Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ORDER
Dated: September 8, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF
Description
Page No.
SECTION-I
1
2
3
Preface
Background
Regulatory Process
1
2
3
SECTION-II
5
6
4
4
8
9
9
10
11
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
23
Sr. No.
Description
Page No.
SECTION-III
11
12
13
Appendix-I
9
10
24
24
26
26
27
27
27
29
29
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
34
ANNEXURE
Annexure
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Description
Service Connection Charges for new Overhead
connection
Service connection charges for new Underground
connection
Cost of Meter and Meter Box
Miscellaneous and General charges
Application Registration & Processing charges
Page
No.
36
37
38
39
40
Before the
ORDER
Dated: September 8, 2006
Preface:
Presently, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) is
recovering various charges from the consumers for the services, besides supply,
provided to them as per the MSEBs Conditions and Miscellaneous Charges for
Supply of Electrical Energy. Most of these charges are in force since July 1999,
except Service Line Charges, which are in force since 1991.
Till the enactment of Electricity Act (EA), 2003, MSEB was a vertically integrated
electricity board, having activities of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
electricity in the State of Maharashtra, formed under the provisions of Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948.
The Government of Maharashtra notified the Provisional Transfer Scheme under
Section 131 (5) (g) of the EA, 2003, on 6th June 2005, under which the four successor
Companies of the erstwhile MSEB, including MSEDCL, the distribution arm, were
formed. The MSEDCL has been registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai
on 31st May 2005 bearing certificate U40109 MH 2005 PLC 153645 under the
Companies Act, 1956.
Section 50 of EA, 2003 provides that the State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
hereinafter referred to as the Commission shall specify an Electricity Supply Code to
be adhered to by the Distribution Licensee in the State. Accordingly, the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has issued Electricity Supply Code and
Other Conditions of Supply Regulations, 2005 effective from January 20, 2005.
Page 1 of 40
As per Regulation No. 18 of the Supply Code Regulations, the distribution licensees
are required to file with the Commission for approval, a Schedule of Charges for
such matters required by the distribution licensee to fulfill its obligation to supply
electricity to consumers under the Act and other relevant Regulations.
Accordingly, MSEDCL
submitted the Schedule of Charges payable by its
consumers vide letter dated 2nd April 2005, and subsequently by their letter dated
15th June 2005, the Terms & Conditions of Supply, for the approval of the
Commission.
The Commission in exercise of the power vested in it under the provisions of MERC
(Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 and all
other powers enabling it in this behalf, and after taking in to consideration, all the
submissions made by MSEDCL, all the objections and issues raised during public
hearing, the responses of MSEDCL, and all other relevant material, hereby
determines the Schedule of Charges for various services provided by MSEDCL.
Page 2 of 40
1.1
MSEDCLs Proposal
1.1.1 The proposed Service Connection Charges are enclosed at annexures to the
proposal dated 2nd April 2005.
1.1.2 In the proposed charges, the fixed length of service wire is 30 (thirty) metres
and variable charges are proposed to be made applicable only up to further
15(fifteen) metres.
1.1.3 The Service Connection Charges are worked out at actuals based on
CPA (Central Purchase Agency) rates for various components. However, it is
proposed to continue with the existing Service Connection Charges for loads
up to 0.5 kW & for HT consumers.
An option is proposed to be given to the consumers to procure the required material
and make payment of only 10% of normative service connection charges to the
MSEDCL towards overall supervision and connection release charges.
Proposed charges for abovesaid purpose by MSEDCL are indicated in Annexure 1.
1.2 Objections
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) mainly objected to the escalated rates of the
materials required for releasing new connections. According to MGP the charges
should have been at CPA rates & not at retail prices, which according to them are
higher than CPA by about 30 % to 50 %. They have further commented that this kind
of higher charges would discourage the consumers from paying for the material &
instead they may choose to buy it from the market on their own. In this process the
efficiency of the Distribution network may get affected resulting in higher T & D/
System losses.
They have further stated that variable charges should not be based on cost of 30
metres of cable & other material; instead it should be on actual materials required.
They have also said that the charges should be at CPA rates plus direct charges of
5%. This suggestion, according to them if accepted by the licensee, would generate
more revenue by way of reduction in energy loss and thereby through the charges
(additional sales) collected from the consumers.
Vidarbha Industries Association (VIA) has strongly opposed levying of Service
Connection Charges on the ground that when the licensee has separately proposed
various charges under different heads i.e. Service Line Charges, Application
processing charges, Cost of Meter, supervision charges etc., then there is no
justification of collecting service connection charges from the consumer. During
public hearing Shri R. B. Goenka suggested that service wire upto the length of 30
metres should be provided free of cost.
Page 4 of 40
Page 5 of 40
Shri Pankaj Muni, Kamalesh Shah, Sunil Saraf have jointly submitted their objections
to the costing based on 30 metres length and have said that the charges should be
based on estimated cost of actual work involved. And if at all it has to be normative
then it should be irrespective of length involved and not in two parts. They have also
raised objection to the prices, which are on higher side by 25 to 30 % than that of
bulk purchaser.
Shri Nikit Abhyankar representing Shri Khedkar of Akhil Bharatiya Grahak
Panchayat (ABGP) stated that he has not received SICOMs comments and annexure
H of proposed Schedule of Charges from MSEDCL, as was published in the public
notice and on this ground itself the Commission should reject the proposed Schedule
of Charges. He had no specific comment on Service Connection Charges.
Malegaon Power loom & Sarvajanik veej Grahak Sangh objected to the proposed
Schdule of Charges and requested the Commission to reject the proposal of
MSEDCL.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Association pointed out that the proposal has
been submitted by the MSEDCL after the given period of one month of notification
without giving any reasoning /explanation for such delay. Hence prima facie it needs
to be dismissed.
Shri Ashwin Treasurer on behalf of Thane Small Scale Industries Association
submitted that Service Connection Charges should not be recovered from the
consumer at the time of extension of load.
Shri Ravi Anand of Electrical Consumers Association (ECA) stated that it is the duty
of Licensee to bring supply upto distributing mains and beyond that the cost is to be
borne by the consumer. He further stated that MSEDCL should submit a fresh
proposal considering market rates.
1.3 MSEDCLs Response
1.3.1 MSEDCL has clarified about the distinction between distribution mains and
service connection with the help of various provisions of EA, 2003. MSEDCL has
made a submission to the Commission that for the purpose of determination of
Schedule of Charges the distribution main should be considered as the nearest
available and technically feasible distribution network to which the
applicant/consumer can be connected. It is also required to make distinction between
applicability of Service Connection Charges, Service line charges and the estimated
actual cost.
Page 6 of 40
1.3.2 Service Connection Charges are payable by the applicant for connecting the
premises where connection is required to the nearest distribution infrastructure and it
does not include any cost towards any additional infrastructure work for providing
supply to the applicant. MSEDCL has pointed out that the recovery of SCC is
permitted under regulation no. 3.3.1 of the Supply Code Regulations issued by
MERC.
If the distribution main is available from where electric line is required to be provided
to the applicants premise or some plant is required to be set up, such expenses can be
recovered as Service Connection Charges by the distribution licensee.
1.3.3 As regards rates of materials, MSEDCL has clarified that they purchase various
materials through their Central Purchasing Agency (CPA); the time involved in
arranging the purchases is significantly higher considering the process of tendering it
has to follow. Therefore MSEDCL has empowered the local offices to purchase the
necessary items from the local retail market so as to meet the supply obligation stated
above. The cost available in the local market is higher by 30% to 40 % on an average
as compared to the bulk procurement CPA rates.
MSEDCL further submitted that the CPA rates used for the calculation of SCC at the
time of proposal have under gone significant change since the time of filing and need
to be revised. MSEDCL is willing to consider the revised CPA rates, without any
escalation for retail rates for computation of Schedule of Charges.
1.3.4 The actual work involved for providing connection to different consumers may
vary depending upon factors such as the type of consumer, required load, voltage
level and distance. Hence the Schedule of Charges is generalized provision applicable
to all the consumers, as it cannot be made specific to individual consumer on a caseto-case basis. MSEDCL has given the reference of Regulation 3.3.1 of the Supply
Code Regulation in respect of recovery of such expenses on the basis of average or
normative rates.
MSEDCL has also indicated their agreement to consider 20 metres as average
normative length in place of the average normative length of 30 metres of the service
connection. The revised schedule submitted is based on 20 metres as the average
normative length & revised CPA rates.
Page 7 of 40
Page 8 of 40
case of lost and burnt meter are indicated at Annexure-3. [For detailed Ruling refer
Section-III (5)]
6.2 Objections
VIA has objected to the levy of these charges saying that it is against the provisions
under the Electricity Act, 2003. Shri R B Goenka stated that under the Section 46,
Section 42(1) and Section 43(2) of EA, 2003, it is the duty of the licensee to provide
infrastructure. There should be a threshold beyond which the scope of the consumer
should start. This scope of consumer should start beyond the distribution mains. He
Page 11 of 40
also cited Section 43 of EA, 2003, It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee
to provide, if required electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the
premises, specified in sub section (1). He stated that MSEDCL can recover the cost
of plant and equipment only if the consumer requires dedicated or express feeders
specifically used by him. He further added that the MSEDCL has taken the cost of 33
KV Sub station, 33 KV lines, Distribution transformer, etc. for arriving the normal
cost. However as per the provisions of EA, 2003, MSEDCL cannot charge 33kV &
11kV infrastructure beyond distribution mains.
Further the expenditure incurred by the licensee for the development & strengthening
of the distribution network /infrastructure becomes the part of ARR and is duly
considered by way of appropriate provision in tariff rates.
Shri S D Damle suggested that since the collection of Service Line Charges is for
building a healthy distribution system, MERC should permit the licensee to levy such
charges at fair & reasonable rates. He has further said that the amount so collected
under the head SLC by any sub division of the licensee must be spent in the same sub
division for the improvement / strengthening of distribution network and not for any
other assets like buildings, vehicles etc. Also this kind of utilization of the funds as
above should be monitored and controlled.
Maharashtra Rajya Veej Grahak Sanghatana, Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak
Association, Maharashtra State Power loom Federation and Halari Power loom
Owners and weavers Association have strongly objected to these charges on the
ground that other licensees do not seem to levy this charge.
MECA has objected to the levy of these charges stating that it is contrary to the
provisions under section 42 of EA, 2003 and hence this proposal should be rejected.
Malegaon Industries & Power loom Manufacturers Association has stated that
Section 42 of the EA, 2003 provides that the infrastructure development is the duty of
the licensee. Shri Shahid Ansari requested that the proposal should be rejected, as it
was not submitted within specified time after the MERC notification.
NIMA has stated that unit charges are inclusive of generation, transmission &
distribution cost, hence separate Service Line Charges should not be demanded from
the consumers. They have further stated that if these charges are levied, the initial
cost of new connection will become very high and prospective consumers will tend to
resort to pilferage /theft for not getting service line from the licensee. Shri Madhukar
Brahmankar objected to the classification on the basis of Rural /Urban area. He added
that SLC and SCC should not be recovered from the farmers. Also SLC should not be
collected at the time of additional load requirement, as there are no infrastructure
activities involved.
Tata Motors Ltd. has stated that these charges are justified only when the costs of the
items required for service line are not getting reflected /included under capital work
provisions made under ARR, because MSEDCL normally receives the finance /funds
from REC/PFC or other financial institution for such type of work.
Page 12 of 40
Shri U M Joshi & S W Pasarkar, members of MGP, Thane Division have objected
saying that it is against the law. Shri Ujwalraj Joshi submitted that they have not
received feedback regarding copy of proposal from MSEDCL. MSEDCLs proposal
on SLC does not mention regarding penalty, which may be considered.
Shri Pankaj Muni, Kamalesh Shah, Sunil Saraf have objected on the ground that as
per Supply Code Regulations & provisions under Section 42 of EA, 2003, it is the
responsibility of the licensee to develop the infrastructure
MGP has strongly objected to the levy of these charges as it goes against the
provisions under section 42(1) of Electricity Act 2003. The existing method of
charging SLC & SCC should be scrapped and only SCC should be allowed in
accordance with provisions of the law.
Dr. Ashok Pendse explained the difference between the Service Connection Charges
and the Service Line Charges. He raised several objections against the proposed
Service line charges with following reasons:
a) In open access system, whenever it becomes effective, the MSEDCL will be able
to recover the cost of Service line from anybody who gets the supply through that
line.
b) He referred to the preamble of APDRP in which four objectives are mentioned:
i) Reduction in T & D Losses,
ii) Increase in collection efficiency,
iii) Increase in the consumer mass /no. of consumers and
iv) Convenience to consumers.
The third objective of APDRP relates basically to capital expenditure. The
Commission is allowing expenditure for works covered under APDRP for developing
infrastructure, as developing infrastructure is the responsibility of utility. If the
Commission accepts this principle then there cannot be any SLC at all, simply on the
ground that it is the responsibility of the utility to lay the network. He further stated
that he is aware of financial difficulty faced by MSEDCL as on today. Under the
circumstances, the Commission may partially approve some of the charges, which
can be recovered from the consumers, like Regulatory Liability Charge and refund it
to the consumers after six months. This can be a temporary measure, as the MSEDCL
may not be having Capital expenditure sanctioned for distribution network
development. As a principle, it is the responsibility of the Distribution Licensee to
develop necessary infrastructure.
c) Dr. Pendse further stated the need for defining the point from which the
responsibility of the consumer starts. He added that this can happen at different
voltage levels and once it is defined and accepted by the Commission for MSEDCL,
the same will be applicable to other utilities like BEST, TPC, REL as there should be
a common methodology.
d) He raised objection about the method of charging on the basis of the square feet
area of the premises for which the supply is required. He also stated that there should
not be any discrimination on the basis of the locality such as whether it is in CIDCO,
Page 13 of 40
MHADA or any other society. The charges should be on the basis of the load
requirement and not on the basis of a carpet area. He also stated that the other utilities
like Telecom, Income tax dept.& Water supply do not levy charges based on the
carpet area.
Shri Nikit Abhankar stated that he is also of the same opinion as that of Dr. Pendse,
that the licensee cannot recover the cost of infrastructure development from the
consumers. It has to be passed on through the ARR in the tariff revision process.
Hence this item should be excluded from the proposal.
Shri Bhalachandra on behalf of ISPAT stated that the basis of calculation of SLC &
SCC be made available to the consumers. He also said that in case of additional load
sanction, the SLC or SCC should not be charged. His point was that there is no
specific time frame stipulated for categorization of Urban / Rural to take effect and
requested MERC to expedite it. He said that ISPAT Industry be categorized under
Rural area whereby SLC rates will be half. This categorization should be made
effective with retrospective effect, whereby the already paid SLC at higher rate be
refunded or adjusted against the SLC required for additional load. His next point was
about the penalty for excess demand, which is proposed three times of SLC. He
submitted that penalty for exceeding the contract demand is a Tariff issue and it is not
clear as to how it can be linked with SLC. Finally he requested the Commission that
in case any new consumer is brought under SLC then correspondingly SLC should be
reduced to EHV consumers.
Shri Faizan Ahmad Azmi of Maharashtra State Power loom Federation, Bhiwandi
stated that as per their knowledge other distribution companies in the State do not
recover SLC from the consumers. He further stated that as per Supply Code, the
Distribution Licensee should not take SLC. He also mentioned that the CPA rates
shown in the proposal are 30 % higher.
He also pointed out that in Bhiwandi SLC from non-SSI power looms is being
collected at the rate of Rs 1300/- per HP instead of Rs 650/- as shown in the proposal
and requested the Commission to look in to the matter and direct the MSEDCL to
refund the excess amount collected so far.
Shri Chandulal J. Sumaria of Halari Power loom Owners and weavers Association
submitted that the actual collection and the rates mentioned by MSEDCL in the
proposal are different and requested the Commission to conduct an enquiry.
Shri Ashwin Treasurer of Thane Small Scale Industries Association submitted that as
per Section 43 of EA, 2003 and Regulation 3.3 of supply code, service line only from
Distribution main has to be charged to the consumer. For augmentation in distribution
capacity, it is to be charged on pro rata basis. He further stated that in case of
dedicated line only a small cost towards transformer be recovered from the consumer.
There cannot be transformer cost involved in every service connection charges.
He further stated that as regards the issue of type of the structure i.e. Kachhapucca, the licensee has not studied the Act and Regulations. The entire Schedule is
irrational & arbitrary. The method of charging on the basis of square foot area is
debatable and should not be considered for approval.
Page 14 of 40
Page 16 of 40
Page 17 of 40
Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak Association stated that the Miscellaneous &
General Charges are 3 to 16 times higher than existing rates and the charges should
be based on actual expenditure.
8.2 MSEDCLs Response
Higher charges have been proposed for reconnection of power supply as, such higher
reconnection charges may, up to certain extent, act as a deterrent factor and may,
motivate the consumers to pay the energy bills on time. This is for encouraging
prompt payment and to discourage consumer from becoming defaulter.
8.3 Commissions Ruling
The Commission views the existing charges to be reasonable and reflecting the cost
involved based on the material and work estimation. However, in order to further
rationalize the charges, Commission directs MSEDCL to recover reconnection
charges as indicated in Annexure-4. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7)(ii)]
9) Changing location of the meters within the same premise
9.1 Objections
MGP has suggested that the charge should be Rs.50 plus the cost of required material
if the location change is done at the request of the consumer. If the licensee wants to
do it for his or her own reasons then entire cost including post meter work should be
borne by the distribution licensee.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objected that the proposed rate of Rs. 100/- is very high.
Existing rate of Rs. 30/- is in order.
9.2 MSEDCLs Response
The charges for changing of location of meter are charged as per lump sum charges
and hence work sheet is not provided.
9.3 Commissions Ruling
Considering the average cost of material and labour involved in shifting of meter, the
normative charges of Rs. 100/- proposed by MSEDCL appears to be reasonable and
the Commission approves the proposed charges with the condition that this should
cover the total cost including the cost of material required for changing the location of
the meter at the behest of the consumer.
The charges for changing the location of meter within the premise will be applicable
only in cases where the shifting is to be done at the request of the consumer.
However, when MSEDCL seeks to have the location changed on justified ground
such as safety requirement etc., then the cost of such shifting shall be entirely borne
by MSEDCL. [For detailed Ruling refer Section-III (7)(iii)]
Page 18 of 40
Page 21 of 40
Page 22 of 40
15.2 Objections
MGP has stated that the proposed charges for CT/PT are almost double. As far as
other items added for the first time are concerned, the basis of working out these
charges is not given. As regards other items, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has stated
that these are all optional items. It is the responsibility of the licensee and there is no
provision in the Act, hence it should not be granted. They further stated that Service
call charges should be Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) per hour instead of Rs. 200/- (Rupees
two hundred) per 4 (four) hours and part thereof.
VIA has stated that the proposed charges should be based on the cost of equipment
with a calculation for interest and depreciation on the cost of equipment. They further
stated that the proposed charges are very high and without any basis of calculations.
Veej Grahak Samiti has objected that the proposed rates are very high and there is a
need to consider the basic cost of the equipment and the hiring charges levied on it,
hence this proposal should not be sanctioned. It is the responsibility of the licensee
and hence even existing charges should be abolished.
15.3 MSEDCLs Response
Hiring charges are optional charges and will be applicable only when the consumer
will opt to hire any of the equipment owned by MSEDCL.
15.4 Commissions Ruling
Charges proposed for providing various types of equipments to the consumer are on
hire basis and charges for testing of equipments belonging to consumer cannot be
considered under Schedule of Charges, as these are non-regulatory items generating
other income for the licensee.
Section 42(1) of the Act stipulates that it shall be the duty of the distribution
licensee to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical
distribution system in his area of supply ..
From the schedule of charges proposed by MSEDCL it is observed that
Service Line Charges basically covers the cost of infrastructure between the
delivery points on the transmission lines and the distributing mains. Whereas,
Service Connection is interpreted as a link between Licensees nearest
distribution points (i.e. distributing main) to the point of supply at consumers
premises, which also includes other accessories, i.e. any apparatus connected
to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity & SCC covers cost
involved in providing service connection from distributing mains.
As regards collecting charges for the cost of works involved in releasing new
connection, Section 46 of EA, 2003 provides that the State Commission may by
Regulation, authorise the Distribution Licensee to charge from a person requiring
supply of electricity, any expenses reasonably incurred in providing any electricity
line or electricity plant used for the purpose of giving that supply.
Page 24 of 40
Thus as per the Act, powers are vested with the Commission to formulate Regulations
specifying the principles for recovering the expenses involved in releasing the
connection which are set out in Regulation 3 of MERC (Supply Code and Other
Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005.
Regulation 3.3.2. of Electricity Supply Code authorizes the Distribution licensee to
recover all expenses reasonably incurred in laying down service line from the
distribution mains to applicants premises from the applicant.
Thus the applicant is required to pay the entire cost of Service connection line from
the distribution main to his premise.
MSEDCL has proposed to recover SCC at normative rates based on the sanctioned
load/Contract Demand (kW/kVA). The rates are worked out on the basis of average
cost involved in releasing the connection to consumer in these load slabs. In the
original proposal the charges for 30 metres length were worked out on the basis of
cost for standard bill of materials involved for providing 30 metres of service
connection. However, in the light of objections received, MSEDCL has reworked the
charges based on 20 metres service connection length & latest rates of materials.
The proposal of MSEDCL to recover charges on normative basis is in line with the
Regulation 3.3.1 of Supply Code Regulations. However, MSEDCL has proposed a
variable component based on per metre cost of connection, for providing service
connection of length more than 30 meters. By measurement-linked charges, the very
purpose of providing normative charges would be defeated.
In order to simplify the procedure while releasing the connection and to avoid
discretion and disputes at field level, the Commission has decided to dispense with
the measurement linked variable charges. Commission has further decided to
rationalize the normative charges by reducing the load slabs proposed by MSEDCL.
The normative Service Connection Charges as approved by the Commission are
indicated in Annexure 1.
MSEDCL has proposed to recover 10% of the normative SCC towards overall
supervision and connection release charges, where consumer opts to procure the
required material.
MSEDCL has not furnished any worksheets/calculations for the proposed recovery of
10% of normative SCC.
While Regulation 3.3.8 of Supply Code Regulations provides that Distribution
Licensee may permit an applicant to carry out works through a Licensed Electrical
Contractor, the Licensee in that case, is not entitled to recover expenses relating to
such portion of works so carried out by the applicant. The Licensee shall be entitled
to recover only the supervision charges not exceeding the 15% of the cost of labour.
MSEDCL in their calculation sheets has already worked out supervision charges,
involved in releasing the service connection for different load slabs. From the
worksheets it is seen that the average supervision charges are in the range of 1.30 to
1.35% of the total estimated cost involved.
Page 25 of 40
In view of above, the Commission approves a rate of 1.30% of the normative charges
to be recovered towards supervision charges in case MSEDCL permits an applicant to
carry out the works through a Licensed Electrical Contractor.
In case a consumer applies for an additional load/contract demand i.e. extension of
load and if the release of additional load/contract demand entails any new works, the
Commission allows MSEDCL to recover the normative charges for the total
load/contract demand (existing as well as additional load) as per the applicable load
slabs indicated in Annexure - 1 and 2.
2)
3)
Page 26 of 40
4)
5)
Page 27 of 40
7)
i)
Regulation 9 of supply code provides that the wiring of consumers premises shall
conform to the standards specified in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. As per Rule
47, it is the duty of the supplier to inspect & test applicants installation before
connecting the supply. As per Rule 53(1), the cost of first inspection & testing of a
consumers installation carried out in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 47 shall be
borne by the supplier & the cost of every subsequent inspection & test shall be borne
by the consumer.
Page 29 of 40
In view of above, the Commission directs MSEDCL not to charge any amount for
first inspection and testing of consumers installation at the time of giving new
connection. For all the subsequent tests & inspection of the consumers installation as
per the provisions under rule 53 of I E Rules, 1956, the charges proposed by
MSEDCL are approved. MSEDCL should provide copy of the report of Installation
testing to the concerned consumer.
ii) Reconnection Charges:
Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the licensee to discontinue electric
supply to the consumer for non- payment of electricity bills after following the due
procedure laid down under the Act. It further says that the supply can be discontinued
until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting
off and reconnecting the supply, has been paid.
MSEDCL has not furnished any details about average cost incurred in disconnection
and reconnection of the supply. Instead MSEDCL in their response dated 10 th April
2006 has mentioned that higher reconnection charges have been proposed to motivate
the consumers to pay their energy bills on time. MSEDCL is of the opinion that such
charges may up to certain extent, act as a deterrent factor and encourage the
consumers for prompt payment. However, the Commission is of the opinion that
timely disconnection of supply for default against valid dues itself would work as
deterrent to the consumer. Considering the provision in the Act, wherein it is
expressly mentioned that the licensee can recover the cost incurred for cutting of and
reconnecting supply, the irrational high charges as proposed by MSEDCL are not
justified. MSEDCL has not furnished any calculations about the cost involved in
disconnection and reconnection. The Commission views the existing charges to be
reasonable and reflecting the cost involved. However, in order to further rationalize
the charges, Commission directs MSEDCL to recover reconnection charges as
indicated in Annexure-4.
iii) Changing location of the meters within the same premise:
Considering the average cost of material and labour involved in shifting of meter, the
normative charges of Rs. 100/- proposed by MSEDCL appears to be reasonable and
the Commission approves the proposed charges with the condition that this should
cover the total cost including the cost of material, labour, all other costs etc. required
for changing the location of the meter.
The charges for changing the location of meter within the premise will be applicable
only in cases where the shifting is to be done at the request of the consumer.
However, when MSEDCL desires to have the location changed, then the cost of such
shifting shall be entirely borne by MSEDCL.
Page 30 of 40
Page 31 of 40
Page 32 of 40
Sd/(S. B. Kulkarni)
Member
Sd/(A. Velayutham)
Member
(Malini Shankar)
Secretary, MERC
Page 33 of 40
APPENDIX -I
List of Objectors to the MSEDCLs Schedule of Charges
Sr. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Page 35 of 40