tamil nadu electricity ombudsman menon ap no.83 of 2015.docx · web viewtamil nadu electricity...
Post on 17-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377Email : tnerc@nic.in Web site : www.tneo.gov.in
BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI
Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman
Appeal Petition No.83 of 2015
Thiru. V.B.R. Menon,Advocate,Flat No.4B, Brook Dale Apartment,No.12, P.T. Rajan Salai,K.K. Nagar,Chennai – 78. … Appellant (Rep by Thiru. V.B.R Menon)
Vs
The Asst. Exe. Engineer/O&M,Porur,Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/South,TANGEDCO,Porur 110 KV SS Complex,Kundrathur Road, Porur, Chennai – 116. . . . . .Respondent
Date of hearing : 19.1.2016 & 26.2.2016Date of order : 29-4-2016
The petition dated 12-10-2015 filed by Thiru. V.B.R. Menon, K.K. Nagar was
registered as appeal petition No.83 of 2015. The above appeal petition came up for
hearing before the Electricity Ombudsman on 19-1-2016 & 26.2.2016. Upon perusing
the appeal petition of the Appellant, written arguments of the Appellant and the
1
Respondent and after hearing both sides, the Electricity Ombudsman passes the
following order.
ORDER1. Prayer of the Appellant
The Appellant prayed for the refund of the low power factor levies of Rs.30134/-
collected from him.
2. Brief History of the case2.1 The service connection No.324-009-320 was effected in the name of Thiru.
V.B.R. Menon. The Service was effected under tariff IIIB.
2.2 Thiru. V.B.R. Menon the Appellant herein has filed a petition before the CGRF of
Chennai EDC/South for refund of the capacitor compensation charges collected in SC
No.324-009-320 for the period from 22.6.2013 to 20.6.2015 stating that the connected
load during the above period is not more than 10 KW.
2.3 The CGRF has not given any order on the above petition though it has indicated
the above grievance also in the case of petition while giving its order on other
grievances on another complaint filed on 20.6.2015.
2.4 As more than 50 days have passed since submission of petition to CGRF of
Chennai EDC/South, the petition dt.12.10.2015 was registered as appeal petition No.83
of 2015.
3. Contentions of the Appellant furnished in the appeal petition :
3.1 He had submitted a complaint No.CGRF.90/D.1366/15 in Annexure-I dated
22.6.2015 to the consumer grievance redressal forum through speed post on 23.6.2015,
2
seeking refund of low power factor penalty amounts collected and the same have been
acknowledged by the CGRF on 24.6.2015.
3.2 Prior to the above complaint, he had submitted another complaint
No.CGRF.90/1034/15 on 20.6.2015 seeking relief in respect of different grievances.
Even though no hearing notice has been received against the above complaint till date,
the CGR Forum appears to have disposed of both the complaints through the undated
single order.
3.3 While going through the above undated order by the CGR Forum, it is notice that
the CGR forum has failed to pass an order on my complaint no.CGRF.90/D.1366/15
dated 22.6.2015 even though his prayer in the above complaint has been stated in the
narration part of the case of the petitioner in page 3 of the order. The CGR forum has
passed the above order only against his earlier complaint No.CGRF.90/D.1034/15
dated 20.6.2015, even though the hearing notice dated 19.8.2015 refers to his
subsequent complaint No.CGRF.90/D.1366/15, dated 22.6.2015.
3.4 Even though the connected load the premises was never above 10 KW since the
date of energisation of supply, Low Power Factor levies have been collected al along
from the consumer on the basis of sanctioned load against the statutory provisions.
3.5 Low Power Factor penalty is leviable for LM-IIIB category of services only when
the connected load is above 18.6 KW (25HP) as per Rule No.6.9(ii) of the TNERC Tariff
order datd 11.12.2014 as well as rule 10.9.2 of TNERC tariff order dt.30.3.2012 low
power factor penalty is not payable on the basis of sanctioned load.
3
4 Contentions of the Respondent furnished in the counter affidavit :
4.1 The petitioner herein has sought for relief from the Electricity Ombudsman for
refund of low power factor levies collected from him for the period between 22.6.2013 to
20.6.2015.
4.2 In this context it is stated that as per regulation 4(1)(iii) of the TNE Supply Code,
the disincentive for power factor is as below :
Every consumer shall maintain a power factor.
in case of LT supply of 0.85 and
in case of HT supply of 0.90
failing which he shall be liable to pay compensation by way of disincentive at such rates
as the Commission may declare from time to time.
4.3 Corresponding to the above regulation, the quantum of compensation by way of
disincentive has been levied by TANGEDCO based on the tariff order issued by the
Hon’ble TNERC.
4.4 As per the latest tariff order in SMT order No.9 of 2014 dated 11.12.2014
(effective from 12.12.2014) the low power factor compensation has been detailed under
general provision clause 6.9(ii) of the order as below :
(ii) In case of LT tariff III-B and LT tariff V, all services with a connected load 18.6 KW
(25HP) and above should maintain a power factor of not less than 0.85 where the
average power factor of low tension service connection is less than the stipulated limit
of 0.85 the following compensation charges will be levied.
4
Power Factor Dispensation of power factor compensation Below 0.85 and upto 0.75
One per cent of the current consumption charges for every reduction of 0.01 in power factor from 0.85.
Below 0.75 One and half per cent of the current consumption charges for every reduction of 0.01 in power factor from 0.85
4.5 Whenever the power factor has gone below 0.85 the consumer has been
charged the disincentive for power factor only as per the tariff order of the Hon’ble
Commission.
4.6 As per the regulation 2(1)(i) of the TNE Distribution Code “ contracted load”
means the load specified in the agreement between the consumer and the licensee
engaged in the business of supplying electricity to him.
4.7 As per regulation 2(1)(h) “connected load “ means the aggregate of the
manufacturer’s rating of all equipment’s connected to the consumer installation and of
all portable equipment’s and also the capacity of the power source required to test
manufactured products and repaired equipment in the installation.
4.8 Unless the extent of machinery/equipment is available at the consumer
premises to the level of 32 kw, the petitioner could not have made payment towards the
fixed charges for the 32KW. This clearly evidences the fact, that the petitioner’s
connected load was equal to the contacted demand which is 32 kw.
4.9 Therefore, on conjoint reading of regualtion4(1)(iii) of Supply Code and para
6.9(ii) of the Tariff order dated 11.12.2014, whenever the petitioner’s power factor goes
below 0.85, the petitioner is liable to make payment towards the disincentive for power
factor.
5
4.10 it is very appropriate to point out that during the reduction in load on 30.6.2015,
the consumer meter has been replaced with meter capacity of (10-60) amps. Prior to
this change of meter, the consumer had been provided with a meter capacity of (100-
120) amps. This adds to the fact that the consumer had a connected load to the extent
of contracted demand of 32 kw.
4.11 For the reasons elaborated above, the levy of disincentive from power factor
during the period between 22.6.2013 to 20.6.2015 is as per the provisions of tamil nadu
electricity Supply Code and the tariff order.
4.12 It is further pointed out that the consumer had been maintaining the power factor
the range of 0.27 to 0.53 during the above said period which is very much lower than
the bench mark power factor of 0.85.
5. Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman
5.1 To enable the Appellant and the Respondents to putforth their arguments in
person, a hearing was conducted before the Electricity Ombudsman on
19.1.2016 & 26.2.2016.
5.2 Thiru. V.B.R. Menon, the Appellant herein has attended the hearing and putforth
his arguments.
5.3 Thiru. P. Naresh Babu, Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M/Porur the
Respondent herein has attended the hearing and putforth his side arguments.
6
6. Arguments putforth by the Appellant on the hearing dates
6.1 Thiru V.B.R. Menon has reiterated the contents of the appeal petition.
6.2 The Appellant informed that the said service was effected on 27.8.1998 and used
for manufacture of automobile parts.
6.3 The Appellant has also furnished the written submission on the hearing date
besides the oral submission. As the written submission covers the oral
submission also, the arguments, given in the written submission are furnished
below :
(i) The Respondent has admitted in his Counter Affidavit that
'Low power factor penalty' is payable only when "the connected load"
of the Consumer is above 18.6 KW (25 HP). Hence, the only issue to be
decided in the above Appeal Petition is whether the Connected load of
the Service connection No: 324-009-320 during the relevant period
from 22.06.2013 to 20.06.2015 was less than the above prescribed limit
of 18.6 KW or not. The CGRF had avoided to make any observation or
finding on the above issue of Low P.F. penalty while passing the
impugned order dated NIL. in the Petition No: 90/2015.
(ii) The Respondent has also reproduced in his Counter Affidavit the definitions of
"Connected load" and "Contracted load" as per T.N. Electricity Distribution Code,
2004 whereas the definitions of above terms as per Sec 2(d), 2(e) and 2 (f) of Tamil
nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 would have been more appropriate in the case
of billing matters. Plain reading of the above definitions shall show that
Connected load and Contracted load are different and not one and
the same. The applicability of Connected load and Contracted load during
billing are also different.
7
(iii) In response to an online query by the Petitioner, the Respondent's Company
(TANGEDCO Ltd.,) has confirmed through an e-mail reply dated 03/07/2015 that the
Low P.F. Penalties have been collected from the Petitioner on the basis of
Contracted load ie. Sanctioned load only. The submissions by the Respondent in his
Counter affidavit also confirm that the low P.F.Penalties had been collected from the
Petitioner only on the basis of the Contracted load after making following wrong
assumptions;
(i) As though not aware of the relevant statutory provision contained in
para 6.9.(iv) of the Tariff Order dated 11/12/2014, issued under
Sec. 4(1)(ii) of T.N. Electricity Supply Code, 2004, wherein it is prescribed that the
Fixed Charges for L.T. Connections are payable on the basis of the Contracted Load
of supply, the Respondent has falsely claimed in his Counter Affidavit that the
payments collected from the Consumer towards the monthly fixed
charges shall prove that the Connected load and Contracted load of
the Petitioner are one and the same. As per rules, monthly fixed
charges are payable on the Contracted load even for disconnected
supplies wherein the Connected loads would be zero.
(iii) The statements by the Respondent in his Counter Affidavit about
the capacities of the Energy meters installed at the Consumer's
premises shall also have no relevance to the dispute in view of the
Statutory provision under Regulation 7(2) of the T.N. Electricity Supply
Code, 2004 wherein it is specified that capacities of energy meters
shall be as per the Contracted load of Supply and not as per the
Connected load. Hence, Connected load at the premises has nothing
to do with the capacities of the Energy meters fixed by the Respondent
at the above premises, as has already been held by this Hon'ble Forum in another
Appeal Petition No: 23 of 2012 by Order dated 04.12.2012.
8
(iv) The Respondent, being an Engineer of the Licensee Company,
must certainly know that contracted load [or sanctioned load] is the maximum load which a consumer is authorised to connect to the supply whereas connected load is the actual load connected to the supply at any point of time. Hence, contracted load and connected load
need not be the same and those are generally found different in most
cases because the Consumers prefer to have some extra power to meet
their future needs and to avoid excess load levies. The definitions of
Sec. 2(d) to (e) of the T.N. Electricity Supply Code, 2004 shall show the
differences between the two terms quite clearly.
(v) Even when we consider about the Power Factor, it is relevant
only to the quantum of electricity Consumed and related to the Maximum
Demand or the Connected load but certainly not to the Contracted load of
Supply. The Contracted Load or Sanctioned load is only the maximum
permitted load which a Consumer can utilize with no obligation to utilize the
entire contracted load as long as the fixed charge based on the contracted load
is being paid. Hence, levying of Low PF penalty on the basis of Contracted load shall be meaningless even on the ground of the alleged losses.
(vi) Further, a scrutiny of the bi-monthly bills of the above service
connection for the period 22.06.2013 upto 20.06.2015 shall reveal that the
maximum demands recorded therein have been less than 10 KW with
very low bi-monthly consumption figures. The total units consumed during the
above 12 bi-monthly billing cycles was 9150 units which amounts to
appx.12 units [KWh] per day ie. less than half an hour of daily usage of
32 kw of Connected load. Hence, as it is unreasonable to believe that an
Industrial Consumer would have used the connected load of 32 kw for less than
half an hour a day on an average for 2 years, the Connected load of the above connection could not even be assumed to be above the prescribed limit of 18.6 KW at any point of time during the above period of 2 years.
9
(vii) It is to be noted that the Respondent has recorded the Connected load as 2 KW
during an inspection of the premises on 26/05/2015 but has levied. Low PF penalty
in the subsequent bi-monthly bills also. This further proves that the Respondent has
not taken into account the Connected load while levying Low PF penalty on the
customer.
(viii) As regards low P.F.utilisation, it is a fact that very low utilisation of
power, consisting mainly of tube-lights and fans, shall result in low P.F and
that is why the exemption limit of 18.6 KW of Connected Load has been
prescribed for the levy of low P. F. penalty on L. T. Connections.
(ix) The Respondents, who are required to visit all L.T. installations once
in every 3 year for inspection , had noticed the low connected load at the
premises on 29.10.2011 and had sought explanation from the Petitioner
and accordingly the Petitioner had submitted a letter dated 31.10.2011
explaining the reasons. The premises had remained vacant for most part of
the above period due to the inability to find a Tenant because of the
prevailing poor general business environment.
(x) As the Respondent has admittedly collected the Low P.F.
Penalty amounts based on the Contracted load of the above Service
Connection instead of the Connected load, and in the absence of any
documentary evidence or proof such as OTR, RTR, etc. produced to prove
that the Connected load at the premises had been above the prescribed
limit of 18.6 KW [25 H.P.] at any time during the period 22.06.2013 to
20.06.2015, it is just and necessary that the Respondent is ordered to
refund the Low P.F. Penalty amounts collected from the Petitioner so far
together with interest @ 18 and to credit the refund amount to the
existing consumer account No: 324-009-320, within a time to be prescribed
by this Hon'ble Forum and thus render justice.
10
6.4 On 26.2.2016, the Appellant argued that the recording of Maximum demand
reached as 32 kw & 30 kw during 10/2014 & 12.2014 assessment periods
respectively may be a wrong entry. He has cited the consumption of 952 units &
548 units in the said period and argued that the 60 days consumption for such a
maximum demand could not be as low as 952 & 548 units. He has also argued
that during the disputed period, the M(D) recorded varies from 0.33kw to 6.36 kw
only excluding the above two months and the consumption for the period varies
from 380 units to 1242 units only.
6.5 The Appellant also argued that M(D) recorded may be due to heavy drawal
during equipment fault. The Appellant argued that during the entire disputed
period, a same tenant has utilized the service whose connected load is only 10
kw as per Test Report dt.30.6.15. and hence argued that the connected load
cannot be 32 kw.
7. Arguments of the Respondent
7.1 Thiru. Naresh Babu, Assistant Executive Engineer, Porur, reiterated the contents
of the counter.
7.2 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Porur, Argued that the Appellant has availed
the service connection for a sanctioned load of 32 kw as the appellant has not
changed the sanctioned load, he argued that the connected load is also 32 kw
only.
7.3 As the power factor recorded is below 0.85, the consumer has to pay the
compensation charges for maintaining the low power factor.
11
7.4 He also informed that the test report obtained while effecting the service
connection with connected load details are not traceable and hence unable to
produce t he records for the connected load.
7.5 He also argued that the consumer was paying fixed charges for 32 kw. Had the
connected load was les than 32 kw the consumer would not have made
payment of fixed charges for 32 kw such a long time. He could have reduced the
load, to the connected load level. As there was no request for reduction of load
before 6/2015, the connected load has to be taken as 32 kw only.
7.6 The AEE informed that the total connected load and the misused load in the said
service at the time of inspection of AEE/Enforcement Wing on 26.5.2015 is 1950
watts. He has submitted a copy of Parvai Magajar and the provisional
assessment in support of the above details.
8. Additional submission of the Appellant :
The Appellant has furnished the following arguments in the additional written
submission dt.3.3.2016.
(i) It is respectfully submitted that in spite of the 10 days time granted by
this Hon'ble Commission and another 30 days of time which was available
till the next date of hearing held on 26/02/2016 , the Respondent has neither
filed a rejoinder to his written submissions dated 19/01/2016 nor has produced
any documentary evidence to prove that the total connected load of the above
service connection has been above 18.6 KW. during the relevant periods for
which Low P. F. penalties have been levied on the Consumer. It has been
admitted by the Respondent that they do not possess any record or
12
Test inspection reports in which the Connected loads might have been recorded
from the initial date of energisation in 1998 upto 26/05/2015.
Under the relevant provisions of The Indian Evidence Act,1872,
non-production of the relevant records by a party, who is required by law to
prepare and maintain such records , shall give presumption in favor of the
opposite party's claim ie. the Petitioner's in the present case.
(ii) lt is further submitted that only one Test Report has been submitted which
was prepared at the time of inspection of the premises by APTS on
26/05/2015 in which the total connected load at the premises has been
recorded as1950 watts (1.95 KW) only. In the absence of any other
Test reports for the periods under consideration, it is reasonable to assume
that the above total Connected Load of 1.95 KW had remained throughout the
entire period.
(iii) It is further submitted that the Respondent has reiterated the earlier
admission made in response to the online query from the Petitioner that the
Low P. F. penalties had been collected only on the basis of contracted load of
supply. The arguments by the Respondent that contracted load and connected
load are one and the same was rightly rejected by this Hon'ble Commission in
the absence of any relevant documentary proof to that effect.
(iv) It is further submitted that the burden of proof is on the Respondent
and not on the Petitioner to prove that the total connected loads at the
premises were above the prescribed limit of 18.6 KW before imposing the low
P.F. penalties during the respective bi-monthly billing cycles. The failure to do so
13
shall hence amount to violation of the prescribed "sine-qua-non" statutory
provision in this regard. It is a well recognised legal maxim that while invoking
any penal provision, the Authority levying the Penalty shall satisfy himself that the
prescribed 'sine-qua-non' provisions are complied with prior to the imposition of
such penalties. As the Respondent has already admitted that no records of the
total connected loads at the premises are available with him in respect of the
disputed periods, which is 'sine-qua-non' for the levy of low P.F. penalties, there
is no need to conduct any further probe or enquiry into the issue and the low P.F.
penalty amounts collected from the Petitioner so far are liable to be set aside and
refunded with interest.
(v) It is further submitted that while the Statute itself has prescribed the
total Connected load as the basis for the levy of low P.F. Penalty during each of
the billing cycles, it is not proper to substitute , replace or reinvent another value
through assumptions, conjectures and inferences based on Contracted load,
M.D. etc. which are not conclusive or determinative of the Connected loads
as defined separately in' the statute. Similarly, any attempt to infer , correlate,
interpolate or decipher the Connected loads from those parameters having no
one-to-one relationships correlations with each other shall also be invalid and
unreliable. It was incumbent on the Respondent to ascertain and record the total
Connected loads before levying the low P.F. penalties during the bi-monthly
billing cycles and having failed to perform this statutory duty, it shall be highly
unreasonable to condone the omissions made and to justify those illegal levies of
14
low P.F. penalties by suggesting to infer and conjecture the total connected
loads from above extraneous and unrelated parameter values.
(vi) It is further submitted that as regards the M.D.values shown in the bills of the
periods under dispute , neither the Respondent has taken it as a
ground of defence in his oral submissions or in his Counter affidavit nor the
Petitioner considers it as a relevant fact for the determination of the Connected
loads for the reasons stated here under. However, at the desire of this Hon'ble
Commission, the following clarifications are offered regarding the possible
causes for the variations of M.D. values in the bi-monthly bills during the above
billing cycles.
(vii) Coming to the correctness of determining the total connected load
from the MD values recorded during the respective bi-monthly billing cycle,
it is necessary to look at the definitions of the two terms, which are extracted
below to understand the differences between the two
(a) CONNECTED LOAD;
" Connected Load means the aggregate of the manufacturer's
rating of all equipments connected to the consumer's
installat.ion and of all portable equipments and also the capacity of the power
source required to test manufactured products and repaired equipment in the
installation.
Explanation: Where the rating is in terms of KV A, it shall be converted
to KW by multiplying it by a power factor of 0.9 and where the rating
is in terms of HP, it shall be converted to KW by multiplying it by a
factor of 0.746"
15
(b) MAXIMUM DEMAND;
"Maximum Demand shall mean the average KV A delivered at the
point of supply of a consumer during any consecutive period of
30 or 15 minutes of maximum use during the month, as may be
specified by the licensee, with the approval of Commission".
(iv) The above definitions clearly bring out the distinct natures of the two
terms and the the absence of any inter-dependence or correlations
between them. While the total connected load is the sum total of
"THE RATED CAPACITIES OF ALL THE EQUIPMENTS" connected to the
service at any point of time , Maximum demand is the sum total of
"THE LOADS DRAWN BY ALL THE EQUIPMENTS" within a 15/30 min.
interval during the bi-monthly billing cycle. It is not necessary that that the
actual loads drawn by the equipments cannot exceed the rated
capacities as the loads drawn by the equipments are depended on
several factors such as over-loading due to age and external mechanical
loads , input voltage, initial loads, earthling faults, internal leaks, service line
fluctuations, etc. As the M.D. is the maximum average demand recorded in
any of the intervals of 15/30 minutes during the bi-monthly billing cycle ,
existence of any of the above conditions during 2 consecutive periods of
15/30 minutes between successive billing cycles can result in recording of
higher M.D. for 2 successive billing cycles. Further, as long as the rise in
M.D. is within the Contracted load, the fuse blowing or tripping of supply
may not happen. While the scrutiny of current consumption graph for the
entire billing cycle can be indicative of the usage pattern , it does not
conclusively prove the total Connected loads . While M.D. is relevant in
levying excess M.D. Charges, it cannot be used to compute the
connected load and thereby to levy Low P.F. Penalty on consumers.
16
For the levy of low PF Penalty , the Connected load values alone are
relevant.
(v) In the case of L T Consumers coming under Regulation 5.2(ii) (b) of
the Supply Code, 2004, no excess M.D. charges are payable as long as
their Connected loads are within the Contracted load limits. Regulations 5.2
and 5.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 are also relevant
to understand the differences. These provisions shall convincingly prove
that there may be conditions in which M.D. values could be more than the
Connected load values depending on operating conditions. Hence the view
expressed during the hearing that Connected loads cannot be less than
MD values is not always valid for the reasons stated above. Hence, no
inferences of Connected loads can be drawn from the M.D. values.
(vi) Coming to the specific cases of M.D. values of 32 KW and 30 KW
shown in the bi-monthly bills dated18/10/2014 and 19/12/2014, it is
submitted that these entries prima-facie appear to be errors of data
entry while manually transferring the data from the Energy Meter
readings to the Computers due to ;
(a) Out of the 12 bi-monthly billing cycles, 10 of the M.D. entries show
the M.D. values in the range of 0.33 to 6.36 KW while only 2 entries
show it as 32 KW and 30 KW respectively. Whether it was a data-entry
error or not could have been verified from the recorded data available in
the Energy meter which was removed from the premises on 30106/2015
as well as from the consumption data of past 2 year which the
Respondent is required under law to maintain.
(b) The M.D values of immediate previous bi-monthly billing cycles as
well as subsequent bi-monthly billing cycles of the above 2 billing
cycles are also showing the M.D. Values between 1 TO 6 KW. The
17
fact that the premises has been under the occupation of a Lessee
during the entire period without any significant changes in their
business activities and the premises had been inspected and
Connected load has been recorded within the relevant period by
APTS on 25/05/2016 may also be relevant while ascertaining the
correctness of the above 2 abnormally high M.D. values. As the above 2
M.D. values were within the Contracted load, there has been
no adverse effect on the bill amounts.
(c) The energy consumption graph of the above period from the
TANGEDCO web-site , which is enclosed herewith, shows that the
energy consumptions during the above 2 periods of abnormal
M.D. values have been significantly lower than the energy
consumptions of previous and subsequent bi- monthly billing
cycles which showed substantially lower M.D. values. It must be
unreasonable and improbable to believe that M.D. values of the
above 2 bi-monthly billing cycles could be so high by 600 to 1000
whereas the corresponding energy consumption figures were lower
by 100 when compared with the rest of bi-monthly billing cycles,
as shown in the consumption graph.
9. Findings of the Electricity Ombudsman
9.1 I have heard the arguments of both sides. On a careful consideration of the
arguments putforth by the rival submissions, the issue to be considered is
(i) Whether connected load or contracted load has to be considered for
calculating the compensation charges for low power factor ?
(ii) Whether the connected load of the Appellant is more than 18.6 kw
(25HP)?
(iii) What is the relief to be given ?
18
10. Findings on the first issue:
10.1 The Appellant argued that even though the connected load of the premises was
never above 10 kw since the date of energisation of supply low power factor levies
have been collected all along on the basis of sanctioned load against the statutory
provision.
10.2 The Appellant also citing the rule No.6.9(i) of the TNERC tariff order
dt.11.12.2014 & Rule No.10.9.2 of TNERC tariff order dt.30.3.2012 argued that low
power factor penalty is leviable for IIIB category of service only when the connected
load is above 18.6 kw (25HP) and not payable on the basis of sanctioned load.
10.3 .The Respondent has not disputed that the power factor compensation is
payable on connected load. But, argued that as the contracted load is 32 kw, the
connected load will also be at the level of 32 kw.
10.4 As the disputed period is from 22.6.2013 t o 20.6.2015, the tariff orders of the
relevant period are to be referred to arrive at the conclusion. The relevant paras of the
tariff order No.1 of 2013 & SMT Order No.9 of 2014 are extracted below :
Para 6.9.(ii):
Tariff Order No.1 of 2013 dt.(valid from 21.6.2013 t o 11.12.2014).
“6.9 General Provisions applicable for Low Tension Supply
xxx xxx xxx
ii. In case of LT Tariff III-B and LT Tariff V, all services with a connected load of 18.6 kW
(25 HP) and above should maintain a power factor of not less than 0.85. Where the
average power factor of Low Tension Service connection is less than the stipulated limit
of 0.85 the following compensation charges will be levied.”
19
Para 6.9(ii) of SMT Order No.9 of 2014 (Valid from 12.12.2014)
6.9 General Provisions applicable for Low Tension Supply
xxx xxxx xxxx
ii. In case of LT Tariff III-B and LT Tariff V, all services with a connected load of 18.6 kW
(25 HP) and above should maintain a power factor of not less than 0.85. Where the
average power factor of Low Tension Service connection is less than the stipulated limit
of 0.85 the following compensation charges will be levied.
10.5 On a careful reading of para 6.9(ii) of the above said tariff order, it is noted that in
respect of LT tariff IIIB and LT tariff V all services with a connected load of 18.6 kw
(25HP) and above shall maintain a power factor of not less than 0.85 and
compensation charges will be levied if the average power factor of the LT services is
lower than the stipulated 0.85.
10.6 Here it has been clearly mentioned that the services with a connected load of
18.6 kw and above shall maintain a power factor of 0.85. As connected load has been
mentioned as criteria for levy of the power factor compensation charges, it is held that
the connected load of the service is to be 18.6 kw and above for levying the
compensation for maintain low power factor in respect of LT IIIB & LT V services.
11. Findings on the Second Issue :
11.1 The Respondent argued that the contracted load of the said service connection
is 32 kw. The consumer is making payment of fixed charges on the contracted demand
of 32 kw. Unless the extent of machinery / equipment is available at the consumer’s
premises to the level of 32kw, the Appellant could not have made the payment towards
20
fixed charges for the 32 kw. This clearly evidence the fact that the Appellant’s
connected load was equal to the contracted demand of 32 kw.
11.2 The Respondent also argued that while effecting the reduction of load on
30.6.2015, the consumer meter was replaced with a meter of capacity of 10-60 amps,
prior to the change of meter, the consumer had been provided with a meter capacity of
100-120 amps. This adds to the fact that the consumer has a connected load to the
extent of contracted demand of 32 kw.
11.3 The Respondent also argued that the consumer has maintained a low power
factor in the range of 0.27 to 0.53 during the disputed period which is lower than the
Bench Mark of 0.85. Hence, argued that the power factor compensation charges levied
is as per regulation only.
11.4 The Appellant argued that the connected load and contracted load cannot be
same. The power factor compensation charges has to be paid only if the connected
load is 18.6 kw or more.
11.5 The Appellant argued that burden of proof is on the Respondent side to prove
that the connected load at the premises is 18.6 kw and above. He cited the legal
maximum sine-qua-non in support of his argument.
11.6 The Appellant argued that the connected load at the time of inspection by
Enforcement on 26.5.2015 is only 1950 watts as per the provisional assessment notice
issued. The same tenant was occupying the premises during the entire period in
dispute. Hence, citing the above connected load, the appellant argued that the
connected load could not be more during the disputed period.
21
11.7 The Appellant argued that the capacity of the meter fixed is based on the
sanctioned load only and the connected load at the premises has nothing do with the
capacity of the energy meter fixed in the service. He has cited the order of Electricity
Ombudsman in A.P.No.26 of 2012 dt.4.12.2012 in support of his above argument.
11.8 The Appellant argued that while statute itself has prescribed total connected
load as the basis for the levy of low power factor penalty during each of billing cycles, it
is not proper to substitute replace or reinvent another value through assumption,
confectures and inferences based on contracted loads, MD etc., which are not
conclusive or determinative of the connected loads as defined separately in the statute.
11.9 The Appellant argued that the maximum demand values shown in bills has not
been taken as a grant of defence by the Respondent . However, the Appellant argued
as below in support of not considering these values of MD.
11.10 Coming to the correctness of determining the total connected load
from the MD values recorded during the respective bi-monthly billing cycle,
it is necessary to look at the definitions of the two terms, which are extracted
below to understand the differences between the two
(a) CONNECTED LOAD;
"Connected Load means the aggregate of the manufacturer's
rating of all equipments connected to the consumer's
installation and of all portable equipments and also the capacity of the power
source required to test manufactured products and repaired equipment in the
installation.
Explanation: Where the rating is in terms of KVA, it shall be converted
to KW by multiplying it by a power factor of 0.9 and where the rating
22
is in terms of HP, it shall be converted to KW by multiplying it by a
factor of 0.746"
(b) MAXIMUM DEMAND;
"Maximum Demand shall mean the average KVA delivered at the
point of supply of a consumer during any consecutive period of
30 or 15 minutes of maximum use during the month, as may be
specified by the licensee, with the approval of Commission".
11.11 The above definitions clearly bring out the distinct natures of the two
terms and the the absence of any inter-dependence or correlations
between them. While the total connected load is the sum total of
"THE RATED CAPACITIES OF ALL THE EQUIPMENTS" connected to the
service at any point of time , Maximum demand is the sum total of
"THE LOADS DRAWN BY ALL THE EQUIPMENTS" within a 15/30 min.
interval during the bi-monthly billing cycle. It is not necessary that that the
actual loads drawn by the equipments cannot exceed the rated
capacities as the loads drawn by the equipments are depended on
several factors such as over-loading due to age and external mechanical
loads , input voltage, initial loads, earthling faults, internal leaks, service line
fluctuations, etc. As the M.D. is the maximum average demand recorded in
any of the intervals of 15/30 minutes during the bi-monthly billing cycle ,
existence of any of the above conditions during 2 consecutive periods of
15/30 minutes between successive billing cycles can result in recording of
higher M.D. for 2 successive billing cycles. Further, as long as the rise in
M.D. is within the Contracted load, the fuse blowing or tripping of supply
may not happen. While the scrutiny of current consumption graph for the
entire billing cycle can be indicative of the usage pattern , it does not
conclusively prove the total Connected loads . While M.D. is relevant in
23
levying excess M.D. Charges, it cannot be used to compute the
connected load and thereby to levy Low P.F. Penalty on consumers. For the levy
of low PF Penalty , the Connected load values alone are
relevant.
11.12 In the case of L T Consumers coming under Regulation 5.2(ii) (b) of
the Supply Code, 2004, no excess M.D. charges are payable as long as
their Connected loads are within the Contracted load limits. Regulations 5.2
and 5.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 are also relevant to
understand the differences. These provisions shall convincingly prove that there
may be conditions in which M.D. values could be more than the
Connected load values depending on operating conditions. Hence the view
expressed during the hearing that Connected loads cannot be less than MD
values is not always valid for the reasons stated above. Hence, no
inferences of Connected loads can be drawn from the M.D. values.
11.13 Coming to the specific cases of M.D. values of 32 KW and 30 KW
shown in the bi-monthly bills dated18/10/2014 and 19/12/2014, it is
submitted that these entries prima-facie appear to be errors of data
entry while manually transferring the data from the Energy Meter
readings to the Computers due to ;
(a) Out of the 12 bi-monthly billing cycles, 10 of the M.D. entries show
the M.D. values in the range of 0.33 to 6.36 KW while only 2 entries
show it as 32 KW and 30 KW respectively. Whether it was a data-entry
error or not could have been verified from the recorded data available in
the Energy meter which was removed from the premises on 30/06/2015
as well as from the consumption data of past 2 year which the
Respondent is required under law to maintain.
(b) The M.D values of immediate previous bi-monthly billing cycles as
well as subsequent bi-monthly billing cycles of the above 2 billing
cycles are also showing the M.D. Values between 1 TO 6 KW. The
24
fact that the premises has been under the occupation of a Lessee
during the entire period without any significant changes in their
business activities and the premises had been inspected and
Connected load has been recorded within the relevant period by
APTS on 25/05/2016 may also be relevant while ascertaining the
correctness of the above 2 abnormally high M.D. values. As the above 2 M.D.
values were within the Contracted load, there has been
no adverse effect on the bill amounts.
11.14 The energy consumption graph of the above period from the TANGEDCO web-
site, which is enclosed herewith, shows that the energy consumptions during the
above 2 periods of abnormal M.D. values have been significantly lower than the
energy consumptions of previous and subsequent bi- monthly billing cycles
which showed substantially lower M.D. values. It must be unreasonable and
improbable to believe that M.D. values of the above 2 bi-monthly billing cycles
could be so high by 600% to 1000% whereas the corresponding energy
consumption figures were lower by 100% when compared with the rest of bi-
monthly billing cycles, as shown in the consumption graph.
11.15 As per the findings of the first issue, the connected load is the criteria for levy of
the power factor compensation charges.
11.16 Both the Appellant and Respondent are agreeable that the connected load is
the criteria.
11.17 In order to establish the connected load, the Respondent has not provided any
record. The respondent was unable to produce the Test Report obtained at the time of
25
effecting supply to prove the connected load. Their argument is sanctioned load is 32
kw. Hence, the connected load is also 32 kw.
11.18 It is noted that during the inspection of the service by the Enforcement Wing of
the licensee on 26.5.2015, the connected load of the service was noted as 1950 watts
only.
11.19 The Assistant Executive Engineer/Porur, the Respondent herein also confirmed
that the total load noted in the assessment slip is 1950 watts and the misused load is
also 1950 watts only. Hence, the power factor compensation levied for the period from
26.5.2015 to 20.6.2015 is not correct as the connected load is only 1950 watts during
the said period.
11.20 The power factor compensation levied and disputed by the Appellant in this
petition is for the period from 22.6.2013 to 20.6.2015.
11.21 The Appellant argued that the tenant who was utilizing the service while the
inspection was carried out by the AEE/Enforcement has utilized the service during the
entire disputed period and have also furnished the Xerox copies of the lease
agreement entered from 15.3.2012 to 14.2.2013, 1.2.2013 to 1.1.2014, 1.1.14 to
30.11.14.
11.22 As the same tenant was utilizing the service, the Appellant has argued that the
connected load was same for the entire period in dispute. He has also cited the test
report dt.30.6.2015 and argued that the total connected load is only 10kw.
11.23 The Appellant argued citing the definition etc that connected load has no
relevance to the maximum demand recorded, I am not in agreement with the above.
The maximum demand recorded depends on the average load put on service during the
26
integration time of half an hour/15 minutes period. Of course, the MD recorded includes
load drawn by the equipments connected during the said period even if loaded more
than the rating of the machines. Further, if the connected load is less than 10 kw then
recording of 30 kw as MD is not feasible. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is a
relation between the load put on service and the MD recorded.
11.24 The details of consumption and maximum demand recorded after 3/2012 to
8/2015 are tabulated below :
Period Sanctioned load in KW
MD recorded in KW
Consumption in units
4/2012 31 2.18 320 6/2012 31 2.23 380 8/2012 31 2.27 550
10/2012 31 3.438 710 12/2012 31 31 350
2/2013 31 3.17 350 4/2013 31 5.02 670 6/2013 32 4.5 1060 8/2013 32 2.4 690
10/2013 32 0.4 83012/2013 32 0.33 480
2/2014 32 0.4 380 4/2014 32 3.74 830 6/2014 32 1 1120 8/2014 32 1 980
10/2014 32 32 952 12/2014 32 30 548
2/2015 32 3.28 440 4/2015 32 6.36 810 6/2015 32 5.4 1090 8/2015 10 4.7 1242
11.25 On a careful analsis of the recorded units recorded, it is noted that the
consumption varies from 320 units to 1090 units . The maximum demand recorded
varies from 0.33 to 32. The maximum demand was recorded more than 6.36 kw in the
following periods only.
27
Assessment Sanctioned MD Consumption Period load in KW. in KW in units
12/2012 31 31 350
10/2014 32 32 952
12/2014 32 30 548
11.26 When comparing the consumption with the maximum demand recorded in the
above months with that of the maximum demand and corresponding consumption
recorded in other months, it appears, the maximum demand recorded in the above
periods are unrealistic. It is true that any half an hour average load is maximum
demand recorded. So, the recording of MD may not reflect on the monthly
consumption. But, on a careful analysis, it is seen that out of the above three readings
on two assessment periods, the maximum demand and the sanctioned demand were
noted as 31kw & 32 kw respectively. Hence, there is a possibility that the reading
recording personal has wrongly entered the sanctioned load in both the columns. Here,
I would like to point out that the maximum demand has no relevance on the billing
amounts as fixed charges is levied on sanctioned load. In the white meter card also
the maximum demand has not been entered except for 12/2011 & 2/2012. Similarly,
there is a possibility of wrong entry of 30 kw as the maximum demand in respect of
12/2014 as the same company (viz) ZHAFIR PLASTICS Machinery India Pvt Ltd., was
utilizing the service whose connected load was recorded as 1.95 kw during inspection of
AEE/Enforcement on 26.5.2015 and 10 kw in the RTR dt.30.6.2015. The consumption
of 548 units for 12/2014 assessment period when the recorded demand is 30 KW also
28
appears to be not realistic when compared with the consumption & M(D) recorded for
the other periods.
11.27 In order to confirm, whether the above entry is a wrong entry or not, I have called
for the downloaded details of the said meter reading. But, the Respondent informed
that they have devoluted the meter and are not having the downloaded details. In this
regard, it is to be noted that the Appellant has raised the issue of refund of the low
power factor compensation amount on 24.6.2015 itself. The meter was changed only
on 30.6.2015. Therefore, the licensee could have downloaded the details to confirm of
the correctness of the maximum demand recorded during 10/2014 & 12/2014.
11.28 In view of the following reasons, I am unable to accept the argument of the
Respondent that the Appellant’s service connection was having a connected load of
more than 18.6 kw during the disputed period.
(i) The Respondent has not produced any record such as Test Report etc., to
establish that the connected load of the service connection is more than 18.6 kw.
(ii) The connected load recorded during the inspection of AEE/Enforcement on
26.5.2015 is 1950 watts and the above date falls within the disputed period.
(iii) The Respondent has not furnished the downloaded details to confirm the
maximum demand recorded during 10/2014 & 12/2014 as 32 kw & 30 kw respectively.
(iv) The connected load as on 26.5.2015 is 1950 watts and 10 kw as per revised Test
Report taken on 30.6.2015 and the same company has utilised the service during the
entire period in dispute. Further the consumptions recorded during the entire disputed
period is less than the consumption of 1242 units recorded during 8/2015 assessment
period [(ie) consumption recorded after 30.6.15 when the connected load is 10 kw only].
29
12. Findings on Third Issue :
12.1 The Appellant has requested for refund of the low power factor compensation
charges collected with interest at 18%.
12.2 As per my findings on first issue, the criteria for levying low power factor
compensation charges is connected load shall be 18.6 kw and above.
12.3 The connected load while inspecting the service by AEE/Enforcement on
26.5.2015 is 1950 watts only. Hence, the levy of power factor compensation charges
from 26.5.2015 to 20.6.2015 is not confirming to tariff order and is set aside.
12.4 As per my findings on the second issue, the Respondent have not established
that the connected load of the service is more than 18.6 KW during the disputed period.
Hence, the low power factor compensation charges has to be refunded to the Appellant
only.
12.5 As the Appellant prayed for refund of the low power factor compensation
charges with 18% interest, I would like to refer regulation 12 of the Supply Code.
“12. Errors in billing(1) xxx xxx xxx(2) Where it is found that the consumer has been over-charged, the excess amount
paid by such consumer shall be refunded along with interest at the rate applicable for
security deposit. The interest shall be computed from the date on which the excess
amount was paid. Such excess amount with interest may be paid by cheque in the
month subsequent to the detection of excess recovery or may be adjusted in the future
current consumption bills upto two assessments at the option of the consumer. The
sum which remains to be recovered after two assessments may be paid by cheque.
Interest shall be upto the date of last payment.”
12.6 On a careful reading of the said regulation 12(2), it is noted that the excess
amount collected from the consumer has to be refunded along with interest at the rate
30
applicable for Security Deposit. The interest shall be computed from the date on which
the excess amount was paid upto the date of refund. The refund shall be paid in the
subsequent billing month or may be adjusted in future bills.
12.7 In view of the above, it is held that the excess amount collected will be refunded
to the Appellant with interest as applicable to security deposit only.
13. Conclusion :
13.1 As per my findings in para 12.3, the connected load of the service noted during
the inspection of AEE/Enforcement on 26.5.2015 is 1950 watts only. As the connected
load is less than 18.6 kw, the power factor compensation charges levied from 26.5.2015
to 20.6.2015 is not confirming to the tariff order and hence to be refunded to the
Appellant.
13.2 As the Respondent has not established that the connected load is 18.6kw or
more in service connection No.324-009-320, in the balance period under dispute also,
the sum of Rs.30,314/- collected from the Appellant as power factor compensation
charges shall be refunded to the Appellant along with interest at the rate applicable to
the security deposit.
13.3 The refund /adjustment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of
this order and a compliance report shall be furnished within 40 days from the date of
receipt of this order.
13.4 With the above findings, the A.P.No.83 of 2015 is finally disposed of by the
Electricity Ombudsman. No Costs.
(A. Dharmaraj) Electricity Ombudsman
31
To1) Thiru. V.B.R. Menon,Advocate,Flat No.4B, Brook Dale Apartment,No.12, P.T. Rajan Salai,K.K. Nagar,Chennai – 78.
2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer/O&M,Porur,Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/South,TANGEDCO,Porur 110 KV SS Complex,Kundrathur Road, Porur, Chennai – 116.
3) The Superintending Engineer,Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/South,TANGEDCO,110 KV SS Complex,K.K. Nagar, Chennai – 78.
4) The Chairman & Managing Director,TANGEDCO,NPKR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
5) The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
6) The Assistant Director (Computer) - FOR HOSTING IN THE TNEO WEBSITE PLEASETamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission,No.19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai,Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
32
top related