|
7.1 The Madhya Pradesh Vidyut
Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 prescribes the framework
under which the Commission can determine the
tariffs. The principles to be followed by the
Commission as contained in the Section 26 (2)
are reproduced below.
(a) that the tariff progressively
reflect the cost of supply of electricity at an
adequate and improving level of efficiency;
(b) the factors which would encourage
efficiency, economical use of the resources,
good performance, optimum investments and other
matters which the State Commission considers
appropriate for the purpose of this Act;
(c) the electricity generation,
transmission, distribution and supply are
conducted on commercial principles;
(d) the interests of the consumers are
safeguarded and at the same time, the consumers
pay for the use of electricity in a reasonable
manner;
(e) the principles and their
applications provided in Sections 46 and 57 of
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (No. 54 of
1948) and the Sixth Schedule thereto; and
(f) in the case of the Board the
principles under section 59 of the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 are observed
7.2 Further, sub-section (3) of
Section 26 provides that the tariff determined
by the Commission
(a) shall not show undue preference to
any consumer of electricity, but may
differentiate according to the consumer’s load
factor, power factor, and total consumption of
electricity during any specified period or the
time at which supply is required or the
geographical position of any area, the nature of
supply and the purpose for which the supply is
required or paying capacity of category of
customers and need for cross subsidization.
(b) Shall, except in the case of
financially weak consumers who are to be
provided limited quantum of electricity at
reduced tariff for meeting the basic needs, be
in a manner that the existing subsidy given to
any class or classes of consumer by charging
higher tariff from other classes of consumer is
progressively reduced and within a period of
five years from the commencement of this Act the
tariff to any class of consumer shall reflect a
minimum of seventy five per cent of the
licensee’s average cost of supply of electricity
to that class;
(c) Shall be just and reasonable and be
such as to promote efficiency in the supply and
consumption of electricity; and
(d) Shall satisfy all other relevant
provisions of the Act, regulations and
conditions of licence.
TOP
7.3 The Commission has followed the
above-specified principles while designing
tariff for all consumer categories. However,
given the extent of distortion in the prevailing
tariff structure, it has been possible for the
Commission to move forward to a limited extent.
This existing tariff structure has evolved over
past several years due to socio-political
considerations and contains multiple
distortions. Tariff rationalization by way of
corrections of distortion and rebalancing needs
to be undertaken in a gradual manner over a
reasonable period of time. The flaws in the
current tariff design, the process of correction
and the steps initiated in the current tariff
order are discussed below.
Recovery of fixed and variable costs
7.4 During the course of public
hearing, many consumers suggested that in case
of no consumption of energy during a particular
month, the Board should not raise any bill on
them for that month.
7.5 The Commission is of the
opinion that once a connection for supply is
given by the Board, whether the consumer
consumes electricity or not, the Board has to
incur certain costs. These costs are incurred to
install and maintain the infrastructure
necessary for supply and are fixed in nature.
For instance, the Board has to incur expenditure
on creating generation capacity, laying
transmission and distribution lines, building
transmission and distribution substations as
well as offering distribution services such as
metering, billing, collection, administration
and processing consumer requests and complaints.
These expenses are incurred irrespective of
actual consumption of energy.
7.6 The following table presents
the allocation of ARR as determined by the
Commission into fixed and variable costs as
well as the average fixed charges in Rs/KW and
variable charges in paise/Kwh.
Rs. in crores
|
No.
|
Particulars
|
Fixed
|
Variable
|
Total
|
-
|
Own Generation Expenses
|
|
1124.63
|
1124.63
|
-
|
Power Purchase expenses
|
1662.88
|
893.99
|
2556.87
|
-
|
Employees Expenses
|
738.75
|
|
738.75
|
-
|
Administrative & General Expenses
|
70.01
|
|
70.01
|
-
|
Repair & Maintenance Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Generation
|
182.71
|
|
182.71
|
|
|
b) T&D
|
159.92
|
|
159.92
|
-
|
Depreciation
|
458.84
|
|
458.84
|
-
|
Net interest & finance charges
|
421.03
|
|
421.03
|
-
|
3% Return u/s 59
|
126.17
|
|
126.17
|
-
|
Total (1 to 9)
|
3525.31
|
2018.62
|
5543.93 |
-
|
Less Non-tariff Income
|
|
|
|
-
|
Aggregate Revenue Requirement
|
3525.31
|
2018.62
|
5543.93
|
-
|
Percentage |
63.6%
|
36.4%
|
|
|
13.
|
Connected Load projections for 2002-03 - KW
|
-
|
LT
|
7116580
|
|
-
|
HT
|
1983506
|
|
-
|
Aggregate
|
9100085
|
|
-
|
Energy sales projections for 2002-03 - MUs
|
-
|
LT
|
|
10362.43
|
-
|
HT
|
|
5296.19
|
-
|
Aggregate
|
|
15658.63
|
-
|
Fixed cost (Rs. per KW per month)
|
323
|
|
-
|
Variable cost (paise per unit)
|
|
129
|
7.7 While the proportion of fixed
costs of the Board is approximately 64% of the
total costs, many consumer categories do not
even have the component of fixed charges. The
current tariff order has attempted to correct
this anamoly by introducing fixed charges for
major consumer categories such as domestic, non
domestic and HT irrigation.
TOP
7.8
Subsidy from State Government
The Board in its proposal has projected for
subsidy in the form of adjustment against
Electricity Duty amount to Rs.398.86 crore.
The Commission held a meeting with the officials
of the State Govt. on the tariff petition of the
Board. The officials stated that they would be
taking appropriate decisions regarding the
quantum and nature of support to the state power
utilities at an appropriate time.
After the meeting with State Chief Secretary and
Principal Secretary (Finance Department), a
formal reply has been filed by the Under
Secretary in the Energy Department, who was
authorized to file the sworn affidavit on behalf
of the State Government, stating that ‘the views
expressed are only recommendations of the State
Government as to the tariffs and are not
directions for grant of subsidy in terms of
sub-section (4) of section 26 of the Madhya
Pradesh Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000. It is the
view of the Government that these rates are
eminently appropriate for safeguarding the
interests of both consumers and the utility. The
decision on the grant of subsidy to any class or
category of consumers and the extent thereof
will be taken by the Government after the
tariffs are determined by the Commission and the
tariff rates are communicated to the State
Government.’
7.8.1 The Commission has designed the tariff
structure as per provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam 2000 so that
except concessional tariff to weaker section,
tariff of all other categories is brought
atleast to the level of 75% of the cost of
supply after 5 years w.e.f. the date of effect
of the Adhiniyam i.e. 03.07.2001. Keeping in
view the ARR approved by the Commission, there
is a huge gap to be met. The Commission has kept
tariff of metered agricultural consumers at
Rs.2.4 per unit and corresponding slab tariff
have been computed by increasing the above
metered rate by 10%. The State Government had
suggested that metered tariff for agriculture
should be brought down to Rs.1.00 per unit and
slab tariff structure corresponding to the
metered rate as Rs.1.10 per unit. This will
therefore have a huge implication on subsidy to
be provided by Government of Madhya Pradesh. On
the basis of prevailing Agriculture tariff,
subsidy to be provided to Madhya Pradesh State
Electricity Board by the Government on the
metered tariff of Rs.1.20/u and equivalent flat
rate of Rs.1.32 per unit, comes to Rs.736 crore
including a little shortfall in domestic
category. The State Government may decide the
quantum of subsidy it is willing to provide to
the Board to reduce the agricultural tariff.
Thus, in case the State Government gives a clear
commitment to provide subsidy of Rs.736.00
crores, then only the agricultural tariff of
Rs.2.40 per unit for metered category can be
brought down to Rs.1.20 and corresponding flat
tariff computed by increasing metered tariff by
10% to Rs.1.32 per unit. Subsidy of Rs.736
crores in a year means Rs.184 crore in a quarter
which should be passed on by the Government of
Madhya Pradesh in advance on quarterly basis.
This above subsidy is worked out for tariff
implication for whole year. It is however to be
kept in mind that the increase in tariff allowed
by this order will not provide the benefits to
MPSEB for the full year 2002-03; indeed less
than four months are remaining in the year
2002-03. The estimated revenue of Rs.636 crore
considered for whole of the year will actually
get the MPSEB only Rs.212 crore upto 31st March
2003 leaving a Gap of Rs.424 crore (Rs.636
crore – Rs.212 crore = Rs.424 crore) in the
financial year 2002-03. The Actual requirement
of subsidy by MPSEB will, therefore, become
Rs.736 crore + Rs.424 crore = Rs.1160 crore in
the year 2002-03. If subsidy from the
Government does not materialise, even the
existing rates of Rs.1.20 per unit for metered
agricultural consumers shall not be realistic.
TOP
7.9 Net Revenue Gap
Considering the ARR given above and the
estimated revenue at existing tariff for
2002-03, the Board shall be having a net revenue
gap of Rs. 1372.62 crore, which is summarized
below:
|
Particulars
|
MPSEB Proposal |
MPERC Approval |
|
|
Rs. in crores |
Rs. in crores |
|
ARR
|
6023.80
|
5543.93
|
|
Revenue from Sale at exiting Tariff
|
4029.15
|
4161.59
|
|
Gap
|
1994.66
|
1382.34
|
|
Revenue due to efficiency gains due to:
|
|
|
|
· Lower T&D losses
|
132.53
|
0.00
|
|
· Reduction in failure rate of
Transformers
|
9.72
|
9.72
|
|
Uncovered Gap
|
1852.41
|
1372.62
|
|
State Government Subsidy
|
398.86
|
736.02
|
|
Uncovered gap after considering subsidy
|
1453.55
|
636.60
|
As is evident from the above, the net uncovered
gap of Rs. 636.60 crore is to be met through
tariff revision for 2002-03.
7.1.1 Further, the Commission has also
introduced optional Maximum Demand (MD) based
two part tariff to the consumers who feel that
such a tariff structure would benefit them based
on their pattern of consumption.
TOP
Tariff for similar consumers in rural areas
7.1.2 Another important aspect deserving
attention while designing the tariff structure
is the difference in the availability of energy
to different group of consumers. During the
course of public hearings many consumers made a
forceful case for comparatively lower tariff for
rural consumers. The Commission has observed
that availability of energy to rural sector is
generally less than that for urban areas. Hence
tariff for consumers in rural areas should also
be lesser than that applicable for consumers in
urban areas. Accordingly, a separate tariff has
been proposed for the consumers in rural areas
for domestic and irrigation categories, which is
lower than the tariff for the same categories in
the urban areas.
Tariff and Cost of Supply
7.2 An efficient tariff design
links the tariff applicable to a consumer with
the cost of supply and service. There is a
substantial difference between the tariff for
different consumer categories and the cost of
supply as shown in Table below. HT consumers,
including industries, railways and commercial
complexes pay significantly higher than the cost
of supply while the LT consumers, particularly
domestic and agricultural, pay significantly
lower.
Average cost and tariff at Different Voltage
Levels (kV) in paise per unit
|
|
Transmission
|
Distribution
|
Distribution
|
Average
|
|
|
(400/220/132 kV- EHT)
|
(33/11 kV - HT)
|
(440 V - LT)
|
|
|
2000-01 (Actual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Cost of Supply
|
212.33
|
259.25
|
663.61
|
491.82
|
|
Average Tariff
|
450.33
|
305.23
|
175.90
|
251.87
|
|
Tariff as % of Cost
|
212.09%
|
117.73%
|
26.51%
|
51.21%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001-02 (Actual)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Cost of Supply
|
201.32
|
247.68
|
598.30
|
446.81
|
|
Average Tariff
|
441.64
|
317.63
|
192.42
|
264.41
|
|
Tariff as % of Cost
|
219.37%
|
128.25%
|
32.16%
|
59.18%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002-03 (Proposed by MPSEB)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Cost of Supply
|
201.63
|
243.77
|
514.77
|
413.13
|
|
Average Tariff
|
468.95
|
409.02
|
280.22
|
319.68
|
|
Tariff as % of Cost
|
232.57%
|
167.79%
|
54.44%
|
77.38%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002-03 (Approved)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Cost of Supply
|
183.68
|
| |