before the himachal pradesh electricity …hpseb.com/petition/petition_1.pdf · before the himachal...
TRANSCRIPT
1
-
BEFORE THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
AT SHIMLA
Filing No
Case No
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petition under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of HPERC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations,
2012, issuance of directions qua rationalization of IDC charges
recoverable from consumers under HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure
for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005.
And
IN THE MATTER OF
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., Kumar House, Shimla-4
Petitioner
Petition under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of HPERC (Recovery of
Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012, issuance of directions
qua rationalization of IDC charges recoverable from consumers under HPERC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005.
INDEX
Sr. No. Document Page
1 Main Petition 1-8
2 Affidavit 9'
3 Annexure-A – HPERC (Recovery of Expenditurefor Supply of Electricity)Regulations, 2005
Annexure-B- HPSEBL letter No.HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/LS-CostSharing/2005-13945-14245 dated
10-14
15
03.10.2005Annexure-C- HPSEBL letter No. 16-17
HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/SE RC-CostSharing/2007-17255-57 dated11.12.2007
6 Annexure-D- HPSEBL petition dated 18-2310.03.2009
Annexure-E- Hon'ble HPERC order dated 24-25
16 05-2009
y,8 Annexure-F- Hon,ble HPERC notification No. 26-28HPERC/390-09 dated 26.05.2009kClause No. 3 2)
9 Annexure-G- HPSEBL letter No. 29HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/LS-General/2010-765 dated08.04.20111
10 Annexu re-H- Hon'ble Commission order dated 30-3602.05.2011
11 Annexure-I- Hon'ble Commission order dated03.03-2012
37-38 p1̂ yan6,41'
er1 11nimm1
gxtGngt^a
k8^'aaC^t6Mwan,ltpTt y
...
vtS{
>'
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
18
Annexure-J- HPSEBL letter No.
39
HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/Misc.-
IDC/2012-22835-42 dated
29.032012
Annexure-M- HPSEBL letter No.
53
HPSEB/CE(Comm.)l Misc.-
IDC/2012-16509-574 dated
07.12.2012
Annexure-N- List of cases regarding IDC filed
54-57
by the consumers in various
courts.—
Annexure-0- Hon'ble Commission notification
No HPERC/419 dated
18.05.2012
Annexure-P- Hon'ble Commission order dated30.04.2013
Annexure-Q- Financial implications for
adjustment of amount in ARR.
ao
nginc
Comi.)IRC)
Vtdyut 8howan, HPSES Ltd.ShI mla-{
Annexure-K- HPSEBL letter No.HPSEBL/CE(Comm.)/IDC-SERC/2011-14314-24 dated
20.10.2012
Annexure-L- Hon'ble Commission order dated
27.11.2012
40
41-52
58-66
67-82
83-87
BEFORE THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ATSHIMLA
Filing No
Case No
IN THE MATTER OF:
Petition under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of HPERC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012,
issuance of directions qua rationalization of IDC charges recoverable
from consumers under HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of
Electricity) Regulations, 2005.
And
IN THE MATTER OF:
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., Kumar House, Shimla-4
Petitioner
Petition under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of HPERC (Recovery of
Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012, issuance of directions qua
rationalization of DC charges recoverable from consumers under t-IPERC (Recovery
of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005.
Respectfully Showeth,
1. That the Hon'ble Commission had framed the regulations called as I-IPLRC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005 (Annexure-A)
on dated 1.4.2005 in accordance with the power conferred in Section 46 read with
section 181 of the Electricity Act,2003. The said regulations were implemented by
HPSEBL from the date of notification in the Rajpatra i.e. 4.4.2005.
2. That l-IPSEBL had issued a letter for recovery of expenditure per kVA of feeding
sub-stations vide letter No. FIPSEB/CE(Comm)/LS-Cost Sharing/2005-13945-14245
dated 3.10.2005 (Annexure-B) in pursuance of the provisions of HPERC (Recovery
of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005. The Hon'ble Commission
in case No. 268/05,334105 and case No. 4/2006 held the above letter void abinitio
Art:.
and struck down the letter issued by I-IPSEBL on dated 3.10.2005. However, in
^^' l r-2 % P 'Sresponse to the Board's affidavit submitted in case No. 268/05 & 334/05, the
f30V0 3 1-lon'ble Commission had orderd that the Board shall estimate again and recover the
justifiable cost strictly in accordance with the regulations based on the cost data
published for relevant years by REC/PFC.
3. That in accordance with the above, instructions had been issued to all the field units
vide letter No. HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/SERC-Cost Sharing/2007-17255-57 dated
s_.
11.12.2007 (Annexure-C) to recover the infrastructure charges through detailed-be.
"v _ `cc estimates to the industrial consumers to whom the connections have been alreadyo+ 3
\. ^ \ 1released/ to be released in accordance with the above regulations and cost data
approved by the Hon'ble Commission for the relevant years.
4. That HPSEBL had filed a petition on 10.3.2009 (Annexure-D) regarding removal of
difficulties in implementation of the Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity,
Regulations,2005 and made submission to the Hon'ble Commission for approval of
per kVA rate on uniform basis throughout the State which was not admitted by the
Hon'ble Commission as per order dated 16:5.2009 (Annexure-E). In the conclusion,
it was mentioned that however, the Commission shall,after calling for the comments
of the stakeholders including M/s Paiwanoo Industrial Association, M/s
Confederation of Indian Industries Northern Region and M/s Rupana Mills and also
after calling public objections, be at liberty to explore the possibilities for
amendments in the regulations with prospective effect, as would be admissible
under law.
5. That Hon'ble Commission vide notification No. HPERC/390-09 dated 26.5.2009
(Annexure-F) which was published in the Rajpatra, HP on 29.5.2009, notified I-1.R
Electricity Supply Code, 2009 which provides for advance cost share towards
infrastructure development charges @ Rs. 1000 per kW/kVA to be deposited at the
time of issuance of PAC to the consumer and to be adjusted against Recovery of
Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005 at the time of
sanction/release of load. HPSEBL, vide letter No. HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/LS-
General/2010-765 dated 08.04.2011 (Annexure-G), had requested for clarification
on adjustment of the advance cost share against Recovery of Expenditure for
Supply of Electricity) Regulations,2005. Hon'ble Commission vide order dated
02.05.2011 (Annexure-H) issued detailed clarificatory orders on the adjustment of
Advance IDC.
6. That the recovery of expenditure for supply of electricity, based on the per kVA cost
of the feeding sub-station as per provisions of regulation. was being recovered from
ATTE7 ED the consumers. However, M/s BBN Industries Association filed a petition before
polio
Hon'ble Commission against the per kVA Sub-station wise recovery on the pretext
Govt t%r.r ' sr?rn'
that there is a large gap in the per kVA rate in different sub-stations in the area.
7. That Hon'ble Commission on dated 3.3.2012 (Annexure-l) passed the order on
petition No. 3 of 2012 which is reproduced as under:-
a) The Commission has already published the draft regulations, to modify
the HPERC(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity)
Regulations: 2005, for inviting the public objections/suggestions thereon ,
as envisaged vide sub-section (3) of section 181 of the Electricity
Act,2003. The petitioners are, therefore, advised to file their objections
and suggestions accordingly, so that before finalising the proposed
regulations objections/suggestions , to be giver? by the petitioners, may be
taken into consideration;
b) the matter relating to the implementation of the Recovery of Expenditure
for Supply of Electricity regulations and the rationalisation of the clef nands
raised for recovery of the infrastructure development charges needs to be
addressed through the infra parties discussions in the first instance. Both
the parties have expressed their intention to do so. The parties are,
therefore, asked to sort out the issues involved through their mutual
discussions, and if the matter still remains unresolved, the petitioners Quill
be at the liberty to approach this Commission and seek the appropriate
remedy as permissible under the law.
8. That based on the order dated 3.3.2012 and after consulting the stakeholders, a
uniform rate of IDC, at different voltages was worked out and accordingly intimated
to field units of HPSEBL, BBNIA and Hon'ble Commission vide letter No.
HPSEB/CE(Comm.)/Misc-IDC/2012-22835- 42 dated 29.3.2012 (Annexure-J).
9. That the uniform rate per kVA was challenged by Himachal Chamber of Commerce,
Paonta Shahib, Kala Amb Chamber of Commerce, Kala Amb and Nalagarh
Industries Association, Nalagarh vide petition No. 8212012, 8812012 & 122/2012
respectively, before the Hon'ble Commission. The recovery of IDC per kVA on
uniform basis was deferred by HPSEBL and during the course of hearing, HPSEBL
was asked to workout sub-station wise per kVA cost of IDC. Accordingly, High
Power Committee was constituted under Chairmanship of Director(Finance) with
Director(Tech.), Director(Operation), CE(Comm.) as its members and
Dy.CE(Comm.) as Member Secretary vide letter No. HPSEBLICE(Comm.)/IDC-
SERC/2011-14314-24 dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-K) to finalise the per WA
charges for the works executed between 1.4.2005 to 22.5.2012 and to finalise the
reply of the petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court and HPERC. The sub-station
wise cost of EI IV Sub-Stations was filed before Hon'ble Commission on 30.10.2012.
The final order was issued by Flon'ble Commission on 27.11.2012 (Annexure-L),
'T i a) the extract at Sr. No. 10, 11 and 12 of the order is reproduced as under:-
Sr. No. 10 Pursuance to the directions, as stated in preceding para 9, the,rlrr,,l_IC !' Fr i
Gov ; respondent Board now submits that it has, after due deliberations in the High Power
Committee constituted for the purpose, examined all the relevant infrastructure
created, from time to time, and has reworked the charges on the basis of the
information collated and has verified and reconciled the details of costs of various
works executed and it has now finalised the voltage wise per k VA charges in
conformity with the applicable regulations.
I1. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent Board is reviewing its demands
o
and that it has assured to make the said demands in conformity with the statutory
43, dprovisions i.e. the provisions of the Act and regulations framed there under, they d
t r'' .\FJ
i^^^oCommission vacates the interim order, deferring the impugned recoveries, passed
Ni°F e;, ;during the proceedings before it.
6)
IAr TESjTEO
% tlurtiC focIAM
GOVT C; = ;..
12. It is noticed that the nature of the dispute is between the licensee and a
consumer, for which the Electricity Act, 2003 stipulates an adjudicatory body in the
form of the Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum set up under section 42 of the
Act. The Ombudsman is yet another Forum which can be approached in case of the
Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum does not satisfy the consumer There is no
provision in the Act which gives the Commission jurisdiction to settle such disputes.
The Commission, therefore, declines to entertain these petitions. If the petitioners
still feel aggrieved by the action of the respondent Board, the petitioners will be at
liberty to approach the appropriate Forum set up for the resolutions of such
disputes.
10 That in pursuance of the order dated 27.11.2012, since HPSEBL had already filed
the per WA rates worked out as per regulation to the Hon'ble Commission, I-IPSEBL
vide letter No. HPSEBICE(Cornm.)/Misc-IDC/2012-16509-574 dated 7.12.2012
(Annexure-M) has withdrawn the earlier order dated 29.3.2012 and issued
directions to all the field units to recover the per kVA IDC charges as per Annexure-
1 in respect of the EHV sub-stations and to work out the IDC per kVA of 33/11 kV.
sub-station and other supply voltages as per Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of
Electricity, Regulalions,2005 and to recover the same accordingly with copy to the
petitioner and Hon'ble HPERC.
11. That HPSEBt. is in the process of recovery of the IDC and has issued notices to
various consumers for recovery of the same. The recovery of IDC charges is being
agitated by the various consumers /associations in Hon'ble High Court/
FRGC/Ombudsman and even in Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. The details of
some of the such cases filed are enclosed at Annexure-N.
Some of the consumers are opposing the recovery of IDC, once the connection has
been released and others are opposing the high rates of IDC. The industrial
associations like BBNIA, Kala Amb Chamber of Commerce etc. are also opposing
the high rates of IDC and relating the same with normative IDC charges and
different rates of IDC charges area-wise.
12.That Hon'ble Commission vide notification No. HPERC/419 dated 18.5.2017
(Annexure-O) notified HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity)
o^^t
Regulations, 2012 which was published in the Rajpatra, H.P. on 23.5.2012. As per
a1/
Regulation 25 of HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity)I
, ),s 1. :-. -Regulations,2012, the HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity)
^ir Regulations, 2005 has been repealed with following conditions:-C^ p,
1
ArrE T'Co
( i )
(ii)Knit
a•9»' /wVT 0;- ri r s ,,,,;L
(iii)
(iv) For the balance contract Rs.2000/- per kVA (or part thereof)demand, if any,
by which the contract demandexceeds 100 WA.
14.That the per WA rates have been worked out by HPSEBL as per provisions of
HPERC(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations,2005 as per
provisions of regulation 3 which is reproduced as under:-
For the first 30 WA of
Rs.300/-per kVA (or part thereof) ofcontract demandthe contract demand.For the next 20 kVA of the Rs.500/- per kVA (or part thereof)contract demand
by which the contract demandexceeds 30kVA
For the next 50 kVA of the Rs.1,000/- per kVA (or part thereof)contract demand
by which the contract demandexceeds 50kVA
(a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken
including any appointment made or any document or instrument or any direction
given under the repealed regulations, shall be deemed to have been done,
taken, made or given or purported to have been done, taken made or given
under the corresponding provisions of these Regulations; and
(b) all orders made and documents executed before the commencement of these
Regulations, shall continue to apply for the period for which such order has been
made or the document has been executed.
13.That Hon'ble HPERC vide order dated 30-4-2013 (Annexure-P) has notified thefollowing normative infrastructure development charges on per kW/kVA basis as perRegulation 14 of HPERC(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity)Regulations,2012
a) Normative rates of Infrastructure Development Charges forapplicants under single part tariff.
(i)
For domestic supply to BPL
Nilfamilies upto 5 kW ofconnected load
(n)
For others (not covered in (i) above)(a)For the first 5 kW
Rs. 50/-per kW (or part thereof)of connected load
-(b) For the next 5 kW of Rs.100/- per kW (or part thereof)connected load
by which the connected loadexceeds 5 kW
(c) For
the
balance Rs.250/- per kW (or part thereof)connected load in excess by which the connected loadof 10 kW
exceeds 10 kW.b) Normative rates of Infrastructure Development Charges forapplicants under two part tariff.
Cost of the works of erection of distribution transformer (DTR)/Power = P
Transformer including the cost of switch-gear and transformer
(in rupees)
Rated capacity of DTR (kVA)
Cost per k VA (in rupees)
The cost of the works has been taken from the actual expenditure for the execution
of works. There is no question for working out the per kVA cost in case of the works
done specifically to a consumer or group of consumers on deposit work i.e. new
sub-station or augmentation of sub-station specifically done to a consumer for
supply of electricity such as supply to I&PH Deptt. / supply of construction power
for HEP.
15.That the difficulty in implementation of recovery of expenditure in respect of
repealed regulations of 2005 has arisen on account of following:-
The per kVA cost of new sub-station is more than the augmentation of old
sub-station as the associated works of line and land development is also
included in the expenditure. The per kVA cost of IDC in the same area is
different and the consumers are objecting to it or trying to get connection
from the sub-station which is having low per kVA IDC.
The old regulations, now repealed, does not provide scope for diversity of
loads but provide for refund of the amount to the consumer after recovery of
cost from other consumers on pro-rata basis in case the entire cost has been
borne by one consumer or group of consumers. Almost all the sub-stations
have been created /augmented taking into consideration the load growth in
the area.
iii) The per kVA cost of IDC for the same sub-station created between 4.4.2005
and 22.5.2012 (i.e. in the period of regulation 2005) is different in the old
regulation and new regulations of 2012. Comparison of rates of some of the
sub-stations are as under:-
Per kVA rate (Rs.)- Per WA rate (Rs.) I
in case of HPERC in case of HPERC
regulations 2005
regulations 2012
(normative rates)
1 132/33 kV, Gagret 4381.25 2000
33/11 kV, ]assure 3660.00 x2000
3 220/66 kV, Nalagarh 3094.00 2000
d 66/33 kV, Nalagarh 3562.50 2000C 4.
66/33 kV, Akkanwali 5595.00 2000
6 66/11 kV, Davni
1 3717.50 2000
et 'A
The consumes are aggrieved about such a difference in rates of IDC for
existing and old consumers to whom the connections have been released before the
^(^
commencement of new regulations i.e. 23.5.2012 and rates applicable to new
^=
consumers to whom connections have been released w.e.f. 23.5.2012. The various
ArT'=f" \ED
cwr c: , ,.
:42
Nam- e of Sub-StationSr.
No.
industrial associations/ groups are constantly raising this issue and have requested
that consumers covered under the 2005 Regulations may also be charged a
common/ uniform IDC rate, so as to bring about industrial development in new
areas and reduce the entry barrier created by very large IDC rates in new sub-
stations. This is also affecting industrial proliferation in new industrial areas.
16. That HPSEBL had worked out the sub-station wise per kVA as per provisions of
HPERC(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations,2005.
17. That under regulation 22 of HPERC(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of
Electricity) Regulations, 2012, the Hon'ble Commission has power to remove
difficulties and under Regulation 24 of these regulations, the Hon'ble Commission
has inherent powers to issue orders, as reproduced below :-
22. Power to remove difficulties.- If any difficulty arises in giving effect to
any of the provisions of these regulations, the Commission may, suo motu or on an
application, by general or special order, take suitable action or direct the distribution
licensee to take such suitable action not being inconsistent with the Act which, in
the opinion of the Commission, is necessary or expedient for removing such
difficulties.
24, Inherent power of the Commission.-(I) Nothing in these Regulations
shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Commission
to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Commission.
(2) Nothing in these Regulations shall bar the Commission from adopting a
procedure, which is at variance with any of the provisions of these regulations, if
the Commission, in view of the special circumstances of a matter or class ofmatters
and for reasons to be recorded, in writing, deems it necessary or expedient.
(3) Nothing in these Regulations shall, expressly or impliedly, debar the
Commission to deal with any matter or exercise any power under the Act for which
no regulations have been framed and the Commission may deal with such matters,
powers and functions in a manner it thinks fit
18. The HPSEBL, taking cognizance of the persistent demand by the various industrial
associations has agreed to a common/ uniform IDC rate to be charged from old
consumers covered by the 2005 Regulations and recover the balance amount
through ARR. However, since a section of the consumers have already paid the IDC
as per rates of respective sub-station, any common rate now approved, would
necessitate refund of the differential IDC, therefore, various options of alternate
rates of IDC per kVA has been tentatively worked out, based on the data received
from the field units and corresponding financial implications involved for refund
(()
/adjustment of amount in ARR recoverable from the industrial category consumers
is as per details enclosed at Annexure-Q. The brief summary is as under:-
Amount to be
passed to ARR
(Rs./Cr.)
2
Rs. 2500/-
89.00
73.25
115.76
Rs.3000/-
89.00
87.92
1.08
Prayer
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may
kindly be pleased:-
i) To decide and approve common rate of per kVA IDC charges to be
recovered from the consumers covered under HPERC(Recovery of
Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations,2005 w.e.f. 4.4.2005
to 22.5.2012, except for the works done on deposit and exclusive for a
specific consumer or for a group of consumers, by involving the
provisions of Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of the HPERC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012.
To pass the difference of amount of actual per kVA cost of each sub-
station and the now approved common rate per kVA through tariff to
the industrial category of consumers while approving the ARR for FY
2015-16.
iii)
To issue further directions /orders as the Hon'ble Commission may
deem fit.
Petitiongr ^,pj
SuperiNand}pi Enginber(SERC),
010 Chief Enginear(Comm.) .r'
Vtdyut Ehuwan, HPSED LII.
ShImIa4
Sr.
No.
Alternate
Amount of IDC j Amount of IDC
rates of per as per sub- as
per
kVA IDC
station –wise alternate rates
(Rs.)
per WA rates
@ Col No. 2
(Rs./Cr.)
(Rs./Cr.)
3
j 4
5
89.00
61.56
27.44
2
Rs. 2100/-
Dated: LI -
S
BEFORE THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT
SHIMLA
Filing No
Case No
IN THE MATTER OF
Petition under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of HPERC
(Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012,
issuance of directions qua rationalization of IDC charges recoverable
from consumers under HPERC (Recovery of Expenditure for Supply of
Electricity) Regulations, 2005.
.
And
Petition under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 24 of HPERC (Recovery of
Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012, issuance of directions qua
rationalization of IDC charges recoverable from consumers under HPERC (Recovery
of Expenditure for Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2005.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Er. K.L. Gupta, S/o Sh. Devi Ram Gupta aged about 53 years, resident of
Set no. 2, Top Floor, Ganga Bhawan, Shankli, Shimla-171001, occupation Superintending
Engineer (SERC & Tariff), HPSEB Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-171004, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare that I have gone through the contents of the accompanying
reply and that the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge belief and have been derived from the official record.
I, further solemnly affirm and verify that the contents of this affidavit are true
f-
l--
Verified and signed at Shimla on this `} FDF j day of _o\S
DEPONENT
Superin ending Ehgtneer(3ERe),°ciE'v
p'oC tuefEnginrsr(Canm.) .1'1.5. _
mrr,.,,
r/ yNyut8havran,Hp 3EfilIL
c
a
7-'
A
IN THE MATTER OF:
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., Kumar House, Shimla-4 .
-- Petitioner
4 :^;/ / and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed therein.
CAI '\2t new
I.
Annexure
Annexure-A Annexure-B Annexure-C Annexure-D Annexure-E
Annexure-F Annexure-G Annexure-H Annexure-I Annexure-J
Annexure-K Annexure-L Annexure-M Annexure-N Annexure-O
Annexure-P Annexure-Q