such that it enables the computation of voltage-level and
consumer level cost of supply.
20. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA SUBSIDY
The MSEB’s tariff proposal has not assumed any subsidy from the GoM. The Commission
had written to the GoM in September 2003, asking the GoM to indicate its subsidy
commitment and the consumer categories that would benefit from the GoM’s subsidy. The
GoM in its response dated October 13, 2003, indicated that the issue of granting subsidy for
FY 2003-04 based on existing rates was under consideration of the GoM. Further, the GoM
indicated that it would be in a position to specify the category-wise subsidy only after the
Commission determined the tariff. Subsequently, on October 20, 2003, the GoM wrote to the
Commission that it had taken the decision to continue to charge agricultural and power loom
consumers at the same subsidized rate announced by the GoM for FY 2002-03, till a final
decision was taken by the GoM in this regard.
In the light of these communications from the GoM, the Commission has not considered any
subsidy from the GoM, and has determined the tariffs for these categories in line with the
philosophy of cross-subsidy reduction outlined in previous Tariff Orders and continued in this
Order. In case, the GoM desires to give subsidy to any consumer category subsequent to this
Order, the modalities for the same will have to be submitted to the Commission for its
approval.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 116
21. CROSS-SUBSIDY REDUCTION
In its Tariff Petition, the MSEB has stated that it has adopted the following philosophy for
proposing category-wise tariffs:
1. “The tariffs have to reflect costs, and the proportion of subsidized consumers must reduce.
2. While tariff rationalisation should continue, thought also needs to be given to the paying culture amongst the Board’s consumers. Hiking tariffs for consumers who have a weaker paying track record would hardly do justice to the Board’s financial position. If this is not done, the Board’s cash losses will keep on mounting in spite of getting year on year tariff hikes.
3. Tariff rationalisation should incentivize metered consumption vis-à-vis un-metered consumption for agricultural consumers”.
On page II of its Tariff Petition, the MSEB has stated that “the T&D loss reduction targets
will be feasible only if the existing distortion in tariffs is corrected and metered tariffs are
made more attractive vis-à-vis metered tariffs.”
On the same page, the MSEB has commented that “while tariff rationalisation must continue,
the Board has taken into consideration that certain consumer categories have exhibited a
better payment track record than others have in the past. Keeping in mind the Board’s
inability to disconnect certain consumer categories which have a poor payment record, the
Board has proposed tariff hikes for consumer categories which are above the average cost of
supply. If this is not done, the Board’s cash losses will keep on mounting in spite of getting
year on year tariff hikes”.
As is obvious, the MSEB’s above statements are contradictory, and are also against the tariff
philosophy clearly enunciated by the Commission in previous Tariff Orders. Neither has the
MSEB proposed any substantial difference in the metered tariffs vis-à-vis un-metered tariffs.
The Commission has adopted certain principles, which are in continuation of the process of
tariff rationalisation initiated in the previous Tariff Orders. In general, the movement of
tariffs towards the average cost of supply has been maintained, such that inter-class cross-
subsidy is reduced gradually, while at the same time ensuring that no consumer category is
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 117
subject to a tariff shock. The Commission has also further reduced the intra-class cross-
subsidy, by reducing the difference between the highest and lowest slab rates. The MSEB has
installed meters for all the hitherto un-metered consumer categories except LT agriculture. In
the absence of metering, the Commission has been constrained to specify flat rate tariffs for
the un-metered LT agriculture category, and the tariff for other categories is based on meter
reading. The difference in metered tariff and the flat rate tariffs has been increased to
incentivize un-metered consumers to opt for metering.
The Commission has considered an average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year in case
of flat rate LT agricultural consumers, based on the available sample energy audit data
submitted by the MSEB. The Commission has attempted to determine the flat rate tariffs for
agriculture category such that the tariffs reflect the actual consumption pattern. This has been
done by specifying circle-wise differential flat rate tariffs linked to the agriculture
consumption norm as established by the energy audit data for that circle. To start with, the
Commission has prescribed two tariff levels, viz. lower tariff for circles with consumption
norm lower than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year, and higher tariffs for
circles with consumption norm higher than the average consumption norm of 1300
hours/HP/year. The Commission hopes that this will incentivize the shift to metered
consumption at a faster rate.
22. RATIONALIZATION OF CATEGORIES
The MSEB has not proposed any reduction/rationalization in the number of categories and
slabs. The Commission has however, reduced a few categories and slabs, which is described
in detail in the section on category-wise tariffs.
23. TIME OF THE DAY TARIFF
The Commission had introduced the ToD tariffs for HT industrial categories in its first Tariff
Order dated May 5, 2000. In the past Order, the ToD consumption of the HTP-I and II
categories had reached levels such that the HT industrial category had matched the
normative levels, i.e. the actual consumption during the hours 2200 to 0600 hours was
around 33%, as compared to the normative share in that period, i.e. 8 hours during the day
translates to 32.5% of the total hours during the day. The Commission had extended the ToD
tariff for more categories as well as increased the differential between the peak and off-peak
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 118
hours, consequent to the beneficial impact on the load curve, with the objective of sifting
more industrial load as well as the load of other categories. The MSEB has submitted the ToD
consumption data for different consumer categories for FY03 in the Tariff Proposal. The
analysis of the ToD data is presented in the following graph:
The graph below shows that the consumption of the HT industrial and HT water works
categories, i.e. HTP I and II and HTP III and IV, have shifted due to the ToD tariff, such that
they have almost matched the normative level of consumption at different time slots during
the day. The load of the other categories where the ToD tariffs are available, i.e. Other HT
and LTP-G category, needs to be flattened further. The Commission has hence further
increased the differential in ToD rates for all categories, to smoothen the load further. The
ToD tariff for LTP-G category will be applicable for only those consumers who opt for the
LTMD based metering.
ToD Consumption Pattern
0.00%5.00%
10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%
% C
onsu
mpt
ion
HTP I & II 32.45% 38.47% 12.42% 16.66%
HTP III & IV 32.76% 38.55% 12.45% 16.23%
Other HT 29.13% 42.33% 12.39% 16.16%
LTP-G 27.78% 41.74% 15.18% 15.29%
Normative 33.33% 37.50% 12.50% 16.67%
2200-0600 0600-0900 & 1200 - 1800
0900-1200 1800-2200
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 119
24. METERING
The MSEB has managed to meter all the hitherto un-metered consumer categories, except
LT agriculture. As compared to the status at the time of the Tariff Order issued on January
10, 2002, the MSEB has installed meters at all power loom connections, and all HTP-VII
consumers. Moreover, the MSEB has also submitted that it has replaced around 55 lakh
meters across all categories, out of a total metered consumer base of around 1.13 crore,
which amounts to around 50% of the meters being replaced. However, during discussions
with the Commission, the MSEB was not able to satisfactorily explain the rationale for the
massive meter replacement programme and the benefits achieved due to the meter
replacement.
The target dates for 100% metering have repeatedly been pushed back by the MSEB. On the
one hand, the MSEB claims that accurate T&D loss assessment can be done only after 100%
metering has been done, while on the other hand, the MSEB continues to maintain that 100%
metering may not be achieved even by the extended date of December 2004. The MSEB has
now submitted that the meterisation programme for LT agriculture is slowing down due to
resistance from cultivators and local leaders. The MSEB has added that some field offices
have reported instances of removal of installed meters forcefully by mobs.
Further, the MSEB has still not made any commitments as regards 100% metering of LT
agricultural consumers, apart from stating that metering is achievable only if the flat rate
tariff is substantially higher than the metered tariff for these categories. The original target
dates for achieving 100 % metering of LT agriculture consumers, viz. initially May-June
2003, and later December 2003, and have all passed, without any significant progress in
metering of LT agriculture consumers. This is despite the fact that the MSEB has repeatedly
claimed that the problem of low metering is the root cause for inaccurate determination of
T&D losses.
It may be noted that in view of the provision of grant of open access under the Electricity Act,
2003 (EA 2003), it is essential that the meters on all transaction on and above 11 kV network,
including DTC, are provided with communication ability, eg. GSM, to ensure real time
monitoring of (1) Energy Flows, (2) Energy Accounting and Auditing, and (3) Capacity
Utilization of Transmission Corridors. The centralized control for energy accounting and
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 120
auditing should be placed at identified important regional points and load dispatch centre. The
MSEB should inform the Commission on the current status and implementation schedule for
the above, as well as submit periodic compliance reports. The Commission has also
prescribed AMR meters in its recent Wind Order and Bagasse Clarificatory Order. The
MSEB should also take the initiative to provide all consumers with power line
communication card to facilitate automation of metering and billing system.
The Commission hereby reiterates its earlier directive to the MSEB to achieve 100% metering
of LT agriculture consumers at the earliest, assigning priority to the appropriate DTC
metering and close monitoring to arrive at statistically significant output for assessed
agricultural consumption, and operating hours.
25. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION’S DIRECTIVES BY MSEB
The Commission had directed the MSEB to comply with its directives given in the earlier
Tariff Orders and issued separately from time to time. The MSEB has submitted a compliance
statement, wherein it has detailed the various actions taken by the MSEB subsequent to the
Commission’s directives and the status of implementation of the various directives issued by
the Commission.
The Commission is very unhappy with the performance of the MSEB in this regard. Despite
the Commission’s strong warning that it would be constrained to take serious action if there
was slippage in compliance with the directives, the MSEB has not shown its willingness to
comply with these directives in the true spirit. The Commission expresses extreme displeasure
with the MSEB’s non-compliance of its directives, despite several reminders in this regard.
All the directives issued by the Commission in the previous Tariff Orders issued in May 2000
and January 2002 are still applicable, and the MSEB is directed to comply with the same in
letter and in spirit. The top management of the MSEB is urged to take urgent steps to comply
with these directives expeditiously.
The status of the various directives given by the Commission in the previous Tariff Orders
and the directives issued in this Order have been summarized below:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 121
The MSEB is directed to install meters for all the flat rate categories, viz. LT and HT agriculture, Power loom and Municipal Councils – the MSEB has metered all categories except LT agricultural consumers.
The MSEB is directed to provide name Badges for all MSEB staff interacting with the Public – the MSEB has cited a Departmental Circular stating that name badges have to be worn, but the circular has remained only on paper; the Commission would like the MSEB to realise that mere issuance of circulars is not sufficient and implementation has to be ensured.
The MSEB is directed to provide separate meters for Domestic Supply to Railways and bill accordingly – In this case too, the MSEB has cited the issuance of a Circular to justify the compliance.
The MSEB is directed to disconnect Supply to consumers who have arrears amounting to over 75 days of average billing – the MSEB has not implemented this directive in the true spirit.
The MSEB is directed to reduce T & D losses to 26.87% - The performance of the MSEB in this regard and the Commission’s treatments of the same have been discussed in detail in subsequent sections.
The MSEB is directed to Implement DSM Schemes – MSEB has only involved MEDA to conduct studies on DSM but has not come up with concrete schemes for implementing DSM
The MSEB is directed to levy Reliability Charges for HT industry - MSEB has not implemented this directive. The Commission’s analysis of this issue has been discussed in detail in a subsequent Section.
The MSEB is directed to discontinue Average Billing - MSEB has continued to issue bills based on average consumption.
The MSEB is directed to take all possible steps to reduce incidences of Load Shedding – The extent of load shedding has not reduced and has in fact increased over the past two years
The MSEB is directed to reduce outstanding receivables to 5 months of billing – The outstanding arrears have increased over the past two years
The MSEB is directed to start maintaining Voltage-level wise asset classification data to enable the computation of the consumer-wise cost to serve.
The MSEB is directed to levy LD-1 tariff for connections where Railways have already paid segregation charges with effect from date of initial commitment by MSEB.
The MSEB is directed to segregate the residential connections in case of existing common connections for domestic and commercial purposes, and levy LD-1 tariff on such residential accommodations.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 122
The MSEB is directed to take all possible measures to maintain the voltages within the prescribed limits, and to limit the load shedding hours to the minimum.
The MSEB is directed to install ToD meters for all consumers with a connected load of over 20 kW byDec’2004, so that ToD tariffs can be availed by these consumers at their option. Such ToD meters will be read every billing cycle for all parameters and monthly-consolidated information shall be submitted by MSEB to monitor the trend.)
The Commission reiterates its directive to MSEB to submit subsequent Tariff Petitions after certification by a Cost Accountant.
MSEB is directed to complete the industrial engineering study and submit the new norms within six months.
The MSEB is directed to achieve the T&D loss reduction target as well as the metering targets. The monitoring of the circle-level losses must continue and the MSEB should continue to submit the circle-level energy accounting data on a monthly basis, and circles should operate on ‘profit centre’ basis.
The Commission hereby reiterates its earlier directive to the MSEB to achieve 100% metering of LT agriculture consumers at the earliest, assigning priority to the appropriate DTC metering and close monitoring to arrive at statistically significant output for assessed agricultural consumption, and operating hours
MSEB is directed to submit Circle-wise estimates of pump-running hours of unmetered agricultural consumers on a quarterly basis. The first such report (for the entire year 2003-04) should be submitted to the Commission by the end of May, 2004.
MSEB is directed to submit on a six monthly basis information on_
o Category-wise RLC.
o Circle-wise and total T&D loss level in units as well as percentage.
The first such report for the entire year 2003-04 should be submitted by the end of May, 2004 and should also include total TDL charges (Circle-wise). Subsequent reports should be submitted within 2 months of the close of the half-year. The MSEB should ensure that the meters on all transactions on and above 11 kV
network, including DTC, are provided with communication ability, eg. GSM, to enable real time monitoring of (1) Energy Flows, (2) Energy Accounting and Auditing, and (3) Capacity Utilization of Transmission Corridors. The centralized control for energy accounting and auditing should be placed at identified important regional points and load dispatch centre. The MSEB should inform the Commission on the current status and implementation schedule for the above, as well as submit periodic compliance reports. The Commission has also prescribed AMR meters in its recent Wind Order and Bagasse
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 123
Clarificatory Order. The MSEB should also take the initiative to provide all consumers with power line communication card to facilitate automation of metering and billing system.
The MSEB is directed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of various suggestions for controlling technical portion of T&D losses and to submit to the Commission cost-benefit analysis and investment proposal.
The Commission further directs the MSEB to devise and widely publicise efforts undertaken/actions taken by MSEB to control theft of electricity, on a quarterly basis.
The Commission directs that the Order should be implemented in letter and in spirit, to ensure that the MSEB’s receivables are brought under control.
The MSEB is directed to utilise the O&M budget for the approved purpose so as to meet consumers’ expectations.
The MSEB is directed to submit a complete implementation plan for partial replacement of domestic unwashed coal with imported coal/washed coal to the extent feasible.
The MSEB is directed to submit all periodic reports, including monthly energy audit reports, billing and revenue reports on affidavit. The Commission directs the MSEB to submit all periodic reports in a consistent format.
The Commission hereby directs the MSEB to provide details on its investment plan for approval of the Commission. The Commission will evaluate all prospective investments.
The Commission directs the MSEB to come forward with concrete schemes to implement DSM in the State. The detailed plan, to promote energy efficiency at the consumer end, should be submitted to the Commission within three months of this Order.
The Commission is also very concerned about the allegations of corruption within the MSEB, and directs the MSEB to examine these and initiate strict disciplinary action against the employees found guilty of corrupt practices.
The Commission also directs that henceforth, the Commission will conduct quarterly reviews
of the MSEB’s compliance of the directives. The MSEB’s senior officers would be expected
to attend these compliance review meetings. Further, in case the MSEB desires any
clarification on any directive issued by the Commission, the MSEB should request such
clarification within a month of the directive being issued, failing which it will be assumed that
the MSEB does not require any clarifications, and the MSEB will be required to comply with
the directives expeditiously, both in letter and in spirit.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 124
26. PROJECTED ENERGY INPUT REQUIREMENT
The energy input required by the MSEB is the summation of the total sales and the T & D
loss allowed by the Commission.
26.1 Sales Projections
The Commission has applied the same methodology used in the previous Tariff Orders to
project the category-wise sales. The sales to metered category of consumers have been
projected by applying the ten-year Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the base
sales to the respective category in FY 2002-03, except in cases where no visible trend was
noticed or where the sales projected by the Commission was almost the same as that projected
by the MSEB. In such cases, the Commission has accepted the sales projected by the MSEB.
The sales in FY 2002-03 have been adjusted for the loss in sales due to load shedding as
submitted by the MSEB, and the 10 year CAGR has been applied to the total sales, including
the assessed loss in sales due to load shedding. The sales to un-metered category of
consumers have been projected by multiplying the consumption norm with the projected
connected load for that category in FY 2003-04. The number of consumers in different
categories has been projected based on the ten-year CAGR, along the same lines as the
projection of metered consumption.
The category-wise sales have been apportioned to different slabs on the same basis as the
average monthly slab-wise sales over the past 4 years, viz. FY 1999-00 to FY 2002-03. The
number of consumers in different slabs has also been projected in the same manner. In case of
HT consumers, the sales in different time slots have been apportioned to different ToD slots
based on the actual ToD consumption pattern exhibited by these categories in FY 2002-03.
The categories and the category-wise sales projections have been summarised below, and
discussed in detail subsequently.
26.1.1 LT Category
The total sale to the LT consumer category has been summarized in the Table below. The
total sale to LT category projected by the Commission is lower than that projected by the
MSEB due to the fact that the Commission has applied the revised norm of 1300
hours/HP/year for LT agricultural consumption, based on the analysis discussed in the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 125
pervious Section. The Commission’s sales projections for other categories have been higher
than that projected by the MSEB.
Projected Sales to the LT Category (FY 2003-04) (in MU)
Category MSEB Projections – FY 2003-04*
Actual Sales – FY 2002-03$
10 year CAGR
MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
Domestic 7863 8087 8.58%*** 8781
Non-domestic 1763 1812 7.85%*** 1954
LTP-G (incl Power loom)
3294 3411 3640
Public Water Works
481 473 481
Agriculture (including Poultry)
10145 9645 7787$$
Street Lighting 567 589 7.85%*** 635
Temporary 0 11 0
Total LT Category 24113 24028 23278
Note: * - Without Load Shedding
$ - After accounting for loss in sales due to Load shedding $$ - Revised norm of 1300 hrs/HP/year *** - including un-met sales as submitted by the MSEB on account of load shedding
It should also be noted that the Commission has not considered any loss in sales on account of
load shedding, as the merit order simulation conducted by the Commission based on the T&D
loss levels allowed by the Commission and energy input requirement shows that there is
enough energy available to meet all the requirement. In this context, the Commission notes
that its directives on online monitoring of power flow for appropriate energy accounting and
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 126
upgrading of on-line information database in its first Tariff Order are yet to take effect. Till
date various field feeders are not automatically monitored and/or controlled from the LDC.
LDC operates on a roster schedule drawn up based on field report. Therefore, the element of
judgement can have substantial errors and omissions though MSEB is trying to justify the
same unnecessarily from time to time. It is essential for MSEB to clarify and rationally
establish the load shedding figures and energy loss due to such load shedding.
The MSEB should analyse consumer category-wise demand curve on a broader basis so as to
arrive at the projected integrated load curve, since it is possible that the connected load
figures are a major source of inaccuracy, and cannot be the representative base for the load
shedding, units lost and demand projections, resulting in anomalous projections at times.
The category-wise sales projections, slab structure and slab-wise consumption have been
discussed below:
Domestic Category
The Commission has reduced the number of slabs in this category, from four slabs to three
slabs, by clubbing two consumption slabs, viz. 31-300 units and 101-300 units. The estimated
slab-wise consumption is given below. It should be noted that the slab-wise consumption
indicated in the Table below is the total consumption by all consumers in that slab, and not
the consumption of consumers falling within that slab only. For instance, in the Table below,
the consumption of 3583 MU indicated against the slab of 1-30 units includes the
consumption of consumers falling in the slab 1-30 units, as well as the consumers falling
within the higher slabs.
Domestic Category: Slab-wise consumption (in MU)
Monthly Consumption
MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
1 – 30 units 3583 31 – 300 units 4352 Above 300 units 846 Total 8781
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 127
Non-domestic Category
The Commission has retained the three slabs in this category, as shown below:
Non-domestic Category: Slab-wise consumption (in MU)
Monthly Consumption
MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
1 – 100 units 827 101 – 200 units 259 Above 200 units 868 Total 1954
LTP-G Category
This category has two sub-categories, viz., LT industrial and power loom category. The
Commission had merged the power loom category with the LT industrial category in the
previous Tariff Order. At that time, most of the power loom consumers were un-metered, and
hence, the Commission has specified, both metered tariffs and un-metered tariffs, for this sub-
category. Subsequently, all the power loom consumers have been metered, and the MSEB has
submitted the metered consumption of this category.
The Commission has reduced the number of slabs within LTP-G category from three to two,
by merging the last two slabs, viz. 1001-15000 units slab and the slab for over 15000 units.
The projected slab-wise consumption has been given in the following table:
LTP-G Category: Slab-wise consumption (in MU)
Monthly Consumption
MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
LT Industrial* 1 – 1000 units 1668 Above 1000 units 1973 Total 3641
Note: * - includes power loom metered consumption
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 128
Public Water Works (PWW) Category
This category has two sub-categories, viz., Urban PWW and Rural PWW. The entire
consumption in this category is metered. The rural PWW category has further sub-classes,
viz. Grampanchayat and ‘C’ Class Municipal Councils. The projected consumption of the
different categories is as follows:
Public Water Works Category: sub-category-wise consumption (in MU)
Sub-Category MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
Urban PWW 35.60 Rural PWW Gram Panchayat 149 Other rural PWW, incl ‘C’ Class Municipal Council
297
Total 481.60
Agricultural Category
A major portion of the consumption in this category is un-metered, and is charged on flat rate
basis. The consumption norm for un-metered LT agricultural consumption has been discussed
in detail in the earlier section on T & D loss. The Commission has applied this consumption
norm of 1300 hours/HP/year to assess the consumption from the un-metered category.
The MSEB has also projected a certain shift in connected load from the un-metered category
to the metered category in FY 2003-04, and has projected the metered consumption on the
basis of the existing metered consumption and the additional metered load. The Commission
has considered the shift in connected load from un-metered to metered, as considered by the
MSEB. In the Section on T&D loss and energy audit of LT agricultural consumption, the
Commission has discussed the consumption pattern of metered agricultural consumers, and
the fact that the consumption of metered consumers is lower than that of un-metered
consumers. However, on analysis of the consumption projected by the MSEB for metered
LT agricultural consumers, the Commission has found that the MSEB has projected
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 129
substantially higher consumption by the metered consumers, at around 990 hours/HP/year.
The average consumption norm of metered agricultural consumers is around 500
hours/HP/year. This overestimation leads to underreporting of the T&D losses. The
Commission has hence projected the consumption of metered agricultural consumers on the
basis of the consumption norm of 500 hours/HP/year.
The Commission has attempted to determine the flat rate tariffs for agriculture category such that the tariffs reflect the actual consumption pattern. The Commission has created two sub-categories within the un-metered category, viz. first sub-category comprising circles with a consumption norm lower than the average norm of 1300 hours/HP/year, and the second sub-category comprising circles with a consumption norm higher than the average norm of 1300 hours/HP/year.
LT Agriculture Category: sub-category-wise consumption (in MU)
Sub-Category MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04 Flat Rate Tariff 6893 Circles with consumption norm < 1300 hours/HP/year
4480
Circles with consumption norm > 1300 hours/HP/year
2413
Metered Tariff* 865 Total 7757
Note: * - includes LT Poultry
Street Lighting Category
The Commission had merged the Grampanchayats and the ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ class
Municipal Councils into one sub-category. The projected sales have been apportioned to
the sub-categories based on the actual average consumption during FY 1999-00 to FY
2002-03, as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 130
Street lighting Category: sub-category-wise consumption (in MU)
Sub Category MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
Grampanchayats and Municipal Councils
357
Municipal Corporation Areas
278
Total 635
26.1.2 HT Category
Projected Sales to the HT Category (FY 2003-04) (in MU)
Category MSEB Projections – FY 2003-04*
Actual Sales – FY 2002-03$
10 year CAGR
MERC Estimate – FY 2003-04
HTP-I 6644 6482 2% 6644 HTP-II 6217 6066 6217 HTP-III (PWW) 637 607 1.6% 637 HTP-IV (PWW) 394 376 7.8% 394 HTP-V (Railway Traction)
980 934 4.3% 980
HTP-VI 310 292 310 HTP-VII (Agri. & related categories)
582 552 582
Mula Pravara 638 631 5.7% 667 Inter-State 0 18 0 Total HT Category 16402 15958 16431
The total sales to the HT consumers have been summarized in the above Table. The sale
projected by the Commission is marginally higher than that projected by the MSEB on
account of the higher sales projected for Mula Pravara. For the other categories, the MSEB’s
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 131
projections have been accepted as they are in line with the CAGR and the Commission’s
projections. The Commission has already presented the ToD consumption pattern for the
different HT categories in earlier sections, while detailing the philosophy on ToD tariffs.
26.1.3 Total Sales
The Commission has thus projected the total sales in FY 2003-04 as 39710 MU.
26.2 Energy Audit Analysis and T&D Losses
The MSEB has submitted data corresponding to the Energy Audit Studies undertaken by it in
FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 across number of zones/circles and at various voltage levels.
The findings of the Energy Audit study have been reported under the following five
categories depending on the voltage level of the feeders and the category of consumers
served:
LT – Agriculture feeders MIDC feeders Express feeders EHV level feeders Division level feeders
26.1.4 Approach and Methodology for Analysis
The Commission has analysed the entire data compiled and presented by the MSEB,
corresponding to each of the above categories in terms of the sample size, sample coverage,
and sample characteristics together with the limitations thereof.
For the purpose of analysis, the sample data provided by the MSEB was further filtered. For
example, in case of some of the feeders, very few data readings (say two readings
corresponding to two months) were available. The Commission is of the opinion that, to be
able to judge consistency or draw any inference regarding consumption pattern, at least 10 to
12 months data should be available, as the consumption pattern varies across the season.
Hence such data readings were ignored for the purpose of analysis. Accordingly, filtering
criteria for considering sample reading for data analysis was determined for each category, as
elaborated subsequently.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 132
26.1.5 Output Parameters for Analysis
For LT – Agriculture feeders
The MSEB has a sizeable number of unmetered agricultural consumers of around 18 lakh. As
a result, it is very critical that the consumption of this category is estimated as accurately as
possible. The accuracy of estimation for this category would determine the accuracy of
estimation of T&D losses as well, as this is the only un-metered category. The purpose of the
Energy Audit data analysis for the LT-Agriculture feeders was: -
1. To evaluate the norm for operating hours per HP per annum and estimate the consumption of the LT-agricultural category in the State.
2. To observe variation, if any, in the operating norm across zones, circles and divisions.
For all other feeders (MIDC level, Express feeders, EHV level, Division level)
The objective of the Energy Audit data analysis for all other feeders was: -
3. To assess loss level on zone/circle basis. 4. To monitor trend in loss level. 5. To highlight zones/circles that report higher level of losses consistently.
26.1.6 Analysis
LT – Agriculture Feeders
Sample characteristics (sample size, sample coverage, and sample limitation)
The MSEB has broadened the Energy Audit sample to cover 4,668 LT-Agricultural feeders as
compared to 1,701 feeders in FY 2000-01. The sample covered six (6) zones and twenty-five
(25) circles. The zones covered were Amravati, Aurangabad, Beed, Kolhapur, Nashik and
Nagpur. Out of the average total connected load of 76.8 lakh HP reported under LT-
Agricultural category, around 0.77 lakh HP was sampled during FY 2001-02 and out of the
average total connected load of 75.6 lakh HP reported under LT-Agricultural category,
around 1.5 lakh HP was sampled during FY 2002-03. This represents a sampling ratio of 1%
and 2% for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03, respectively. There has been an improvement in
sampling as compared to 0.4 % in FY 2000-01. The zones wherein sample energy audits
have been conducted account for 95 % of the connected load in the State. Uncovered zones
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 133
such as Kalyan, Konkan, Pune (U), Nagpur (U), Bhandup (U) represent only the balance 5%
of the total connected load of the State.
In this context, there have been discussions regarding the sampling pattern applied by MSEB,
and whether the sampling pattern follows accepted statistical sampling techniques. The
Commission is of the opinion that though the sampling has not been done properly, there is
no alternative but to use the available sampling data to assess the LT agricultural consumption
in the State. Ideally, the entire consumption should have been metered, had the MSEB met its
own commitments given in earlier Tariff Petitions under affidavits and adhered to the
directives of the Commission in earlier Tariff Orders. In the absence of 100% metering, the
Commission has been constrained to proceed based on the data submitted by the MSEB.
The information provided corresponding to particular feeders included zone name, circle
name, village name, transformer number, meter serial number, number of pump sets
connected, connected load, and the consumption recorded over a period. The MSEB has
submitted readings for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03. The time period covered by the readings
vary from one month to twelve months during a Financial Year.
Based on this information, average consumption per month and average consumption per HP
per month for a particular feeder was computed. The MSEB has confirmed that the feeders
covered under the study expressly catered only to LT-agricultural load. The consumption in
terms of energy units was measured on the LT side of the distribution transformer.
Filtering criteria
For the purpose of the analysis, the Commission has continued with the filtering criteria
adopted in the previous Order. The Commission has considered only those feeders for which
the readings were reported for a period of at least.300 days (i.e. data readings for at least 10
months). The rationale for setting 300 data readings as the filtering criteria was to account for
the seasonal variations in the consumption pattern, since the annual operating norm per HP is
being assessed. The number of qualified readings exceeding 300 days of monitoring, has
improved from 755 in FY 2000-01 to 1,742 in FY 2001-02 and 3,770 in FY 2002-03.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 134
These qualified readings were categorised into various intervals of operating hours/HP/annum
as shown in the Table below. The terminal data readings that corresponded to less than 300
operating hours/annum (i.e. less than 1 operating hour/day) and those greater than 3,000
operating hours/annum (i.e. greater than 8 operating hours/day) were ignored and the balance
data was considered for the analysis. The Commission has applied this filter to consider only
those readings which are representative of the usage by LT-agricultural consumers. Any over
or under usage could be attributable to several other reasons such as error in reading,
operational problem with meter, use for purpose other than agricultural pump, etc. To remove
a bias arising of such readings, all readings outside the filter have been ignored. The
Commission has continued with the same filter that was used in the last Order despite a
request from the MSEB to consider readings upto 3,600 operating hours/HP/annum as the
Commission is of the opinion that any usage over and above 3,000 operating hours/HP/annum
may not be representative of LT-agricultural consumption. With the application of this filter,
the total number of sample readings available for arriving at the norm for LT-agricultural
consumption has reduced to 1,352 (29% of sample reading data set) in FY 2001-02 and 2,833
(61% of sample reading data set) in FY 2002-03. This represents an improvement over 586
readings (34% of sample reading data set) available in FY 2000-01.
Table: Categorisation of LT-Agricultural Feeder Readings for FY 2001-02
Operating Hours/ HP/Annum
Nagpur Nashik Auran-gabad
Amra-vati
Kolha-pur
Beed No. of data
readings <=300 35 46 1 21 22 8 133 300<hrs<=700 48 82 16 55 71 33 305 700<hrs<=1100 30 62 25 68 72 49 306 1100<hrs<=1500 13 71 24 56 57 38 259 1500<hrs<=1900 10 55 13 38 54 24 194 1900<hrs<=2300 6 33 9 17 43 22 130 2300<hrs<=2500 5 20 3 6 11 14 59 2500<hrs<=3000 2 34 15 8 17 23 99 3000<hrs<=3600 1 36 6 2 24 9 78 >3600 6 86 11 21 44 11 179
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 135
Operating Hours/ HP/Annum
Nagpur Nashik Auran-gabad
Amra-vati
Kolha-pur
Beed No. of data
readings Total Data Readings
156 525 123 292 415 231 1742
Data Readings between 300 hrs and 3000 hrs
114 357 105 248 325 203 1352
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 136
Table: Categorisation of LT-Agricultural Feeder Readings for FY 2002-03
Operating Hours/ HP/Annum
Nagpur Nashik Auran-gabad
Amra-vati
Kolha-pur
Beed No. of data
readings <=300 99 19 4 81 90 19 312 300<hrs<=700 230 61 22 160 130 25 628 700<hrs<=1100 135 103 26 145 121 57 587 1100<hrs<=1500 76 116 42 105 102 36 477 1500<hrs<=1900 45 110 37 75 103 42 412 1900<hrs<=2300 50 86 35 48 72 39 330 2300<hrs<=2500 12 43 16 19 32 18 140 2500<hrs<=3000 16 80 20 41 52 50 259 3000<hrs<=3600 16 84 24 19 48 9 200 >3600 28 189 17 65 102 24 425 Total Data Readings
707 891 243 758 852 319 3770
Data Readings between 300 hrs and 3000 hrs
564 599 198 593 612 267 2833
Observations
The summary of the Commission’s analysis is reported under the following Table.
Circle-wise Assessment
The circle-wise assessment for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 is presented in the Tables below:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 137
Table: Circle-wise Summary for FY 2001-02
Zone Circle No. of pumps
Connected load of the
sample (HP)
Average consumption/month/HP
(Units)
Average operating hours/HP/
annum Nagpur Wardha 1,719 1,481 48.05 773 Bhandara 1,680 2,256 74.67 1,201 Chandrapur 1,089 171 87.12 1,401 Gadchiroli 832 195 34.31 552 Nagpur ® 3,081 1,441 43.35 697 Nashik Ahmednagar 2,073 2,360 77.58 1,248 Nashik 4,391 7,713 95.93 1,543 Dhule 2,399 3,706 70.43 1,133 Jalgaon 4,248 6,570 77.38 1,245 Aurangabad Parbhani 1,174 1,622 103.30 1,662 Aurangabad 1,744 2,994 77.36 1,244 Jalna 1,351 1,695 81.74 1,315 Amravati Buldhana 2,127 3,195 69.28 1,114 Akola 1,859 2,445 80.29 1,292 Amravati 2,770 4,367 75.20 1,210 Yavatmal 2,056 2,571 65.97 1,061 Kolhapur Solapur 1,611 2,586 76.44 1,230 Kolhapur 2,579 4,494 82.41 1,326 Sangli 4,168 4,072 84.67 1,362 Pune ® 1,133 3,233 80.30 1,292 Satara 3,357 6,143 71.44 1,149 Beed Osmanabad 1,041 3,428 81.51 1,311 Nanded 1,497 2,668 89.58 1,441 Beed 962 1,806 71.47 1,150 Latur 1,652 3,741 99.69 1,604
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 138
Table: Circle-wise Summary for FY 2002-03
Zone Circle No. of pumps
Connected load (HP)
Average consumption/month/HP
(Units)
Average operating hours/HP/
Annum Nagpur Wardha 1,716 5,483 50.98 820 Bhandara 2,003 5,197 81.67 1,314 Chandrapur 1,105 2,828 57.93 932 Gadchiroli 912 3,781 69.69 1,121 Nagpur ® 3,240 9,600 59.74 961 Nashik Ahmednagar 2,091 3,421 106.89 1,719 Nashik 4,139 9,876 108.05 1,738 Dhule 2,361 7,045 94.05 1,513 Jalgaon 4,003 11,021 86.62 1,393 Aurangabad Parbhani 1,411 3,899 100.82 1,622 Aurangabad 1,630 4,909 95.47 1,536 Jalna 853 2,142 89.42 1,438 Amravati Buldhana 2,160 6,654 74.84 1,204 Akola 2,086 7,204 70.57 1,135 Amravati 2,732 8,533 70.13 1,128 Yavatmal 2,209 6,566 78.73 1,266 Kolhapur Solapur 5,477 3,749 83.15 1,338 Kolhapur 3,957 10,024 86.17 1,386 Sangli 5,022 11,416 105.90 1,703 Pune ® 2,911 3,418 74.40 1,197 Satara 4,526 12,709 78.49 1,263 Beed Osmanabad 1,058 3,662 84.94 1,366 Nanded 1,529 3,289 107.33 1,726 Beed 857 2,009 78.40 1,261 Latur 1,502 5,816 105.23 1,693
As evident from the above Tables, the average operating hours per HP per annum varied
from 552 (for Gadchiroli circle) to 1,662 ( for Parbhani circle) in FY 2001-02. In FY 2002 -
03, the average operating hours per HP per annum varied from 719 (for Wardha circle) to
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 139
1,738 (for Nashik circle). In the Table below, the Commission has summarized its analysis of
the trend in consumption pattern in these circles over FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03.
Table: Norm (Operating Hours/HP/Annum) across circles over financial years
Zone Circle MSEB Proposal Commission’s Assessment FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 Nagpur Wardha 737 737 829 773 820 Bhandara 1,303 1,443 1,781 1,201 1,314 Chandrapur 2,102 1,024 943 1,401 932 Gadchiroli 994 1,159 1,483 552 1,121 Nagpur (Rural) 751 1,018 1,051 697 961 Nashik Ahmednagar 1,693 1,817 1,651 1,248 1,719 Nashik 1,805 1,723 1,699 1,543 1,738 Dhule 1,410 1,698 1,431 1,133 1,513 Jalgaon 1,446 1,495 1,325 1,245 1,393 Aurangabad Parbhani 1,782 1,767 1,456 1,662 1,622 Aurangabad 1,255 1,664 1,276 1,244 1,536 Jalna 1,373 1,420 847 1,315 1,438 Amravati Buldhana 1,335 1,220 875 1,114 1,204 Akola 1,273 1,197 1,021 1,292 1,135 Amravati 1,308 1,284 1,085 1,210 1,128 Yavatmal 1,156 1,398 1,085 1,061 1,266 Kolhapur Solapur 1,426 1,695 1,205 1,230 1,338 Kolhapur 1,436 1,444 1,313 1,326 1,386 Sangli 1,694 2,000 1,358 1,362 1,703 Pune (Rural) 1,551 1,514 NA 1,292 1,197 Satara 1,179 1,396 1,175 1,149 1,263 Beed Osmanabad 1,501 1,493 719 1,311 1,366 Nanded 1,562 1,810 1,462 1,441 1,726 Beed 1,408 1,256 747 1,150 1,261 Latur 1,706 1,604 1,324 1,604 1,693
Comparison of the assessed consumption norm over these 3 years throws up several
interesting results.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 140
Average operating hours per HP per annum for some circles such as Wardha, Nashik, Jalgaon, Parbhani, Amravati, Solapur, Kolhapur and Satara have demonstrated a consistent trend over 3 years.
Though the Commission has assessed the norm for FY 2002-03 at 1,455 operating hours/HP/annum against the MSEB’s Proposal of 1,576, the circle-wise norm for most circles except for Solapur, Sangli and Pune (Rural) follows almost the same trend as that of MSEB’s Proposal.
Average operating hours per HP per annum for some circles such as Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Nagpur (Rural), Ahmednagar, Dhule have demonstrated a contradictory trend over 3 years. A substantial reduction (increase) in the norm was observed during FY 2001-02 and again a substantial increase (reduction) in the norm was observed during FY 2002-03. It is also pertinent to note that the sampled load had increased substantially for these circles during FY 2002-03. The increase in sampled load could partly explain this contradictory trend.
Some of the circles such as Bhandara, Jalna, Buldhana, Akola, Osmanabad and Beed have demonstrated substantial change in trend between FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02. However, these circles have maintained the trend of FY 2001-02 in FY 2002-03. The substantial change in FY 2001-02 could be attributable to an improvement in sample quality and consequent better representation of agricultural load of the circle.
The consumption in most circles in FY 2002-03 has been higher than that assessed for FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02. This may be attributed to the drought prevailing in most areas of the State in FY 2002-03. The Commission has also assessed the consumption pattern of metered LT agricultural consumers, to see if the same trend is seen in their consumption too. The analysis has shown that in the case of metered LT agricultural consumers too, the consumption norm is higher in FY 2002-03 as compared to FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02.
Zone-wise/State-wide Assessment
The zone-wise norm of operational hours/HP/annum can be arrived at by multiplying circle-
wise norm with the weights of the connected load of each circle. Similarly the State-wide
norm can be derived by multiplying zone-wise norm with the weights of the connected load
of each zone.
The zone-wise norm would be true representative of a zone, if all the circles were given due
representation in the chosen sample. In this connection, it is important to understand the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 141
sampling characteristics adopted by the MSEB. The following Table analyses the sampling
coverage across circles:
Table: Analysis of sampling coverage across circles
Sample % No. of circles Name of circles <1% 4 Aurangabad, Osmanabad, Pune ®, Solapur 1%-3% 11 Ahmednagar, Beed, Sangli, Dhule, Jalna, Jalgaon, Latur,
Nanded, Nashik, Parbhani, Satara 3%-5% 4 Amravati, Buldhana, Kolhapur, Nagpur ® 5%-10% 5 Akola, Bhandara, Gadchiroli, Wardha, Yavatmal >10% 1 Chandrapur
From the Table, it is evident that sampling was non-uniform and sample does not exhibit the
characteristics of a statistically random sample and hence does not truly represent the sample
of LT-agricultural load in the zone/State. Out of 25 circles being monitored, only 11 circles
were close to the average of 2%.
If the zonal/State level norm is worked out based on the connected load of the sample, the
norm would get influenced by the norm of the circles having higher representation in the
sample. To avoid this sampling bias, zonal average has been derived based on total connected
load in the circle instead of the connected load of the sample of the circle.
For the circles, where sampling was not carried out, the MSEB has proposed the norm of
737.37 hours/HP/annum for FY 2001-02 and 831 hours/HP/annum for FY 2002-03. The
Commission has considered the same norms in the absence of any other data available for
validation. As only 5% of the connected load across the State was not sampled, it would have
little impact on the State-wide norm.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 142
Table: Zone-wise Summary for FY 2001-02
Zone Total connected load averaged during the financial year (HP)
Average consumption/month/
HP (units)
Average operating hours/HP/annum
Nagpur 3,18,778 56.09 902 Nashik 23,38,708 81.94 1,318 Aurangabad 8,86,960 86.09 1,385 Amravati 5,76,677 72.09 1,160 Kolhapur 24,56,067 78.79 1,267 Beed 11,05,983 84.90 1,366 Others 1,23,937 45.84 737.37 Total 78,07,110 80.20 1,290
Table: Zone-wise Summary for FY 2002-03
Zone Total connected load averaged during the financial year (HP)
Average consumption/month/
HP (units)
Average operating hours/HP/annum
Nagpur 3,05,394 64.59 1,039 Nashik 22,98,199 100.57 1,618 Aurangabad 8,87,326 95.49 1,536 Amravati 6,05,135 73.61 1,184 Kolhapur 23,66,352 84.27 1,355 Beed 11,02,557 93.15 1,498 Others 93,203 54.15 871 Total 76,58,166 90.45 1,455
As evident from the above Tables, the average operating hours per HP per annum varied from
902 (for Nagpur zone) to 1,385 (for Aurangabad zone) in FY 2001-02. In FY 2002-03, the
average operating hours per HP per annum varied from 1,039 (for Nagpur zone) to 1,618 (for
Nashik zone). In the Table below, the Commission has summarized its analysis of the trend in
consumption pattern in these zones over FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 143
Table: Norm (Operating Hours/HP/Annum) across zones over financial years
Zone MSEB Proposal Commission’s Assessment
FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 Nagpur 1,024 1,115 1,178 902 1,039 Nashik 1,610 1,696 1,488 1,318 1,618 Aurangabad 1,417 1,625 1,300 1,385 1,536 Amravati 1,252 1,274 1,002 1,160 1,184 Kolhapur 1,442 1,629 1,258 1,267 1,355 Beed 1,569 1,526 1,281 1,366 1,498 Others 737.37 871 737.37 871 Total 1,477 1,576 1,244 1,290 1,455
Unlike the circle-wise norm, the zone-wise norm demonstrates a relatively consistent
consumption level across the years, except for Nashik, Nagpur and Beed, where the
consumption has increased over the years. Individual aberrations at the circle levels have been
averaged out at the zonal level.
Inference
1. The sampling coverage across circles is non-uniform and the sample does not represent a
statistical random sample. For arriving at a zone-wise and the State-wide norm, the
sampling bias was countered by using total connected load of the circle in place of the
connected load of the sample in the circle.
2. The MSEB should improve the quality of the sample using random sampling techniques
and make sample more representative of the LT-agricultural load in the circle/zone/State.
3. Based on the analysis of furnished data, it can be deduced on aggregate basis that the
average operating hours per HP per annum for LT-agricultural consumption was 1,290 in
FY 2001-02 and 1,455 in FY 2002-03.
4. For LT-agriculture metered category for FY 2001-02, the MSEB has reported total
consumers at 2.8 lakh, connected load at 10,58,028 HP and sales at 387 MU. This
translates to a norm of 491 operating hours/HP/annum. Similarly, for FY 2002-03, the
MSEB has reported total consumers at 3.5 lakh, connected load at 13,98,825 HP and
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 144
sales at 604 MU. This translates to a norm of 579 operating hours/HP/annum. This is
logical, as only those consumers whose consumption is substantially lower would opt for
metering under the Optional Regime.
5. Increase in operating hours per HP per annum in FY 2002-03 over FY 2001-02 is
apparent across most circles. MSEB has projected 7% increase in average operating hours
per HP per annum for FY 2002-03. The Commission has assessed the same at 13%, based
on its analysis of the energy audit data. Even LT-agriculture metered category has
demonstrated 18% increase in average operating hours per HP per annum in FY 2002-03.
The agricultural consumption could vary with several factors such as district-wise rainfall
pattern, timing of rainfall, ground water level, cropping pattern, etc. The increase in
consumption in FY 2002-03 seems to be attributable to the effect of a “Drought Year”.
Because of a drought during FY 2002-03, water levels would have gone down resulting in
increase in average operating hours for LT-agricultural consumption. The average
operating hours of 1,290 for FY 2001-02 was in line with the assessment of average
operating hours of 1,244 for FY 2000-01. The change in FY 2001-02 could have been
attributable to improved sampling coverage of 1%. Based on this, the Commission is of
the opinion that the circle-wise norm for FY 2001-02 is more representative of the LT-
agricultural consumption amongst the three financial years.
6. In this context, it is interesting to note the following observations that have been made in
the objections filed against MSEB’s Tariff Petition:
Average operating hours is dependent on variety of factors such as crop category, distance of field from water source, season, etc. Higher connected load (HP) does not necessarily mean higher operating hours and higher consumption.
The MSEB’s assessed consumption norm for LT irrigation pumps does not take into account actual hours of availability of water due to prescribed rotation and allowed hours for lifting water and correspondingly appears to be on higher side.
To improve the estimate of agriculture consumption, data on crops and water source in the sample areas, should be collected. A census of agricultural pumps in the State should also be conducted.
The MSEB should ensure monthly readings of all distribution transformers being sampled for assessment of agricultural consumption.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 145
In the previous tariff process for FY 2001-02, the MSEB had submitted energy audit data of
1,701 feeders, and the consumption norm used for assessing LT-agricultural consumption in
FY 2001-02 was 1,250 hours per HP per annum. The estimate was arrived at on a ‘best effort’
basis, based on the available data. The MSEB has increased the sample size to 4,668 feeders,
which is a relatively larger and more representative sample, and the Commission is of the
opinion that the estimate based on the larger sample is more realistic. Based on the 4,468
feeders, the MSEB has assesssed a consumption norm of 1,477 hours per HP per annum and
1,576 hours per HP per annum for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03, respectively. The
Commission, based on the methodology explained in this Section, has assessed the LT-
agricultural consumption norm at 1,290 and 1,455 operating hours per HP per annum for FY
2001-02 and FY 2002-03, respectively. The Commission has already discussed the rationale
for considering the assessed consumption norm in FY 2001-02 as relatively more
representative of LT-agriculture consumption in the State. Hence, the Commission has
considered an average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/annum to estimate the
consumption of unmetered LT-agricultural consumers for FY 2003-04.
The Commission has attempted to determine the flat rate tariffs for the LT-agricultural
category such that the tariffs reflect the actual consumption pattern. To start with, the
Commission has specified two categories of circles, viz. circles with consumption norm lower
than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year, and circles with consumption
norm higher than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year. This is intended as a
signal to the higher consumption circles that their consumption is higher and hence, they
should pay a higher flat rate tariff. In case, agricultural consumers in these areas feel that their
consumption is lower, then they should opt for metering and pay the tariff applicable to
metered consumers. The following Table summarises the information for these two categories
of circles:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 146
Table: Categorisation of circles for structuring differential flat rate tariff for LT-
agricultural consumers
Slab based on average operating hours/HP/annum
Total average connected load during the FY
(HP)
% of connected
load
No. of circles
Norm (Operating hours/HP/annum)
Hrs > 1300 hours/HP/Annum
26,60,698 35% 9 1458
Hrs<1300 hours/HP/Annum
44,97,468 65% 27 1188
Total 76,58,166 100% 36 1290
The Commission is of the opinion that, in future, the categorisation, consumption norm and
the tariff have to reflect the improved sampling coverage and the Commission’s objective of
making tariff reflective of the average cost of supply.
MIDC LEVEL FEEDERS
Sample characteristics (sample size, sample coverage, and sample limitation)
The MSEB has submitted Energy Audit data of MIDC level feeders for FY 2001-02 and FY
2002-03. Since FY 2002-03 represents the most recent status of Energy Audit, the data
pertaining to FY 2002-03 has been analyzed as follows:
The MSEB has submitted Energy Audit data corresponding to 81 MIDC circles spread over
11 zones and 34 circles. The zones covered were Amravati, Aurangabad, Beed, Bhandup,
Kalyan, Kolhapur, Konkan, Nagpur, Nagpur-Urban, Nashik and Pune-Urban. The
information provided corresponding to particular feeder substation included zone name, circle
name, MIDC area, energy sent out and billed energy (HT and LT) for each month. Based on
the above information, the loss for the particular feeder for each month has been reported. The
feeders covered under the study catered to LT as well as HT industrial load. The energy units
were measured on the LT side of the distribution transformer.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 147
The feeders covered under the study have recorded total consumption of 3,822 MU and 3,724
MU at substation end and consumer end, respectively. The list of zones and circles covered
for the purpose of Energy Audit of MIDC Feeders is presented in the following Table:
Table: Coverage of MIDC feeders
Zone Circle MIDC Feeders
(No)
Zone Circle MIDC Feeders
(No) Amravati Akola 1 Konkan Ratnagiri 3 Amravati 1 Sindhudurg 1 Buldhana 2 Kolhapur Solapur 2 Yavatmal 1 Kolhapur 6 Aurangabad (U) Aurangabad ® 1 Pune ® 3 Aurangabad (U) 2 Sangli 3 Jalna 1 Satara 4 Parbhani 1 Nagpur Bhandara 2 Beed Latur 1 Chandrapur 1 Nanded 6 Nagpur ® 2 Osmanabad 1 Wardha 1 Bhandup (U) Bhandup (U) 1 Nagpur(U) Nagpur (U) 2 Bhiwandi 1 Nashik Ahmednagar 3 Vashi 6 Dhule 1 Kalyan Kalyan 5 Jalgaon 2 Pen 4 Nashik 6 Vasai 1 Pune (U) Pune (U) 3
Total: 81 MIDC feeders
Filtering criteria
All of the MIDC feeders have reported data for more than 9 months. 76 MIDC feeders have
reported data for all 12 months of the financial year. Hence, all the feeders have been
considered for the purpose of analysis.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 148
Observations
Circle-wise/Zone-wise Assessment
The following Table aggregates the losses at the circle/zone level to identify the regions,
which have demonstrated relatively higher level of losses:
Table: Circle-wise assessment of loss level in MIDC
Zone Circle Units Sent (MU)
Loss level (%)
FY 02-03 Apr-02 to Sep-02
Oct-02 to Mar-03
FY 02-03
Amravati Akola 27 5.3% 4.7% 5.0% Amravati 19 4.8% 5.1% 5.0% Buldhana 36 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% Yavatmal 2 3.3% 3.9% 3.7% Zone total 84 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% Aurangabad (U) Aurangabad (U) 286 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% Aurangabad (R ) 35 2.9% 3.7% 3.5% Jalna 167 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% Parbhani 3 4.9% 4.7% 4.8% Zone total 492 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% Beed Latur 21 1.5% 1.2% 1.3% Nanded 40 2.8% 1.3% 2.0% Osmanabad 1 15.7% 4.8% 10.4% Zone total 62 2.7% 1.3% 1.9% Bhandup (U) Bhandup (U) 10 -0.3% 2.2% 1.0% Vashi 632 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% Bhiwandi 16 5.0% 4.0% 4.5% Zone total 657 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% Kalyan Kalyan 228 3.6% 2.0% 2.8% Vasai 279 2.2% 2.6% 2.4% Pen 287 -0.3% 0.8% 0.2% Zone total 793 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% Kolhapur Kolhapur 203 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% Pune (R ) 95 2.0% 1.6% 1.8%
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 149
Zone Circle Units Sent (MU)
Loss level (%)
FY 02-03 Apr-02 to Sep-02
Oct-02 to Mar-03
FY 02-03
Sangli 75 3.5% 3.4% 3.5% Satara 118 3.8% 3.6% 3.7% Solapur 69 2.0% 1.6% 1.8% Zone total 559 2.5% 2.3% 2.4% Konkan Ratnagiri 56 0.4% -0.6% -0.1% Sindhudurg 4 3.6% 4.7% 4.2% Zone total 60 0.7% -0.3% 0.2% Nagpur Bhandara 5 4.6% 2.2% 3.3% Chandrapur 13 -1.6% 1.5% -0.3% Nagpur (R ) 67 0.5% 1.6% 1.0% Wardha 10 4.9% 5.2% 5.1% Zone total 94 0.8% 2.0% 1.4% Nagpur (U) Nagpur (U) 146 4.5% 2.1% 3.3% Zone total 146 4.5% 2.1% 3.3% Nashik Dhule 16 3.6% 3.9% 3.7% Jalgaon 107 8.1% 5.8% 6.9% Ahmednagar 92 6.0% 3.3% 4.6% Nashik 493 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% Zone total 708 4.7% 4.1% 4.4% Pune (U) Pune (U) 168 2.8% 3.3% 3.0% Zone total 168 2.8% 3.3% 3.0%
Amravati, Bhandup (U), Nagpur (U), Nashik and Pune (U) zones have exhibited relatively higher loss levels.
Beed, Konkan, Nagpur and Nagpur (U) zones have exhibited variation in loss levels across half yearly periods. Rest of the circles have exhibited relatively consistent loss levels across half yearly periods.
Circles having significant consumption such as Nashik, Nagpur (U), Satara, Jalgaon, Ahmednagar, Sangli, Buldhana, Aurangabad (R), Akola, Amravati, etc. have exhibited relatively higher loss levels on an annual basis.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 150
The summary of the analysis of the annual loss levels exhibited by MIDC feeders has been
shown in the Table below: Specific MIDC feeders having abnormal loss ranges have been
identified in the Table below.
Table: Categorisation of circles according to loss level
% Loss Range No. of MIDC Areas
MIDC Areas
Below -2% 1 Ratnagiri-Konkan (-5%) -2% to 0% 4 Additional Mahad-Kalyan (-0.6%), Roha-Kalyan (-0.3%),
Chandrapur-Nagpur (-0.3%), Hadapsar-Pune, (-0.7%) 0% to 5% 68 5% to 10% 7 Jalgaon (old)-Nashik (8.8%), Jalgaon (new)-Nashik
(6.4%), Dindori-Nashik(7,7%) Above 10% 1 Osmanabad-Beed (10.4%) Total 81
Losses reported were within range of 0% to 5% for 68 MIDC areas. Balance 13 MIDC areas exhibited losses outside the band of 0% to 5%.
Though a wide variation in the loss levels was observed at the MIDC feeder level, the variation is lower when the data is aggregated at circle/zonal level. Similarly, a wide variation in loss levels was also observed in monthly reported data, which reduces if the data for half-yearly or yearly period is considered.
Inference
It is important to identify the MIDC areas that report high level of losses consistently and/or
report drastic variations in the losses.
The MSEB should analyse the reasons for the gross variations in the level of reported losses
and submit a report to the Commission along with the ‘Action Taken Report’ within 2 months
of the issue of this Tariff Order.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 151
Express Feeders
Sample characteristics (sample size, sample coverage, and sample limitation)
The MSEB has submitted Energy Audit data of express feeders for FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-
03. Since, FY 2002-03 represents the most recent status of Energy Audit, the data pertaining
to FY 2002-03 has been analyzed as follows:
The MSEB has submitted Energy Audit data corresponding to 217 express feeders (total of
2,139 sample readings) spread over 11 zones covering 29 circles. The zones covered were
Amravati, Aurangabad, Beed, Bhandup, Kalyan, Kolhapur, Konkan, Nagpur-Rural, Nagpur-
Urban, Nashik and Pune-Urban. The information provided corresponding to particular feeder
included zone name, circle name, HT industrial consumer sub-station, energy sent out and
billed energy for each month. Based on the above information, the loss for the particular
feeder for each month has been reported. The feeders covered under the study catered only to
HT industrial load.
The feeders covered under the study have recorded total consumption of 4,842 MU and
4,831 MU at substation end and consumer end, respectively. The list of zones and circles
covered for the purpose of Energy Audit of Express Feeders is presented in the following
Table:
Table: Coverage of Express Feeders
Zone Circle No. of feeders
Zone Circle No of feeders
Amravati Akola 4 Konkan Ratnagiri 3 Amravati 3 Sindhudurg 2 Buldhana 2 Nagpur (U) Nagpur (U) 2 Yavatmal 5 Nagpur(R) Bhandara 6 Aurangabad Aurangabad 8 Chandrapur 15 Beed Jalna 2 Gadchiroli 2 Bhandup Nanded 3 Nagpur (R) 18 Kalyan Vashi 13 Wardha 8
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 152
Zone Circle No. of feeders
Zone Circle No of feeders
Kalyan 4 Nashik Ahmednagar 10 Pen 18 Dhule 14 Kolhapur Vasai 1 Jalgaon 5 Kolhapur 12 Nashik 13 Pune (R) 7 Pune (U) Pune (U) 20 Sangli 9 Satara 3 Total No. of Express Feeders: 217 Solapur 5
The following Table indicates the consistency of readings for feeders:
Readings reported for months
No. of feeders % of Feeders being monitored
0 to 3 38 18% 3 to 6 14 6% 6 to 9 18 8% 9 to 12 147 68% Total 217
Partial availability of readings were attributed to several reasons such as commencement of
monitoring during the financial year, meter temporarily disconnected, meter reading not
reported, meter problem, no load on meter, etc. Out of the sample of 217 feeders, monitoring
of 15 feeders has commenced during FY 2002-03. Around 31 feeders reported no readings for
continuous period of atleast 6 months during FY 2002-03.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 153
The following Table indicates zone-wise distribution of readings:
Table: Categorisation of zone-wise readings
Zone No. of feeders
No. of readings available
Loss range
< -3% -3% to -2%
-2% to -0.5%
-0.5% to 2%
2% to 3%
> 3%
Konkan 5 30 3% 0% 7% 70% 3% 17% Bhandup 13 110 12% 8% 25% 51% 1% 3% Kalyan 23 258 2% 3% 32% 55% 7% 2% Nashik 42 388 4% 4% 18% 64% 8% 3% Kolhapur 36 275 1% 4% 26% 63% 4% 2% Pune (U) 20 215 16% 8% 21% 48% 3% 3% Aurangabad 10 99 1% 0% 11% 87% 1% 0% Nagpur® 49 467 2% 2% 14% 75% 5% 3% Beed 3 26 8% 0% 0% 92% 0% 0% Nagpur (U) 2 12 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Amravati 14 101 4% 1% 9% 86% 0% 0% Total 217 1981 4% 4% 19% 66% 5% 2%
Out of 1981 sample readings across 217 feeders, 66% of the readings were within the range of -0.5% to 2% and 85% of the readings were within the range of -2% to 2%.
Out of 11 zones, 6 zones have reported more than 66% of the readings within the loss level of -0.5% to 2%. These zones are Konkan, Aurangabad, Nagpur ®, Beed, Nagpur (U) and Amravati.
Konkan, Kalyan, Nashik and Nagpur ® have reported more than 7% of the readings with loss levels higher than 2%.
Bhandup, Kalyan, Nashik, Kolhapur and Pune (U) have reported more than 19% of the readings with loss levels between -2% to -0.5%.
Bhandup, Pune (U) and Beed have reported more than 4% of the readings with loss levels less than -3%.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 154
Filtering criteria
The number of express feeders for which the MSEB has provided data is limited
(approximately 188-200 per month). Further, as these express feeders cater to only HT-
industrial load on dedicated basis at very high voltage levels, the loss levels as well as error in
readings should be minimal. Accordingly, the Commission has continued to consider a range
of – 0.5% to + 2% as the acceptable range for the losses (referred to as Acceptable Loss
Range).
Observations
Circle-wise/Zone-wise Assessment
The following Table aggregates the losses at the circle level to identify the regions which
were outside the acceptable loss range of – 0.5% to + 2%. The Table segregates the readings
which are outside the loss range (denoted as Category A) and the readings which are within
the loss range (denoted as Category B) and computes the loss % for both categories.
Table: Circle-wise assessment
Zone Circle Total consumption billed in MU (FY 2002-03)
Cat B/ Total
Loss % (FY 2002-03)
Total Cat A Cat B Cat A Cat B Konkan Ratnagiri 123 0 123 100% NA -0.16% Sindhudurg 1 1 0 0% 3.71% NA Zone total 124 1 123 99% 3.71% -0.16% Bhandup Vashi 231 157 74 32% -1.34% 0.35% Zone total 231 157 74 32% -1.34% 0.35% Kalyan Kalyan 149 27 122 82% 1.88% 0.60% Pen 1,119 213 907 81% 0.50% 0.45% Vasai 3 3 0 0% 2.97% 0.00% Zone total 1,272 243 1,029 81% 0.69% 0.47% Nashik Nashik 162 74 87 54% 2.61% -0.12% Ahmednagar 125 15 109 88% -0.96% -0.04% Jalgaon 24 0 24 100% NA 0.68% Dhule 49 29 20 41% -1.00% 0.29% Zone total 360 119 241 67% 1.30% 0.03%
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 155
Zone Circle Total consumption billed in MU (FY 2002-03)
Cat B/ Total
Loss % (FY 2002-03)
Total Cat A Cat B Cat A Cat B Kolhapur Kolhapur 68 15 53 78% -1.40% 0.76% Sangli 14 9 4 32% 0.23% 0.90% Pune ® 214 72 142 66% 1.51% 0.21% Solapur 45 0 45 100% NA 0.17% Satara 12 12 0 4% -1.68% 0.42% Zone total 352 108 245 69% 0.67% 0.33% Pune (U) Pune (U) 700 163 537 77% -2.49% 0.49% Zone total 700 163 537 77% -2.49% 0.49% Aurangabad Aurangabad 219 1 217 99% 2.54% 0.52% Jalna 38 0 38 100% NA 1.21% Zone total 256 1 255 99% 2.54% 0.62% Nagpur ® Chandrapur 466 77 390 84% 1.22% 0.21% Gadchiroli 38 2 35 94% -0.88% 0.05% Wardha 324 3 321 99% -0.65% 0.48% Nagpur ® 291 106 185 64% -1.17% 0.70% Bhandara 319 0 319 100% NA 0.14% Zone total 1,438 188 1,250 87% -0.17% 0.33% Beed Nanded 11 5 7 59% -4.32% 0.61% Zone total 11 5 7 59% -4.32% 0.61% Nagpur (U) Nagpur (U) 7 0 7 100% 0.00% -0.11% Zone total 7 0 7 100% 0.00% -0.11% Amravati Yavatmal 51 0 51 100% NA -0.16% Amravati 9 0 8 95% -1.08% 0.05% Akola 1 0 1 73% -1.76% 1.02% Buldhana 17 0 17 100% NA 0.91% Zone total 78 1 77 99% -1.39% 0.12% Total 4,831 985 3,846 80%
The feeders exhibiting loss levels within the acceptable range of -0.5% to 2%, account for 66% of the total feeders, and 80% of the total consumption of the express feeders sampled. Bhandup, Nashik, Kolhapur, Pune (U) and Beed zones have exhibited relatively higher consumption beyond Acceptable Loss Range. Out of these, Bhandup, Pune (U) and Beed
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 156
zones have losses below -0.5%. However, Nashik and Kolhapur zones have demonstrated loss levels within Acceptable Loss Range, which is attributable to off-setting of negative loss levels of some feeders with positive loss levels of other feeders. Following circles represented relatively higher consumption outside the Acceptable Loss Range:
Zone Circle Cat B/ Total
Loss % corresponding to Cat A
Konkan Sindhudurg 0% 3.71% Bhandup Vashi 32% -1.34% Kalyan Vasai 0% 2.97% Nashik Nashik 54% 2.61% Dhule 41% -1.00% Kolhapur Sangli 32% 0.23% Pune ® 66% 1.51% Satara 4% -1.68% Pune (U) Pune (U) 77% -2.49% Nagpur ® Nagpur ® 64% -1.17% Beed Nanded 59% -4.32% Amravati Akola 73% -1.76%
Out of the above circles, Sindhudurg, Vasai and Nashik circles have exhibited loss levels exceeding 2%. Sangli and Pune ® circles have exhibited loss levels within the Acceptable Loss Range, which was attributable to off-setting of negative losses of some feeders with positive losses of other feeders within the circle. Rest of the feeders exhibited negative loss percentage below -0.5%
The MSEB has clarified that the negative loss is attributable to following factors:
The substation end metering equipment is functioning at lower accuracy level due to high CT ratio installed, whereas the consumer end metering equipment is functioning correctly as consumer end CT ratio is selected based on its contract demand.
The bus PT is mounted at the center of the bus whereas sub-station end metering is installed in control room (minimum 100 meters away). The drop in voltage to the metering terminal leads to negative recording.
The VA burden on CT due to its long secondary cable affects the functioning.
Further, the MSEB has stated that the installation of independent metering CT and PT for
express feeder in the switchyard is not only capital intensive but also restricts its provision
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 157
due to space available in the switchyard. However, care is being particularly taken to keep
watch on the consumption of express feeders having negative loss.
Inference
The MSEB must focus on express feeders demonstrating loss levels outside Acceptable Loss
Range to identify reasons for abnormal loss level and take necessary corrective action.
Further, the Commission does not accept the reasons put forth by the MSEB to justify the
recordings of negative losses, and directs that the calibration of the meters at the sub-station
and the consumer end should be synchronised, so that there is no error in measurement due to
differences in calibration.
EHV Level Feeders
Sample characteristics (sample size, sample coverage, and sample limitation)
The MSEB has submitted Energy Audit data corresponding to EHV level feeders. The
information provided included energy import, energy export and loss for each month from
April 2001 to March 2003.
Observations
The following Table summarises the monthly energy received and monthly energy sent out by
the MSEB as a whole. Monthly energy received from all sources includes internal generation
net of auxiliary consumption, inter-State import and import from TPC. Monthly energy sent
out includes energy sent out to distribution, EHV consumers, Mula Pravara, export to TPC
and inter-State export. Loss at EHV level is calculated as the difference between energy
received and energy sent out.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 158
Table: Monthly loss level
Month FY 2001-02 Month FY 2002-03 Total
Energy Receipt (MU)
Total Energy
Sent Out (MU)
% Loss Total Energy Receipt (MU)
Total Energy
Sent Out (MU)
% Loss
Apr-01 5905 5607 5.0% Apr-02 5840 5380 7.5% May-01 5900 5613 4.9% May-02 5523 5085 7.9% Jun-01 5125 4847 5.4% Jun-02 5053 4720 6.6% Jul-01 5334 4993 6.4% Jul-02 5330 4956 7.0% Aug-01 4994 4830 3.3% Aug-02 5168 4814 6.8% Sep-01 5363 5054 5.8% Sep-02 5256 4990 5.1% Oct-01 5667 5328 6.0% Oct-02 5369 4990 7.1% Nov-01 5998 5626 6.2% Nov-02 6118 5553 9.2% Dec-01 6077 5711 6.0% Dec-02 6239 5672 9.1% Jan-02 6248 5824 6.8% Jan-03 6157 5644 8.3% Feb-02 5838 5578 4.5% Feb-03 5619 5213 7.2% Mar-02 5838 5578 4.5% Mar-03 6172 5634 8.7% SUM 68289 64588 5.4% SUM 67844 62652 7.7%
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 159
The following Chart captures energy received, energy sent out and percentage loss level on
monthly basis:
26.2.3.4.1.1 Chart: Loss Level
Inference
The Energy Audit at EHV level feeders has indicated an increasing trend in losses from 5% in
April 2001 to 8.7% in March 2003. The loss levels are quite high for EHV feeders
transmitting electricity at 132 kV.
The MSEB should identify the reasons for increase in loss level and submit to the
Commission its plan to achieve reduction in loss level commensurate with the technical loss
level of the system.
Division Level Feeders
Sample characteristics (sample size, sample coverage, and sample limitation)
From January 2002 onwards, the MSEB has been submitting circle-wise Energy Accounting
data to the Commission, in addition to Energy Accounting data on the MIDC feeders,
express feeders and EHV feeders. The MSEB has submitted Energy Audit data
corresponding to 121 divisions across 11 zones and 36 circles. The zones covered were
Amravati, Aurangabad, Beed, Bhandup (U), Kalyan, Kolhapur, Konkan, Nashik, Nagpur,
Nagpur (U) and Pune (U). The information provided corresponding to particular feeder
01000200030004000500060007000
Apr
-01
Jun-
01
Aug
-01
Oct
-01
Dec
-01
Feb-
02
Apr
-02
Jun-
02
Aug
-02
Oct
-02
Dec
-02
Feb-
03
Ener
gy (M
U)
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
Loss
(%)
Total Energy Receipt Total Energy Sent Out % Loss
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 160
included zone name, circle name, division name, input energy, billed energy (HT and LT) and
the unmetered or assessed energy (connected load and consumption norm) for each month.
The readings have been provided for a period from April 2001 to March 2003. Based on the
above information, loss for the particular feeder for each month has been reported. The
feeders covered under the study catered to LT as well as HT load. The energy units were
measured on the LT side of the distribution transformer.
Filtering Criteria
All division level feeders have been considered for the purpose of analysis as readings were
reported for the period from April 2001 to March 2003 for all feeders.
Computation of Zone-wise/Circle-wise T&D Losses
The Commission has analysed the month-wise Energy Accounting data submitted by the
MSEB. The Commission has also analysed the Merit Order Despatch data submitted by the
MSEB to compute the energy input into the transmission and distribution network. The
transmission loss in the system has been assessed as the difference between the total energy
input as recorded in the Merit Order Despatch data and the summation of the total energy
input recorded by the different Divisions. This aggregate transmission loss has been
apportioned to the different zones/circles in proportion to their share of the energy input.
The distribution loss in each zone/circle has been computed as the difference between the
energy input and the energy billed for that zone/circle. The T&D loss of the zone/circle has
been computed as the difference between the total energy input into the circle after
apportioning the transmission loss, and the energy billed, as a percentage of the total energy
input in that zone/circle.
As a part of the Energy Audit data corresponding to the division level feeders, the MSEB has
submitted an assessment of unmetered consumption including unmetered agricultural
consumption. This assessment of unmetered agricultural consumption was not based on
Energy Audit data for LT - agricultural feeders and hence has not been consistent with the
LT-agricultural norm proposed by the MSEB. The Commission, in its earlier Order for
levying T&D loss charges on the basis of differential (circle/zone) T&D losses dated January
9, 2003 (TDL Order), had noted this inconsistency. Despite this, the MSEB has continued to
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 161
use a separate basis for assessment of unmetered agricultural consumption. In order to ensure
consistency, the Commission has assessed unmetered LT-agricultural consumption based on
derived norm for LT-agricultural consumption for each of the circles based on the sample
data submitted by the MSEB alongwith the Tariff Proposal for FY 2003-04. The Commission
also directs the MSEB to utilize information available from Energy Audit data on LT-
agricultural feeders for assessing unmetered LT-agricultural consumption for future
submissions.
The norm for LT-agricultural consumption has been derived on an annual basis. If an annual
norm were applied for assessing 6 monthly T&D loss, it would lead to a wrong estimation of
the T&D loss. The same is evident from following Table:
Energy Balance (MU) Apr-Sep Oct-Mar FY 02-03 1. Gross Energy Input 29,613 33,505 63,118 2. Metered+ Assessed unmetered energy 19,013 19,053 38,066
Metered Energy included in (2) above 14,483 14,787 29,270 Assessed LT-Agriculture Energy included in (2) above
4,220 4,103 8,323
3. T&D Loss 10,601 14,451 25,052 4. T&D Loss (%) 35.8% 43.1% 39.7%
The above Table represents data for first half, second half and full FY 2002-03. Second half
of FY 2002-03 has demonstrated an increase in metered consumption. However, the LT
agricultural consumption demonstrated a decline as it has been assessed based on average
connected load during the half-year and circle-wise annual norm of LT-agricultural
consumption. This is not correct, as agricultural consumption would vary across seasons. This
in turn would lead to a wrong estimation of T&D loss for half yearly period.
To avoid such misleading results, assessment period for T&D loss should coincide with
assessment period for the norm of unmetered LT-agriculture consumption, which is presently
1 year. Hence, T&D loss have been calculated for the full financial year and not for 6 monthly
period. In the TDL Order, the Commission had calculated T&D loss for the period of 6 month
as data was available only for 6 months.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 162
Observations
Assessment of Circle-wise T&D Losses
For assessing the Zone-wise/Circle-wise T&D losses, the circle classification as used in the
TDL Order has been used to compare the improvements and deterioration across circles. The
circles were classified in following groups:
Group I: Circles that reported T&D loss below 26.87% in the TDL Order Group II: Circles that reported T&D loss above 26.87% and below 39.49% in the
TDL Order Group III: Circles that reported T&D loss above 39.49% in the TDL Order
Group I Circles: In the TDL Order, 11 circles had reported T&D loss levels below the
Commission’s performance benchmark (26.87%). The performance of this group of circles in
FY 2002-03 is as follows:
Table: Group I Circles
Sr. No. Circles Apr-02 to Sep-02 (TDL Order)
FY 2002-03
1 Sangli 18.6% 27.5% 2 Chandrapur 21.2% 20.7% 3 Vashi 21.3% 21.1% 4 Pen 21.9% 21.1% 5 Ratnagiri 22.6% 24.3% 6 Nagpur 23.3% 25.2% 8 Wardha 24.5% 24.1% 9 Pune (U) 24.8% 23.2% 10 Vasai 25.9% 27.0% 11 Bhandup 26.0% 26.7%
Most circles in this group except Kolhapur, Vasai and Sangli Circles continued to report
T &D loss levels below 26.87%. T&D loss of Sangli circle has been assessed at a
substantially higher level as compared to that reported for the TDL Order. T&D loss of
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 163
Ratnagiri, Nagpur, Vasai and Bhandup circles have been assessed to be marginally higher as
compared to that considered in the TDL Order. T&D loss of the rest of the circles have been
assessed to be marginally lower than the levels considered in the TDL Order.
Group II Circles
In the TDL Order, 13 circles had reported T&D loss levels ranging between 26.87% and
39.49%. Performance of this group of circles in FY 2002-03 is as follows:
Table: Group II Circles
Sr. No. Circles Apr-02 to Sep-02 (TDL Order)
FY 2002-03
12 Ahmednagar 28.4% 47.2% 13 Aurangabad (R) 29.7% 46.1% 14 Nashik 31.4% 40.8% 15 Pune (R) 32.0% 43.1% 16 Satara 32.1% 38.3% 17 Buldhana 34.5% 45.0% 18 Gadchiroli 34.7% 40.0% 19 Solapur 36.6% 51.2% 20 Jalna 37.3% 43.5% 21 Sindhudurg 37.8% 32.8% 22 Kalyan 38.8% 39.0% 23 Jalgaon 38.9% 55.2% 24 Nagpur (U) 39.2% 38.1%
T&D loss of most of the circles in this group except Sindhudurg, Kalyan, Nagpur (U) have
been assessed to be substantially higher as compared to that considered in the TDL Order.
Sindhudurg and Nagpur (U) were the only circles in this group, which have reported
improvement as compared to the TDL Order.
26.2.3.5.1.1 Group III Circles
In the TDL Order, 12 circles had reported T&D loss levels above 39.49%. Performance of
this group of circles in FY 2002-03 is as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 164
Table: Group III Circles
Sr. No. Circles Apr-02 to Sep-02 (TDL Order)
FY 2002-03
25 Nanded 40.5% 51.9% 26 Bhandara 40.9% 38.5% 27 Yavatmal 41.4% 48.2% 28 Aurangabad (U) 41.9% 41.3% 29 Amravati 43.8% 46.7% 30 Latur 45.1% 52.9% 31 Parbhani 47.6% 61.8% 32 Dhule 47.8% 59.1% 33 Akola 50.6% 51.6% 34 Osmanabad 51.0% 54.1% 35 Beed 53.3% 66.5% 36 Bhiwandi 58.5% 57.6%
Out of this group of circles, only Bhandara, Aurangabad (U) and Bhiwandi circles have shown losses marginally lower than the loss level considered in the TDL Order. The T&D loss of Akola circle has been assessed to be marginally higher. T&D loss of the remaining circles have been assessed to be substantially higher.
In the TDL Order, the Commission had noted the following:
“As regards the circles with T & D losses above 39.49%, they will have to put in greater
efforts to ensure that the T & D losses are brought down substantially, or else face a steep
increase in the T & D loss charges, on account of the graded T & D loss charge to be
implemented subsequently. The Commission is also of the opinion that T & D losses of above
50% are absolutely unacceptable, and the MSEB should put in concentrated efforts to bring
down the loss levels to benchmark levels, within the shortest possible time, else, the
Commission may be compelled to take drastic punitive action.”
The Commission is extremely unhappy with the performance of the MSEB in curtailing
T&D losses in these circles. The Commission reiterates that the MSEB should put in
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 165
concentrated efforts to bring down the loss levels to benchmark levels, within the shortest
possible time.
Assessment of percentage metering and losses
For the purpose of the analysis and in order to gain some insight into percentage metering and
T&D loss performance, the feeders under Rural and Urban zones are clubbed separately. The
zones clubbed under each category are –
Rural Zones - Nagpur, Aurangabad, Amravati, Kolhapur, Beed, and Nashik
Urban Zones - Kalyan, Nagpur-Urban, Bhandup, Konkan*, and Pune-Urban.
Konkan Zone has been considered under Urban category as the divisions reported under
Konkan are Chiplun, Ratnagiri and Kudal which fall under urban/semi-urban category.
The summary of findings over the period April 2001 to March 2003 is reported under the
following Tables, separately for rural and urban zones.
Table: Rural zone summary
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Zone %
M(c) %
Losses %
UM(c) % M(c)/ [M(c)+ UM(c)]
% M(c)
% Losses
% UM(c)
% M(c)/
[M(c)+ UM(c)]
Nagpur 63% 31% 6% 91% 67% 28% 5% 93% Aurangabad 32% 46% 23% 58% 30% 48% 21% 59% Amravati 38% 45% 17% 69% 38% 48% 14% 72% Kolhapur 36% 38% 26% 58% 37% 39% 24% 61% Beed 14% 60% 26% 36% 17% 56% 27% 39% Nashik 26% 53% 21% 55% 28% 50% 22% 56% Rural Zones 33% 46% 21% 61% 35% 44% 20% 63% Note: I. M(c) Means Metered Consumption And UM(c) Means Unmetered Consumption.
ii. % M(c) and % UM(c) are reported as percentage of Energy Input (EI) measured at the feeder grossed up by allocated transmission loss.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 166
Table: Urban zone summary
FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Zone %
M© %
Losses %
UM© % M©/ [M©+ UM©]
% M©
% Losses
% UM©
% M©/ [M©+ UM©]
Kalyan 68% 30% 2% 97% 70% 29% 1% 99% Nagpur (U) 62% 36% 2% 97% 61% 38% 0% 99% Bhandup (U) 61% 37% 2% 97% 64% 36% 0% 99% Pune (U) 72% 26% 2% 97% 76% 23% 1% 99% Konkan 69% 27% 4% 95% 73% 26% 1% 98% Urban Zones
66% 32% 2% 97% 68% 31% 1% 99%
Note: i. M(c) means Metered consumption and UM(c) means Unmetered consumption.
ii. % M(c) and % UM(c) are reported as percentage of Energy Input (EI) measured at the feeder grossed up by allocated transmission loss.
Summary of all zones (Rural and Urban) indicates that 44% of the energy input is metered
energy, losses are 41% and unmetered energy accounts for 14% in FY 2001-02. This has improved marginally during FY 2002-03, where 46% of the energy is metered, losses are 40%, and unmetered energy accounts for 14%.
There is a clear distinction in terms of percentage of metered energy between urban zones (average 68%) and rural zones (average 35%).
Metering carried out over the period FY 2000-01 to FY 2002-03 has improved the metered consumption by 2% for the MSEB as a whole. It is surprising to note that metered consumption has declined in Aurangabad and Nagpur (U) zone.
Further, as is evident from the Table, in urban zones where unmetered energy is negligible (0 – 1%), the reported losses are still as high as 23% - 38%.
Future Directions
The MSEB should appropriately utilise the circle-wise/zone-wise LT-agricultural norm
determined from the sample of LT-agricultural feeders in assessment of unmetered
consumption to improve accuracy of assessment of circle-wise/zone-wise loss levels.
Further, the MSEB should modify the sample size in line with statistical sampling norms, to
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 167
ensure that the results of the energy audit are truly representative of the pattern of agricultural
consumption in the entire State. Any abnormal variation in assessment results as compared to
LT-agricultural norm should be highlighted and analysed. The MSEB should monitor 12
month moving average of T&D loss and metered consumption every month. The MSEB may
consider using T&D loss level and metered consumption at a divisional/circle/zonal level as a
performance measure.
26.1.7 Conclusion
The Commission appreciates the MSEB’s efforts to make available Energy Accounting data
for the period of 2 years from April 2001 to March 2003. MSEB should further strive to
reduce error readings to increase the database of monitored feeder readings. The MSEB
should further progress from Energy Accounting (i.e. compilation of data) to Energy Audit
(i.e. to utilize Energy Accounting data to reduce the high level of losses on identified feeders).
The MSEB has not submitted any concrete action plan to address the high level of losses
demonstrated by particular areas. The MSEB should apply the principles of ‘ABC Analysis’
and identify the areas, which will generate the maximum revenue at the least cost and
undertake loss reduction programmes in these areas immediately. This is eminently possible
considering the level of metering improvement required for the limited number of Express
Feeders, EHV Feeders and the MIDC areas. It should also be easier to control the losses in the
urban areas due to the concentrated nature of the load and the T&D infrastructure. As regards
the EHV feeders, the MSEB should identify the reasons for increase in loss and submit to the
Commission its plan to achieve reduction in loss level commensurate with the technical loss
level of the system.
Energy Accounting by itself has no meaning, unless the MSEB analyses the Energy
Accounting data and holds the concerned officers responsible for the excess losses in that
zone/circle. The Commission has noted that there are several instances where the meters
installed are not being read on a monthly basis. The Commission reiterates that the MSEB
should hold the concerned employees responsible for the T&D losses in the respective
circles/zones, and consider departmental proceedings against these employees after
following due disciplinary procedure. The monitoring of the circle-level losses should
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 168
continue and the MSEB should continue to submit the circle-level Energy Accounting data on
a monthly basis, and circles should operate on ‘profit centre’ basis.
The Commission also notes the MSEB’s achievement of energy audit of 4,668 sample of LT
agricultural feeders. The MSEB should ensure that meters are read regularly to take full
advantage of the available sample. Further, the MSEB should improve the quality of the
sample using statistical random sampling techniques for making the sample more
representative of the LT-agricultural load in the circle, zone and State.
As regards the T&D loss reduction targets, the MSEB has repeatedly argued before the
Commission during the tariff process that unless 100% metering is achieved, the loss levels
cannot be estimated and appropriate action cannot be taken. On the contrary, the MSEB wants
to scrap the parameter of T&D losses altogether. The fallacy in the MSEB’s argument is
evident from the fact that the T&D losses in 100% metered zones range between 26 % and 38
%. The Commission does not agree with the MSEB’s suggestion of focusing on metering
target only and directs the MSEB to pursue T&D loss reduction target as well as the metering
target.
It is imperative for survival of the MSEB that it improves its performance especially in the
area of T&D loss as improvement in metering and billing and check on collusion will result in
substantial improvement of revenues to the MSEB.
26.3 Energy Input Requirement
The MSEB has projected a system loss of 36.62% for FY 2003-04. The treatment for the high
losses of the MSEB has been discussed in the section on Revenue Requirement. However, for
Energy Input projections, the Commission has considered the T&D loss level of 36.62%.
With the sales during FY 2003-04 projected by the Commission at 39710 MU, the total
energy requirement to be met through generation and power purchase is expected to be about
62652 MU.
The total energy input requirement as proposed by MSEB and as approved by the
Commission for FY 2003-04 is as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 169
Energy Input Requirement in FY 2003-04 (MU)
As projected by MSEB Commission’s Approval Sales Metered 32112 32818 Unmetered 8403 6893$
Total Sales 40515 39710 T&D Losses 23407 22942 Energy Input Requirement 63922 62652 T&D loss as a % of energy requirement
36.62% 36.62%
Note: $ - After adjusting for revision in the LT agricultural consumption norm to 1300 hours/HP/year
27. EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
The major head of expenditure is generation and power purchase expenses, which account for
around 52% of the total revenue requirement of the MSEB in FY 2003-04. The other
expenses include repair and maintenance expenses, employee expenses, administration and
general expenses, depreciation, interest and lease rent. The Commission has detailed the
allowed expenditure on each of these heads and the overall revenue requirement of the MSEB
as approved by the Commission in the subsequent sections.
27.1 Generation and Power Purchase Costs
The generation and power purchase cost comprises around 54% of the total estimated revenue
requirement. Hence, it is important to ensure that power is generated and purchased strictly
following the Merit Order Dispatch philosophy while maintaining system stability.
27.1.1 Sources of Power
The MSEB has two sources of firm power, viz.
MSEB’s own generating stations Purchase from Central Generating Stations
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 170
In addition to the above sources, the MSEB can buy some infirm power from Tata Power
Company (TPC), Power Trading Corporation (PTC) and other sources such as non-
conventional sources including co-generation, wind power and surplus power from captive
plants.
27.1.1.1 MSEB’s Own Generating Stations
The total capacity of the MSEB’s owns generating stations is 9711 MW and the station-wise
break-up of total capacity is as follows.
Generation Capacity of MSEB’s Own Generation Stations
Station Derated Capacity (MW) Khaparkheda 840 Paras 58 Bhusawal 478 Nasik 910 Parli 690 Koradi 1080 Chandrapur 2340 Total Thermal 6396 Gas Thermal 912 Hydel Stations 2430 Total MSEB 9738
27.1.1.3 Central Generating Stations
Central Generating Stations (CGS) comprise of stations belonging to the National Thermal
Power Corporation (NTPC) and the Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd. (NPC). The MSEB has
got a firm share allocation for drawal of power from four stations of NTPC and two NPC
Stations. Further, the MSEB has got some share in the unallocated power of NTPC. The
MSEB’s total share in Central Generating Stations is summarized in the following Table:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 171
MSEB’s Share of Central Generating Stations Capacity
Station Total Capacity (MW) MSEB’s share (MW) NTPC Korba S.T.P.S 2100 674 Vindhyachal S.T.P.S 2260 812 Kawas S.T.P.S 656 228 Gandhar S.T.P.S 657 224 NPC Kakrapar A.P.S 440 160 Tarapur A.P.S 320 255
27.1.1.3 Dabhol Power Company
The MSEB had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with the Dabhol Power Company
(DPC) for purchase of power. The total installed capacity of the DPC station (Phase I) is 740
MW. However, the DPC plant has been shut down from May 29, 2001 onwards, since the
MSEB has rescinded the PPA with the DPC. The MSEB has not considered any purchase of
power from the DPC, and accordingly, the Commission too has not considered any purchase
of power for FY 2003-04.
27.1.2 Generation and Purchase of Power
The MSEB has estimated the total generation and power purchase costs for FY 2003-04 based
on monthwise simulation of merit order dispatch.
The Commission has approved the total generation and power purchase costs for FY 2003-04 considering actual generation and power purchase cost for the period of April to July 2003 and estimating the generation and power purchase cost from August 2003 to March 2004 based on a simulation of merit order dispatch and actual average generation and power purchase costs for the period of April to July 2003, subject to heat rate and transit loss norms.
The cost of power in respect of Generating Companies and Generating Stations, analysed
and approved by the Commission in the following paragraphs, are based on extant rules and
orders of appropriate authorities and other relevant factors. They do not supplant the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 172
jurisdiction of other statutory authorities like the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
to determine the rate of power generated by Central Sector Generating Stations, changes in
statutory rates like income tax, water cess and changes in contractual provisions.
17.1.3 Actual Generation and Power Purchase from April 2003 – July 2003
Quantum of Power from the MSEB’s owned plants
MSEB has generated 16423 MU from its own plants during April 2001-July 2003. The table
below summarises the generation from each thermal station and hydel source during the
period, the PLF approved by the Commission for FY 2001-02, and the actual PLF achieved in
FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03.
PLF of Own Generating Stations
Station Generation during April – July 2003
2001-02 2002-03
Gross Generation
(MU)
PLF Commission Approved
PLF
Actual PLF Actual PLF
Khaparkheda 2104 85.8% 72.2% 68.9% 83.6% Paras 148 87.4% 71.6% 71.6% 58.7% Bhusawal 878 62.9% 78.8% 80.3% 61.9% Nasik 2046 77.0% 64.8% 71.0% 67.0% Parli 1279 63.5% 72.3% 73.2% 75.7% Koradi 2198 69.7% 62.9% 64.5% 65.2% Chandrapur 5383 78.8% 78.8% 79.2% 74.1% Total Thermal 14036 75.2% 73.2% 73.6% 71.9% Gas Thermal 1311 49.2% 45.5% 46.2% 48.7% Hydel Stations 1076 Total MSEB 16423
As observed from the above Table, the actual generation for the period of April 2003 to July
2003 has improved (in terms of PLF) as compared to the generation levels approved by the
Commission for FY 2001-02 and the actual generation levels achieved during FY 2001-02
and FY 2002-03.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 173
Quantum of Power Purchase
During the period of April-July 2003, MSEB has purchased power from the four NTPC
stations, atomic power stations of Tarapur and Kakrapar, Tata Power Company and from
other sources such as wind, co-generation, etc. The total quantum of power purchased during
the period is 5427 MU and the power purchased from each source is summarised below:
Actual Power Purchases
Actual Net Drawal from April-July 2003 (MU)
NTPC Korba S.T.P.S. 1517 Vindhyachal S.T.P.S 1368 Gandhar G.P.S 351 Kawas G.P.S. 425 sub-total (NTPC) 3662 NPC Tarapur A.P.S. 369 Kakrapar A.P.S. 641 Sub-total (NPC) 1010 Eastern Region 108 Tata Power Co. 14 PTC 524
Ad-hoc Purchase 109
Total 5427
27.1.4 Generation and Power Purchase Estimation from August 2003 to March 2004
The generation and power purchase from August 2003 to March 2004 have been projected
based on a simulation of merit order dispatch in order to minimize the cost of generation and
power purchase.
The stepwise methodology adopted by MSEB for estimating energy input, load shedding and
T&D losses and for carrying out the merit order dispatch simulation is as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 174
i) Derivation of Month-wise hourly Load Curves by applying a growth rate of 4.3% over
load curves during FY 2002-03 after making adjustments for load shedding.
ii) Energy Availability Projections that provides the maximum possible extent of
generation from each plant.
iii) Merit Order Stack Up, i.e. based on the variable cost of generation or power purchase
from each station, the plants have been arranged in merit order.
iv) Estimation of month-wise hourly Generation and Power purchase schedule and Load
shedding considering the demand based on load curves, energy availability and merit
order stack up. The variable cost is calculated at load point, i.e. including the
normative transmission loss.
v) Estimation of Total Energy Input Projections based on hourly generation and power
purchase schedule.
vi) T&D losses estimation based on Total Energy Input Projections, Estimated Metered
Consumption and Assessment of un-metered consumption.
The stepwise methodology adopted by the Commission for estimating energy input, load
shedding and T&D losses and for carrying out the merit order dispatch simulation is as
follows:
i) Estimation of Metered Consumption and Assessment of Un-metered Consumption.
ii) Total Energy Requirement Projections based on Consumption and T&D Loss levels
considered by Commission for computing energy input requirement.
iii) Derivation of month-wise hourly load curves from the load during previous year after
making adjustments for load shedding and based on the variation in sales, energy
input and considering actual power generated and purchased from April 2003 to July
2003.
vi) Energy Availability Projections that provides the maximum possible extent of
generation from each plant.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 175
vii) Merit Order Stack Up, i.e. based on the variable cost of generation or power purchase
from each station, the plants have been arranged in merit order. The variable cost is
calculated at load point, i.e., including the normative transmission loss.
viii) Estimation of month-wise hourly Generation and Power purchase schedule and Load
shedding considering the demand based on load curves, energy availability and merit
order stack up.
The major difference in the methodology adopted by the MSEB and the Commission is that
MSEB has estimated T&D losses based on the Total Energy Input Projections derived from
hourly generation and power purchase schedule. MSEB’s approach assumes Energy Input as
the base, and derives the T&D loss as the difference between the energy input and sales. This
is incorrect, as the MSEB should first assess how much energy is required and then plan the
generation and power purchase accordingly, to meet the energy input requirement. Hence, the
Commission has considered allowable T&D losses in addition to the estimated sales to
determine the total energy input requirement.
27.1.5 Merit Order Dispatch Simulation
The Commission has carried out the merit order dispatch simulation in five modules in a
manner similar to the one as carried out by MSEB with some change in principles. The
methodology and the principles adopted by the Commission for carrying out merit order
dispatch simulation for optimisation of total generation and power purchase cost are as
follows:
27.1.5.1 Module 1: Demand Schedule
It is necessary to explain here, the peculiarity of the electricity business. Electricity cannot be
stored; hence it is required to be generated when consumers use it. The consumption is not
uniform throughout the day. Consumption depends upon the activity and the time at which it
is normally performed by the society (lighting in the evening, irrigation as per cropping
season, hot water geysers in the morning, ironing in the afternoon/evening, day hours for
business, schools, offices and shift working of factories, etc.). Therefore the system demand
varies from hour to hour in a day and it also varies across seasons.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 176
The MSEB has derived month-wise hourly load curves by applying a growth rate of 4.3%
over load curves during the previous year 2002-03 after making adjustments for load
shedding. The Commission has derived month-wise hourly load curves from the actual load
curves during the previous year after making adjustments for load shedding and based on the
growth in energy input after adding the allowed T&D losses to the projected sales. This
output of this module provides month-wise hourly demand of the system.
27.1.5.2 Module 2: Availability Schedule
In this Module, the maximum possible generation from each station during every month has
been projected considering various factors.
27.1.5.2.1 MSEB’s Thermal Stations
The maximum possible generation during every month from MSEB’s thermal stations has
been estimated based on the ‘ability to generate’ factor for each station and factoring the
planned outages during the respective month. The ability to generate for the station takes into
account various factors such as Forced Outages, Partial Outages, Fuel Quality, System
Demand, System Problems and Fuel Shortage. The MSEB has submitted that they have
accounted for these factors based on the analysis of past data.
The Commission has projected the ability to generate factor based on the past three years
availability taking into account the planned outages and other factors responsible for the
unavailability of stations. The Commission has considered the actual outages for the period
April to July 2003 and the planned outages for the period August 2003 to March 2003 based
on the details provided by MSEB.
The stationwise ‘ability to generate’ factor as considered by MSEB and as approved by the
Commission is summarised in the following Table:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 177
Ability to Generate of Own Generating Stations
Ability to Generate Factor Station MSEB Projection Commission’s Approval Koradi 0.8030 0.8720 Nasik 0.8150 0.9530 Bhusawal 0.7815 0.8940 Parli 0.8905 0.9650 Chandrapur 0.7970 0.9320 Paras 0.7410 0.9390 Kaparkheda 0.7590 0.9190 Uran 0.5529 0.5529
27.1.5.2.2 MSEB’s Hydro Stations
MSEB has assumed the hour-wise possible generation from all hydro stations similar to that
in the corresponding month in FY 2002-03. With this assumption, the total annual generation
from hydro stations works out to 4077 MU. The Commission has observed that the actual
generation from hydel stations during the first four months of the year i.e. April 2003 to July
2003 is lower than the hydel generation during the corresponding period in the previous year.
The Commission has therefore increased the hydel generation during the period August 2003
to March 2003 as compared to the hydel generation during the corresponding period in the
previous year and has approved the net generation target of 4079 MU for FY 2003-04 which
is almost at the same level as proposed by MSEB for FY 2003-04.
27.1.5.2.3 Central Generating Stations
The maximum possible generation from NTPC and NPC plants has been projected based on
the availability of these Stations. The Commission has considered the availability of NTPC
and NPC Stations to be the same as that considered by MSEB.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 178
27.1.5.2.3 Module 3: Merit Order Stack – up
In this Module, all the Stations available during the period are required to be prioritized in
“merit order”. The merit order stack up of the Stations has been done based on the variable
cost of power generation or power purchase as the fixed costs of each plant (whether of own
generation or of power purchase) are to be incurred by the MSEB irrespective of quantum of
generation or power purchase.
Further, the merit order stacking has been done on the load centre variable cost of each
station, as the objective of the merit order stack up is to consider the cost of generation and
power purchase from any station to the grid. The load centre variable cost has been estimated
by adding transmission loss component to variable cost of generation or power purchase.
27.1.6 Variable cost of MSEB’s Stations
The MSEB has projected the variable costs of its own stations considering 5% increase over
the actual variable costs incurred during FY 2002-03. These variable costs projected by
MSEB are inclusive of transit loss component.
The Commission has projected the variable cost of MSEB stations based on the average of
actual fuel costs from April-July 2003 subject to heat rate and transit loss norms.
27.1.6.1 Heat Rate
The Commission had directed the MSEB to improve the heat rate of its generating stations
gradually, and accordingly considered a 1% improvement in the heat rate in the previous
Tariff Orders in FY 2000-01 and FY 2001-02. Accordingly, the Commission has considered
a reduction of about 1% in the station-wise heat rate from the heat rate figures approved by
the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2001-02. The Commission notes that the average
heat rate for the MSEB’s thermal stations is considerably higher than the CEA prescribed
heat rate of 2500 kcal/kWh. For the Uran gas based station, the Commission has considered
the heat rate same as that approved in its Tariff Order for FY 2001-02. The stationwise heat
rate approved by the Commission for FY 2001-02, actual heat rate achieved during FY
2001-02 and FY 2002-03, actual heat rate achieved during April-July 2003 and the heat rate
approved by the Commission for FY 2003-04 is summarised in the following Table:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 179
Heat Rate for MSEB Stations (Kcal/kwh)
FY 2001-02 Station Approved Actual
2002-03 Actual
Apr-July 03 Actual
Commission’s Approval for FY
2003-04 K’kheda – I&II 2753 2787 2752 2718 2725 Paras 3232 3603 3486 3261 3200 Bhusawal 2763 2809 2746 2848 2735 Nasik 2690 2687 2673 2676 2663 Parli 2676 2678 2729 2730 2649 Koradi 3026 3091 3023 3105 2996 Chandrapur 2527 2757 2570 2587 2502 Total Thermal 2702 2717 2717 2737 2675 Gas Thermal 1966 2001 2001 2019 1966
The Table below summarizes the station-wise variable cost as projected by MSEB and as
approved by the Commission.
27.1.6.2 Transit Loss
In previous Tariff Orders and FOCA Computations, the Commission had disallowed the transit loss component as an expense while computing the variable cost of generation. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in its Order dated February 24, 2003 in the matter of MERC Appeal No. 1 and 2 of 2001 has held that transit losses are a legitimate expense, and the permissible level of transit losses has to be determined by the Commission on the basis of evidence before it and after hearing the parties.
The Commission has examined the actual transit loss of all the thermal stations of MSEB based on the month-wise coal cost statements submitted by the MSEB during the Tariff Process and for approval of FOCA Computations. The station-wise actual transit loss for the FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 determined based on coal cost statements submitted by MSEB are as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 180
Actual Transit Loss during FY 02 and FY 03 based on Coal Cost Statements
Station FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 Koradi 3.25% 1.77% Nasik 2.31% 0.96% Bhusawal 2.59% 0.98% Parli 3.37% 2.80% Chandrapur 2.54% 2.12% Paras 4.56% 3.08% Kaparkheda 3.13% 1.75%
The transit losses of all the MSEB thermal stations during FY 03 have reduced substantially
as compared to actual transit losses for FY 02 mainly due to the improvement efforts initiated
by MSEB. For two stations, i.e. Bhusawal and Nasik, the extents of actual transit losses
during FY 03 are less than 1%. The Commission is of the opinion that the transit loss level of
less than 1% is reasonable and MSEB should reduce the transit losses for all the stations
below 1% in gradual manner.
The pattern of stationwise transit loss projected by MSEB for FY 04 in its Tariff Proposal
does not match the actual stationwise transit loss for FY 03. The Commission highlighted this
discrepancy to the MSEB and directed MSEB to provide clarification in this regard. However,
the response/clarifications provided by MSEB in this regard were not satisfactory. The
Commission is further examining this matter in detail. However, in order to avoid delay in the
issue of the Tariff Order, the Commission has considered transit losses based on actual transit
loss for FY 03 based on coal cost statements and assuming a trajectory of reduction in Transit
Losses. Any variation in transit losses approved by the Commission and the transit loss level
computed based on the detailed examination of the issue will be adjusted in Fuel and other
Cost Adjustment Formula.
The transit loss reduction trajectory considered by the Commission for reduction in transit
losses is as follows:
- Reduction of 0.5% p.a. for stations with actual transit loss level above 3% - Reduction of 0.4% p.a. for stations with actual transit loss level between 2-3% - Reduction of 0.3% p.a. for stations with actual transit loss level between 1-2%
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 181
- Actual transit loss for stations with actual transit loss level below 1%
The summary of station wise transit loss as considered by MSEB in its Tariff Petition and the transit loss as considered by the Commission for projecting the variable cost of generation is provided in the following Table:
Transit Loss level for FY 2003-04
Station MSEB Petition Commission’s Approval Koradi 1.77% 1.47% Nasik 2.80% 0.96% Bhusawal 0.96% 0.98% Parli 1.77% 2.40% Chandrapur 1.77% 1.72% Paras 0.98% 2.58% Kaparkheda 3.08% 1.45%
Note: In some instances, the transit loss allowed by the Commission is higher than that asked for by the MSEB, which is on account of the discrepancy discussed earlier. Any upward/downward correction in the numbers will be adjusted through the FOCA mechanism, after a thorough analysis of the same.
27.1.6.3 Variable Cost of Generation and Power Purchase
Based on the above analysis, the Commission has projected the variable cost of generation
and power purchase as follows:
Variable Cost per unit for MSEB’s Stations (Rs/kwh)
Station MSEB’s Projections VC per unit
Commission’s Approval VC per unit
Koradi 1.1256 1.2205 Nasik 1.3080 1.4164 Chandrapur 0.8266 0.7237 Paras 1.2182 1.2299 Parli 1.3016 1.2836 Bhusawal 1.1580 1.1525 Khaperkheda 1.0261 0.9239 GTPS Uran 0.6993 0.6742
Note: VC indicates Variable Cost
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 182
As observed from the above Table, there is a substantial difference in the variable cost of
some of the generating stations as approved by the Commission and as projected by the
MSEB. The Commission has approved the stationwise variable cost based on the average fuel
cost for April to July 2003, considering stationwise approved heat rate and transit loss
component.
27.1.6.4 Variable cost of NTPC and NPC Stations
The MSEB has projected the variable cost of NTPC and NPC stations based on the actual
variable cost of these stations for the period July 2002 to March 2003. The Commission has
projected the variable cost of NTPC and NPC stations based on actual average variable costs
of these stations from April-July 2003. The Table below summarises the Variable Cost of
NTPC and NPC Stations as projected by MSEB and as considered by Commission
Variable Cost for NTPC and NPC Stations (Rs/kwh)
Station MSEB’s Projections VC per unit
Commission’s Approval VC per unit
NTPC-Vindhyachal I 0.8046 0.7913 NTPC-Vindhyachal II 0.7569 0.7352 NTPC-Korba 0.4968 0.5250 NTPC-Kawas 2.7913 2.4486 NTPC-Gandhar 1.0855 1.1460 NPC-Kakrapar 2.9629 2.9911 NPC-Tarapur 0.9446 0.9446
Note: VC indicates Variable Cost
As observed from the above Table, there is a substantial difference in the variable cost of
some of the stations as approved by the Commission and as projected by the MSEB. The
Commission has approved the station-wise variable cost based on the actual average variable
cost for April to July 2003.
Based on the variable costs projected and considering transmission losses, the merit order
stack-up as projected by MSEB for FY 2003-04 is as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 183
Merit Order Stack as proposed by MSEB for October 2001-March 2002
Station
Load Centre VC per unit (paise/kWh)
VC per unit (paise/kWh)
Transmission Losses
Hydro 0.00 0.00 1.30% Korba 52.41 49.68 5.49% Uran 71.00 69.93 1.52% Vindhyachal II 79.85 75.69 5.49% Vindhyachal I 84.88 80.46 5.49% Chandrapur 87.23 82.66 5.52% Tarapur 95.90 94.46 1.52% Khaparkheda 108.24 102.61 5.49% Gandhar 114.51 108.55 5.49% Koradi 118.74 112.56 5.49% Bhusawal 122.20 115.80 5.52% Paras 128.54 121.82 5.52% Nasik 132.80 130.80 1.52% Parli 137.35 130.16 5.52% Kawas 294.45 279.13 5.49% Kakrapar 312.55 296.29 5.49%
The MSEB has also included must-run stations in the merit order stack-up. However, the
Commission has not included must-run stations in the merit order stack-up. Based on the
variable costs projected and considering associated transmission losses, the merit order stack-
up as projected by the Commission for the period of August 2003-March 2004 is as follows:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 184
Merit Order Stack as approved by Commission for August 2003-March 2004
Station
Load Centre VC per unit (paise/kWh)
VC per unit (paise/kWh)
Transmission Losses
Korba 55.38 52.50 5.49% Chandrapur 76.36 72.37 5.52% Vindhyachal II 77.56 73.52 5.49% Vindhyachal I 83.46 79.13 5.49% Khaparkheda 97.46 92.39 5.49% Gandhar 120.89 114.60 5.49% Bhusawal 121.61 115.25 5.52% Koradi 128.75 122.05 5.49% Paras 129.78 122.99 5.52% Parli 135.45 128.36 5.52% Nasik 143.79 141.64 1.52% Kawas 256.31 244.86 5.49%
27.1.7 Module 4: Generation & Power Purchase Schedule and Estimation of Load
Shedding
From Module 1, the representative load curve for the month that gives the demand during
each hour of the representative day is available and from Module 2 the maximum possible
generation from each station is known. The Stations have been arranged in order of priority
under Module 3.
The generation and power purchase schedule and quantum of load shedding has been
estimated based on the above inputs and the principles of merit order dispatch. Following are
the principles considered for merit order dispatch.
i) The Commission has considered following stations as ‘must run’ stations:
- Hydro stations as their variable cost is zero - Nuclear Plants of NPC because of technical constraints
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 185
- Uran Gas based plant of MSEB because of wastage of gas in these plants in case of non-utilisation of gas.
ii) The Thermal stations are necessarily required to run at least at a minimum level below
which their operation becomes unstable and also requires costly oil support. The
Commission has approved the minimum generation from the MSEB’s coal based
stations at a minimum of 70% of their maximum possible capacity as proposed by the
MSEB.
From the total load required during each hour of the representative load curve, the generation
from ‘must run’ stations and minimum necessary generation from MSEB’s coal based
stations is allocated to each hour of the day, and the balance requirement for each hour is
estimated.
For this hourly balance requirement, the remaining capacities of the first plant in the order of
priority as per merit order stack-up is allocated and the balance requirement is estimated. This
process is repeated until the hourly demand is met. The sample of merit order scheduling for
the month of January 2004 is enclosed at Exhibit-1.
The outcome of this Module provides the monthwise total generation from MSEB’s own
stations, quantum of power purchase from NTPC and NPC Stations. The monthwise
generation from MSEB’s own stations and quantum of power purchase from NTPC and NPC
stations is enclosed at Exhibit-2.
27.1.8 Quantum of Generation from MSEB’s owned plants
Considering the actual generation from April-July 2003 and the monthwise generation based
on merit order scheduling, the total net generation approved by the Commission for FY 2003-
04 is 46470 MU. The table below summarises the net generation approved by the
Commission and as projected by the MSEB for FY 2003-04.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 186
Net Estimated Generation
MSEB Net Generation
Projections for 2003-04 (MU)
PLF as per MSEB
Proposal
Commission’s Approval for
2003-04 (MU)
PLF as Approved by
MERC
Khaparkheda 4948 73.4% 5471 81.3% Paras 316 69.1% 345 75.3% Bhusawal 2899 76.9% 2802 74.4% Nasik 5303 72.9% 4680 64.5% Parli 3948 72.2% 3538 64.8% Koradi 6020 70.5% 3918 69.1% Chandrapur 14433 76.2% 15693 82.9% Total Thermal 37868 74% 38431 75.1% Gas Thermal 4039 51.8% 3961 51%
Hydel Stations 4077 4079 Total MSEB 45983 46470
As observed from the above Table, the net generation from MSEB’s own stations as approved
by the Commission is 487 MU higher than that projected by MSEB. The Commission has
increased the generation from some of the thermal stations based on ability to generate factor
and by applying the merit order dispatch simulation.
27.1.9 Estimate of Power Purchase
Considering the actual power purchase from April-July 2003 and the monthwise purchase
based on merit order scheduling, the total power purchase approved by the Commission for
2003-04 is 16182 MU. The Table below summarises the net power purchase approved by the
Commission and as projected by the MSEB for year 2003-2004.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 187
Estimate of Power Purchases (MU)
Net Drawal estimated by MSEB in FY2003-04
Commission’s Approval for FY 2003-04
NTPC Korba S.T.P.S. 4494 4501 Vindhyachal II S.T.P.S 3046 2727 Vindhyachal I S.T.P.S 2373 2081 Gandhar G.P.S 936 818 Kawas G.P.S. 714 457 sub-total (NTPC) 11563 10515 NPC Tarapur A.P.S. 1231 1187 Kakrapar A.P.S. 1703 1772 Sub-total (NPC) 2935 2959 Eastern Region 108 Tata Power Company 658 104 Power Trading Corporation 2304 2127 Other Sources (Non-conventional etc)
480 300
Total 17940 16183
27.1.10 Load Shedding
The MSEB has projected load shedding of 1079 MU in FY 2003-04. However, based on the
merit order simulation based on the demand projections and the allowable T&D loss level
considered by the Commission, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no need to
resort to load shedding during FY 2003-04, as there is sufficient energy available through
own generation and power purchase to meet the projected sales at the T&D loss levels
considered by the MSEB.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 188
27.1.11 Generation and Power Purchase Cost
27.1.11.1 Generation Cost:
The Commission has estimated the total generation costs in the following manner:
Actual Generation Costs for the period April 2003 – July 2003, subject to Heat Rate and
Transit Loss Norms
Projected Generation for the period August 2003 – March 2004 multiplied by variable
cost per unit as derived earlier in Section “Merit Order Stack-up”
The total variable costs of generation from MSEB’s station as approved by the Commission
and as projected by MSEB are as follows:
Generation Cost Estimates (Rs. Crore)
Variable cost of power for MSEB stations for
FY 2003-04
Commission’s Approval for FY
2003-04 Khaparkheda 508 505 Paras 38 42 Bhusawal 336 323 Nasik 694 663 Parli 514 454 Koradi 678 720 Chandrapur 1193 1136
Total Thermal 3960 3844
Gas Thermal 282 267 Total Generation Cost
4243 4111
27.1.11.2 Power Purchase Cost:
27.1.11.2.1 Power Purchase Cost for Central Generating Stations:
The Commission has estimated total power purchase cost in the following manner:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 189
Actual stationwise Power Purchase Costs from April 2003 –July 2003 The variable charges based on the Projected Purchase for the period August 2003 – March
2004 multiplied by variable cost per unit as derived earlier in Section “Merit Order Stack-up” Fixed Charges in line with the CERC Orders The Income Tax payable to NTPC has been considered as Rs 95 Crore based on average
of actual income tax of NTPC stations during last two years as against Rs 140 Crore projected by MSEB The Income Tax payable to NPC has been considered as Rs 16.9 Crore based on actuals
for FY 02 as against Rs 22 Crore projected by MSEB For NTPC stations, Incentives have been included in the fixed charges in line with the
ABT Order Transmission charges payable to PGCIL has been projected based on the actual
transmission charges for the period April to July 2003 on pro-rata basis
27.1.11.2.2 Power Purchase from Power Trading Corporation (PTC)
The MSEB has estimated a total power purchase of 2304 MU from PTC during FY 2003-04.
The Commission has considered the power purchase from PTC considering the actual
purchase during April to July 2003 and estimating the power purchase for the period August
2003 to March 2004 based on copy of agreements with PTC as submitted by MSEB. The
actual power purchase from PTC during April to July 2003 is 524 MU. The estimated power
purchase from PTC based on the agreements executed with MSEB works out to around 1603
MU. Thus, the total power purchase considered by the Commission from PTC during the year
2003-04 is 2127 MU.
The Commission has estimated the total power purchase cost for purchase of power from
PTC considering the actual power purchase costs for the period April to July 2003 and
estimating the power purchase costs for the period August 2003 to March 2004 considering
estimated power purchase and power purchase rate per unit (based on agreements with PTC).
The total power purchase cost as estimated by the Commission for purchase of power from
PTC and similar other sources during FY 2003-04 is Rs 466 Crore as against the total power
purchase cost of Rs 527 Crore, projected by the MSEB.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 190
It should be noted that the Commission has stated that the above quantum of power purchase
has been considered from PTC based on the Tariff Petition filed by the MSEB. In practice,
the MSEB can source the allowed quantum of power either from PTC or other sources, at the
rate specified above. The Commission has issued an Order in the matter of agreement of
purchase of power by MSEB through M/s Koyela Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd., on January 1,
2004. In this Order, the Commission ruled that as it had approved power purchase to the
extent of 2127 MU (net of transmission losses) with a ceiling of Rs. 466 crore for FY 2003-
04. Hence, no specific approval on case to case basis is required from the Commission for
purchases from such sources provided that they are contained within the above ceilings of
total quantum and total cost upto 31.03.2004, subject to such purchases being in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the EA 2003.
27.1.11.2.3 Power Purchase from Eastern Region (ER)
The MSEB has purchased 108 MU from Eastern Region at a total cost of Rs 19 Crore during
the period April to July 2003. The MSEB in its Petition had not projected any purchase from
Eastern Region. However, as the Commission has projected the total power purchase for the
FY 2003-04 considering the actual power purchase for the period April to July 2003, the
power purchased from Eastern Region during April to July 2003 has been considered by the
Commission while estimating the total energy input and power purchase cost.
27.1.11.2.4 Power Purchase from Tata Power Company (TPC)
The MSEB has estimated net purchase of 658 MU from TPC. However, the actual purchase
during first 4 months of FY 2003-04 i.e., from April 2003 to July 2003 is 13 MU as against
the purchase of 87 MU during the corresponding period of the previous year. The
Commission, considering the actual purchase during FY 2002-03 and during the first four
months of 2003-04 has estimated the total purchase of 104 MU for FY 2003-04. MSEB has
estimated the total power purchase cost of Rs 165 Crore @ Rs 2.50/kwh. Considering the
same unit rate of Rs 2.50/kwh, the Commission has approved the power purchase cost of Rs
26 Crore.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 191
27.1.11.2.5 Power Purchase from other sources
The MSEB has estimated power purchase of 480 MU from other sources (non-conventional,
CPP etc). However, the actual purchase during first 4 months of FY 2003-04 i.e., from April
2003 to July 2003 is 109 MU out of total surplus power of 349 MU from these sources. The
commission has considered atotal purchase of 300 MU from other sources considering the
actual purchase during April to July 2003 and estimated power purchase for the period
August 2003 to March 2004. The MSEB has estimated the total power purchase cost of Rs
152 Crore @ Rs 3.17/unit. The MSEB has submitted that the unit cost of Rs 3.17/kWh has
been considered based on the MERC approved rate and escalation for purchase from
cogeneration stations. Considering the same unit rate of Rs 3.17/kwh, the Commission has
approved the power purchase cost of Rs 95 Crore.
27.1.11.2.6 Unscheduled Interchange (UI) Charges
During the period April to July 2003, MSEB has been billed Rs 44 crore as Unscheduled
Interchange (UI) Charges on account of underdrawals and overdrawals during the period. The
Commission has considered these actual UI Charges for the period April to July 2003 while
estimating the power purchase costs. After due consideration, the Commission is of the view
that a certain level of UI charges are unavoidable, due to gird requirements and the demand-
supply situation at that point in time. However, at the same time, it should be noted that since
the implementation of Availability Based Tariff (ABT) in the country, the grid discipline has
improved substantially, and most other States are managing their energy requirements such
that the incidence of paying UI charges is minimized. Moreover, there is an opportunity for
the MSEB to purchase power at times of high frequency at very cheap rates, and the MSEB
should actively explore this option to reduce its costs. The MSEB should maintain grid
discipline as envisaged under the ABT regime. The MSEB, on the other hand has been
incurring substantial expenditure on account of UI charges, which cannot be allowed in toto.
Hence, the Commission has allowed UI charges at a normative level of 1% of total energy
input requirement.
In this context, the Commission would also like to inform the MSEB and the consumers that
the Commission is considering the scope for implementing intra-State ABT along the lines of
the inter-State ABT mechanism that has been implemented with good results across the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 192
country. The Commission is of the view that the intra-State ABT mechanism may facilitate
segregation of UI charges among DISCOMs, as well as facilitate open access transactions.
The Summary of total Power Purchase expenses as estimated by MSEB and as approved by
Commission is as follows:
Estimate of Power Purchase Expenses (Rs. Crore)
MSEB’s projections forFY 2003-04
Commission’s Approval for FY
2003-04 NTPC Korba S.T.P.S. 351 370 Vindhyachal II S.T.P.S 390 333 Vindhyachal I S.T.P.S 332 301 Gandhar G.P.S 316 315 Kawas G.P.S. 313 229 Income Tax Payable 140 95 Sub-Total (NTPC) 1842 1643 NPC Tarapur A.P.S. 127 118 Kakrapar A.P.S. 516 541 Sub-total (NPC) 643 659 Eastern Region 19 Tata Power Co. 165 26 Power Trading Corp. 527 466
Other Sources 152 95
Power Grid Transmission Charges
165 180
UI Charges --- 44
Total 3494 3132
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 193
27.1.12 Total Generation and Power Purchase Expenses
The total Generation and Power Purchase Cost for FY 2003-04 as projected by MSEB
and as approved by the Commission is summarised below:
Total Generation and Power Purchase Cost
FY 2003-04 MSEB Commission’s
Approval Total Generation Cost (Rs Cr) 4243 4111 Generation Cost per unit (Rs/kwh) 0.93 0.885 Power Purchase : - Fixed Costs (Rs Cr) 1080 1029 - Variable Costs (Rs Cr) 2413 2103 Total Power Purchase Cost (Rs Cr) 3493 3132 Total Generation and Power Purchase Cost (Rs Cr)
7736 7243
Generation and Power Purchase Cost per unit (Rs/kWh)
1.21 1.16
The details regarding actual power generation and purchase cost for first 4 months and
expenses projected for next 8 months as considered by the Commission have been attached at
Appendix 5 to enable the MSEB to claim FOCA accordingly.
27.2 Other Heads of Expenditure
27.2.1 Employee Expenses
The MSEB has projected employee expenses of Rs. 1695 crore in FY 2003-04, net of
capitalization. The MSEB has projected a 5.2% increase in most heads of employee expenses,
with the DA amounting to 47% of basic salary. It should be noted that the actual expenditure
on basic salary in FY 2001-02 is lower than that projected by the MSEB and allowed by the
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 194
Commission. Further, the basic salary expenditure in FY 2002-03 was lower than the
expenditure actually incurred in FY 2001-02. This shows that there is a reducing trend in the
basic salary expenditure. However, considering the fact that the reducing trend cannot
continue, the Commission has considered a normative 2% increase in basic salary, with DA at
47% of basic salary. The other heads of employee expenditure, such as overtime, other
allowance and staff welfare have been considered at the levels projected by the MSEB as the
MSEB is in the best position to estimate these expenses and the projected expenses are in line
wit the trend observed in the recent past. The employee expenses have been capitalized at the
average capitalization rate observed in the past three years.
The total employee expenditure allowed by the Commission is Rs. 1655 crore, net of
capitalization. The details of the employee expenditure allowed by the Commission in the
past and the actual expenditure incurred by the MSEB over the past four years are presented
in the following Table:
Table: Employee Expenses over the past four years
Tariff Order Actual MSEB
Tariff Order
Salaries 382.22 875.19 806.51 787.59 829.10 806.51Overtime 48.44 45.24 40.78 41.47 43.66 43.66Dearness Allowance 603.91 332.57 318.67 349.61 391.27 380.61Other Allowances 133.95 156.97 151.80 146.90 154.64 154.64Bonus/ Ex gratia 0.42 30.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Sub Total 1168.94 1440.74 1317.76 1325.57 1418.66 1385.42
Medical Expenses Reimbursement 5.12 5.59 6.03 5.94 6.18 6.18Leave Travel Allowance 7.75 8.47 4.26 4.09 4.25 4.25Earned Leave Encashment 47.46 32.11 18.06 49.42 18.77 18.77Terminal Benefits 406.80 295.68 407.30 379.66 394.85 385.60Staff Welfare & Others 13.70 6.12 16.27 15.60 16.22 16.22
Total 1649.77 1788.71 1769.68 1780.28 1858.93 1816.44
Less : Capitalised 175.48 229.22 151.75 132.70 164.12 161.45Capitalisation Rate (as % of employee expenses) 10.64% 12.81% 8.58% 7.45% 8.83% 8.89%Net Employee Expenditure 1474.29 1559.49 1617.93 1647.58 1694.81 1654.98
Pay revision provision 210.00Arrears to be provided in Tariffs 144.35
Net Employee Cost chargeable to revenue 1474.29 1703.84 1617.93 1647.58 1694.81 1654.98
Particulars
FY02 FY04
FY01 FY03
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 195
27.2.2 Administration and General (A & G) Expenses
The MSEB has projected A & G expenses of Rs. 145 crore in FY 2003-04, net of
capitalization. The MSEB has projected an increase of 4.2% over the actual expenditure in
FY 2002-03, based on the increase in expenditure in FY 2002-03 over expenditure in FY
2001-02. However, the actual expenditure in FY 2001-02 has been higher than the
expenditure allowed by the Commission in the Tariff Order. The Commission is of the view
that A&G expenses can and should be controlled by the MSEB, and it cannot simply allow an
increase over the actual expenses in FY 2002-03. The Commission has hence considered a
year-on-year (YoY) increase of 4.2% over the A&G expenses allowed by the Commission in
FY 2001-02, to determine the A&G expenses for FY 2003-04. The A&G expenses have been
capitalized at the average capitalization rate observed in the past three years.
The net Administration and General expenses approved by the Commission are Rs.139 crore.
The details of the A&G expenditure allowed by the Commission in the past and the actual
expenditure incurred by the MSEB over the past four years are presented in the following
Table:
Table: A&G Expenses over the past four years
Tariff Order Actual MSEB
Tariff Order
1 Rent Rates & Taxes 15.71 15.00 18.71 19.73 20.56 16.292 Insurance 5.32 5.32 4.65 12.56 13.09 5.783 Telephone & Postage etc. 10.29 12.13 10.83 10.78 11.23 13.174 Legal charges,Audit fee, consultancy,
technical fee, professional charges 7.17 5.25 8.76 8.67 9.03 5.705 Conveyance & Travel 32.63 37.34 33.22 32.10 33.45 40.556 Miscellaneous 55.29 54.95 61.49 59.27 61.76 59.677 Freight 0.65 1.00 0.56 0.52 0.54 1.098 Purchase related Expenses 11.26 12.00 11.30 12.18 12.69 13.03
Total 138.32 142.99 149.52 155.81 162.36 155.27
Less capitalisation 15.93 23.44 16.86 14.75 17.40 16.70Capitalisation Rate (as % of total A & G exp) 11.52% 16.39% 11.28% 9.47% 10.72% 10.75%A & G Revenue Expenditure 122.39 119.55 132.66 141.06 144.96 138.58
FY02 FY04
Particulars FY01 FY03
27.2.3 Depreciation Expenses
The MSEB has projected depreciation expenses of Rs. 1585 crore. The actual depreciation
charged over the past three years as a percentage of the opening gross block of assets works
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 196
out to 6.36% on an average, and the Commission has applied this percentage to arrive at the
allowable depreciation. The depreciation expenditure allowed by the Commission is Rs. 1578
crore.
27.2.4 Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Expenses
The MSEB has projected O & M expense to the extent of Rs. 738 crore, net of capitalization,
which is about 3% of the Gross Fixed Assets (GFA) at the beginning of the year. The
Commission is of the opinion that O & M expenses to the extent of 3% of GFA are
permissible and necessary for a system of this size. The MSEB is directed to concentrate on
its network assets in the process of conducting O & M activities. The O&M expenses have
been capitalized at the average capitalization rate observed in the past three years, which is
slightly higher than the capitalization rate assumed by the MSEB.
The O & M expenditure allowed by the Commission is Rs. 737 crore. The O&M expenditure
allowed by the Commission in the past and the actual expenditure incurred by the MSEB over
the past four years are presented in the following Table:
Table: O&M Expenses over the past four years
Tariff Order Actual MSEB
Tariff Order
i) O.B. of Gross Fixed Assets 20251.77 22679.00 22600.20 23727.08 24827.39 24827.39ii) R&M Expenses 455.61 680.37 586.66 640.46 737.70 737.11
% of (i) to (ii) 2.25% 3.00% 2.60% 2.70% 2.97% 3.00%
Sl. FY01 FY03Particulars
FY02 FY04
27.2.5 Lease Rent
The MSEB has projected expenditure on account of lease rentals paid to the GoM for the use
of the dams for hydel generation, at the same level as in previous years, i.e., Rs. 85 crore. The
MSEB has submitted that the GoM has already appointed a Committee to decide the scientific
basis for fixing the lease rent in respect of various hydro power stations already handed over
and to be handed over to the MSEB. The MSEB has submitted that the matter is in progress.
For the time being, the Commission has considered the lease rent expenditure as Rs, 85 crore.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 197
27.2.6 Interest Expenditure
The MSEB has projected total interest expenditure of Rs. 1308 crore, including working
capital interest and net of capitalization. The interest on long term loans has been projected on
the basis of the outstanding loan, the loan drawal programme for FY 2003-04, and the
effective interest rate applicable on loans from various sources. The MSEB has submitted
details of institutional borrowings, with break-up of loans drawn from nationalised banks and
foreign currency loans, etc., as well as the repayments and borrowings scheduled for FY
2002-04. The interest has been projected based on the average outstanding during the year.
In its previous Tariff Orders, the Commission had disallowed the interest expenditure on
loans taken by the MSEB for investment in the Dabhol Power Corporation (DPC), on the
ground that the investment was not a part of the regulated business of the MSEB. In its Tariff
Petition for FY 2003-04, the MSEB has cited Section 59 of the ESA, and has stated that “Any
expenses actually incurred by the Board as a result of carrying on its operations under the
Act would have to be considered by MERC for its tariff and revenue requirement
determination process. The operations of the Board are also guided by the powers of GoM
under Section 78(A) of the Act to issue directives. The Board would like to bring to the
attention of MERC the fact that the Board’s investment in DPC was a consequence of a
directive issued to it by the Govt. of Maharashtra (GoM) under Section 78(A) of the same
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The GoM had directed the Board to invest in share capital of
enterprises involved in or concerned with the business of generation, transmission or
distribution of power in the State of Maharashtra. Hence, apart from its own operations with
respect to generation, transmission and distribution of energy, the acquisition of 30% equity
stake in DPC was a mandated business of the Board under the realm of the Act.
Consequently, the interest expense incurred by the Board was a result of an operation carried
out under the Act and has to be considered by MERC in the tariff and revenue requirement
determination process.”
The Commission does not agree with the MSEB’s interpretation of Section 59 of the ESA and
its arguments in favour of including the interest expenditure on account of investment in
DPC. The Commission has disallowed this expenditure while estimating the total interest
expenditure.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 198
On analysis of the loans taken by the MSEB in FY 2002-03 and projected for FY 2003-04,
the Commission has determined that the MSEB has been taking loans to meet its revenue
shortfall apart from the projected capital expenditure. The Commission is of the opinion that
this method of computation results in increasing the revenue gap further, and is inappropriate.
Further, as the Commission is matching the revenue requirement through the revised tariffs,
there is no need to consider additional loans to fund the revenue gap. Additional loans cannot
be allowed to make up for the loss in revenue due to the late submission of the Tariff Petition.
Hence, the Commission has considered additional loans to the extent of the projected capital
investment only, by proportionately reducing the amount of additional loan from each
institution.
The Commission has computed the interest on long-term loans based on the average balance
of the outstanding loans (average of opening and closing levels of long- term loans during the
year) and the average interest rate applicable on these loans as submitted by the MSEB. The
Commission has considered the same rate of capitalization projected by the MSEB.
27.2.6.1 Interest on Working Capital
The MSEB has submitted that its working capital borrowings have been much less than the
actual working capital requirement, as the MSEB has been defering its payments, to match its
inflows. The MSEB has submitted that it has become more difficult in the recent past to defer
payments, as its suppliers have become commercially oriented. The working capital
requirement of the MSEB is on account of need to fund receivables and its inventory. The
MSEB has projected working capital requirement, based on 2 months receivables and 15 days
of generation costs. The MSEB has submitted that the average security deposit has been
estimated and subtracted from the working capital requirement, and the net working capital
requirement has been estimated as 0.75 x (Current Assets – Current Liabilities), in line with
the Commission’s computation in the previous Tariff Order. The Commission has computed
the net working capital requirement on the same basis, at an interest rate of 10%, as projected
by the MSEB. The net working capital requirement has been estimated as Rs. 546 crore, and
the working capital interest has been projected as Rs. 55 crore.
The total interest expense allowed by the Commission for FY 2003-04 is Rs. 1126 crore, net of capitalisation.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 199
27.2.7 Provision for Doubtful Debts
The total receivables of the MSEB amounted to Rs. 8765 crore as on 31 March 2003, which is equivalent to almost 9 months of sales revenue in FY 2002-03. The Commission had directed the MSEB to reduce the receivables in a time-bound manner. The Commission had set the MSEB a target of reducing the receivables to an equivalent of 5 months of the sales revenue in FY 2001-02. The Commission had further specified that the MSEB should reduce the receivables every year in this fashion, and the permissible limit would be only 2 months of receivables. On the contrary, the receivables of the MSEB have increased to almost 9 months of sales revenue. This is clearly unacceptable, and the MSEB should take urgent steps to redress the situation, rather than give excuses for the situation it finds itself in.
The MSEB has projected the provision for doubtful debts at Rs. 250 crore, which is around
2% of the revenues from revised tariffs projected by the MSEB for FY 2003-04. The
Commission is of the view that a provision equivalent to 1.5% of projected revenue in the
year is reasonable, and has hence allowed a provision of Rs. 181 crore in FY 2003-04,
considering the revenue from sale of electricity with existing tariffs being applicable for 8
months and revised tariffs being applicable for 4 months in FY 2003-04.
27.2.8 Other Expenses
The MSEB has projected other expenses of Rs. 248 crore in FY 2003-04. The Commission
has accepted the MSEB’s projections of Other Expenses, except on two heads. The average
interest expenditure incurred by the MSEB on consumers’ security deposits over the past
three years works out to 3.32%, as compared to the MSEB’s projection of 5.1%. Hence, the
Commission has considered the quantum of security deposit and the average interest rate of
3.32%, to project the interest on consumer’s security deposit. The Commission has also
reduced the miscellaneous expenses to normative levels. The total Other Expenses allowed by
the Commission for FY 2003-04 is Rs. 206 crore. The details of the Other Expenditure
allowed by the Commission in the past and the actual expenditure incurred by the MSEB over
the past four years are presented in the following Table:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 200
Table: Other Expenses over the past four years
Tariff Order Actual MSEB
Tariff Order
1 Interest on consumers' security deposit (Sch.12) 46.32 61.67 40.36 41.48 75.39 48.26
2 Commitment charges(Sch.12) 1.87 2.00 1.76 1.93 1.92 1.923 Bank Charges/commission for
remittances (Sch.12) 45.05 54.52 53.98 37.85 41.64 41.644 Guarantee charges(Sch.12) 62.21 93.68 85.89 92.65 91.81 91.815 Loss on exchange rate
variations(Sch.15) 12.29 13.00 11.53 4.79 10.25 10.256 Tax on sale of electricity (Sch.15) 28.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007 Write-off of deferred revenue
expenditure(Sch.15) 18.52 18.50 13.95 0.10 0.10 0.108 Recovery cost of agricultural
consumers (Sch 15 & 18) 0.21 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.009 Others 4.48 11.30 60.31 85.30 27.23 12.29
10 Penal interest on late payment of Government guarantee fee 0.00 Total 219.52 254.67 267.95 264.10 248.34 206.27
ParticularsSl FY01 FY03
FY02 FY04
27.2.9 Surplus
The MSEB is entitled to earn a mandatory surplus at the rate of 4.5% on its Net Fixed Assets
at the beginning of the year, as per S. 59 of the E (S) Act, and the GoM’s gazette notification
in this regard. The Commission has hence, considered the surplus at the rate of 4.5% on the
NFA at the beginning of the year, as Rs. 433 crore, which is the same as the MSEB’s
projections.
27.3 Annual Revenue Requirement
The Annual Revenue Requirement of the MSEB is the summation of all the expenses and the
surplus as specified above, and has been summarized below:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 201
Annual Revenue Requirement in FY 2003-04 (Rs. Crore)
Sr No
Expense Head MSEB Proposal
(Rs. Crore)
MERC Approval (Rs.Crore)
Remarks
1 Generation 4243 4104 MSEB has considered higher than normative heat rate, transit losses, and escalation in fuel costs
2 Power Purchase 3493 3132 MSEB has considered higher power purchase quantum and escalation in power purchase costs
3 Employee Costs 1695 1655 MSEB has projected higher employee costs despite reducing trend
4 Administration & General expenses
145 139
5 Operation & Maintenance 738 737 6 Depreciation 1585 1578 MSEB has considered a higher
weighted average rate 7 Interest cost 1308 1126 MSEB has considered higher loans
and higher interest on working capital 8 Lease Rental 85 85 9 Provision for doubtful debts 250 181 MSEB has considered provisioning at
the rate of 2% of revenue from sale of electricity
10 Other Expenses 248 206 MSEB has considered higher interest expenditure on consumers’ security deposit
Total Expenses 13790 12943 Add: Surplus 433 433 Total Revenue Requirement 14223 13376
Thus, the total revenue requirement projected by the Commission for FY 2003-04 is Rs.
13376 crore.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 202
28. REDUCTION IN ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
The net revenue to be recovered through tariffs on sale of electricity has been projected
after reducing the Annual Revenue Requirement, due to the following reasons:
1. Revenue earned through FOCA for additional expenses in FY 2001-02
2. Other Income
28.1 Revenue Earned through FOCA
The Commission has deducted the amount recovered through FOCA for additional expenses
incurred in the months of April, May and June 2003 amounting to Rs. 135 crore, from the
revenue requirement of FY 2003-04, as the actual generation and power purchase costs
incurred during this period have been considered, subject to performance norms, for
projecting the total costs in FY 2003-04. Any additional amount recovered by the MSEB
through the FOCA formula for increase in costs in FY 2003-04 after June 2003, if any, will
be adjusted against the FOCA recoverable henceforth.
28.2 Other Income
The MSEB has projected revenue from ‘Other Income’ to the extent of Rs. 1022 crore in FY
2003-04. The Commission has accepted the MSEB’s projections of Other Income, except in
certain cases. The MSEB has projected a lower income from ‘recovery from theft of power’
and ‘wheeling charges’ as compared to the actual income in previous years, while the
Commission has projected income at previous years’ levels. In the case of ‘interest from
consumers’ and ‘other receipts’, the MSEB’s projections were substantially lower than the
CAGR. Hence, the Commission has considered a normative increase of 10 % in these revenue
streams.
The total ‘Other Income’ projected by the Commission is Rs. 1067 crore.
28.3 Net Revenue Requirement
Thus, the net revenue requirement allowed by the Commission for recovery through tariff in
FY 2003-04 is Rs. 12174 crore. The average cost of supply for FY 2003-04 works out to Rs.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 203
2.83 per unit, after removing the cost of the excess T&D losses. The cost of excess T&D
losses has been computed as follows:
The excess T&D loss, i.e. the difference between the allowed T&D loss level of 26.87% and
the actual T&D loss of 36.62% considered for estimating the energy input requirement,
amounts to 9.75% of energy input, which amounts to 6107 MU. The cost of this excess
quantum of energy has been computed at the average power purchase cost of Rs. 1.55 per
unit, which amounts to Rs. 947 crore. The Commission has provided for a new mechanism,
i.e. Regulatory Liability Charge (RLC), to recover the cost of the excess T&D losses. The
details of the Regulatory Liability Charge have been discussed in the subsequent Section on
Tariff Philosophy.
The revenue from existing tariff works out to Rs. 12030 crore. Thus, there is an uncovered
revenue gap of Rs. 144 crore in FY 2003-04, with the existing tariff. If the revised tariffs were
to be charged for the entire year, then the revenue gap to be recovered through revised tariffs
would be Rs. 144 crore. However, in FY 2003-04, the revised tariffs will be in force
for only four months, as the Commission has always maintained that the tariffs cannot be
revised retrospectively.
The Commission has introduced high load factor incentive and reclassified certain consumer
categories, the impact of which cannot be assessed accurately at this point in time with the
available data. The Commission has hence determined the category-wise tariffs such that the
additional revenue recoverable in the remaining four months of FY 2003-04 with revised
tariffs is around 62 crore, as compared to the requirement of Rs. 48 crore. However, in case
there is any revenue shortfall compared to the Commission’s projections due to the tariff
classification changes and other rebates given in this Order, the Commission will consider it
in the future.
29. TARIFF DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Apart from the general tariff design principles that the Commission has been following over
the years, the Commission has in this Order also taken a decision regarding the recovery of
the cost of excess T&D losses. In the following paragraphs, the Commission has discussed
the problem of excess T&D losses, the genesis of the decisions taken by the Commission in
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 204
the past vis-à-vis T&D Loss Charge, the results of the levy of T&D loss charge, and the need
for a different approach to the problem.
29.1 Treatment of Excess T&D losses
In the Tariff Order issued in January 2002, the Commission had initiated the process of
levying the ‘T & D loss Charge’ for all consumers, in proportion to the average realisation
from that category. By introducing this charge, the Commission intended to create awareness
among the consumers regarding the additional cost of the excess T&D losses by levying this
charge in an explicit manner. Hence, a more or less uniform T & D loss charge had been
levied to start with. Moreover, the Commission had declared its intent to differentiate between
the various circles/zones for the levy of the T & D loss charge, based on the T & D losses
exhibited by the circle/zone in question. As an interim measure, in January 2003, the
Commission had declared that 11 circles with T&D loss levels lower than the target loss level
of 26.87% would be exempted from payment of T&D loss charges. It should be noted that
T&D loss charge was not an additional charge and was a part of the regular tariff, which the
consumers were always paying, though the separation of tariff due to excess T&D losses was
not indicated explicitly earlier.
The Commission is of the view that the “T&D loss charge” concept has achieved a certain
level of success in that the stakeholders are certainly much more aware of the extent of the
problem, and atleast some circles have shown some improvement in the T&D loss levels.
However, the Commission is of the view that, after having achieved the objective of bringing
the issue of T&D loss in sharp focus, continuing levy of T&D loss charge, though withdrawn
for certain circles earlier, cannot be a long-term solution in absence of accurate energy
accounting and difficulty in realistic assessment. Therefore, the problem has to be addressed
in some other manner, which will not create a situation unviable for MSEB to provide service
at least at today’s level but also will be driven for reduction in T&D loss to remain viable as a
commercial entity. Hence, as an interim measure, the T&D loss charge has been withdrawn
for all consumer categories in all circles, with effect from December 1, 2003.
The problem arises in the assessment of the losses itself. Even if the Commission were to take
a strict view that only the technical losses should be allowed and all the commercial losses
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 205
should be to the MSEB’s account, the problem remains with the assessment of the technical
losses. Though the MSEB has submitted in the past that the technical losses could be in the
range of around 21%, this number has to be verified through load flow studies. In the absence
of any certainty on this issue, the Commission is constrained to accept the target loss level at
26.87% for the purposes of this Order.
If the cost of all the excess losses were disallowed, then it is most likely that the MSEB will
be unable to meet its daily requirements and will be unable to supply power to its consumers.
This is not in the consumers’ interest, and till a viable alternative emerges, the MSEB has to
continue to supply electricity to the consumers in the State. The Commission is of the opinion
that a pragmatic decision has to be taken in the best long-term interest of the electricity
consumers in the State as well as the MSEB. Moreover, this is a transition period and the
MSEB is likely to be restructured in line with the principles enunciated in the EA 2003. The
Commission hopes that the restructuring will help the successor entities achieve the T&D loss
reduction as envisaged, due to better accounting of energy at different interconnection points
and implementation of profit centre concept, such that the T&D losses are reduced in absolute
MU terms.
In this context, the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP), a S.26 consumer representative has
suggested that if the MSEB needed ‘Oxygen’ in the form of tariffs to recover the cost of the
excess losses, the consumers would be willing to contribute the same, provided the
Commission treated this contribution as a Regulatory Liability owed by the MSEB to the
consumers, as this was not part of the MSEB’s rightful revenue requirement. The
Commission has given serious thought to this suggestion, and is of the opinion that this
interim measure may solve the current predicament. However, this is only an interim measure
and not intended to replace the differential T&D loss charge mechanism.
The circle-level energy audits should continue, and the MSEB should operate these circles as
profit-centres with adequate monitoring. Once, more reliable estimates of circle-level T&D
losses are possible, the Commission may revert to the differential T&D loss charge
mechanism.
As regards the Regulatory Liability, the Commission is of the opinion that only subsidizing
consumers should contribute to the Regulatory Liability, which would have to be returned by
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 206
the MSEB in future. Hence, the Regulatory Liability Charge (RLC) has been designed such
that all the subsidizing categories contribute the same amount of RLC to keep the MSEB
afloat. Subsidized categories cannot be expected to contribute to the Regulatory Liability as
they have yet to move towards the average cost of supply. Thus, for subsidizing categories, a
separate component of tariff has been shown as ‘Regulatory Liability Charge’ which will be
used by the MSEB for funding the cost of the excess T&D losses, which will be returned to
these consumer categories in future through tariffs.
The Regulatory Liability requirement is equal to the cost of the excess losses, i.e. the cost of
additional power purchase required on account of the higher energy input requirement. The T
& D loss level proposed by the MSEB for FY 2003-04 is 36.62%, as compared to the target
of 26.87% set by the Commission. The balance losses of 9.75% equivalent to 6107 MU are
thus excess losses vis-à-vis the targets.
The net cost of the excess energy input requirement is Rs.947 crore (6107 MU at an average
rate of Rs. 1.55 per unit). Thus, there is a need to contribute Rs. 947 crore towards the
Regulatory Liability over a period of one year. The average rate of contribution works out to
50 paise per unit for the subsidizing categories, viz. LT commercial, LTPG, HTP I, HTP II
and Railways.
In future, when the T&D losses are reduced, then the RLC will be returned to these consumer
categories through reduction in tariffs. The Commission clarifies that the contribution through
RLC will not be recorded and maintained separately for each individual consumer and the
category as a whole is expected to get the contribution back.
MSEB is directed to submit on a six monthly basis information on:
1. Category-wise RLC. 2. Circle-wise and total T&D loss level in units as well as percentage.
The first such report for the entire year 2003-04 should be submitted by the end of May, 2004
and should also include total TDL charges (Circle-wise). Subsequent reports should be
submitted within 2 months of the close of the half-year.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 207
29.2 General Tariff Design Principles
The Commission has adopted certain general principles, which are in continuation of the process of tariff rationalisation initiated in the previous Tariff Orders, and the provisions of the ERC Act, 1998, and the EA 2003. In general, the movement of tariffs towards the average cost of supply has been maintained such that inter-class cross-subsidy is reduced within the indicated time-frame of 5 years. The Commission has also attempted to ensure that even the intra-class cross-subsidy, i. e., subsidy given by consumers in other slabs within the same category is reduced, by reducing the difference between the highest and lowest slab rates as well as reduction in the number of slabs to the extent possible.
The rebates/incentives such as power factor incentive, bulk discount and prompt payment incentive have been retained at the existing levels. The power factor penalty has been modified such that the penalty is levied in a graded manner similar to the power factor incentive.
The Commission is of the opinion that the MSEB faces a threat from movement of consumers having very high consumption to captive generation, under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA 2003). The ERC Act, 1998, as well as the EA 2003 provide for differentiation between consumers on the basis of their load factor, while determining their tariff. Hence, in order to incentivize such high consumption consumers who also contribute a steady load to the MSEB system, the Commission has introduced a Load factor incentive for consumers having Load Factor above 75% based on contract demand. Consumers having load factor over 75% upto 85% will be entitled to a rebate of 0.75% on the energy charges for every percentage point increase in load factor from 75% to 85%. Consumers having a load factor over 85 % will be entitled to rebate of 1% on the energy charges for every percentage point increase in load factor from 85%. The total rebate under this head will be subject to a ceiling of 15% of the energy charges for that consumer. The Commission is of the opinion that the load factor rebate will enable the high consumption industrial consumers to reduce their costs, and will also ensure that these consumers are retained by the MSEB.
This incentive is limited to HTP-I and HTP-II categories only. Further, the load factor rebate will be available only if the consumer has no arrears with the MSEB, and payment is made within seven days from the date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later. However, this incentive will be applicable to consumers where payment of arrears in instalments has been granted by the MSEB, and the same being made as scheduled. The MSEB has to take a commercial decision on the issue of how to determine the time frame for which the payments should have been made as scheduled, in order to be eligible for the Load Factor incentive.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 208
The Load Factor has been defined below:
Load Factor = Consumption during the month in MU___________
Maximum Consumption Possible during the month in MU
Maximum consumption possible = Contract Demand (kVA) x Actual Power Factor
x (Total no. of hrs during the month less planned load shedding hours*)
* - Interruption/non-supply to the extent of 60 hours in a 30 day month has been built in the
scheme.
It should be noted that the load factor incentive will not give additional weightage for cases
where the consumer exceeds the contract demand in a particular month, and will be computed
only on the basis of the Contract Demand in kVA.
The Commission has increased the differential between tariff applicable for peak hour consumption and off-peak hour consumption by 20 paise per unit, respectively, and off-peak times for the HTP-I and HTP-II categories by 10 paise per unit for peak. The Commission also directs that MSEB should install ToD meters for all consumers with a connected load of over 20 kW, so that ToD tariffs can be availed by these consumers at their option.
In the FY 2000-01 Tariff Order, the Commission has directed the MSEB to charge domestic tariffs from certain professional categories if these professionals were using part of their residences for professional work. The Commission clarifies that the domestic tariffs will be applicable only to residential premises used by professionals such as Lawyers, Doctors, Chartered Accountants, etc. except for nursing homes and surgical wards/clinics, in furtherance of their professional activity in their residences.
The original philosophy behind creation of two categories, viz. HTP-I comprising consumers located in the load centres of Mumbai (Mumbai Metropolitan Region – MMR) and Pune Metropolitan Region (PMR), and HTP-II comprising all other HT industrial and general HT consumers, was to encourage industrial growth in the backward regions of the State, by giving the benefit of lower electricity tariffs for industries set up in the non-BMR/PMR areas. However, over a period of time, the MSEB has modified the classification of HTP-I to include industrial consumers whose contract demand is above
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 209
500 kVA and situated outside MMR and PMR, but situated in Thane, Pune, Raigad districts, urban agglomerations of Nasik and Aurangabad including industrial estates located in these regions. By doing so, several industrial consumers have been brought under HTP-I category, which has a higher tariff. This is not in consonance with the original idea behind creation of these two separate categories. The Commission has hence reclassified the HTP I category to include only those HT industrial and other HT consumers situated in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) and Pune Metropolitan Region (PMR), as defined by the State Government. The balance HT industrial and other HT consumers would be classified under HTP II category.
In July 2003, the GoM announced the IT and ITES Policy, 2003 for promoting business and enterprise in the IT industry, to make Maharashtra the most favoured destination for investments in the IT and ITES industry. In the context of the infrastructure support to the IT and ITES sector, the Policy specifies under Clause 4.2 (h) that, “Levying of power charges on IT and ITES units at industrial rates and notifying IT and ITES units as a separate category of consumers through MERC”. In line with the recently announced IT and ITES Policy announced by the GoM and the stated philosophy of the Commission in previous Orders, the Commission has included the Low Tension IT industry and IT enabled services (as defined in the GoM Policy) in the LTPG category, for purposes of tariff.
In the context of classification of State Government sponsored Lift Irrigation Schemes (LIS) under the HTP-II category, and the other LIS being classified under HTP-VII, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no rationale for classifying the LIS schemes under different categories on the basis of their ownership. The MSEB’s Tariff Schedule includes all HT agricultural pumping loads and does not exclude any particular segment of LIS. The Commission hence rules that all the Lift Irrigation Schemes (LIS) will be classified under the HTP-VII category, irrespective of ownership.
The seasonal category will include all consumers who opt for a seasonal pattern of consumption, without the need for further approval from the Commission. The consumers should approach the MSEB for classification under the seasonal category if their business is such that electricity requirement is seasonal in nature. The shift from seasonal to normal connection and vice-versa can be done only once each year, at the beginning of the year.
The additional standby charges of Rs. 20 per kVA per month will be applicable to HT industrial consumers with captive generating units synchronized with the MSEB grid, only on the extent of standby demand, and not the entire contract demand as prevalent currently. In case there is no standby demand, and the captive unit is synchronized with the grid only for export of power, then the additional standby demand charges of Rs. 20 per kVA will not be applicable.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 210
As all the hitherto un-metered consumer categories have been metered, except LT agriculture, the Commission has specified flat rate tariffs only for the un-metered LT agriculture category. The difference in metered tariff and the flat rate tariffs has been increased to incentivize un-metered consumers to opt for metering.
As stated earlier, the Commission has been compelled to continue with the flat rate tariffs for LT agriculture category, as the MSEB has not complied with the Commission’s directives given in earlier Tariff Orders, regarding 100% metering of all consumers. Further, despite the Commission’s directive to meter all the agricultural DTCs, this has not yet been achieved, and even the meters on the sample feeders are not read regularly. Hence, the Commission has been constrained to assess the consumption norms based on the energy audits of the sample feeders provided by MSEB. The Commission is aware that there are consumers who consume less/more than the average consumption norm assessed for the entire State, as the average consumption norm is a weighted average consumption norm. This is also supported by the fact that the average consumption of around 4 lakh LT agricultural metered consumers is only around 500 hours/HP/year. The Commission has hence been constrained to introduce differential flat rate tariff for LT agricultural consumers so as to move towards a tariff which reflects the consumption pattern in some way, in the absence at present of 100% metering.
The Commission has considered an average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year in case of flat rate LT agricultural consumers, based on the available sample energy audit data submitted by the MSEB. The Commission has attempted to determine the flat rate tariffs for agriculture category such that the tariffs reflect the actual consumption pattern. This has been done by specifying circle-wise differential flat rate tariffs linked to the agriculture consumption norm as established by the energy audit data for that circle. To start with, the Commission has specified two tariff levels, viz. lower tariff for circles with consumption norm lower than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year, and higher tariffs for circles with consumption norm higher than the average consumption norm of 1300 hours/HP/year. The Commission hopes that this will incentivize the shift to metered consumption at a faster rate.
The Commission would like to add that with higher level of DTC metering and with increase in the sample size, based on statistical sampling techniques, the tariff bands as well as the classification of consumers within the consumption bands may undergo a change. MSEB is directed to submit Circle-wise estimates of pump-running hours of unmetered agricultural consumers on a quarterly basis. The first such report (for the entire year 2003-04) should be submitted to the Commission by the end of May, 2004.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 211
The energy charge to be levied for net sale to the TPC has been increased to match the highest cost of power purchase, i.e. 299 p/u. The tariff applicable for sale to Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society (MPECS) has been retained at the existing levels. The Commission is separately forwarding a Report on the viability of the MPECS to the Government of Maharashtra (GoM).
The Commission directs the MSEB to compile data on reactive power consumption by all consumer categories where electronic meters are already installed, as the Commission intends to introduce kVARh tariffs in the subsequent Order. The kVARh consumption data for each billing cycle should be submitted alongwith the next ARR and Tariff Petition.
The Commission directs the MSEB to collect and submit relevant data regarding the consumption of defence category, which is currently classified under HTP II and HTP VI, in different areas. In the subsequent Order, the Commission intends to move all such consumer categories to a tariff structure similar to that applicable to HTP VI category, where the consumer is responsible for the sub-distribution, billing and collection. This data should be submitted alongwith the next ARR and Tariff Petition.
The Commission has attempted to increase the recovery from fixed charges, which ranged around 35% of the fixed costs in the existing tariffs, to around 40% in the revised tariffs. The energy charges have been adjusted in such a way that the average realisation from each consumer category approaches the average cost of supply, while at the same time ensuring that no consumer category faces a tariff shock. However, considering the extremely low levels of the existing tariffs of categories such as agriculture, rural PWW, etc., it is inevitable that the tariff hike for these categories will be considerably steeper than that for other categories. The movement of the category-wise average realisation towards the average cost of supply has been shown in the Table below:
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 212
29.2.1.1.1.1 Table: Movement of Average Realization towards Average Cost of Supply
CategoryExisting
TariffRevised
TariffExisting
TariffRevised
Tariff(a) (b) (c) (d)=(b)/(a) (e)=(c)/(a) (f)=(e)-(d)
LT CategoryDomestic (LD-1) 2.83 2.62 2.79 93% 99% 6%Non-domestic (LD-2) 2.83 4.46 3.91 158% 138% -19%General Motive Power 2.83 3.36 2.83 119% 100% -19%Public Water Works
Urban PWW 2.83 2.67 2.82 94% 100% 5%Rural PWW 2.83 1.36 1.54 48% 55% 6%
Agriculture 2.83 1.45 1.94 51% 69% 17%Street Lighting 2.83 2.18 2.41 77% 85% 8%Sub Total LT 2.83 2.46 2.57 87% 91% 4%
HT CategoryHTP-I 2.83 3.79 3.09 134% 109% -25%HTP-II 2.83 3.68 2.90 130% 103% -27%HTP-III 2.83 3.19 2.78 113% 98% -14%HTP-IV 2.83 3.06 2.78 108% 98% -10%HTP-V (Railway Traction) 2.83 4.15 3.35 147% 118% -28%HTP-VI 2.83 2.65 2.64 94% 94% 0%HTP-VII (Agriculture) 2.83 1.00 1.41 35% 50% 15%Mula Pravara 2.83 2.08 2.08 73% 73% 0%Sub Total HT 2.83 3.83 3.20 136% 113% -22%
Average Realisation
(Rs./unit)
Ratio of Average Realisation to
Average Cost of Supply (%)
Percentage point increase/ decrease in Tariff w.r.t Avg. CoS
Average Cost of Supply (excluding
cost of excess T&D losses)
(Rs./unit)
Note: Revised tariff excludes Regulatory Liability Charge, applicable to the following categories - non-
domestic, LTP-G, HTP-I, HTP-II, Railways
The Commission has thus reduced the cross-subsidy between different consumer categories and tariff for all subsidised categories has been specified at least equal to 50% of the average cost of supply. The above method of viewing the tariff revision with respect to the relationship with the average cost of supply is the appropriate method, as compared to the method of looking at the tariff increase in percentage terms with respect to the existing tariff. For instance, the tariff hike for LT and HT agriculture would appear to be substantial, simply because the existing tariff levels are very low. Any tariff hike over a small base is bound to appear very high.
The Commission would like to highlight the MSEB’s approach to tariff determination, and the inconsistent approach followed by the MSEB in this regard. MSEB has been proposing a different tariff philosophy in each Tariff Petition. In its first Tariff Petition
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 213
for FY 2000-01, the MSEB had proposed a substantial increase in the tariffs of subsidized categories. In its second Tariff Petition, the MSEB proposed a substantial reduction in the number of categories and proposed a severe tariff rationalization, where the tariffs of subsidized categories such as domestic and agriculture, would reach the average cost of supply in a single year, and the tariffs of the subsidizing categories would be reduced substantially. In the current Tariff Petition, the MSEB has proposed that the tariffs for the subsidizing categories should be increased, as the subsidized categories, mainly LT agriculture segment has a poor payment record, and any increase in tariff for these categories would not result in increased liquidity for the MSEB.
The Commission finds the approach extremely inconsistent, and against the principles of tariff determination required to be followed under the ERC Act, 1998. Moreover, the MSEB cannot shift the burden of its inefficiency in collection of its bills, to the subsidizing categories, on the ground that they have a better payment record. The Commission would like to stress here that it has consistently followed the approach of gradual reduction in cross-subsidy and avoidance of tariff shock to any consumer category.
The MSEB has also stated that the flat rate tariffs should be substantially higher than the metered tariffs or LT agriculture category, in order to incentivize the shift to metered consumption, which in turn would enable more accurate assessment of T&D losses. However, the MSEB has not proposed any substantial increase in the flat rate tariffs, to widen the differentia; between the flat rate and metered tariffs. The Commission, while determining tariffs, has kept this in mind, and has increased the differential between flat rate and metered tariffs.
The Commission has introduced high load factor incentive and reclassified certain consumer categories, the impact of which cannot be assessed accurately at this point in time with the available data. The Commission has hence determined the category-wise tariffs such that the additional revenue recoverable in the remaining four months of FY 2003-04 with revised tariffs is around 62 crore.
It should be noted that all the provisions of the previous Tariff Order issued on January 10, 2002 are still valid, unless explicitly modified/introduced through this Order.
29.3 Energy Conservation
Conservation of energy through energy efficiency is very essential, to bridge the gap between demand and supply. The objective of energy efficiency is two fold, viz. to increase the generation through energy efficiency at the generation level, and to manage the demand through Demand Side Management (DSM) techniques, which include load shaping as well as reduction in the consumption levels through use of energy efficient
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 214
devices. The Commission directs the MSEB to conduct a detailed study of the potential benefits that could accrue from measures to improve the energy efficiency. The Commission directs the MSEB to prepare a detailed plan to promote energy efficiency at the consumer end and to quantify the potential benefits from these measures. The detailed plan should be submitted to the Commission within three months of this Order.
29.4 RELIABILITY CHARGE
The Commission had initiated the process of levying a ‘Reliability Charge’ to begin with, on HTP-I and HTP-II consumers who have been provided with ToD meters, within urban agglomerations in the State, on consumers receiving power supply through Express Feeders and also those within MIDC areas. The MSEB was allowed to impose an additional charge of 25 paise per kWh to these consumers and ensure that they get uninterrupted power supply. However, the MSEB has not progressed very far in implementing the Reliability Charge, even though it would have resulted in additional revenue, which could have been gainfully employed in strengthening/augmenting the system to improve the quality of supply to consumers.
In this context, the Commission has had discussions with the MSEB officials on the MSEB’s preparedness to implement levy of Reliability Charge and the proposed modalities for the same. The Commission asked the MSEB to submit a concrete proposal addressing the areas like (i) time frame, (ii) requirement of investment, manpower and its sources, (iii) locations to be covered initially, (iv) number of consumers to be covered, (v) revenue collection through reliability charges, (vi) system improvements required to be undertaken by ploughing back the revenue earned through reliability charges, (vii) value addition to the central system, and (viii) dispute resolution mechanism.
The Commission also suggested that the MSEB should define the term “reliability charge”, frequency and voltage and other parameters, to ensure that the consumers are offered a value added proposition. Further, the Commission suggested that once the terms were defined, certain agreed parameters such as frequency, voltage, etc. should be guaranteed by the MSEB. In case the MSEB is unable to offer such guarantees in the first year, then there should be a commitment to achieve them within a fixed time period by upgradation of system utilizing the revenue earned through reliability charges. The Commission suggested the setting up of ‘dispute resolution cells’ at the Divisional/Zonal level itself and authorize the circle-in-charge.
During the discussions, the MSEB stated that any system improvement project takes about two to three years for completion. The MSEB added that though the frequency is beyond local control, voltage regulation improvement can be targeted and achieved within a shorter
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 215
span of time. The MSEB agreed to chalk out a comprehensive plan addressing the issues spelt out by the Commission and other points, and place the same before the Commission for its approval. The MSEB also assured the Commission that the project will be implemented after the Commission’s approval. However, the MSEB has not submitted its Proposal in this regard and has consequently lost an opportunity to garner additional revenue that could have been gainfully employed in improving the network infrastructure to enable better quality supply to the consumers. The MSEB is directed to approach the Commission with the Comprehensive Plan for levy of the Reliability Charge, at the earliest.
The MSEB should ensure that a copy of the Tariff Order is available with each billing unit and the concerned Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer, to ensure proper implementation of the Tariff Order.
The revised tariff applicable for all categories of consumers from December 1, 2003 has been shown below. The comparison of existing tariff and the tariff determined by the Commission has been presented in Appendix 1.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 216
Summary of LT Tariff (Effective from December 1, 2003)
Consumer Category Demand Charge (Rs/KVA/month) or
(Rs/HP/month) or (Rs/service connection per month)
Energy Charge
(p/u)
Regulatory Liability Charge
(p/u) Domestic (LD 1)
0-30 Units Rs. 20 per service connection 125 31-300 Units 290 Above 300 units (only balance Units)
Single Phase: Rs. 40 per service connection; Three Phase: Rs. 100 per service connection; Additional Fixed charge of Rs. 100 per 10 KW load or part thereof above 10 KW load shall be payable.
400
0
Non Domestic (LD2) 0-100 Units 240 101-200 Units 315 Above 200 units (only balance Units)
Single Phase: Rs. 100 per service connection; Three Phase: Rs. 150 per service connection; Additional Fixed Charge of Rs. 150 per 10 KW load or part thereof above 10 KW load shall be payable. Optional LTMD based Tariff will be available for all consumers.
410
50
General Motive Power (LTP-G) – Base Tariff 0-1000 Units 230 Above 1000 Units (only balance Units)
Rs. 60 per HP (Rs. 80.5 per kW) per month for 50% of sanctioned load; Optional MD based tariff will be available for all consumers, irrespective of Contract demand, at Rs. 220/kVA/month
250 50
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 217
Consumer Category Demand Charge (Rs/KVA/month) or
(Rs/HP/month) or (Rs/service connection per month)
Energy Charge
(p/u)
Regulatory Liability Charge
(p/u) OPTIONAL TOD TARIFF 2200 hrs – 0600 hrs -75 0600 hrs – 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs – 1200 hrs 50 1200 hrs – 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs – 2200 hrs
0
90 Public Water Supply Urban P. W. Schemes
Rs. 60 per HP per month 240
Rural P. W. Schemes Grampanchayat Rs. 25 per HP per month 100 Metered Tariff (incl. ‘C’ Class Municipal Council)
Rs. 35 per HP per month 150
0
Street Light Tariff Grampanchayat & Municipal Council
210
Municipal Corporation
Rs. 30 per kW per month
250
0
Agriculture Flat Rate Tariff Category 1 circles* Rs. 180 per HP per month Category 2 circles$ Rs. 150 per HP per month
0 0
Metered Tariff (incl. Poultry Farms)
Rs. 15 per HP per month 110 0
*Category 1 Circles (with consumption norm above 1300 hours/HP/year) 1 Chandrapur 4 Latur 7 Osmanabad 2 Jalna 5 Nanded 8 Parbhani 3 Kolhapur 6 Nashik 9 Sangli
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 218
$Category 2 Circles (with consumption norm below 1300 hours/HP/year) 1 Ahmednagar 10 Buldhana 19 Pune (U) 2 Akola 11 Dhule 20 Ratnagiri 3 Amravati 12 Gadchiroli 21 Satara 4 Aurangabad 13 Jalgaon 22 Sindhudurg 5 Aurangabad (U) 14 Kalyan 23 Solapur 6 Beed 15 Nagpur ® 24 Vasai 7 Bhandara 16 Nagpur (U) 25 Wardha 8 Bhandup 17 Pen 26 Vashi 9 Bhiwandi 18 Pune ® 27 Yavatmal
Notes:
FOCA shall be applicable to all categories of consumers. FOCA will be determined monthly based on the FOCA Formula approved by the Commission.
Billing Demand for LTPG and other LT categories opting for MD based tariff :
Monthly Billing Demand will be the higher of the following:
iv. Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours v. 75% of the highest billing demand recorded during preceding eleven months
vi. 50% of the Contract Demand.
The definition of Connected Load will be as under:
Connected Load (CL) shall mean sum of the rated capacities of all energy consuming
apparatus duly wired and connected to the power supply system including portable apparatus
in the consumer’s premises. Further, CL shall be calculated after allowing a tolerance of 5%.
CL shall not include load of spare plug sockets, stand by or spare energy consuming
apparatus installed authorisedly, through change over switch, which cannot be operated
simultaneously and load exclusively meant for firefighting purposes. Equipment under
installation and not connected electrically, equipment stored in warehouse/showrooms either
as spare or for sale is not to be considered as ‘CL’.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 219
Summary of HT Tariff Effective from December 1, 2003
Consumer Category Demand Charge (Rs/KVA/month)
Energy Charge
(p/u)
Regulatory Liability
Charge (p/u)
HTP – I (Industrial - BMR/PMR) Base Tariff
350 215 50
HTP – II (Industrial – Others) Base Tariff
330 210 50
ToD Tariff (for HTP-I & HTP-II)
2200 hrs – 0600 hrs -85 0600 hrs – 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs – 1200 hrs 60 1200 hrs – 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs – 2200 hrs
0
100 Seasonal Category 350 300 0 HTP – III (PWW-BMR/PMR)
350 215 0
HTP – IV (PWW-Others) 330 210 0 ToD Tariff (for HTP-III & HTP-IV)
2200 hrs – 0600 hrs -85 0600 hrs – 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs – 1200 hrs 60 1200 hrs – 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs – 2200 hrs
0
100 HTP - V (Railway Traction) 0 335 50 HTP – VI Residential Complex 220 Commercial Complex
125 350
0
HTP VII (Agriculture)1 Metered Tariff (incl. Poultry, agriculture High tech)
25 130 0
Tata Power Company 600 299 0 Mula Pravara Electric Co-op Society
200 150 0
Inter State Sale 0 260
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 220
Notes:
1. HTP VII category includes HT Lift Irrigation Schemes irrespective of ownership 2. FOCA shall be applicable to all categories of consumers. FOCA will be determined
monthly based on the FOCA Formula approved by the Commission 3. Billing Demand definitions:
HT Categories (HTP-I, HTP-II, HTP-III, HTP-IV)
Monthly Billing Demand will be the higher of the following: iv) Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours v) 75% of the highest billing demand recorded during preceding eleven months vi) 50% of the Contract Demand.
Seasonal Category
During Declared Season
Monthly Billing Demand will be the higher of the following:
i) Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours ii) 75% of the Contract Demand iii) 50 kVA.
During Declared Off-season
Monthly Billing Demand will be the Actual Maximum Demand recorded in the month during 0600 hours to 2200 hours
4. HT Industrial consumers having captive generation facilities synchronized with the grid
will pay additional demand charges of Rs. 20 per kVA per month only for the standby
contract demand component.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 221
30. REVENUE PROJECTIONS
In FY 2003-04, the MSEB will earn revenue for 8 months with existing tariff, while the
revised tariffs will be applicable for 4 months. The total revenue from sale of electricity has
been detailed below:
(Rs. Crore)
Sr. Revenue from Sale of Electricity FY 2003-04 1 Existing Tariffs for 8 months 8020 2 Revised Tariffs for 4 months 4072 Total 12092
The detailed revenue calculations with the existing and revised tariff have been given in
Appendices 2 and 3, respectively.
31. TARIFF HIKE FOR FY 2003-04
Description MSEB Proposal MERC Approval Tariff Increase in Rs. Crore* 1462 186
Overall Tariff Increase in %* 12.5% 1.5%
* - If Revised Tariffs Were Applicable For The Entire Year
The overall tariff hike approved by the Commission amounts to 1.5%, over the revenue billed
with the existing tariff. The consumers should appreciate that though the overall rate is 1.5%,
the impact for each consumer category will differ, in relation to the difference between the
average realization and the average cost of supply. Similarly, the impact of the revised tariffs
will differ from one consumer to another in the same category in relation to the consumption
level. For subsidized categories such as domestic, agriculture and LT PWW, the tariff hike
will be higher than 4%. This is inevitable, as the Commission is mandated by the provisions
of the ERC Act to move all tariffs towards the average cost of supply. The movement of the
category-wise average realization towards the average cost of supply has been shown in the
Table in the Section on General Tariff Philosophy. To enable the consumers to assess the
impact of the revised tariffs on their monthly bills, the Commission has computed the change
in the monthly bills for sample levels of consumption for each category, which is presented as
Appendix 4.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 222
32. INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES
32.1 Incentives
32.1.1 Power Factor Incentive
Whenever the average power factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be given at the rate
of 1% (one percent) of the amount of the monthly energy bill (excluding FOCA charge,
demand charge, electricity duty and regulatory liability charge) for every 1% (one percent)
improvement in the power factor above 0.95. For PF of 0.99, the effective incentive will
amount to 5% (five percent) reduction in the energy bill and for unity PF, the effective
incentive will amount to 7% (seven percent) reduction in the energy bill. The power factor
incentive is also applicable for LTP-G consumers who opt for LTMD tariff. Such incentives
shall not be applicable for the Railways.
32.1.2 Bulk discount
If the consumption of any industrial consumer (availing TOD tariff and having no arrears with the MSEB) exceeds one million units per month, the consumer will get a rebate of 1% on his energy bill (excluding FOCA charge, demand charge, electricity duty and regulatory liability charge) for every one million unit consumption above one million unit subject to a maximum of 5%. The rebate will, however, be allowed only if the bill is paid within seven days from the date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later. However, this incentive will be applicable to consumers where payment of arrears in instalments has been granted by the MSEB, and the same being made as scheduled. The MSEB has to take a commercial decision on the issue of how to determine the time frame for which the payments should have been made as scheduled, in order to be eligible for the bulk discount.
32.1.3 Load Factor Incentive
The Commission has introduced a Load factor incentive for consumers having Load Factor above 75% based on contract demand. Consumers having load factor over 75% upto 85 % will be entitled to a rebate of 0.75 % on the energy charges for every percentage point increase in load factor from 75% to 85%. Consumers having a load factor over 85 % will be entitled to rebate of 1% on the energy charges for every percentage point increase in load factor from 85 %. The total rebate under this head will be subject to a ceiling of 15% of the energy charges for that consumer. This incentive is
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 223
limited to HTP-I and HTP-II categories only. Further, the load factor rebate will be available only if the consumer has no arrears with the MSEB, and payment is made within seven days from the date of the bill or within 5 days of the receipt of the bill, whichever is later. However, this incentive will be applicable to consumers where payment of arrears in instalments has been granted by the MSEB, and the same being made as scheduled. The MSEB has to take a commercial decision on the issue of how to determine the time frame for which the payments should have been made as scheduled, in order to be eligible for the Load Factor incentive.
The Load Factor has been defined below:
Load Factor = Consumption during the month in MU___________
Maximum Consumption Possible during the month in MU
Maximum consumption possible = Contract Demand (kVA) x Actual Power Factor
x (Total no. of hrs during the month less planned load shedding hours*)
* - Interruption/non-supply to the extent of 60 hours in a 30 day month has been built in the
scheme.
The Commission has introduced this incentive to reward consumers contributing a steady
load to the MSEB system, and to incentivize such consumers to remain with the MSEB. In
cases, where the billing demand exceeds the contract demand, the MSEB’s system is
subjected to stress and load management will become more difficult. Hence, in case the
billing demand exceeds the contract demand in any particular month, then the Load Factor
incentive will not be payable in that month.
32.2 Disincentives
32.2.1 Power factor Penalty
Whenever the average power factor is less than 0.9, penal charges shall be levied at the rate of
2% (two percent) of the amount of the monthly energy bill (excluding FOCA charge, demand
charge, electricity duty and regulatory liability charge) for first 1% (one percentage point) fall
in the power factor below 0.9, beyond which the penal charges shall be levied at the rate of
1% (one percent) for each percentage point fall in the power factor below 0.89. Such
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 224
disincentives shall not be applicable for the Railways. The power factor penalty is also
applicable for LTP-G consumers who opt for LTMD tariff. The power factor penalty is not be
applicable in case of LTP-G consumers, in cases where there is no metering equipment to
measure the power factor.
32.3 Other Charges
Reconnection Charges, delayed payment charges, penalty for exceeding contract demand,
penalty for exceeding sanctioned load and power factor penalty for LTP-G consumers not
having instruments to measure the Power Factor shall remain unchanged.
32.3.1 Service Line Charges
The MSEB should continue to charge Service Line Charges (SLC) as per the guidelines prevailing as on 5th August 1999, i. e. the date the Commission came into existence, till such time as the SLC are modified by the Commission.
The Commission acknowledges the efforts taken by the Consumer Representatives, viz. (i) Prayas, (ii) Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, (iii) Thane Belapur Industries Association and (iv)Vidarbha Industries Association and the various individuals, corporates and associations for their valuable contribution to the tariff process.
The Commission would also like to put on record, the efforts of its advisors, ICRA Advisory Services.
This Tariff Order shall come into force with effect from December 1, 2003.
Sd/
PRAMOD DEO Member
Sd/
JAYANT DEO Member
Sd/
P. SUBRAHMANYAM Chairman, MERC
Sd/
(A. M. KHAN) Secretary, MERC
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 225
Sl Existing Categories & Slabs Demand Charges (Rs/HP/kVA per month)
Energy Charges (p/u)
T & D loss charge (p/u)
Sl Commission's Approval Demand Charges (Rs/HP/kVA per month)
Energy Charges (p/u)
Regulatory Liability Charge (p/u)
1 Domestic (LD 1) 1 Domestic (LD 1)
0-30 units 20 100 10 0-30 units 20 125 0 31-100 units 30 255 20 31-300 units 40 290 0 101-300 units 30 295 20 > 300 units 40 400 0 > 300 units 30 455 20 Additional Fixed Charge - 3 phase Additional Fixed Charge - 3 phase 100 Additional Fixed Charge - CL>10 kW per 10 kW Additional Fixed Charge - CL>10
kW 100 per 10 kW
2 Non Domestic (LD 2) 2 Non Domestic (LD 2)
0-100 Units 70 250 30 0-100 Units 100 240 50 101 to 200 Units 70 410 30 101-200 units 100 315 50 > 200 units 70 500 30 > 200 units 100 410 50 Additional Fixed Charge - 3 phase 125 Additional Fixed Charge - 3 phase 150 Additional Fixed Charge - CL>10 kW
125 per 10 kW
Additional Fixed Charge - CL>10 kW
150 per 10 kW
3 General Motive Power (LTP-G) 3 General Motive Power (LTP-G)
0-1000 Units 60 240 25 0-1000 Units 60 230 50 1001-15000 Units 60 300 25 >1000 Units 60 250 50 >15000 Units 60 340 25 Optional MD based tariff 220 Rs/kVA/month Optional MD based tariff 220 Rs/kVA/month Optional ToD Tariff Optional ToD Tariff 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs -50 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs -75 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 30 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 50 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 60 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 90 (Power loom included in LTP - G)
Power loom (Unmetered) 450
4 Public Water Supply 4 Public Water Supply Urban P. W Schemes 60 225 0 Urban P. W Schemes 60 240 0 Rural P. W Schemes Rural P. W Schemes Grampanchayat 20 75 0 Grampanchayat 25 100 0 'C' class Municipal Councils & Metered
30 140 0 'C' class Municipal Councils - metered
35 150 0
5 Agriculture (incl Poultry) 5 Agriculture
Flat Rate Tariff (Rs/HP/month) 110 0 10 Flat Rate Tariff (Rs/HP/month) a Circles with cons. norm<1300
hours/HP/yr 150 0 0
b Circles with cons. Norm>1300 180 0 0
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 226
hours/HP/yr Metered Tariff 10 90 10 Metered Tariff (incl Poultry) 15 110 0
6 Street Light Tariff 6 Street Light Tariff Grampanchayat, A, B, C Class MC
20 170 0 Grampanchayat, A, B, C Class MC 30 210 0
Municipal Corporation 20 250 0 Municipal Corporation 30 250 0
7 HTP - I 325 285 30 7 HT - I 350 215 50 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs -75 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs -85 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 50 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 60 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 90 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 100
8 HTP - II 300 280 30 8 HTP - II 330 210 50 Seasonal Consumers 350 270 30 Seasonal Consumers 350 300 0
9 HTP - III 300 265 0 9 HTP - III 350 215 0
10 HTP - IV 250 255 0 10 HTP - IV 330 210 0 Optional ToD Tariff (HTP -III & IV)
Optional ToD Tariff (HTP -III & IV)
2200 hrs - 0600 hrs -50 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs -85 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 30 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 60 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 60 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 100
11 HTP - V (Railway Traction) 0 415 0 11 HT - V (Railway Traction) 0 335 50
12 HTP - VI 12 HTP - VI Residential Complex 100 220 20 Residential Complex 125 220 0 Commercial Complex 100 350 30 Commercial Complex 125 350 0
13 HTP VII (Agriculture & Related) 13 HT - VII (Agriculture & Related) Flat Rate Tariff (Rs/HP/month) 200 0 10 Metered Tariff 10 90 15 Metered Tariff 25 130 0
14 HTP IX (TEC) 600 290 0 14 HTP IX (TPC) 600 299 0
15 Mula Pravara Electric Co-op Soc.
200 150 0 15 Mula Pravara Electric Co-op Soc. 200 150 0
16 Inter State Sale 0 260 0 16 Inter State Sale 0 260 0
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 227
Revenue from Existing Tariff - April 2003 to November 2003 Existing Tariff Applicable for months
Sl Category of Consumers Number of Consumers Contract demand kW / kVA/HP
Energy Charge
Ps/U
T & D loss
Charge (p/u) or
Rs/HP/month
Revenue from
demand charge Rs Cr
Revenue from
energy charge Rs
Cr
Revenue from T & D loss
charge Rs Cr
Total Revenue
Rs Cr
Average Realisat
ion (Rs/unit)
Average Cost of Supply (Rs/unit)
Ratio of avg realisation to avg cost of supply (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LT Category
1 Domestic (LD 1) 0-30 Units 2813758 3592 0 20 100 10 45.0 239 13.41 298 31-100 Units 4979547 3010 0 30 255 20 119.5 512 22.47 654 101-300 Units 1413115 1353 0 30 295 20 33.9 266 10.10 310 Consumption above 300 units 168468 848 0 30 455 20 4.0 257 6.33 268 Addnl Fixed Charge for 3 phase consumers CL < 10 kW 80495 75 4.8 5 CL > 10 kW 22821 75 2.5 3 Sub Total Domestic 9374888 8781 209.9 1274.5 52.3 1536.7 2.62 2.83 92.84%
2 Non Domestic (LD 2) 0-100 Units 651808 827 0 70 250 30 36.5 138 9.10 183 101-200 units 172647 259 0 70 410 30 9.7 71 2.84 83 Consumption above 200 units 128309 868 0 70 500 30 7.2 289 9.54 306 Addnl Fixed Charge for 3 phase consumers CL < 10 kW 43638 125 4.4 4 CL > 10 kW 14733 125 3.7 4 Sub Total Non-Domestic 952764 1954 0 0 0 61.4 497.7 21.5 580.6 4.46 2.83 157.60%
3 General Motive Power (LTP-G) 0-1000 Units 230996 1668 0 60 240 25 267 17.18 284 1001-15000 Units 39668 1438 0 60 300 25 288 14.81 302 Above 15000 Units 5900 535 0 60 340 25 121 5.51 127 Sub Total General Motive Power 276564 3640 4225201 60 101 676 37 815 3.36 2.83 118.71%
5 Public Water Supply (a) Urban P. W Schemes 3372 35.60 20777 60 225 0 1.00 5.34 0.00 6.34
Sub total 3372 35.60 20777 1.00 5.34 0.00 6.34 2.67 2.83 94.44%
(b) Rural P. W Schemes
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 228
Grampanchayat 2291 149 12225 20 75 0 0.20 7.45 0.00 7.65 Metered Tariff 36226 297 214436 30 140 0 5.15 27.72 0.00 32.87 Sub Total 38517 446 226661 100 5.34 35.17 0.00 40.51 1.36 2.83 48.19% Sub total PWW 41889 482 247438 6 41 0 46.85 1.46 2.83 51.61%
6 Agriculture Flat Rate Tariff (Rs/HP/month) 1719172 6893 7107145 110 0 10 625.43 0.00 49.69 675.12 1.47 Metered Tariff 575262 865 2317694 10 90 10 18.54 51.87 3.88 74.29 1.29 Sub Total Agriculture 2294434 7757 9424839 644 52 53.57 749 1.45 2.83 51.26%
7 Street Light Grampanchayat, A, B & C Class Municipal Council 357 0 20 170 0 0.00 40.48 0.00 40.48 Municipal Corporation Areas 54899 278 0 20 250 0 0.00 46.35 0.00 46.35 Sub Total Street Light 66764 635 346500 20 6 87 0.00 92 2.18 2.83 77.14%
8 Poultry Farms 6602 30 65684 10 90 10 0.53 1.80 0.12 2.44 1.22 2.83 43.17%
Total Low Tension 13013905 23280 14309662 1029 2629 165 3823 2.46 2.83 87.12%
HT Category
1 HTP - I 3241 6644 1758200 325 285 30 457 1189.78 33.62 1680.53 3.79 2.83 134.19% 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs 0 4163 0 -75 -208.15 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 0 2468 0 0 0.00 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 0 1593 0 50 53.11 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 0 2468 0 0 0.00 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 0 2137 0 90 128.24
2 HTP - II 4799 6185 1533600 300 280 30 368 1082.91 64.82 1515.80 3.68 2.83 130.02% Power Factor Incentive -101.93 Power Factor Penalty 5.20 Bulk Discount -20.67
2(a) Seasonal category 239 32 185157 350 270 30 52 5.76 0.56 58.16
2(b) Captive Consumers 375921 20 6 6.01
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 229
3 HTP - III 129 637 99900 300 265 0 24 111.30 0.00 135.28 3.19 2.83 112.67% 2200 hrs - 0600 hrs 338 -50 -11.26 0600 hrs - 0900 hrs 199 0 0.00 0900 hrs - 1200 hrs 128 30 2.57 1200 hrs - 1800 hrs 199 0 0.00 1800 hrs - 2200 hrs 167 60 6.69
4 HTP - IV 444 394 70200 250 255 0 14 66.22 0.00 80.26 3.06 2.83 108.07%
5 HTP - V (Railway Traction) 980 0 415 0 0 271.13 0.00 271.13 4.15 2.83 146.78%
6 HTP - VI Residential Complex 306 293 71000 100 220 20 6 42.97 1.54 50.19 Commercial Complex 39 17 6000 100 350 30 0 3.97 0.12 4.56 Sub Total HTP VI 345 310 77000 6 47 2 55 2.65 2.83 93.70%
7 HTP VII (Agriculture) Flat Rate Tariff (Rs/HP/month) 200 0 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metered Tariff 938 554 209651 10 90 15 2 33.24 2.03 36.94 Sub Total HTP VII 938 554 209651 2 33 2 37 1.00 2.83 35.38%
8 HTP VIII Poultry Layers & Broilers 41 11 5351 10 90 15 0.04 0.66 0.09 0.79 1.07 2.83 38.01%
9 HTP IX (TEC) 1 0 550000 600 290 0 264 264.00
11 SP-I Agri (HT/LT) HighTech 34 17 8315 10 90 15 0.07 1.02 0.14 1.23 1.08 2.83 38.35%
13 Mula Pravara Electric Co-op Soc. 1 667 160000 200 150 0 26 66.67 0.00 92.27 2.08 2.83 73.43%
14 Inter State Sale 4 0 0 0 260 0 0 0.00 0.00 Total High Tension 10216 16431 4657374 1219 2876 103 4197 3.83 2.83 135.52%
Grand Total 13024121 39711 18967037 2248 5504 268 8020 3.03 2.83 107.15%
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 232
Appendix 4: Change in Monthly Bills (excluding Electricity Duty)
Monthly Bill Category Monthly Consumption (Units)
Connected Load (HP) / Billing demand (kVA)
Existing Tariff
(Rs.)
Revised Tariff
(Rs.)
Change
(Rs.) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)=(e)-(d)
15 38.0 38.75 0.75 Domestic 70 180.0 193.5 13.5
100 360.0 390.0 30.0 Commercial 250 1080.0 985.0 -95.0
1000 50 4250.0 4300.0 50.0 LTP-G 5000 50 17650.0 16300.0 -1350.0
Urban PWW 10000 50 26500.0 27000.0 500.0 PWW – Gram Panchayat
2000 10 1900.0 2250.0 350.0
LT Agri. (Un-metered) -Cons. Norm<1300 hrs -Cons. Norm>1300 hrs
7.5 952.5
952.5
1125.0
1350.0
172.5
397.5
LT Agri. (metered) 275 7.5 377.5 415.0 37.5 Street Lighting (Gram Panchayat)
20000 50 37000.0 43500.0 6500.0
Street Lighting (B & C Class MC)
20000 50 37000.0 43500.0 6500.0
Street Lighting (Municipal Corporation)
20000 50 53000.0 51500.0 -1500.0
HTP-I 125000 500 Rs 5.64 lakh Rs 5.01 lakh -63000.0 HTP-II 125000 500 Rs 5.46 lakh Rs 4.89 lakh -57000.0 HTP-III 125000 500 Rs 4.94 lakh Rs 4.44 lakh -50000.0 HTP-IV 75000 250 Rs 2.61 lakh Rs 2.40 lakh -21000.0 Railways 1000000 Rs 42.5 lakh Rs 38.5 lakh -Rs. 4.0 lakh HTP-VI (Residential)
50000 250 Rs 1.50 lakh Rs 1.41 lakh -8750.0
HT Agri. (metered) 15000 150 18750 23250 4500.0 Mula Pravara 60000000 145 Rs 9.00 Crore Rs 9.00
Crore 0
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 233
Appendix 5 : Details of Generation and Power Purchase Cost
A. Actuals for the period April 2003-July 2003
(i) Generation & Generation Parameters for MSEB’s Own Stations: -
Station Gross
Generation Aux. Cons.
Net. Generation
Total Cost
MU % MU Rs. Cr Khaparkheda 2104 8.50% 1925 178 Paras 148 9.70% 134 16 Bhusawal 878 10.00% 790 91 Nasik 2046 9.00% 1862 264 Parli 1279 9.70% 1155 148 Koradi 2198 9.80% 1983 242 Chandrapur 5383 7.60% 4974 360 Gas Thermal 1311 2.40% 1279 86
(ii) Power Purchase - CGS Stations [Actuals for the period April – July 2003]: -
Net Purchase Total Cost (Rs.Cr)
April – July 2003 April – July 2003
Tarapur 369 35
Kakrapar 641 192
Korba 1517 127
Vindhyachal 1369 185
Kawas 425 144
Gandhar 351 114
Notes: -
(a) All the generation and power purchase costs for the period of April – July 2003 have been
considered at actuals as submitted by MSEB subject to Approved Heat Rate and Transit Loss
Norms.
(b) From August 2003-March 2004, the station wise quantum of energy, variable cost per unit and
Fixed Cost (only for NTPC stations) has been projected separately. FOCA computations in all
respects including quantum of energy generated or purchased will be w.r.t. month -wise
projected figures.
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 234
B. Projections for the period August 2003-March 2004: -
(i) Generation & Generation Parameters for MSEB’s Own Stations: -
Heat
Rate
Aux
Cons
Var.
Cost
Net Generation Total
Gen. Cost Station
Kcal/
kwh
% Rs./
kwh
Aug-03 Sept-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 (Rs. Cr.)
K’Kheda 2719
8.50%
0.9239
394
394 407 440 572 575 519 575 328
Paras 3200 9.70% 1.2299 0 25 28 36 35 36 33 40 26
Bhusawal 2735 10.00% 1.1525 270 216 242 308 293 302 287 318 232
Nasik 2663 9.00% 1.4164 382 370 382 353 359 364 408 479 399
Parli 2649 9.70% 1.2836 351 306 339 421 417 296 269 364 306
Koradi 2996 9.80% 1.2205 400 470 440 586 622 641 595 591 478
Chandrapur 2502 7.60% 0.7237 1097 1235 1623 1430 1505 1623 1466 1623 776
Gas Thermal (Gas) 1966 2.40% 0.6742 350 339 350 339 350 350 317 350 181
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
Commission’s Analysis & Decision on MSEB’s Proposal 235
(ii) Power Purchase - CGS Stations [Projections for the period August 2003-March 2004]: -
Net Purchase Var.
Cost
Total Var.
Cost.
Fixed
Cost
Incentive (Rs. Cr/month) Total
Cost
Aug-
03
Sep-
03
Oct-
03
Nov-
03
Dec
-03
Jan-
04
Feb-
04
Mar-
04 Rs. /kwh Rs. Cr.
Rs. Cr. Aug-
03
Sep-
03
Oct-
03
Nov-
03
Dec-
03
Jan-
04
Feb-
04
Mar-
04 Rs. Cr.
Tarapur 107 104 107 104 107 107 97 107 0.94 77 Included in Variable Cost 77
Kakrapar 152 147 152 147 152 152 137 152 2.99 338 Included in Variable Cost 338
Korba 401 388 401 388 401 401 362 401 0.53 157 83 0.48 0.20 0.48 0.20 0.48 0.48 0 0.48 243
Vindhyachal 470 366 432 468 483 483 437 483 0.77 263 183 0.29 0 0.25 0.25 0.57 0.57 0 0.57 449
Kawas 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 2.45 8 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
Gandhar 51 8 39 81 72 82 75 83 1.15 53 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 236
ANNEXURE - I List of Objectors to the MSEB ARR and Tariff Petition for FY 2003-04 S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks
01 Shri Niranjan B.Agrawal, Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Shrawgi Towers, Tilak Road, Akola- 444001, Amravati
On Affidavit
02 Shri Mahendra Darda, Vidarbha Chamber of Small Scale Industries, Darda Pipe Factory, Yavatmal - 445001, Amravati
On Affidavit
03 Shri Raghunath Kaparthi, Managing Director, Balaji Electro Smelters Ltd. Plot No.B-18, MIDC, Yavatmal-445001, Amravati
On Affidavit
04 Shri Kiran Paturkar, MIDC Industrial Association, MAH-749, 1980 (F-915), P-12, MIDC, Amravati-444605
On Affidavit
05 Shri Sudhir Shridhar Raut, Chairman, Khamgaon Nagar Parishad, Khamgaon, Dist-Buldhana-444303, Amravati
On Affidavit
06 Shri Baban Sonasa Khandare, Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Post Anjangoan, Surgi, Amravati
On Affidavit
07 Shri Kawish B. Dange, Plot No. 1, Hingaspure Nagar, Dastur Nagar, MIDC Road, Amravati – 444 606
On Affidavit
08 Shri Jayantilal Khushalchand Ginning & Pressing Factory – Main Road, Tal, Murtizapur, Dist. Akola, Amravati
On Affidavit
09 Shri Pramod Kumar Agarwal, Executive Member, Rice Millers Association, Rice Bhawan, Gourakshan Market, Gondia- 441 601
On Affidavit
10 Shri Nathu.G.Rambhad, C-76 & 77, MIDC, Nagpur- 440 028 On Affidavit 11 Shri Mohan Sharma, Working President, Maharashtra State Electricity
Board -Workers Federation, C/o Vidyut Karmachari Sahakari Path Sanstha, Nelson Chowk, Chhaoni, Nagpur- 440013
On Affidavit
12 Shri Viren Chandak, Hon.Secretary, Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commerce, Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 01
On Affidavit
13 Shri M.D.Saraf- M.D. Vidarbha Iron & Steel Corpn. Ltd., 46 (A&B) MIDC Industrial Estate, Nagpur- 440 028
On Affidavit
14 Shri R.B. Goenka, Member, Vidarbha Industries Association, R.K.Engineering Services, 816, Nehru Nagar, Nagpur- 440 009
On Affidavit
15 Dr.G.M. Nashikkar, President, Grahak Panchayat Nagpur City, Nagpur
On Affidavit
16 Shri Sanjay Shriram Pillai, MSEB Workers Federation, Near Sitaram Maharaj Mandir, Nelson Chowk, Nagpur-440013
On Affidavit
17 Shri R.S.Savarkar, C/o Kale Sirs House, Jajuwadi, Post & Tal. Aarve, Dist. Wardha - 442001, Nagpur
Without Affidavit
18 Shri Sharma Vishwa Prakash, 13, Gittikhadan-Gonewada Road, Nagpur-440015
Without Affidavit
19 Shri Subodh Jayaratnam Garjalwar, Mauja Salori, Yensa Block, Tal. Varora, Dist. Chandrapur,Nagpur
Without Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 237
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 20 Shri C.J. Pathak - Vice President, Garware Polyester Ltd., L - 6,
Shikalthana Industrial Area, Dr. Abasaheb Garware Marg, Aurangabad-431 210
On Affidavit
21 Shri Shankar Zunzunwala, Chamber of Marathwada Industries & Agriuclture, Bajaj Bhawan, P-2, MIDC Area, Station Road, Aurangabad-431005
On Affidavit
22 Shri Narendra Kumar Gupta, R.L.Steels Ltd. F-18/19, MIDC Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad- 431 210
On Affidavit
23 Shri S.K.Chaudhari, Hon.Secretary, Industries Association of Young Enterpreneurs, P-25, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad- 431 210
On Affidavit
24 Shri Moreshwar Save, Citizens Forum, Aurangabad, C/o Anjali Complex, Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad-431 001.
On Affidavit
25 Shri Deepak D. Pathak, MIDC, Latur On Affidavit 26 Shri A.H. Khan, 40-15-83, Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad 431 001. Without
Affidavit 27 Shri Pradeep Jaiswal, (M.P. Of Lok Sabha), Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Human Resource Development Consultative Committee on Civil Aviation House Committee-Narali Bagh, Aurangabad – 431 001
Without Affidavit
28 Prof. Madhav Hande – Deshmukh, 5, Viraj Residency, Youth Hostel Lane, Station Road, Aurangabad
Without Affidavit
29 Shri Sayyed Jahiroddin, MSEB – Workers Federation, Madhyavarti Office, Workers Federation Bhavan, Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad – 431 001
Without Affidavit
30 Youth Republican (RPI), 28, Vasundhara Colony, Nandanvan Colony, Chhavani Parisar, Aurangabad – 431 002
Without Affidavit
31 Shri Chandrakant Kole, Aurangabad Without Affidavit
32 Maharashtra Rajya Veej Sangharsh Samiti, Aurangabad Without Affidavit
33 Shri Sahebrao Baban Kawade, Harishchandra Sahakari Pani Purawatha Sansthan Sahakari Federation Ltd., Amrutnagar, Post-Tal- Sangamnner, Dist- Ahmednagar - 422 608
On Affidavit
34 Shri Mukutrao Patil, Chairman, Uttar Maharashtra Veej Grahak Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Varun Shopping Centre, 1 - Gurudatta Nagar, Deopur, Dhule - 424002
On Affidavit
35 Shri Vinita Dharkar, Nashik Industries & Manufacturers Association, NIMA House, P-14, MIDC, Satpur, Nashik- 422 007
On Affidavit
36 Shri Shyam Dashrath Patil, Narmada Bachhau Samarthan Andolan, Ashoknagar, Jamnagiri Road, Dhule- 424001
On Affidavit
37 Shri S.V.Palande, General Manager, Hoganas India Ltd. D-96/97, MIDC,Ahmednagar–414111
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 238
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 38 Shri Mohammad Haroon Mohd.Sabir, President, The Malegaon Yantra
Magh- Sarojanik Veej Grahak Sangh, Post Box. No.14, Communist Party of India, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203
On Affidavit
39 Shri Nimba Murlidhar Kadam, Powerloom Factory, Gut No.152, Kusumba Road, Dayane, Tal-Malegaon, Dist- Nashik- 423203
On Affidavit
40 Shri Ansari Noorul Amin Mohd.Sabir, Manager, The Industrial Co-operative Association Ltd., 1398/1 Kidwai Road, Islampura, Malegaon, Nashik.
On Affidavit
41 Shri Prashant Khandkekar, Chief Officer, Muncipal Council Chalisgaon, Chalisgaon, Jalgaon-424101
On Affidavit
42 Shri Annasaheb Unnde, Pravara Institute of Research & Education in Natural & Social Sciences (PIRENS), Loni Bk. Tal-Rahata, Dist- Ahmednagar-413736
On Affidavit
43 Shri Ramesh V. Kulkarni, Managing Director, The Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society Ltd, Shrirampur-413709, Ahmednagar
On Affidavit
44 Shri D.P. More, Pachora Nagar parishad, Pachora, Dist-Jalgaon On Affidavit 45 Shri Shaikh Yusuf Mohmed, Near Urdu School, Gosaviwadi, Nashik
Road, Nashik - 422101 On Affidavit
46 Shri Atmaram G. Bhamare, C/o Bhamare shopping Centre, Near S.T. Stand, Thaharabad, Nashik
On Affidavit
47 Shri Shankarrao Bharambe, Bhartiya Kissan Sangh, Sayykheda Road, Ozar (Migh), Tal-Niphad, Nashik
On Affidavit
48 Shri Champalal Indraraj Sand, Vice Chairman, Bhartiya Kisan Sangh Maharashtra Pradesh, Post Sakura, Tal- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423107
On Affidavit
49 Dr. Vasant N. Pawar, Nationalist Congress Party, ‘Gauttam’ New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422 022
On Affidavit
50 Shri Ramesh M. Pawar, President, Nashik District Industries & Exporters’ Association, MIDC Ambad, Nashik – 422 010
On Affidavit
51 Adv. A.K.Nikkam, Chairman, & Shri Madhavrao Boraste & Ors. Niphad Upsa Jalsinchan Sansthan Sangh, Nashik, At Post Sakoremig, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
52 Shri Uttamsingh J. Shinde, At Post Nandurdhameshwar, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
53 Shri Balu D. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 54 Shri Chndrakant M. Phade, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 55 Shri Vithalnana Shankhapal, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 56 Shri Damudada Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 57 Shri Arjun Devram Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 58 Shri Narayan Babu Pagar, At Post Harsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 59 Shri Rambhau Krishna Gaikwad, At Post Kathergaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
60 Shri Pandurang N. Kangne, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 61 Shri Popat Shankar Takate, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 239
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 62 Shri Murlidhar J. Mahale, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 63 Shri Sadashiv P. Garud, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 64 Shri Rambhau Y. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 65 Shri Bhika Bhau Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 66 Shri Hari K. Walunj, At Post Varhedarna, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 67 Shri Pandurang G. Gorade, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 68 Shri Karbhari A. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 69 Shri Ramdas M. Shinde, At Post Vadalinajik, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 70 Shri Kashinath G. Gavali, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 71 Shri Pundlik K. Matsagar, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 72 Shri Rameshwar B. Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
73 Shri Babu K. Nagare, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 74 Shri Bapu B. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 75 Shri Namdeo G. Mogal, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 76 Shri Yashwant D. Gavali, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 77 Shri Vasant M. Rajore, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 78 Shri Bhikaji D. Sangole, At Post Kurudgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 79 Shri Kamlakar L. Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 80 Shri Kedarnath K Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 81 Shri Gangadhar Y. Gawali, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 82 Shri Bajirao G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 83 Shri Pandurang B. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 84 Ahri Murlidhar B. Hire, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 85 Shri Mahadev D.Mandalik, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 86 Shri Habibbhai V. Shaikh, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 87 Shri Rangnath B. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 88 Shri Ramkrishna B. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 89 Shri Ramchandra P. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 90 Shri Dinkar G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 91 Shri Dashrath G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 92 Shri Ashok S. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 93 Shri Baban M. Shinde, At Post Kundewadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 94 Shri Ramrao Y. Takote, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 95 Shri Murlidhar B. Kale, At Post Kathergaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 96 Kothure Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha Ltd. At Post Kothure, Tal.
Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
97 Shri Bhima H. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
98 Shri Sampat G. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 240
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 99 Shri Kishan Trambak Jhoman, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
100 Chitleshwar Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
101 Shri Vishwanath H. Shelar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 102 Shri Eknath H. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 103 Jaykisan Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha, At Post Chandori, Tal.
Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
104 Shri Sharadchandra D. Mule, At Post Kothure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 105 Late Shri Tatyasaheb Boraste, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
106 Shri Ganpat D. Bhikule, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 107 Shri Namdeo B. Gaikhe, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 108 Shri Baburao V. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
109 Shri Kailash R. Shinde, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
110 Shri Manikrao V. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
111 Shri Ashok S. Naik, At Post Sarole Thadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
112 Shri Shivaji K. Sandhan, At Post Rasalpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 113 Shri Prahlad G. Vadgule, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 114 Shri Rangnath R. Shankhpal, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 115 Shri Ashok R. Vadgule, At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 116 Shri Manik D. Sangole, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 117 Shri Chandrakant G. Sangole, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
118 Shri Walu L. Sanap, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
119 Shri Shrihari D. Paradhi, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 120 Shri Narayan A. Nagare, At Post Kuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 121 Shri Shankar Ramaji Khaire, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
122 Shri Dondiram V. Bhosale, At Post Sarole khurd, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
123 Shri Ramprasad M. Sangale, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
124 Shri Laxman P. Mogal, At Post Rasalpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 125 Smt. Kashibai T. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 126 Shri Ranganath M. Takate, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 241
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 127 Shri Vijaykumar R. Gambhire, At Post Dharangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
128 Shri Vishwanath U. Shinde, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
129 Shri Najir I. Shaikh, At Post Nandurdhameshwar, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
130 Shri Shankar V. Sanap, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 131 Shri Baburao R. Wagh, At Post Kasber Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
132 Shri Macchindranath G. Pund, At Post Dharangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
133 Shri Balasaheb K. Shankhapal, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 134 Shri Laxman Narayan Bhonsale, At Post Sarole Khurd, Tal. Niphad,
Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
135 Shri Parvat B. Bhosale, At Post Sarole Khurd, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 136 Shri Tukaram P. Khaire, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 137 Shri Pandharinath R. Wagh, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 138 Shri Balnath B. Shinde, At Post Nanduramdhameshwar, Tal. Niphad,
Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
139 Shri Madhav B. Dangale, At Post Naduramdhameshwar, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
140 Shri Bhausaheb R. Gambhire, At Post Dharangaonvir, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
141 Shri Keshav P. Bhosale, At Post Vamasgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 142 Shri Popat N. Shevkar, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 143 Shri Vishnu W. Bharote, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 144 Shri Ajit D. Shinde, At Post Kurudgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 145 Shri Vithoba S. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 146 Shri Waman B. Mogal, At Post Kothure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 147 Shri Kantilal H. Aware, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 148 Shri Namdeo D. Sangle, At Post Kuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 149 Shri Shivaji A. Arote, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 150 Shri Rajaram K. Sangale, At Post Kuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 151 Shri Shivaji S. Sangamner, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 152 Shri Jagan D. Sanap, At Post Labani, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 153 Shri Haribhau T. Sanap, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 154 Shri Raghunath G. Arote, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 155 Shri Annasaheb D. Wagh, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 156 Shri Jairam B. Shevkar, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 157 Shri Popat Bhikaji Mogal, At post Kothure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 242
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 158 Shri Vishwas J. Gawali, At Post Narayan Tembhi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
159 Shri Janemiya S. Patel, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 160 Umrale Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha Ltd., At Post Umrale, Tal.
Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
161 Waghad Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha Ltd. At Post Umrale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
162 Shri Parashram S. Bhosale, At Post Sarole Khurd, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
163 Shri Trambak D. Shelar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 164 Shri Narayan P. Kute, At Post Saikheda, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 165 Smt. Muktabai T. Shevkar, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 166 Shri Narayan B. Shelar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 167 Shri Sadashiv T. Shevkar, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 168 Shri Yadav M. Kathe, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 169 Shri Ramnath M. Dangale, At Post Naduramdhameshwar, Tal. Niphad,
Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
170 Shri Pandurang K. Fade, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 171 Shri Parshram M. Rajole, At Post Wadali Najik, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
172 Shri Rajaram G. Sangole, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 173 Smt. Anusaya P. Kulthe, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 174 Shri Shivaji R. Nikam, At Post Chitagaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 175 Shri Ramrao M. Shinde, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 176 Shri Virendra V. Jain, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 177 Shri Vasant V. Mogal, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 178 Shri Sukha T. Lokhande, At Post Shimpi Takli, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
179 Shri Pundlik K. Sangale, At post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 180 Shri Murlidhar P. Dabhade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 181 Shri Khanderao A. Dele, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 182 Shri Jhavarebua K. Rayate, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 183 Shri Karbhari P. Kare, At Post Songaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 184 Shri Kashinath S. Hujare, At Post Chehadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 185 Shri Bhau G. Barve, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 186 Shri Nivrutti P. Gite, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 187 Shri Jaganath D. Ghotekar, At Post Khedale June, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
188 Shri Dashrath B. Mogul, At Post Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 189 Shri Balu S. Dele, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 190 Shri Pundlik D. Sanap, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 243
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 191 Shri Parshuram N. Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 192 Shri Shankarrao V. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
193 Shri Damu D. Ghosade, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
194 Shri Balasaheb W. Gawali, At Post Narayantembhi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
195 Shri Nivrutti A. Mogul, At Post Kothure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 196 Shri Haribhau D. Karad, At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 197 Shri Manaji B. Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 198 Shri Dadasaheb Karad & Kakasaheb Mogul Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha, At
Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
199 Shri Laxman S. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 200 Shri Shriram G. Bairagi, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 201 Shri Kisan K. Pagere, At Post Jivale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 202 Shri Kashinath V. Ghadavaje, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 203 Shri Shriram B. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 204 Shri Balkrishna F. Kotame, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 205 Shri Baburao T. Nathe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 206 Shri Shivaji B. Kotame, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 207 Shri Kashinath G. Sanap, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 208 Shri Shripat K. Avad, At Post Kuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 209 Shri Madhav L. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 210 Shri Khanderao R. Salve, At Post Sundarpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 211 Mamleshwar Sah. Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha Limited - At Post Pimpalsa
Ramche, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
212 Shri Dilip V. Jhalte, At Post Vadalinajik, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 213 Shri Trambak P. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 214 Shri Madhukar V. Derle, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 215 Shri Tukaram G. Sanap, At Post Shivare, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 216 Shri Balchand M. Nathe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 217 Shri Mhatarba D. Bhoj, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 218 Shri Manik B. Jhalte, At Post Vadali, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 219 Shri Shivaji S. Avad, At Post Sundarpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 220 Shri Sukhdeo P. Hire, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 221 Shri Murlidhar B. Derle, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 222 Shri Tukaram S. Gholap, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 223 Shri Ramnath D. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
224 Shri Dhondi G. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 225 Shri Ravindra P. Sathe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 244
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 226 Shri Rangnath R. Nirwade, At Post Narayantembi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
227 Shri Pandurang G. Sanap, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 228 Shri Shankar K. Avad, At Post Kurudgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 229 Shri Damodar D. Gite, At Post Khedalejung, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 230 Shri Eknath Karbhari Pagare, At Post Jivhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 231 Shri Khanderao M. Wagh, At Post Kuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 232 Shri Namdeo N. Mogal, At Post Kothure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 233 Shri Ramrao S. Rajole, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 234 Shri Karbhari Shivram Shelar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
235 Shri Ramnath P. Gavali, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 236 Shri Raghunath N. Shelke, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 237 Shri Karbhari R. Jadhav, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 238 Shri Gangadhar T. Shinde, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 239 Shri Madhukar S. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 240 Shri Rambhau Y. Boraste, At Post Sakore Mig, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 241 Shri Santu G. Lavande, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 242 Smt. Saraswati P. Boraste, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
243 Shri Kisanbhau Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 244 Shri Sakharam Raoji Jadhav, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
245 Shri Pandit D. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 246 Smt. Laxmibai B. Korade, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 247 Shri Balu T. Nimbalkar, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 248 Shri Madhukar M. Raite, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 249 Shri Laxman V. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 250 Shri Vasant K. Derle, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 251 Shri Vithalnana Shankhapal, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 252 Shri Laxman K. Walunj, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 253 Shri Balu K. Kharat, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 254 Shri Vasant M. Rajole, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 255 Shri Bandu D. Barade, At Post Sakhalewadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 256 Shri Pandit B. Sangole, At Post Talawade, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 257 Shri Babasaheb D. Sanap, At post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 258 Shri Fakira G. Sangamner, At Post Kherwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 259 Shri Pandharinath M. Derle, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 260 Shri Rajaram M. Shinde, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 261 Shri Digamar K. Gare, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 245
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 262 Shri Raosaheb D. Patil, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 263 Shri Ramchandra T. Godase, At Post Wadalinajik, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
264 Shri Popat K. Kokate. At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 265 Shri Gangadhar B. Gadakha, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 266 Shri Sahebrao W. Mogal, At Post Shingawe, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 267 Shri Ashok B. Jhalte, At Post Wadalinajik, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 268 Shri Damutatya Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
269 Shri Tatyaba D. Derele, At Post Shingawe, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 270 Shri Murlidhar P. Nirbhavane, At Post Sarolethadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
271 Shri Ganpat S. Ramane, At Post Chehedi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 272 Shri Nana Bhagat Jadhav, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 273 Shri Shivshankar M. Korade, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
274 Shri Karbhari R. Wagh, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 275 Shri Vithal B. Bhandare, At Post Dusabe Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
276 Shri Gangadhar B. Ghotekar, At Post Khedle Junge, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
277 Shri Vithoba Yesu Kshirsagar, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 278 Shri Suresh V. Matsagar, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 279 Shri Ramchandra D. Warkhede, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
280 Shri Damu R. Murkute, At Post Mhalsakhore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 281 Shri Madhukar T. Gayakhe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 282 Smt. Amruta Pandharinath Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
283 Shri Popat V. Warkhede, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 284 Shri Govind M. Sangale, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 285 Shri Karbhari B. Pagore, At Post Jivhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 286 Shri Sadashiv T. Dound, At Post Lonwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 287 Shri Baburao G. Khapare, At Post Urgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 288 Shri Damodar G. Khajare, At Post Urgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 289 Shri Madhukar M. Bhor, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 290 Shri Baburao G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 291 Shri Sukhdeo Shankar Sangale, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
292 Shri Gotiram M. Derle, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 293 Shri Manohar A. Kulkarni, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 246
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 294 Shri Bhausaheb K. Adsare, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 295 Shri Trambak S. Shettye, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 296 Shri Laxmibai S. Warkhede, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
297 Shri Dashrath K. Garode, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 298 Shri Murlidhar B. Kale, At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 299 Shri Baburao B. Hire, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 300 Shri Gopal S. Gayakhe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 301 Shri Arjun S. Gorade, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 302 Shri Trimbak M. Fad, At Post Mhalsakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 303 Shri Gopala S. Gayakhe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 304 Shri Kisan B. Warkhode, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 305 Shri Fakira B. Bhadsare, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 306 Shri Nivrutti K. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 307 Shri Popat S. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 308 Shri Sampatrao G. Somavandhi, At Post Sundarpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
309 Shri Trambak B. Bhane, At Post K. Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 310 Shri Chiman D. Sanap, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 311 Shri Fakira Malhari Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 312 Shri Shankar Baban Kumbhar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
313 Shri Lahanu Bhau Hire, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 314 Shri Sampat M. Gadakha, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 315 Shri Shivaji P. Gadakha, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 316 Shri Kishan T. Kshirsagar, At Post Khadumalegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
317 Shri Ramnath D. Bharote, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 318 Shri Shivaji R. Nathe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 319 Shri Trambak G. Kutane, At Post Nanduramdeshwar, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
320 Shri Devaji B. Pawar, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 321 Shri Balwant S. Bhandwad, At Post Kuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
322 Shri Dattatraya S. Garode, At Post Warhedearana, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
323 Shri Sitaram L. Gaikwad, At Post Jivhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 324 Shri Vithoba B. Sanap, At Post Shivare, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 325 Shri Bhika G. Derle, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 326 Shri Namdeo Y. Ghorpade, At Post Sarolekhurd, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 247
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 327 Bhairaonath Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha, At Post Chandori, Tal.
Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
328 Jay Malhar Upsa Jalsinchan Sanstha, At Post Pimpalgaon, Nipani, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
329 Shri Pandharinath S. Ghotekar, At Post Khedalejunjhe, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
330 Shri Vishnu Mahadu More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
331 Shri Kashinath A. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 332 Shri Bhaskar B. Bhabade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 333 Shri Chandrabhan B. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 334 Shri Balwant B. Khandve, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 335 Shri Bhaskar K. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 336 Shri Pandurang D. Garud, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
337 Shri Raghunath S. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
338 Shri Uttam R. Dawange, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 339 Shri Manik G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 340 Shri Dinkar K. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 341 Shri Dashrath L. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 342 Shri Namdeo K. Wabale, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 343 Shri Kondaji P. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 344 Shri Damu Abaji Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 345 Shri Dattu K. Sanghan, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 346 Shri Rambhau P. Kadam, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 347 Shri Balu S. Lawande, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 348 Shri Murlidhar G. Pingal, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 349 Shri Shaikh B. Tamboli, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 350 Shri Ramkrishna H. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
351 Shri Dashrath W. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 352 Shri Dhondiba R. Dongare, At Post Kurdagaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
353 Shri Sampat S. Mali, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 354 Shri Nivruti D. Sukhade, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 355 Shri Ramnath S. Khalkar, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 356 Shri Vithal P Gothekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 357 Shri Dattatraya S. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 358 Shri Khanderao S. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 359 Shri Mahadu B. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 248
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 360 Shri Bhaskar K. Sangale, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 361 Shri Pandhari Y. Gunjal At Post Mhalsakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 362 Shri Dattatraya B. Korade, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 363 Shri Dattatraya G. Gawali, At Post Narayan Tembhi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
364 Shri Popat D. Mogal, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 365 Shri Pandharinath M. Tajane, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 366 Smt. Tarabai K. Pawar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 367 Shri Radho B. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 368 Shri Suresh K. Karad, At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 369 Shri Motiram D. Katkade, At Post Kurudgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 370 Shri Santu M. Pingal, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 371 Shri Raghunath B. Takate, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 372 Shri Punja M. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 373 Shri Sopan Tawaji Bhalerao, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
374 Shri Somnath V. Ghotekar, At Post Khedalejhunge, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
375 Shri Bandu S. Dalvi, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 376 Shri Sudam K. Kale, At Post Pathkhed, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 377 Shri Dattu G. Shinde, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 378 Shri Eknath S. Danage, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 379 Shri Pundlik K. Sangale, At Post Kurudgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 380 Shri Waman G. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
381 Shri Kishan D. Thange, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 382 Shri Yashwant V. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 383 Smt. Mirabai D. Satbhai, At Post Rasalpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 384 Shri Nivrutti D. Aaher, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 385 Shri Kishan R. Sangale, At Post Kaghargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 386 Shri Trambak A. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 387 Shri Pandurang D. Dongare, At Post Kurudgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
388 Shri Raosaheb D. Sakpal, At Post Kasrul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 389 Shri Raghunath S. Malode, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 390 Shri Manik R. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 391 Shri Babu M. Loknar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 392 Shri Pratap B. Rajole, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 393 Shri Raosaheb D. Somvanshi, At Post Sudanpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 249
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 394 Shri Ramgir Sudamgir Gosavi, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
395 Shri Karbhari K. Wabale, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
396 Shri Kisan Tatya Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
397 Shri Ramchandra K. Barve, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 398 Shri Prakash B. Chopda, At Post Sakora, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 399 Shri Arun Parshuram Jhalate, At Post Wagli najik, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
400 Shri Pandharinath M. Rayate, At Post Khadakmalegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
401 Shri Baburao A. Khule, At Post Lonwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 402 Shri Bhika A. Kanve, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 403 Shri Shantaram G. Ghotekar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
404 Shri Vithoba D. Bhambare, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 405 Shri Ramnath L. Gaikwad, At Post Jivale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 406 Shri Vasant E. Jadhav, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 407 Sarpanch Grampanchayat, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 408 Shri Laxman B. Avare, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 409 Smt. Sitabai N. Kadale, At Post Wadali, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 410 Shri Bajirao S. Kadam, At Post Wadali, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 411 Smt. Sitabai R. Dhondge, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 412 Smt. Rakhambai L. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 413 Shri Waman D. Pagere, At Post Jiwale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 414 Shri Punja H. Ghumare, At Post Khedalejhunge, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
415 Shri Prabhakar M. Adsare, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 416 Shri Tramabak N. Bhambare, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
417 Shri Madhav B. Bhambare, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 418 Shri Tatyaba P. Mhaske, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 419 Shri Shivaji Namdeo Takate, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 420 Shri Ramchandra S. Sanap, At Post Shingave, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 421 Shri Balaji S. Gambhire, At Post Dharangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 422 Shri Govind K Bhoj, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 423 Shri Bandu D. Aaher, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 424 Smt. Narmdabai S. Bhoj, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 425 Shri Pandit P. Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 426 Shri Balkrishna S. Shelar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 250
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 427 Shri Malhari R. Sanap, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 428 Smt. Draupadabai B. Guawali, At Post Kherlejunge, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik
On Affidavit
429 Shri Hari R. Saraode, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 430 Shri Nivrutti B. Pade, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 431 Smt. Laxmibai W. Barve, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 432 Shri Eknath D. Sangole, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 433 Shri Ashok N. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 434 Shri Raghunath S. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 435 Shri Janardan Y. More, At Post Shirasgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 436 Shri Dhondiram R. Nale, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 437 Shri Ashok Gangadhar Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
438 Smt. Babyabhai K. Dhemse, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 439 Shri Kondaji A. Jhalte, At Post Wadali, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 440 Shri Rangnath S. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
441 Shri Laxman G. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
442 Shri Dagu R. Mogal, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 443 Shri Sitaram M. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 444 Shri Daulat W. Shinde, At Post Kaghargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 445 Shri Murlidhar T. Pawar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 446 Shri Rambhau P. Kadam, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 447 Shri Laxman K. Londe, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 448 Shri Phakira A. Khandwe, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 449 Shri Daulat M. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 450 Shri Badshah D. Shaikh, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 451 Shri Lalu P. Bhandage, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 452 Shri Kisan D. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 453 Shri Bhika N. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 454 Smt. Ambabai P. Khaire, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 455 Shri Krishna G. Bhoye, At Post Mhasagaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 456 Shri Sakharam N. Gande, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 457 Shri Bhika M. Bhhapkar, At Ppost Ttalwade, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 458 Smt. Anandibai Namdeo Gawali, At Post Mhsagaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
459 Shri Dhondibhai P. Shaikh, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 460 Shri Bandu S. Dalvi, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 461 Shri Motiram L. Hujare, At Post Chehadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 251
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 462 Shri Sahebrao P. Heere, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 463 Shri Manik K. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
464 Shri Bhikaji N. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
465 Shri Nivrutti N. Raut, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 466 Smt. Tarabai B. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
467 Shri Bhika S. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 468 Shri Kishan L. Gambhire, At Post Dharangaon Vir, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
469 Shri Balkrishna S. Waghchoure, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
470 Shri Ramnath T. Padghule, At Post Darnasawangi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
471 Shri Santu G. Hire, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 472 Shri Dilip M. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 473 Shri Laxman S. Warkhede, At Post Saongaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 474 Shri Govind K. Jadhav, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 475 Shri Rangnath S. Dhemse, At Post Kherwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 476 Shri Eknath K. Aawhad, At Post Dharangaon Vir, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
477 Shri Ramchandra M. Bodke, At Post Saikheda, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 478 Shri Sampat Hari Saronde, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
479 Shri Pandharinath R. Mogal, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 480 Shri Namdeo S. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 481 Trambak Y. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 482 Shri Babu T. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 483 Shri Ramdas G. Shinde, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 484 Shri Jankiram R. Poraje, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 485 Shri Khanderao B. Loknar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
486 Shri Narayan P. Sangale, At Post Khuradgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 487 Shri Ramrao N. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 488 Shri Appa Baburao Gaikwad, At Post Kokangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
489 Shri Shivaji N. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 490 Shri Barku S. Loknar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 491 Shri Sampat T. Warkhede, At Post Saongaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 492 Shri Bahuso S. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 252
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 493 Shri Waman P. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 494 Shri Shivram R. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 495 Shri Karbhari K. Shelar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 496 Shri Sukhdeo B. Bhapkar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
497 Shri Mahadeo S. Kanmahale, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
498 Shri Gangadhar L. Gawali, At Post Narayan Tembhi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
499 Shri Suresh B. Sanap, At Post Lalwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 500 Shri Subhash V. Nimbalkar, At Post Karanji, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 501 Shri Rajaram D. Derle, At Post Shingawe, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 502 Shri Manohar B. Nagare, At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 503 Shri Narayan H. Salwe, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 504 Shri Manaji M. Shinde, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 505 Shri Devram S. Ghadape, At Post Manjargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 506 Shri Chhabildas V. Shinde, At Post Shingawe, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 507 Shri Madhav B. Jhalte, At Post Wadali Najik, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 508 Shri Dattatraya S. Shinde, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 509 Shri Shankar R. Pingal, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 510 Shri Shrihari V. Mogal, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 511 Shri Savliram M. Rajole, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 512 Shri Malik D. Mogal, At Post Kohure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 513 Shri Dattu S. Gadakh, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 514 Shri Namdeo N. Ghumare, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 515 Shri Nivrutti K. Ghadge, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 516 Shri Shankar G. Gambhire, At Post Dharangaon Vir, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
517 Shri Baburao L. Ghotekar, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 518 Shri Gangadhar T. Soman, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 519 Shri Bapu Y. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 520 Shri Popat S. Gadakh, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 521 Shri Pandhrinath N. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
522 Shri Waman N. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 523 Shri Vasant S. Thorat, At Post Jivhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 524 Shri Rangnath G. Likale, At Post Jivhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 525 Shri Karbhari H. Gawali, At Post Narayantembhi, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
526 Shri Kashinath S. Wagh, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 527 Shri Ramdas S. Shinde, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 253
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 528 Shri Balu R. Kadam, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 529 Shri Bhaskar M. Mogal, At Post Mouje Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
530 Shri Rajaram N. Dabhade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 531 Shri Parshuram M. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
532 Shri Pandharinath B. Gaikwad, At Post Jivhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
533 Shri Shivaji P. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 534 Shri Arjun D. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 535 Shri Vithoba B. Tarle, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 536 Shri Trambak M. Warkhede, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 537 Shri Govindrao G. Sukhade, At Post Pimplas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 538 Shri Bhaskar D. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 539 Shri Chandrakant K. Boraste, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 540 Shri Shankar G. Borade, At Post Thergaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 541 Shri Daulat L. Sabale, At Post Khedlejunge, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 542 Shri Vishnu T. Gangurde, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
543 Shri Vasant S. Jhalate, At Post Wadali, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 544 Shri Ramrao J. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 545 Shri Shankar G. Lawand, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 546 Shri Vijay A. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 547 Shri Parvatrao S. Deshmukh, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
548 Shri Pundlik K. Loknar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 549 Shri Baburao N. Shinde, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 550 Shri Shankar S. Heer, At Post Chatori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 551 Shri Dattatraya M. Gambhir, At Post Dharangaon Vir, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
552 Shri Balu P. Shinde, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 553 Shri Madhav R. Geete, At Post Rasalpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 554 Shri Laxman D. Aarote, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 555 Shri Kacharu P. Gade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 556 Shri Narayan W. Patole, At Post Chehadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 557 Shri Sampat T. Shinde, At Post Karanjgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 558 Shri Radhakrishna k. Patil, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
559 Shri Sukhdeo G. Sanap, At Post Shiware, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 560 Shri Pandurang S. Tarle, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 561 Shri Gangadhar B. Gaikwad, At Post Jiwhale, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 254
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 562 Shri Shaikh M. Babamiya, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik
On Affidavit
563 Shri Pundlik G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 564 Shri Kailash B. Gawali, At Post Konkangon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 565 Shri Laxmibai K. Mandlik, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
566 Shri Dattu S. Thange, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 567 Shri Ahilaji N. Thikale, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 568 Shri Ganpatrao L. Hire, At Post Charoli, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 569 Shri Tukaram H. Rayate, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 570 Shri Ramu D. Tikale, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 571 Shri Muralidhar B. Dabhade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
572 Shri Trambak G. Pingale, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 573 Shri Bala Bhau Dabhade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 574 Shri Jaganath G. Dhoble, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 575 Shri Narhari Nathu Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 576 Shri Murlidhar P. Takate, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 577 Shri Vishnu F. Shelar, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 578 Shri Yashwant Annji Lonar, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
579 Shri Yashwant B. Deshmukh, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
580 Shri Mhasu Vithoba Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 581 Shri Sampat R. Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 582 Shri Balu P. Gaikwad, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 583 Shri Vijay Kondaji More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
584 Shri Baburao H. Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 585 Shri Parshuram R. Kadam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 586 Shri Rangnath N. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 587 Shri Baburao G. Dalvi, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 588 Shri Hari S. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 589 Shri Ganpat A. Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 590 Shri Pandit R. Dhonde, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 591 Shri Kisan S. Shelar, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 592 Shri Jagannath S. Alode, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 593 Shri Sudhakar R. Alode, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 594 Shri Rangnath B. Pawar, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 595 Shri Ramrao K. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 255
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 596 Shri Shankar R. Shankarpal, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 597 Shri Karbhari R. Hadpe, At Post Manjargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 598 Shri Baburao S. Kadam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 599 Shri Shaikh E. Balam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 600 Shri Pandharinath D. Agale, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
601 Shri Eknath S. Ekade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 602 Shri Bhikaji P. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 603 Shri Damu B. Nagare, At Post Sathadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 604 Shri Kashinath M. Pingale, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 605 Shri Pandharinath N. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
606 Shri Madhav G. Kadam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 607 Shri Uttam N. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 608 Shri Trambak B. Gite, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 609 Shri Ramnath Y. Shinde, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 610 Shri Kisan P. Shinde, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 611 Shri Anil K. Kadam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 612 Shri Vithoba R. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 613 Shri Khanderao G. Shinde, At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 614 Shri Shankar V. Sangale, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 615 Smt. Narmada S. Baste, At Post Kasrul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 616 Shri Manik N. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 617 Shri Balasaheb T. Mali, At Post Gajarwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 618 Shri Lahu J. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 619 Shri Uttam N. Kadlug, At Post Wadalinajik, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 620 Shri Dinkar D. Shelar, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 621 Shri Kashinath S. Pawar, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 622 Shri Waman S. Wagh, At Post Kathargaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 623 Shri Eknath H. Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 624 Shri Pandurang S. Lawande, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
625 Shri Vaman G. Kadam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 626 Niphad Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sahakari Sangh, At Post Chandori, Tal.
Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
627 Shri Ramnath S. Dabhade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 628 Shri Punja N. Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 629 Shri Punjaji Y. Borade, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 630 Shri Ahilaji P. Shinde, At Post Berwadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 631 Shri Gulabbhu V. Shaikh, At Post Sakore, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 256
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 632 Shri Popat N. Gade, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
633 Shri Bhausaheb D. Shinde, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
634 Shri Sudam B. Ghagote, At Post Khedale June, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 635 Chairman, Sanjivani Jalsinchan Sanstha, At Post Chandori, Tal. Niphad,
Dist. Nashik On Affidavit
636 Shri Arun G. Boraste, At Post Sakori, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 637 Shri Sham M. Sangale, At Post Tamaswadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 638 Shri Balasaheb D. Hagote, At Post Khedale Junje, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
639 Smt. Jayashree B. Gite, At Post Kothure, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 640 Shri Daulat B. Somavanshi, At Post Sundarpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
641 Shri Shankar K. Pagare, At Post Nanduramadhameshwar, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
642 Shri Bhalchandra K. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik
On Affidavit
643 Shri Baburao G. More, At Post Konkangaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 644 Shri Yeshwant P. Wagh, At Post Ranwad, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 645 Shri Bhagwant L. Kadam, At Post Chittegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 646 Shri Popat R. Themse, At Post Kharewadi, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 647 Shri Gulabrao J. Wagh, At Post Karsul, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 648 Shri Chimanrao B. Kathe, At Post K. Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 649 Shri Dadaraoji Matsagar, At Post Pimpas, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 650 Shri Murlidhar P. Gavli, At Post Kolgaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 651 Shri Husan Shaikh Abdulla, At Post Sundarpur, Tal. Niphad, Dist.
Nashik On Affidavit
652 Shri Kashinath S. Pawar, At Post Chitegaon, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik On Affidavit 653 Shri A.K.Sharma, The Malegaon Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
P.B.No.29, Malegaon-423 203 Without Affidavit
654 Shri Vijay N. Pagar, Savada Nagar Palika Tal-Raver, Dist- Jalgaon Without Affidavit
655 Shri Vijay N.Pagar, Faizpur Muncipal Council, Faizpur, Dist- Jalgaon-425503
Without Affidavit
656 Shri Rajaram R. Chawhanke, Kopargaon Taluka Peeth Girni Malak Chalak Sangh, C/o.2495 Anant Vijay Flour Mill Sanjay Nagar Kopargaon, Dist- Ahmednagar
Without Affidavit
657 Shri Mayank Tandon, Gen.Manager, Freshtrop Fruits Limited, Unit No-1, Gat No. 171, Village Jaulke, Bombay Agra Road, P.B.No.1, Post Ozar-422 207
Without Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 257
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 658 Shri Shriram C.Chokhani, Chairman, Sudal Industries Ltd., A-5, MIDC,
Ambad Industrial Area, Mumbai - Nashik Highway, Nashik 422 010
Without Affidavit
659 Shri Dilip Lunawat, Comm.Manager, Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd., Somani Nagar, Duskheda, Bhusawal - 426203
Without Affidavit
660 Shri V.S.Chowdhari, Mobeen Ahmed Ali Asghar Haji, Ghar No.820, Gali No.13, Navapura, Near Modern Khanawal, Malegaon, Nashik
Without Affidavit
661 Shri Jayantsingh D. Patil, Prashant Residency, Flat No. 5, Indira Nagar, Nashik
Without Affidavit
662 Shri B.C. Gavit, Raver Nagar Parishad, Raver, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Without Affidavit
663 Davi Aaghadi Nashik District, Nashik District, Nashik Without Affidavit
664 Shetkari Mandal Bhadgaon, Tal. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Without Affidavit
665 Shri Vasantrao Mahajan, Chairman, Raver Yawal Taluka Agricultural Pump Owner’s Association, Dist. Jalgaon, Chinawal – 425505
Without Affidavit
666 Shri Bhaunana Sakharam Pagar, Plot No. 20, Nagre Mala, Hanumanwadi, Near Raka Nursery, Panchvati, Nashik
Without Affidavit
667 Shri Madan Bhaskarrao Matsagar & Shri Ashok Mohanrao Matsagar- Plot No.2/3, Radhanagar Chaudhary, Mala Hanumanwadi, Near Raka Nursery, Panchvati, Nashik
Without Affidavit
668 Shri Keshavrao V. Dhikle, Gram Panchayat Pimpri Sayyad, Tal. Dist. Nashik
Without Affidavit
669 Shri Pramod C. Mohole, Member, Maharashtra State Grahak Kalyan Nidhi Samiti Grahak Sangh, 403, Satbhai lane, Ahmednagar
Without Affidavit
670 Shri Brijlal Bansal, Chairman, Ban – Bro Metals Pvt. Ltd. – L – 4, MIDC, Ahmednagar
Without Affidavit
671 Shri J.D. Patil, Freedom Fiighter & chairman, Janta Dal, Dist. Jalgaon
Without Affidavit
672 Shri Raghunath S. Aadhav, Raghukul Apmt; Ground Floor, Opp. Seva Kunj, Panchvati, Nashik – 3
Without Affidavit
673 Shri Ashok N. Gujar, Secretary to Rajya Sanghtan, 4 – Pride Monarch, Near Mhsoba Temple, Nashik Road, Nashik
Without Affidavit
674 Shri Jeevan Vaishampayan, Nashik District Grahak Panchayat, 4, Shalimar Housing Society, Pumping Station, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 005
Without Affidavit
675 Shri A. D. Shirsat, 3/71, Old CIDCO, New Nashik – 422 009 Without Affidavit
676 Shri Arun N. Bhalerao, G.S. Maharashtra Rajya Magasvargiya Vidyut Karmachari Sanghatan – Falak Complex, Flat No. 6, Near Dattamandir Bus Stop, Nashik Road, Nashik
Without Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 258
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 677 Shri.Nishikant N. Kale, 29 - Meghana Housing Society, Bodhi, TC Lane
No.7, Shankarnagar No.2, Pune - 411 009 On Affidavit
678 Shri J.S.Arora, Director (Oper.) Finolex Industries Ltd. D-1/10,MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune- 411 019
On Affidavit
679 Shri Suresh N.Tendulkar, Prakash Fabricators, 1034 'E', Rajaram Road, P.B.No.207, Kolhapur-416 008
On Affidavit
680 Shri Rajaram B. Patil, Kolhapur Zilla Dalap-Kandap Girni Malak Sangh, Padmashri Apt. 1011 'K' Sangar Galli, Near Padmaraje Girls High School, Mangalwar Peth, Kolhapur
On Affidavit
681 Shri Sadashiv B. Desai, Chairman, Shiroli Manufacturers Association, P-12, Shamak Building, MIDC, Shiroli, Kolhapur- 416 122
On Affidavit
682 Shri B.R.Khedekar, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, 43/90, Navasahyadri Society, Pune- 411 052
On Affidavit
683 Shri Ved P. Leekha, Director, Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. Thergaon, Chinchwad, Pune- 411 033
On Affidavit
684 Shri Vishwanath R. Agarwal, Veej Darwad Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti, 11/197, Main Road, Ichhalkaranji, Dist - Kolhapur – & Shri Rajgonda Patil, Chairman, Ichhalkaranji Powerloom Weavers Co-op. Association Ltd., 11/197, Main Road, Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur
On Affidavit
685 Shri Shriram Madhukar Sane, B-2/402, Shweta Apartment, Between Jaideo Nagar & Sharada Math, Sinhagad Road, Pune- 411 030
On Affidavit
686 Shri Yogesh S. Kulkarni, Chairman, Gokul Shirgaon Manufacturers Association, P-35 MIDC, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur-416234
On Affidavit
687 Shri Shrikant D. Dudhane, Hon.Secretary, Kolhapur Engg. Association, 1243/46-47, Shivaji Udyamnagar, Kolhapur- 416 008
On Affidavit
688 Shri Balkrishna Sapkal, President, Pimpri Chinchwad Small Industries Association, 1597, Flat 206, Station Road, Opp. Krupp India, Pimpri, Pune- 411 018
On Affidavit
689 Shri Vinayak Rajaram Kuber, Krishna Valley Chamber of Industries & Commerce, Plot No. 33-34-35 (Kupwad Block), MIDC Area, Sangli-416436
On Affidavit
690 Prof. N.D.Patil, Chairman, Maharashtra Rajya Veejgrahak Shetkari Sabha & Bhartiya Shetkari Kamgar Paksh, Kutir, V.V. Rao Marg, Near Mantralaya, Nariman Point-21
On Affidavit
691 Shri Damodar L. Nalla, General Secretary, Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak Sangh, No. 23, Basement, Markandeva Shopping Complex, Opp. Old Octroi Naka, Akkalkot Road, Solapur - 6
On Affidavit
692 Shri D.K. Abhyankar, Director General, Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries & Agriculture, P.O.Box No.525, Tilak Road, Pune 411 002
On Affidavit
693 Shri Vijay Grover, IDEA Cellular Ltd. Birla Tata AT & T Ltd. 11/1, Sharada Centre, Karve Road, Erandwane, Pune- 411 004
On Affidavit
694 Shri Raghunath Patil, Chairman, Shriram Sahakari Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Post Talbid, Tal- Karad, Dist- Satara
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 259
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 695 Shri Anandrao Shinde, Chairman, Preeti Sangam Sahakari Pani Puravata
Mandal Ltd., Tal-Karad, Dist-Satara
On Affidavit
696 Shri Narendra Salunkhe, Secretary, Indoli Paradashik Naal Pani Puravata Sansthan, Indoli, Tal- Karad, Dist- Satara
On Affidavit
697 Shri Anandrao Mahadevrao Desai, Shri Bhagyalaxmi Sahakari Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Post Aaryewadi-Gamyewadi, Tal-Karad, Dist-Satara-415119
On Affidavit
698 Shri Bhanudas Shankar Pawar, Shri Jyotirlinga Sahakari Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Post- Caregaon, Tal-Karad-415120
On Affidavit
699 Shri Sampatrao Baburao Kolekar, Jyotrilinga Sahakari Upsa Jalsinchan Sansthan Maryadit Post Kiroli, Tal-Koregaon, Satara-
On Affidavit
700 Shri Bhiku Gyandeo Salunkhe, Krushnai Sahakari Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Chorjavadi, Tal-Karad, Satara-415 109
On Affidavit
701 Shri Vithalrao Jaisingh Thorat, Shri Koteshwar Sahakari Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Kotri, Tal-Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
702 Shri Shivaji Ramchandra Nikkam, Aakeshwar Sah.Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Tambhe, Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
703 Shri Shankar Nivruti Nalvade, Yashvantrao Chavan Sah.Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Post-Hanumanvadi, Tal-Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
704 Shri Sanjay Dagdu Chavan, Sangam Sah.Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Vanvasmachi, Tal-Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
705 Shri Sanjay Shankar Mulgaonkar, Shri Sajureshwar Sahakari Pani Puravata Sansthan Maryadit, Post-Sajur, Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
706 Shri Badshah Abbas Shaikh, Shriram Sah. Upsa Jalsinchan Sansthan Maryadit, Post- Taalved, Karad, Satara-415109
On Affidavit
707 Shri Sampat Ganpat Surve, Shri Chandrasen Sah.Pani Puravata Maryadit, Post-Vasantgad, Sakurdi, Karad, Satara.
On Affidavit
708 Shri Shivaji Maruti Shinde, Bhiravnath Sah.Pani Puravata, Sanstha, Maryadit, Post-Kase, Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
709 Shri Manohar Bhaskarrao Shinde, Go-Ka-Ksah.Pani Puravata Mandal, Malkapur Karad, Satara
On Affidavit
710 Shri Gulabrao Baburao Kasurde, New Era Development Institute, 95, Kanga Hill, Panchagani-412805, Miraj, Satara
On Affidavit
711 Shri Jayant Nivruti Patil, Shree Om Estate Developers, Venkatesh Nagar, Behind Amarai, Sangli – 416416
On Affidavit
712 Shri Anil M. Tade, President, Rashtriya Grahak Sanghatana, C/o. Atcon, Tilak Chowk, Harabhat Road, Sangli-416416
On Affidavit
713 Shri Mohan Tikaram Borole, A-1, Abhimanshree Hsg.Society, Pune- 411 008
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 260
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 714 Shri Kiran M Tarlekar, Chairman, VEETA Powerloom Industries
Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Mayani Road, P.O. Veeta, Dist- Sangli, Tal- Khanapur- 415311
On Affidavit
715 Shri Gyan Mal Jain, Sr.Vice President, Century Enka Ltd. P.B.No. 17, Bhosari, Pune- 411 026
On Affidavit
716 Shri Girish Sant, Prayas, Pune-411004 On Affidavit 717 Shri Arun Bhosale, Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd. Venkateshwara
House, S.No.114/A/2, Pune-Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 030 On Affidavit
718 Shri Shankarrao R. Landge, Shetkari Sahakari Sooth Girni Maryadit, Sangole, Solapur, Sangli- 413307
On Affidavit
719 Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal, Sant Gyaneshwar Steels Pvt.Ltd. Gat.No. 1076/77, Golegaon Road, Tal.Khed, Dist-Pune
On Affidavit
720 Shri Mohan Baburao Kulkarni, Asst. General Manager, TATA Motors Ltd., Pimpri, Pune-411 018
On Affidavit
721 Shri Ramesh Parkhi, Chairman, Veej Grahak Sangh, 9996-V, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-30
On Affidavit
722 Shri Shashank Shripad Gadgil, 1789 - Sadashiv Peth, Pune- 30 On Affidavit 723 Shri Atul Bakshi, Secretary, Solapur Manufacturers Association, 129/130
Industrial Estate, Hotgi Road, Solapur-413003 On Affidavit
724 Shri Shivaji Pandurang Raut, 172-B, S.T. Colony, Satara On Affidavit 725 Shri Laxman Ganpat Gunvare, Village Aagote, No.1, Tal-Indapur,
Dist-Pune On Affidavit
726 Shri G. S. Chavan, Managing Director, Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Yashwantnagar - 415 115 Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara
On Affidavit
727 Shri Vijay H. Mulgund, Maharashtra Vij Kamgar Mahasangh, 185, Shanivar Peth, Pune
On Affidavit
728 Shri Cyrus S. Ruttonsha, Yojana, Off Deccan College Road, Yerwada, Pune - 411 006
Without Affidavit
729 R.M.Mohite Textiles Ltd. Ambapwadi Phatta, Off. NH - 4, P.B.No.1, Vadgaon, Tal. Hatkanangale, Dist -Kolhapur-416112
Without Affidavit
730 Madhav Gopal Adkar, 298, Budhwar Peth, Pune -2 Without Affidavit
731 Shri Ruturaj Ingale, Kolhapur Indus. Cine Exhibitors Association, C/o Sangam Chitra Mandir, Kolhapur-416001
Without Affidavit
732 Shri K. Balasubramaniam, Flat No.18, Poonam Chambers CHS, Opp.Bhagwat Gita Mandir, Kharalwadi, Pimpri, Pune-18
Without Affidavit
733 Shri Devichand Babutmalji Jain, New 1254, Bhavani Peth, Pune- 411042
Without Affidavit
734 Shri Bhaskarrao Gyanoba Shinde, Freedom Fighter, Malkapur, Karad, Satara
Without Affidavit
735 Shri Ajit Hari Vanarse, Bhartiya Janta Party, Wai Shahar - 339, 'Punnaye', Madli Aali, Wai, Dist-Satara
Without Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 261
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 736 Shri Dhairyashil Murlidhar Taware, Pune Without
Affidavit 737 Shri M.S. Narayana Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Pimpri, Pune 411 018.
Without Affidavit
738 Shri Pratap Ganpatrao Hogade, Janata Dal (Secular), 10, C.D.O.Barex, Near Yogakshem, LIC Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020
On Affidavit
739 Brig. V.K.Sharma, President of India Represented by Chief Engineer (Navy) - 26, Assaye Building, Colaba, Mumbai - 400 005
On Affidavit
740 Shri Babanrao B.Chaure & Shri A.S. Deshpande, Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Oricon House, 6th floor, 12 K.Dubhash Marg, Fort, Mumbai-
On Affidavit
741 Shri Shailesh Vasant Palkar, 907, Laxmisunder, Anand Nagar, P.O. Tal. - Poladpur, Raigad-402303
On Affidavit
742 Shri Vijay Kumar Tamhane, Secretary General, The Millowners' Association, Elphinstone Building, 10 - Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai- 400 001
On Affidavit
743 Shri T.S.Sundarsen, Secretary General, The Indian Ferro Alloy Producers' Assocaition, 1B, Haji Moosa 20 - Dr. E. Moses Road, Patrawala Industrial Estate, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 11
On Affidavit
744 Shri Ram Mehrotra- Chief Electrical Dist. Engineer, Central Railway, 2nd floor, Parcel Office Building, Electrical Branch, CST, Mumbai
On Affidavit
745 Shri K. Rangrajan, Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals, Liberty Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersay Marg, Mumbai - 400 020
On Affidavit
746 Prof. N.D.Patil, Chairman, Maharashtra Rajya Veejgrahak Shetkari Sabha & Bhartiya Shetkari Kamgar Paksh, Kutir, V.V. Rao Marg, Near Mantralaya, Nariman Point-21
On Affidavit
747 Smt. Sujata Soparkar, Honorary General Secretary, Thane Small Scale Industries Association, TSSIA House, Plot No.P-26, Road 16/T, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane- 400 604 & Kalyan Ambernath Manufacturers Association, Plot No. 7, Commercial Zone, MIDC Phase - I, Dombivali, Dist. Thane – 421 203
On Affidavit
748 Shri Varsha Raut, Secretary, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Grahak Bhawan, Sant Dnyaneshwar Park, Behind Cooper hospital, JVPD Scheme, Juhu -Vile Parle, Mumbai- 400 056
On Affidavit
749 Shri S.V. Sodal, Secretary (Irrigation Dept.), GoM, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
On Affidavit
750 Shri D.D.Tiwari, Sr. Manager (Admin & HR) Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., Plot K-1, MIDC Industrial Area, Taloja, A.V. 410208, Raigad
On Affidavit
751 Shri S.N.Goswami, Member, Tarapur Industrial Manufacturers Association, Recreation Centre, MIDC Tarapur Indl.Area, Dist- Thane – 401506
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 262
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 752 Shri K.S.S. Narayanan, Navi Mumbai Action Committee, B/19, Reshma
Co-operative Housing Society, Sector 9A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 703
On Affidavit
753 Shri Gautam P.Khandelwal, Nagpur Power & Industries Ltd. 20th Floor, Nirmal, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021
On Affidavit
754 Smt.Rita Sahu, Dy.Chief Electrical Engg. Western Railway, Office of Chief Electrical Engineer, 5th floor, Churchgate Station Builidng, Churchgate, Mumbai-20
On Affidavit
755 Shir Vivek Nair, President, Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India), 4, Candy House, Mandlik Road, Mumbai - 400 001
On Affidavit
756 Shri Chandulal Sumeria, General Secretary, Halari Powerloom Owners & Weavers Association, 1280, Shri Complex, 2nd floor, Agra Road, Narpoli, Bhiwandi, Thane
On Affidavit
757 Shri S.N. Patankar, President, Vrikshwallee, 1, Keshav Apartment, Datta Mandir Road, Chandani,Thane-400 601
On Affidavit
758 Shri Aqeel Akhtar Ansari, President, Bhiwandi Powerloom Owners & Weavers Welfare Trust, 167, Shandar Textile Market, Opp. Mamta Hospital, Agra Road, Bhiwandi, Thane-421302
On Affidavit
759 Shri Ravi K. Anand, Secretary, Electricity Consumers Association, 103, Hiranandani Indl. Estate, Kanjur Marg, Mumbai-78
On Affidavit
760 Shri Ashok Khinvasara, Director (Corporate Dev.), ISPAT Industries Ltd., Nirmal, 7th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021
On Affidavit
761 Shri S.B.Bauskar-Tech.Director, Maharashtra State Co-operative Textile Federation Ltd., Vakil House, 2nd floor, 18, Shri Shivsagar Ramgulam Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 1
On Affidavit
762 Shri P.B.Thatte, Director, Saf Yeast Co.Pvt.Ltd. 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071
On Affidavit
763 Shri Ashvin V Treasurer, Indian Inhabitant, B - 2/401, Harsidh Park, Pawar Nagar, Thane-400 601
On Affidavit
764 Shri A.G.Sontakke, President, Murbad Manufacturers Association, M/s. Dinesh Plastics Works, Plot No. F/53, MIDC, Murbad-421 401
On Affidavit
765 Shri Krihna Bhoyar, President, Maharashtra State Apartice Kruti Sameeti, E - 6, MSEB Colony, Bhingare, Panvel, Raigad-410206
On Affidavit
766 Shri Shakeel A. Ansari, Secretary, Maharashtra Electricity Consumers Association, 27, Pauls Compound, Opp. Asbibi, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421 302
On Affidavit
767 Shri Ashok Kumar, Company Secretary, Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd. 10-Nirmal, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021
On Affidavit
768 Shri Sadashiv B. Desai, Chairman, Shiroli Manufacturers Association, P-12, Shamak Building, MIDC, Shiroli, Kolhapur- 416 122
On Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 263
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 769 Shri Champshi M. Shah, New Bombay Ispat Udyog P. Ltd. 1, Sundaram,
Satyam Shivam Sundarm Complex, M.G. Road, Ghatkoper (E), Mumbai –400077
On Affidavit
770 Shri Ramesh S. Chavan, President, Kudal MIDC Industries Association, B-35, MIDC, Kudal, Sindhudurg – 416 550
On Affidavit
771 Shri Girish Sant, Prayas, Pune-411004 On Affidavit 772 Shri B.R.Khedekar, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, 43/90,
Navasahyadri Society, Pune- 411 052 On Affidavit
773 Consumer
Without Affidavit
774 Shri Arun Sharaf, Dombivli Kalyan Gharmalak Seva Sangh, 7, Shramsaphalya, Gupte Cross Road, Dombivli (West) - 421 202
Without Affidavit
775 Shri S.M.Trehan, Chairman, Confederation of Indian Industry, (Western Region), 105 - Kakad Chambers, 132 - Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018
Without Affidavit
776 Shri Vinod Shah, Convener, Captive Power Producers Association, CPPA Secretariat, Mukund Limited, Belapur Road, Thane – 65
Without Affidavit
777 Dr. S.L.Patil, Secretary General, Thane Belapur Ind. Association, Plot No. P-14, MIDC, Rabale Village, P.O.Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai- 400701
Without Affidavit
778 Tata Power Company Ltd, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400 001
Without Affidavit
779 Shri S.S.Nayak, Chairman, Thane Manufacturers Association, TMA House, Plot No.6, Main Road, Wagle Inds..Estate, Thane- 400 604
Without Affidavit
780 Shri M.G. Varade, 505/A-Wing, Breeze, 3rd Cross Lane, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400 058 & Shri A.R.Bapat, C-73, Lokmanya C.H.S., Veer Savarkar Road, Thane (W) -400 602
Without Affidavit
781 Shri G.V.Patil, A-2/1,Chitanya Soc. Ganeshnagar, Manpada Road, Dombivali (East), Thane-421201
Without Affidavit
782 Raigad District Grahak Takrar Nivaran Samiti- Hanuman Aali, Pen, Raigad-402 107
Without Affidavit
783 Shri M.G. Kimmatkar, Expert Member, Vidarbha Statutory Development Board, B-23/1, South Ambazari Road, Nagpur-22
Without Affidavit
784 Shri Mohandas Naidu, LokMorcha Nagpur, A.K. Gopalan Bhavan, Shanivari, Cotton Market, Nagpur – 440 017
Without Affidavit
785 Shri S.R. Paranjape, D2-203, Gomati Society, Lokgram, Kalyan (E) – 421 306
Without Affidavit
786 Shri A.K.Sharma, The Malegaon Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. P.B.No.29, Malegaon-423 203
Without Affidavit
787 Shri Anant Kulkarni, Member, Pimpri Chinchwad Small Ind. Ass.- Amit Engineers, 30/13, D-II, M.I.D.C., Pune-411019
Without Affidavit
788 Shri Pradyumn Kaul, B-3, Ploughshare Apmt; Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016
Without Affidavit
MERC Tariff Order for MSEB – FY 2003-04
ANNEXURE - I 264
S.No. Name and Address of the Objector Remarks 789 Shri Purushottam R. Patil, Member, Gram Panchayat, Kusur, Tal.
Vaibhavwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg Without Affidavit
790 Shri Subhash G. Vairagade, Shivsena Office Gate No. 2, Thermal Power Board Colony, MSEB Koradi, Tal. Kamathi, Dist. Nagpur – 441 111
Without Affidavit
791 Shri Vasantrao L. Mahajan, All India Banana Growers Association of India, Chinawal, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon – 425 505
Without Affidavit
792 Shri Shankar B. Shinde, Krushi Kanya Sahkari Pani Purvatha Yojana Maryadit – Nanduri Dumala, Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar
Without Affidavit