Case No. 19 of Shri V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13 th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: Case No. 19 of 2012 In the matter of Petition of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited seeking Final True up for FY , Aggregate Revenue Requirement of FY and FY , Tariff Determination for FY and Revision in Schedule of Charges Shri V.P. Raja, Chairman Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Date: 22 May, 2013 The Commission had issued a Tariff Order on August 16, 2012 in Case No. 19 of 2012, in the matter of the Petition filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company. Ltd., (MSEDCL) for Final True up for FY , Aggregate Revenue Requirement of FY and FY , Tariff Determination for FY and Revision in Schedule of Charges. 2. In the said Order, the Commission has inter alia created separate tariff category for Public Services. This category is created based on the directions issued by Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) in its Judgment dated 20 October, 2011 in Appeal No. 110,111,170,171,201 & 202 of 2009 & Appeal No. 70, 71, 78, 79, 80, 81 & 82 of 2010 and suggestions / objections received during the Tariff proceedings in Case No. 19 of The relevant extract from the Commission s Order dated 16 August 2012 is reproduced below: 2.7 Tariff applicability for different consumer categories... Commission s ruling MERC Final Order Case No.19 of 2012 _ Supplemental Order Page 1 of 6

2 The Commission noted that applicability of Tariff was one of the major objections during the public process initiated by the Commission. In the section covering Tariff Philosophy the Commission has spelt out its view regarding consumer categorisation and applicability of Tariff for different categories It is important to note the Hon ble ATE, in its Judgement dated 20 October, 2011, in Appeal No.110,111,170,171,201 & 202 of 2009 and 70,71,78,79,80,81 & 82 of 2010, has clarified that the consumer categories can be created based on the intent or purpose of use by the consumer. Therefore, the Commission has made the categories applicable keeping this Judgement in view. The Commission has examined the Tariff proposal of MSEDCL and also examined all the suggestions/objections made by the consumers. Based on the suggestions received and also after considering the Judgement of the Hon ble ATE in relation to categorisation of consumers, the Commission has created a new category of consumers in this Tariff Order based on the purpose of use. (Emphasis added) Subcategory in HT and LT Commercial... Commission s Ruling: In the public hearings, some of the consumers/consumer representatives have objected that a lower Tariff by way of a new category should not be allowed to Government owned agencies as these are generally defaulting consumers. The Commission would like to clarify that maintaining high collection efficiency is a responsibility of MSEDCL. If MSEDCL has not been able to collect its dues from certain agencies, the same should not deprive needy consumers from availing power at reasonable Tariffs. Some consumers have also suggested that the Commission should decrease the number of consumer categories for simplification of Tariff Schedule. In this context the Commission is fortified by the Judgement of the Hon ble ATE dated 20 October, 2011, in Appeal No.110,111,170,171,201 & 202 of 2009 and 70,71,78,79,80,81 & 82 of 2010, in which the Tribunal ruled as under: 57. Summary of Our Findings (i) The State Commission in the present case wrongly placed all the consumers including the Appellants who were neither domestic nor industrial nor falling under any of the categories under the Commercial Category. The purpose for which the supply is required by the Appellants can not be equated at par with other consumers in the Commercial Category. The Appellants are seeking separate categorisation on the MERC Final Order Case No.19 of 2012 _ Supplemental Order Page 2 of 6

3 basis of purpose for which the supply is required by the Appellants i.e. rendering essential services. (ii) The real meaning of expression purpose for which the supply is required as used in Section 62 (3) of the Act does not merely relate to the nature of the activity carried out by a consumer but has to be necessarily determined from the objects sought to be achieved through such activity. The Railways and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation have been differentiated as separate category as they are providing essential services. The same would apply to the Appellants as well. (iii) The application of mind should be on identifying the categories of the consumers who should be subjected to bear the excess Tariff recoverable based on a valid reason and justification. The re-categorisation of Charitable Hospitals and Charitable Organisations and grouping them with the consumers of the category such as Shopping Malls, Multiplexes, Cinema Theatres, Hotels and other like commercial entities is patently wrong. (iv) By the impugned order, the State Commission classified the members of the Appellants into Commercial category following a mechanical approach. This has been done only because the Appellants cannot fall under either in the industrial or agricultural or residential category and therefore, the Appellant would automatically fall in the Commercial Category. This is not a proper approach. In case the State commission felt that the Appellants are not falling under any particular existing category, then the State Commission ought to have applied its mind and provided for a new category and given them a competitive Tariff having regard to the purpose for which the electricity is used by them. (v) The State Commission may classify the hospitals, educational institutions and spiritual organisations which are service oriented and put them in a separate category for the purpose of determination of Tariff.... As per the ruling mentioned above, it is imperative that the Commission create new a category based on the purpose of use of electricity under the provisions of the Section 62 of the EA, Therefore, as against MSEDCL's proposal of creation of a separate category for Government owned, managed and operated hospitals and educational institutes, the Commission has decided to introduce a new category called "Public Services". This consumer category is applicable to entities which are essentially providing public services. The Commission has designed the Tariff for MERC Final Order Case No.19 of 2012 _ Supplemental Order Page 3 of 6

4 this category in a manner so that the average billing rate for this category is higher than the average cost of supply, but below that of the Commercial category.... As discussed in paragraph 8.10, MSEDCL has proposed a new sub-category in LT-II and HT-II Commercial categories for Government owned hospitals and educational institutes. While not approving this proposal, the Commission has decided to introduce a new category called "Public Services", both in LT and in HT class of categories. The categories of LT II(A) and LT II (B) as proposed by MSEDCL will be merged in LT in "LT Public Services" and the categories of HT II (A) and HT II (B) will be merged in "HT Public Services" (Emphasis added) 3. Subsequent to above Tariff Order issued by the Commission, Osho International Foundation and Neo Sanyas Foundation have filed Writ Petitions before the Hon ble Bombay High Court which are numbered as W.P. No of 2012 and W.P. No of 2012, respectively, seeking the applicability of Public Service category to them. 4. The Hon ble Bombay High Court through its Judgment dated 13 March, 2013, disposed of these Petitions with directions to the Commission to include these Petitioners in Public Service category. The relevant portion of the Judgment of Hon ble High Court is reproduced below: 6. It is necessary to note that direction was that the State Commission may classify the Hospitals, Educational Institutions and Spiritual Organisations which are service oriented and put them in a separate category for the purpose of determination of tariff. In view of the fact that these very Petitioners were before the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the State Commission Respondent No.1 herein erred in classifying them into commercial category following mechanical approach and that the Tribunal further directed the State Commission to classify Hospitals, Educational Institutions and Spiritual Organizations which are service oriented separately and to put them in a separate category for determination of tariff, it necessarily required the State Commission to classify Spiritual Organizations also in a separate category alongwith the Hospitals and Educational Institutions. However, the category of Public Service provided for by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Respondent No.1 herein reads as, HT IX Public Services and has included the following Institutions in the definition this tariff shall be applicable to the Educational Institutions, Hospitals, Dispensaries, Primary Health Care Centers, Pathology Laboratories,... MERC Final Order Case No.19 of 2012 _ Supplemental Order Page 4 of 6

5 7. In view of the order of the Appellate Tribunal requiring the State Commission to classify Spiritual Organizations which are service oriented also in a special category along with Hospitals and Educational Institutions as Public Services, these Writ Petitions are allowed and Respondent No.1 is directed to include Spiritual Organisations which are service oriented as falling within the definition of the newly created category HT IX-Public Services.Thereafter, Respondent No.2 shall take the necessary steps in light of the amended definition of the public services. Since the Tariff order creates the new category of HT IX Public Services with effect from 1 August, 2012, the amendment of the definition shall also begiven effect from 1 August Once the tariff is amended in compliance with the direction of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, there after Respondent No.2 will consider the applicability of the tariff to the case of each of the Petitioners herein. (Emphasis added) 5. Accordingly, incompliance with the above said Judgment of the Hon ble High Court, the Commission hereby amends the applicability of HT Public Service category in Tariff Schedule of Order issued on 16 August 2012 in Case No. 19 of 2012 with effect from 1 August, The revised Tariff Schedule for applicability of HT X : HT- Public Services is as under: HT IX - Public Services Applicability This Tariff shall be applicable to education institutes, hospitals, dispensaries, primary health care centres, pathology laboratories, Spiritual Organisation which are service oriented, Police Stations, Post Offices, Defence establishments (army, navy and airforce), Public libraries and Reading rooms, Railway except traction (shops on the platforms/railway station/bus stands will be billed under Commercial category as per the respective slab), State transport establishments; Railway and State Transport Workshops, Fire Service Stations, Jails, Prisons, Courts; Airports (only activities related to aeronautical operations) Sports Club / Health Club / Gymnasium / Swimming Pool attached to the Educational Institution / Hospital provided said Sports Club / Health Club / Gymnasium / Swimming Pool is situated in MERC Final Order Case No.19 of 2012 _ Supplemental Order Page 5 of 6

6 the same premises and is exclusively meant for the students / patients of such Educational Institutions & Hospitals. Rate Schedule Consumer Category Demand Charge Energy Charge (Rs./ kva/ month) (Rs./kWh) HT Public services (A) Express Feeders (B) Non-express feeders ToD Tariffs (in addition to above base Tariffs) (in paise/kwh) The ToD tariff will be applicable based on the Commission s Order dated 26 December 2012 in Case No. 107 of 2012 read with Order dated 2 April, 2013 in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2013 in Case No. 107 of 2012 in Case No. 19 of Sd/- (Vijay L. Sonavane) Member Sd/- (V. P. Raja) Chairman MERC Final Order Case No.19 of 2012 _ Supplemental Order Page 6 of 6