|
5.1 Public Hearing
The Commission gave wide publicity to the tariff
proposal submitted by Board and invited the public
objections/comments. Detailed written comments,
suggestions and objections from 1526 individuals and
representatives of various organizations (Annexure
I) were received by the Commission. The Commission
is grateful to all of them for the time and effort
they have put in studying the documents and offering
their valuable comments and suggestions. Category
wise number of objections from different regions are
as follows:
|
Category |
Gwalior |
Indore |
Bhopal |
Rewa |
Jabalpur |
Total |
|
Domestic |
1 |
4 |
5 |
|
2 |
12 |
|
Commercial |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
3 |
|
Industrial |
6 |
29 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
41 |
|
Agriculture |
|
1304 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
1315 |
|
NGO |
2 |
38 |
17 |
1 |
3 |
61 |
|
Re-Corp. Society |
|
- |
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
Govt.Deptt./Public Utility |
1 |
6 |
9 |
|
4 |
20 |
|
Political Parties /MLA.MP |
|
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
11 |
|
Association |
1 |
25 |
19 |
2 |
2 |
49 |
|
Railways |
|
- |
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
Others |
2 |
1 |
|
5 |
1 |
9 |
|
Total |
13 |
1411 |
67 |
12 |
23 |
1526 |
The Commission received valuable suggestions on
number of issues during public hearings. Besides a
large number of general observations on improvement
of efficiency of the Board, realization of the
outstanding dues (consequently minimising the need
for enhancement of tariff), several observations
were made which will have some bearing on tariff
determination. These have been dealt with in the
following paragraphs.
TOP
5.2 General and Legal Issues
5.2.1 There has been a strong opposition to
the increase of tariff proposal of the Board because
of irregular supply of power, poor quality of power,
theft / pilferage of energy, inability to realize
outstanding dues and the inefficiency in the
operations of the Board. Public also brought to
notice of the Commission that the MPSEB has not
complied with the directives of the Commission given
by it in the last tariff order dated 26th September
2001.
Commission has taken a note of non-compliance of its
directives very seriously and a separate chapter on
various points (Chapter 3) has been presented in
this order.
5.2.2 It was suggested by many respondents
that the ‘General Conditions of Supply’ are totally
loaded in favour of MPSEB and the Commission should
reframe the agreements to make it more balanced.
The Commission proposes to come out with a
distribution and supply code in which a chapter on
“General Condition of Supply” and “Schedule of
Miscellaneous Charges” will also be included.
5.2.3 Several references were made to loan
agreement entered into by MPSEB/ Government of
Madhya Pradesh with Asian Development Bank (ADB). It
was felt that the revision of tariff by the
commission is on the directions of ADB because of
which the interests of consumers will be affected
adversely. It was suggested that in future all such
loan agreements (of very high amount and the details
of new projects proposed to be taken up by the Board
as a consequence to taking of such loans should be
presented before the Commission.
Commission would like to clarify that the tariff
review is one of its normal functions. It is not
based on the directions of ADB. As regards the
conditional ties of the loan agreement of ADB, the
same would be gone into. The Board is directed to
keep the commission appraised of the details in
future and any default in doing so will be viewed
seriously.
5.2.4 Several consumer’ voiced their opinion
on linking the tariff to the paying capacity of the
consumers. It was contended that some particular
group of consumers were under severe financial
stress and uniform tariff even within one category
(as proposed by the Board) should be re-looked into
by the Commission and concessions offered going by
the paying capacity of the consumers.
Commission would like to honour the sentiments of
the public as far as it is possible to do so keeping
in mind the provisions of M.P. Vidyut Sudhar
Adhiniyam 2000.
5.2.5 The respondents generally felt that
that the publicity given to the Hearing process was
inadequate and the communication left a lot to be
desired. One suggestion was that the dates for
Public hearings be intimated along with the
Electricity Bill and a gist of the petition be also
made available along with the bill itself so that
the information could reach to all the consumers.
Commission has publicized about the tariff
proposal of the board and the schedule of public
hearing through newspapers. Publicity through
electricity bills may not be an effective method as
bills, which are printed at the divisional level are
not being printed at the same time for all
consumers.
5.2.6 The Respondents demanded that the
Petition be made available in totality (all the
volumes submitted by MPSEB), and it should be
translated completely in Hindi. Besides, for very
poor consumers, a summary of the petition should be
available at District level free of cost and the
Division Level offices should keep a copy of the
complete petition for public reference.
It must be clarified that the gist of the petition
was published in the newspapers and the copy of the
detailed petition was made available on payment
basis by the Board. If the copies of the petition
are made available free of cost, the Board may incur
higher costs and it would have no option but to
charge the associated costs from the consumers of
electricity in their bills, which would not be a
preferred option. MPSEB may however make sure that
there is availability of petition at division
levels.
5.2.7 The respondents were agitated over the
derogatory remarks made by the petitioner on page 18
of the petition and demanded the Commission to
record suitable comments in its Tariff Order for
MPSEB.
Commission directs the Board to be careful in use
of language in future so that the feelings of public
are not hurt.
TOP
5.3 Issues Related to Tariff
Agricultural Tariff
5.3.1 Average cost of supply of agricultural
consumers comes to Rs. 8/- per unit instead of Rs.
5.15 per unit as indicated by the Board and industry
should not be made to cross subsidize.
5.3.2 Shri P.L.Nene representing 4-5
Associations of HT Industries of Indore/Pithampur
has mentioned that the average cost of supply of
agricultural consumers is about Rs. 8/- per unit and
the industries should not be made to cross-subsidize
agricultural consumers. MPSEB has submitted that the
cost of supply at LT end for the year 2002-03 works
out to 515 per unit. In following years, it would be
possible to work out the cost for various categories
of LT consumers also. As regards cross
subsidization of agricultural consumes by
industries, it may be mentioned that M.P. Vidyut
Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 provides that the tariff
should be determined in a manner that the existing
cross subsidy is progressively reduced so that
within a period of 5 years, the tariff to any class
of consumer shall reflect minimum of 75% of the cost
of supply to that category. MPSEB clarified that
the cross subsidization is to be reduced
progressively and accordingly the existing
agricultural tariff of about 83 per unit has been
proposed to be increased by about 114% to 177 per
unit (with Govt. subsidy of about Rs.400 crs.).
Without government subsidy, rate has been proposed
as 260 per unit, which would be about 50% of the
cost of supply against existing rate of 83 per unit,
which is only 16% of cost of supply. Thus, effort
has been made by the Board to increase cheaper
agriculture tariff so that the cross subsidization
by other categories is reduced.
5.3.3 Concessional tariff to agricultural
consumers may only be permitted if the State Govt.
is ready to subsidize this category. The
agriculture sector may not be cross subsidized from
other categories of consumers.
5.3.4 Shri P.L.Nene on behalf of MP
Electrical Consumers Society and other Associations
of HT consumers has suggested that concessional
tariff to agricultural consumers may only be
permitted if the State Govt. is ready to subsidize
this category and the agriculture sector may not be
cross subsidized from other categories of consumers.
The Board is of the view that the concessional
tariff to agricultural consumers may be permitted by
either the State Govt. subsidy to this category or
by cross subsidy by other categories of consumers.
The extent of cross subsidization is to be decided
by the Hon’ble MPERC and the extent of subsidy to be
given to the agricultural consumes is to be decided
by the State Govt.
5.3.5 The present agriculture tariff is
already high and should not be increased further.
5.3.6 Shri Ambaram Mukati, Adhyaksh, Zila
Upbhokta Jan Kalyan Parishad, Barwani has mentioned
that the present agriculture tariff is already high
and should not be increased further. MPSEB has
responded that the present cost at LT is 515 p/u and
the existing average tariff for agricultural
consumers is about 83 p/u, which is only 16% of the
cost of supply. Therefore, MPSEB clarified that it
is not true that the present agricultural tariff is
very high. As per M.P. Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam,
2000, the tariff for various categories of consumers
are to be determined in a manner so that the extent
of subsidy is progressively reduced within a period
of 5 years and the tariff to any class of consumer
reflects atleast 75% of the cost to that category.
5.3.7 There should be option of metered or
flat rate tariff to agricultural consumers.
5.3.8 During public hearing at Indore, some
of the agricultural consumers have mentioned that
metered supply should not be compulsory and there
should be option of metered or flat rate tariff for
agricultural consumers. MPSEB has submitted that the
flat rate tariff is optional which is at the option
of agricultural consumers. The Govt. of M.P. has
declared a policy for providing meters for all
un-metered connections including agricultural
consumers. However, the Commission vide its order
of 26.9.2001, has directed that un-metered
agricultural connections be metered within three
years from the date of order and no new connection
shall be given to any consumer without meter. In
view of above all new agricultural consumers are to
be compulsorily given supply under metered supply
option. However, the existing consumers may continue
to avail supply at flat rate tariffs till meters are
installed by the Board at their agricultural
installations.
5.3.9 The proposed agricultural tariff on the
basis of crop may not be considered due to various
flaws in such a proposal.
5.3.10 During public hearing at various places
some of the agricultural consumers have expressed
their views that the proposed agricultural tariff on
the basis of crop may not be considered due to
various flaws in such a proposal. In this
connection, MPSEB has responded that the crop-wise
pattern of flat rate agricultural tariff was
proposed only to facilitate the agricultural
consumers so that the consumers who are using one or
two crops are not compelled to pay flat rate tariff
for the months they are not using the electricity.
If the agricultural consumers are not in favour of
crop-wise pattern and the Hon’ble Commission also
finds its implementation difficult then the existing
pattern of flat rate agricultural tariff i.e. flat
rate per HP/month for different agricultural rates
could continue till the installations are meterized.
5.3.11 Assessment of consumption by agriculture
consumers: An agriculture scientists may be deputed
to study and average energy consumption to irrigate
one hectare of land for different crops and based on
this, flat rate and minimum charges may be fixed by
the Commission.
5.3.12 As regards study of agriculture
consumption pattern through agriculture scientists,
it must be clarified that for proper assessment of
energy consumed by the agricultural consumers
situated at different geographical locations of
Madhya Pradesh and on the basis of different crops
being cultivated, an exercise / sample survey has
already been conducted on about 1275 agricultural
consumers. As clarified by MPSEB, efforts have been
made to analyse the consumption in each geographical
area based on the source of water i.e. tube well,
open well, river, nalah / nahar etc. and crop
produced. Further the field officers have been
directed to enlarge the sample size for accurate
assessment of average energy consumption pattern of
agricultural consumers.
5.3.13 Tariff for nursery and horticulture: The
nursery and horticulture may be retained in
agriculture categories.
5.3.14 Presently, the average tariff applicable
for agricultural consumers works out to about 83 p/u
as against the cost of supply of about 515 p/u at
LT. Agricultural sector is being given a highly
subsidized rate, as this sector is the basic food
provider to the society and GoMP is subsidizing the
sector. As per MPSEB, the nurseries and
horticultures work on commercial principles and at
times the motive of earning a large profit is also
there.
TOP
Domestic Tariff
5.3.15 M.P. is the third largest state of the
country. Per capita income is about Rs. 493/- p.m.
(20% lesser than the all India average) and,
therefore, the proposed tariff hike should be as per
paying capacity of the average consumer.
5.3.16 The paying capacity of average consumer
cannot be considered for fixing various rates for
different categories of consumers. Even in one class
of domestic consumer, there are affluent consumers
who are using electricity more than 500 units/month
and there are small consumers who are using
electricity only upto 50 units/month.
5.3.17 It was argued by some of the consumers
that domestic tariff should be separate for urban
and rural consumers.
5.3.18 This aspect has been accepted in principle
and a rebate is being given in the monthly fixed
charge for domestic category of consumers in rural
areas.
5.3.19 The proposal of charging minimum units on
domestic connections above 10 KW may not be
considered.
5.3.20 As regards the proposal of charging
minimum units on domestic connections above 10 KW,
the Board has proposed a minimum charge of Rs.450/-
per connection per month for the domestic consumers
availing supply at 3 phase and having connected load
upto 10 KW. It is felt by MPSEB that the aforesaid
amount of tariff minimum charge will be
inappropriate for the consumers having connected
load of more than 10 KW since the consumption of
this class of domestic consumers would be on higher
side considering their living standard and paying
capacity and there is shortage of power. The
consumption of only 45 units per KW appears to be
reasonable to MPSEB.
TOP
Tariff for Steel Industry
5.3.21 As the Steel Industry has poor load
factor, maximum concession should be given to this
category. The tariff minimum to steel industry
having induction furnace should be made applicable
similar to that of industry with arc furnace.
5.3.22 In comparison to other HT industries,
already a cheaper tariff (without demand charges) is
prevalent for Mini Steel Plants with rolling mills /
sponge iron plants in the same premises. Further, a
concession of 4% to 8% in energy charges has also
been offered to mini steel plants for having
consumption over certain load factors. As the
consumption of induction furnace is comparatively
higher, the provisions of tariff minimum for mini
steel plants having induction furnaces equivalent to
150 units per KVA of the contract demand for a
period of 7 months i.e. from April to Oct. each year
has been made. However, during Rabi season when
agricultural load is predominantly high, the minimum
monthly consumption of only 100 units per KVA of
contract demand is applicable for mini steel plants
using arc furnace or induction furnace.
5.3.23 Tariff for Ferro-alloy industry is very
high as compared to other Sates.
5.3.24 The representative of M/s Manganese Ore
India Ltd., Balaghat has mentioned that the tariff
for Ferro alloy industry is very high as compared to
other States. In this connection, MPSEB mentioned
that the existing tariff applicable to Ferro Alloys
Industries availing supply at 33 KV is Rs.130/-per
KVA of billing demand and 269 p/u plus 76.59 p/u as
energy charges and FCA respectively which is cheaper
in comparison to the tariff applicable for other HT
consumers availing supply at 33 KV. Further, no
increase has been proposed in aforesaid rates in the
present tariff petition. The objector has not
indicated the names of the other State Electricity
Boards. However, it may be observed from the
comparative tariff study enclosed with the tariff
petitions that in heavy industries the rate of MPSEB
stands at No.5 from the top and as such the rates
prevailing in M.P. are reasonable.
TOP
Tariff for Cement Industries
5.3.25 The tariff for cement industries in
Chhattisgarh is 60% of the rate charged in Madhya
Pradesh.
5.3.26 It has been clarified by MPSEB that the
rates prevailing in CSEB for cement factories are
cheaper only by about 10% to 13% and not 60%.
Further, CSEB is a revenue surplus SEB while MPSEB
is a revenue deficit SEB and, therefore, the tariff
rates are required to be higher in MPSEB in
comparison to CSEB.
Tariff for Railways
5.3.27 Tariff should be based on the cost of
supply.
5.3.28 Railways have argued that the tariff
should be brought down to a reasonable level based
on the cost of supply.
5.3.29 MPSEB has put forth the argument that over
a period of time the tariffs have got distorted due
to socio-economic considerations. The Board is now
making efforts to reduce the cross-subsidy by
increasing the tariff for domestic, agricultural and
other subsidized categories. The process of
rationalization would be possible only over a period
of time.
5.3.30 The Board has also brought out several
factors to highlight the fact that the cost of
supply for railways is not same as that for other
EHT consumers because of the nature of the railway
load. These include two-phase unbalanced load
resulting in negative phase sequence currents, high
starting current and fluctuating nature of load. It
has also been argued by MPSEB that the Railways is
supplied with uninterrupted power supply while other
consumers are subjected to load shedding. Thus, it
is not appropriate to compare Railways to other
category of consumers.
5.3.31 Leading power factor should be ignored for
calculating power factor penalty.
5.3.32 The Board has presented detailed arguments
to justify charging for leading power factor. These
are discussed in brief below.
-
The theory of electrical engineering
clearly provides the basis for charging for
leading kVAh and there is no reason for ignoring
them as requested by the Board
-
The availability based tariff structure
effective from July 1, 2002 provides penalties for
injection of leading kVAh during high voltage
conditions.
-
Excessive capacitive compensation gives
rise to leading currents resulting in higher
losses.
-
Excessive capacitive compensation gives
rise to increase in system voltage, which can
damage the system and associated equipment.
-
The capacitive compensation provided by
the railways is not provided at the load point
where it is required.
-
Charging for leading power factor is in
consonance with the recommendations of the Central
Electricity Authority provided in their response
to MPERC’s query.
5.3.33 The Railways traction manual provides for
installation of switched capacitors wherever load
variations are wide. However, fixed type capacitors
have been installed and thus the power factor
becomes leading during no load or light load
conditions. The Board has argued that due to above
technical reasons and because Railways is
responsible for the leading power factor, the
current provision of penalty for leading power
factor should be continued. This matter has already
come to the Commission and the orders of the
Commission based on detailed examination are to be
issued shortly
5.3.34 The integration period for recording
maximum demand should be 30 minutes instead of 15
minutes.
5.3.35 The Board has argued that for widely and
continuously fluctuating loads such as railways, an
integration period of 30 minutes does not precisely
reflect the actual quantum of demand imposed on the
system. It has also presented data to justify this
position. Data has also been presented to argue that
in case the load is of continuous character then an
integration period of 30 minutes as well as that of
15 minutes would result in the same billing demand.
The Board has also argued that it has to spend a
significant amount of capital to develop the
infrastructure and these costs have to be adequately
compensated through the tariff structure. Since in
this case the 30 minutes integration period does not
adequately reflect the demand imposed on the system,
the resultant tariff design on the basis of 30
minute integration would lead to under recovery of
costs and loss to the Board.
5.3.36 The demand charges should be levied on
Railways based on simultaneous maximum demand
recorded at all the contiguous Railways Traction Sub
Station fed by the same grid transformer of MPSEB.
5.3.37 MPSEB contended that as per the agreement
entered with electricity consumers including Railway
Traction, the power supply is given for use within
the identified premises. The Railway traction supply
points are normally situated at a distance of 40 to
60 kms. The connection of each Traction Substation
is governed by a separate HT agreement and metered
separately. As per provisions of Electricity
(Supply) Act since each connection of the Traction
Substation is to be metered and billed separately,
the computation of Simultaneous Maximum Demand
cannot be accepted as per provisions of tariff and
general conditions of supply.
5.3.38 The railways had objected that the
existing provision of 30% load factor as the minimum
charge resulted in an unfair burden because they
were already paying the demand charges for recovery
of fixed costs. The Board had clarified that since
it had to make available dedicated infrastructure
for Railways, provision for minimum charge was
necessary. The Board also informed that the existing
load factor is in the range of 28%-29% and an
increasing trend is evident.
The Commission is of the opinion that there is
merit in the argument of the Railways and hence
decided to reduce the load factor for minimum
charges to 28%. It is evident that this amendment
would provide some relief to the Railways while
simultaneously minimizing the financial impact on
the Board.
TOP
Tariff for Cold Storages
5.3.39 The Cold Storage is directly connected
with agricultural sector and therefore, the tariff
should be equal to agricultural consumers.
5.3.40 During the public hearing at Indore,
M.P. Cold Storage Association has urged that the
Cold Storage is directly connected with agricultural
sector and therefore, the tariff should be equal to
agricultural consumers. MPSEB has responded that the
agricultural tariff is generally kept lower looking
to paying capacity of the consumers and subsidy
being provided by the GoMP. Paying capacity of cold
storage consumers cannot be compared with an
individual agricultural consumer and therefore
application of seasonal tariff for LT industrial
consumer for cold storage availing supply at LT and
HT slab tariffs for cold storage at HT is in order.
TOP
Tariff for Public institutions/ charitable
organizations
5.3.41 One of the arguments during the
hearings was that social organizations, trusts,
trust hospitals, charitable organizations,
charitable hospitals, may be charged at domestic
tariff. Plants helping environment be given special
rate as in Maharashtra.
5.3.42 The hospitals run by the Charitable
trusts, general hospitals, mosques, temples,
churches, religious institutions are supplied
electricity at domestic tariff. The nurseries
growing forest plants and without commercial motives
are supplied electricity at cheaper agriculture
tariff. However, the nurseries having commercial
motives are supplied electricity at non-domestic
tariff.
5.3.43 The public service organizations may
be billed on domestic tariff instead of non-domestic
tariff.
5.3.44 The LT domestic tariff is a subsidized
tariff, which is applicable for the domestic
appliances and household affairs. The average
existing rate for domestic consumers comes to 212.66
P/U whereas the cost of supply at LT has been worked
out as 515 P/U. The domestic tariff is being fixed
at subsidized rates, as the electricity forms a
basic need. The activities of public service
organizations cannot be equated with that of the
domestic activities and hence the applicability of
subsidized domestic tariff to these consumers does
not appear to be reasonable.
TOP
Tariff for Water works
5.3.45 Water works tariff may not be
increased, as the burden would get transferred to
public.
5.3.46 MPSEB pleaded that LT agricultural
water works tariff; at present is 225.59 p/u (149 +
76.59) while the rate of HT water tariff is 250.59
p/u (174+76.59) against the cost of supply of power
of 515 p/u at LT and 244 p/u at HT. An increase of
about 20% has been proposed both in HT and LT water
works tariff so that atleast cost of supply is
recovered. Further, HT Water Works cross subsidizes
the LT water works to some extent. The average cost
of supply is 413 p/u.
Tariff for Powerlooms
5.3.47 Power loom tariff should be similar to
the tariff in Maharashtra. Concessional tariff
should be fixed for power looms upto 10 HP load.
5.3.48 In Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
flat rate of Rs. 450 per loom per month (based on 8
hour working) for power loom consumers is applicable
till the meters are installed. Thereafter, they will
be billed at the rate applicable for general motive
power which is equal to fixed charge of Rs. 60/- per
HP/month for 50% sanctioned load plus energy charges
of 265 p/u upto 1000 units, 325 p/u for units in
excess of 1000 units and upto 3000 units and 365 p/u
for balance units inclusive of T&D loss charge of 25
p/u. It may thus be seen that metered power loom
tariff is quite high in Maharashtra compared to
existing rate of 200 p/u in M.P. Further, the
proposed power loom tariff of 300 p/u in M.P. is
quite comparable to existing metered power loom
tariff in Maharashtra. At present power loom tariff
is made applicable upto 25 HP connected load and
most of the small power loom consumers are lying
within the category of connected load upto 10 HP.
The proposed rate has therefore been considered by
MPSEB.
5.3.49 Tariff for Hotel, Tourism and Travel :
Hotel, tourism, and travel have been recognized as
industries and therefore separate subsidized tariff
may be considered.
5.3.50 MPSEB replied on the request for a
separate subsidized tariff for hotel, tourism and
travel that in case of availing their supply at LT,
LT non-domestic tariff is applicable and for the
hotels availing supply at HT, General Purpose tariff
is billed because this class of consumers are
operating on the commercial principles and earning
profits out of their activities.
TOP
Tariff for temporary connections:
5.3.51 Tariff of temporary connections may be
reduced.
5.3.52 MPSEB replied that prior to 5th Oct. 2001,
temporary tariff was twice that of normal tariff.
However, the Hon’ble MPERC vide its order dt.
26.9.2001, has reduced the temporary supply tariff
to 1.5 times of normal tariff, therefore, tariff for
temporary supply may not be reduced further.
5.4 Issues Related to Tariff Structure
and Design
TOD Tariff
5.4.1 TOD tariff may not be considered for
abolition.
5.4.2 Several HT consumers and their
Associations have represented against Board’s
proposal for abolition of TOD tariff. In this
connection, MPSEB has submitted that it is presently
passing through acute power shortage and for most of
the period of the year the system load curve is
generally flat. Due to flat load curve, net impact
of TOD tariff is that without any additional
consumption, the consumers are getting the benefit
of concessional tariff at night hours without any
relief to the system. Here, it may also be mentioned
that whatever relief the Board may get during peak
hour restriction through TOD tariff, the energy
saved is mostly being drawn by the agricultural
consumers by operating their three phase pumps in
single phasing condition by using phase splitters.
Unless the supply is interrupted from 132 KV
Sub-station, this situation cannot be corrected and
the energy saved through TOD process is being used
by agriculture consumers for whom the tariff
determined is too low as compared to cost of supply.
The Commission through this tariff order
would take suitable steps to deter power consumption
during peak load hours.
TOP
Minimum Charge
5.4.3 A large number of HT/LT consumers have
represented that Minimum charge may be fixed on the
basis of reduced supply hours in case the power is
not made available for all the 24 hours.
5.4.4 MPSEB has submitted that the tariff
minimum charges have been prescribed to recover the
expenditure required to be incurred regularly and
constantly by the Board towards payment of interest
on capital borrowed for creating infrastructure,
depreciation of the equipment and operation &
maintenance of the infrastructure irrespective of
the fact whether the electricity generated and
transmitted upto the premises of the consumer is
used by him or not. The prescribed monthly minimum
charges have been kept so low that even if Board’s
HT and LT consumers are consuming electricity for a
period varying from a few hours to 10 - 12 hours,
they shall be able to consume electricity equivalent
to prescribed minimum charge. Here it may also be
mentioned that the proportion of fixed cost and
variable cost for MPSEB is 56:44 whereas the
existing tariff enables recovery of only about 15 to
20% revenue through tariff minimum charges.
5.4.5 The proposed minimum charge of Rs. 75
on single light point connection is very high.
5.4.6 With regard to the minimum charge of
Rs.75/- on SLP connections, it may be mentioned that
at present, SC/ST consumers living below poverty
line are eligible for free supply upto 20 units per
month subject to tariff minimum charges of Rs.50/-
per month per connection. The bills of eligible
SC/ST SLP consumers are being paid by the State
Government @ Rs.50/- per month per connection. A
limited sample study has indicated that a large
section of SLP consumers are consuming more than 100
units/month., Till the SLP consumers are meterized,
it is not possible to correctly assess their
consumption. Therefore, the minimum charge of
Rs.75/- appears to be reasonable to MPSEB.
TOP
Peak Load Hour Surcharge
5.4.7 The Peak Load Hour surcharge may not be
considered:
5.4.8 Several HT consumers and their
Associations have represented against the proposal
of additional peak load hour tariff. In this
connection, the MPSEB has submitted that their
system is severely stressed on account of high
demand in the peak load hours. Due to constant
demand in the system in peak load hours, the Board
is required to overdraw power from Central Sector
Generating Stations and is required to pay peak rate
for power purchase (around Rs. 4.20 per unit) at
frequency below 49 Hz. It is, therefore necessary
that the HT consumers who have been permitted to
avail power during peak load hours should share at
least partial burden of the utility on account of
costly power purchase in peak load hours.
Accordingly, the peak load additional tariff of only
15% of the energy charges has been proposed to be
recovered from such industrial consumers.
Merger of FCA
5.4.9 The FCA may not be merged with the
tariff otherwise it will result in huge financial
burden on the consumers in the form of duty.
5.4.10 Most of the objectors have represented
against the proposed merger of FCA with the energy
charges, as it will increase the rate of electricity
duty payable by them. The MPSEB has submitted that
it is customary to merge FCA charges with energy
charges at the time of tariff revision. Earlier
also, the Board during tariff revisions w.e.f. Dec.
80 and Oct. 92 had merged the FCA rates of 5.37 p/u
and 60 p/u respectively with the energy charges.
This practice has been followed by other SEBs also.
For example, at the time of tariff revision in
Andhra Pradesh (APTRANSCO) w.e.f. 5.6.2000, in Uttar
Pradesh (UPPCL) w.e.f. 9.8.2000 and in Gujarat
w.e.f. 10.10.2000, FCA rates were merged with energy
charges and necessary formula of FCA was required to
be submitted to their respective Commissions for
determination of a transparent formula.
TOP
T&D Loss
5.5.1 T&D Loss Surcharge may not be
considered because loss reduction and efficient
performance is the responsibility of the Board.
5.5.2 Number of HT/LT consumers have
represented against the proposed levy of T&D loss
surcharge. In this connection, MPSEB has submitted
that the T&D loss surcharge has been proposed on the
basis that MPSEB alone should not be blamed for high
T&D losses. The cost of commercial losses is the
cost of additional power purchase required on
account of higher energy input. Accordingly, in line
with the T&D loss charge as introduced in
Maharashtra as per direction of Maharashtra State
Electricity Regulatory Commission, the T&D loss
surcharge has been proposed by the Board so that
there is greater awareness and social pressure
against theft of electricity.
Commission has not agreed with the proposal of
the Board in this regard but at the same time
expects the honest consumers to cooperate by way of
exchange of information about abstraction of energy
by anyone if it is to their knowledge.
Power Factor Incentive
5.6.1 The power factor penalty / incentive
may also be considered to be extended to LT
industries (at present it is applicable to only HT
industries).
5.6.2 Once the static Meters capable of
measurement of power factor are installed at the
premises of all the LT industries, the power factor
penalty as well as incentive scheme could be given
due consideration by the Board.
5.6.3 The power Factor incentive should be
given from 0.90 instead of 0.95. The incentive be
doubled from 0.95 to 1.0.
5.6.4 Shri R.P. Agrawal of Association of
Industries, Dewas and some other Associations of
Industries have requested during the public hearings
that the power factor incentive should be given from
0.90 instead of 0.95 and the incentive rate be
doubled from 0.95 to 1.0. MPSEB has submitted that
the power factor incentive is not given by all State
Electricity Boards and the same has been made
applicable in the neighbouring States of
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa etc. including MPSEB.
Wherever power factor incentive is given, it is for
achievement above 0.95 except in Orissa. In Orissa,
incentive is given when power factor is above 0.97.
TOP
Load factor Incentive
5.7.1 The load factor incentive may not be
reduced and may be extended to all other industries.
5.7.2 Shri P.L. Nene on behalf of M.P.Cement
Manufacturers Association, Satna, mentioned that the
load factor incentive being given for certain
industries may not be reduced. Further, Shri Alok
Saboo of M.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry,
Gwalior requested that load factor incentive should
be made applicable to all industries.
5.7.3 MPSEB has submitted that the aforesaid
load factor based concession was offered to certain
core industries to save Electro-Chemical /
Electro-Thermal, Ferro Alloys units and Mini Steel
Plants from general recession and to introduce a
comparable tariff for Cement Industries which is
nearly at par with cost of captive generation. Hence
the aforesaid concession should not be extended to
all industries.
5.7.4 The bulk consumer may be given cheaper
power.
5.7.5 During the public hearing, it was
pleaded before the Hon’ble MPERC that the bulk
consumers may be given cheaper power. In this
connection, it is to submit that according to the
commercial principles, it is true that the bulk
purchaser of any commodity should be offered cheaper
rates as compared to retail consumers. MPSEB, in
line with the provisions of the MP Vidyut Sudhar
Adhiniyam 2000, has not proposed any hike for HT
consumers and thereby has tried to reduce cross
subsidization and encourage bulk consumption.
TOP
Two-part tariff
5.8.1 Two-part tariff may be introduced for
non-domestic connections also.
5.8.2 Several non-domestic consumers and
their associations particularly Association of
Private Medical Practitioners have resisted against
the concept of connected load in non-domestic
installation and have requested for introduction of
a demand based two part tariff for non-domestic
connections also. MPSEB has submitted that the
demand based two-part tariff for non-domestic
consumes could be prescribed for the consumers
having contract demand above 20 KW.
5.8.3 MD based tariff may be designed for ice
factories.
5.8.4 Shri B.B.Bhargava, Ice Factory, Gwalior
suggested that MD based tariff may be designed for
ice factories. MPSEB has submitted that
Alternative-II of the existing LT industrial tariff
is a Two Part MD based tariff, which is applicable
to the industries, and ice factories can avail it as
well. The Tariff Minimum is on monthly basis.
| 
