Author: PPD Team Date: 13/03/2025
APTEL upholds MERC order on electricity distribution in Ahmednagar
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) dismissed appeals by Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society Limited (MPECS) against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (MERC) orders, affirming Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited’s (MSEDCL) right to supply electricity in the Ahmednagar region without requiring a fresh license.
MPECS, which had been supplying power since 1971, argued that MSEDCL needed a separate license for the area. However, MERC held that MSEDCL, as the successor to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB), retained distribution rights across Maharashtra, including the MPECS area. It also ruled that MPECS’s application for a license should be treated as a fresh application under the Electricity Act, 2003, requiring compliance with additional conditions.
APTEL found no error in MERC’s decision and refused to interfere. It upheld MERC’s directive that MPECS must submit a fresh application within three months if it seeks a second distribution license for the area. Both appeals were dismissed.
Petition No: APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2014 & APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2014 | Read the full order here.
MePDCL appeals against MSERC tariff order; APTEL upholds most findings
Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited (MePDCL) filed an appeal against the tariff order issued by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) on March 31, 2015. The appeal contested the determination of the Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, true-up expenses/revenue for FY 2011-12, and the retail tariff for FY 2015-16. The review petition filed by MePDCL was dismissed by the Commission on August 11, 2015.
The issue at the heart of the appeal stemmed from the restructuring of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (MeSEB) into four entities under the Meghalaya Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme 2010. The appellant challenged several aspects, including the calculation of power purchase costs, prior period charges, penalty for not meeting AT&C loss reduction targets, and return on equity (RoE) for FY 2011-12.
Key matters included:
- Power Purchase Cost: MePDCL contested the Commission’s approach to examining this cost in the FY 2016-17 tariff order.
- Prior Period Charges: The Commission had dismissed the submitted figures, and the appellant argued that the audited accounts had been submitted properly.
- Collection Efficiency: The Commission’s determination of collection efficiency and AT&C loss figures was upheld, with the appellant arguing the figures were miscalculated.
- Return on Equity: MePDCL claimed a higher RoE, but the Commission reduced it based on discrepancies in the equity base.
The AT&C Loss for FY 2011-12, as calculated by MePDCL, was 41.85% compared to the Commission’s approved 35.64%. The penalty for failing to reduce this loss by 3% was calculated as Rs 359.7 million. The penalty breakdown is shown in the table below:
In addition, the Return on Equity (RoE) claimed by MePDCL was Rs 1,271.5 million, but the Commission approved only Rs 282.8 million based on the equity base of Rs 9,081.8 million. The detailed RoE calculation for FY 2011-12 is shown below:
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) upheld most of the tariff order findings, rejecting claims about power purchase costs, collection efficiency, and interest on loans. However, the issue of Return on Equity and Prior Period Charges were remanded back to the Commission for a fresh review, considering additional data and amendments from the restructuring process.
The final order clarified that most appeals were dismissed, while select matters were returned for reconsideration. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Petition No: APPEAL No.46 OF 2016 | Read the full order here.
MePDCL appeal against tariff order partially remanded for review by APTEL
Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (MePDCL) appealed against the tariff order issued by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) on 31 March 2016. The appeal challenged adjustments for the true-up of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13, and FY 2013-14, the provisional true-up for FY 2014-15, and the revision of retail tariff and open access charges for FY 2016-17 in the distribution business. The appeal also contested the order dated 30 March 2017 in which the Commission dismissed its review petition.
The restructuring of the erstwhile Meghalaya State Electricity Board (MeSEB) under the Meghalaya Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme 2010 led to the formation of four entities. MePDCL emerged as the distribution utility when the unbundling took effect on 1 April 2012. MSERC, an independent statutory body under the Electricity Act, 2003, is responsible for regulating tariffs in the state.
For FY 2011-12, MePDCL raised three issues. The appellant did not succeed in contesting the findings of APTEL on power purchase cost. However, APTEL set aside the findings on prior period charges and remanded the issue for fresh consideration after taking into account the details and data furnished by MePDCL. The calculation of collection efficiency was not disputed further, and APTEL affirmed the findings of MSERC on the matter based on earlier proceedings.
For the true-up of ARR for FY 2012-13 to 2014-15, the appellant disputed the return on equity. APTEL set aside the findings on this issue and remanded it for fresh review after considering equity additions arising from the vesting of certain assets of the erstwhile MeSEB in MePDCL.
The final order disposed of the appeal by upholding APTEL’s findings on power purchase cost and collection efficiency while remanding the issues of prior period charges and return on equity for further consideration.
Petition No: APPEAL No. 358 OF 2017 | Read the full order here.
MPERC approves Rs 520 billion ARR for FY 2024-25 with minimal tariff hike
The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (MPERC) has approved an Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of Rs 520 billion for the state’s three distribution companies (DISCOMs) for FY 2024-25, reducing their proposed revenue gap from Rs 20.46 billion to Rs 367.7 million. This results in a tariff hike of only 0.07%, significantly lower than the 3.86% requested by the DISCOMs.
The order covers Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company (East DISCOM), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company (West DISCOM), and Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company (Central DISCOM), along with MP Power Management Company Limited (MPPMCL). MPERC scrutinized their expenses and admitted only prudent costs, ensuring that inefficiencies are not passed on to consumers.
Key financial decisions include admitting Rs 387.04 billion for power purchase costs, Rs 51.11 billion for transmission charges, and Rs 58.05 billion for operations and maintenance. The commission also addressed cross-subsidies, renewable purchase obligations, and green energy tariffs, directing DISCOMs to issue Green Energy Certificates for consumers opting for clean power.
MPERC stressed the need for improved metering, particularly in rural areas, and mandated that DISCOMs expedite energy audits and loss reduction programs. It also directed them to pass through both positive and negative monthly Fuel and Power Purchase Adjustment Surcharges (FPPAS) to consumers.
The order, effective from April 1, 2024, aims to balance financial sustainability for DISCOMs while minimizing the impact on consumers.
Petition No: 73/2023 | Read the full order here.
JSERC approves PSA between SAIL-Bokaro and SECI for 100 MW solar power
The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) has approved the power supply agreement (PSA) between Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL-Bokaro) and Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI) for the purchase of 100 MW solar power. The approval is granted to help SAIL-Bokaro meet its renewable purchase obligation (RPO) as per the JSERC (Renewable Energy Purchase Obligation and its Compliance) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2024.
The commission noted that under Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a distribution licensee must obtain approval for power purchase agreements. Additionally, under Section 86(1)(e), the commission is responsible for promoting renewable energy generation and specifying RPO targets. Considering these provisions, JSERC approved the PSA, allowing SAIL-Bokaro to procure power from SECI at Rs 2.85 per kWh, which includes an SPD rate of Rs 2.50 per kWh, an SECI trading margin of Rs 0.07 per kWh, and a tentative Basic Customs Duty (BCD) component of Rs 0.28 per kWh, subject to actual charges.
Petition No: Case No. 39 of 2024 | Read the full order here.
JSERC approves TPCL’s review petition for Jojobera power plant tariff adjustments
The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) has approved Tata Power Company Limited’s (TPCL) petition for the review of commission case (Tariff) No. 11 of 2023. The review pertains to the true-up for FY 2022-23 and the Annual Performance Review for FY 2023-24 for Unit-II and Unit-III (2×120 MW) of the Jojobera power plant.
JSERC has revised the approved operational and maintenance (O&M) gains for FY 2022-23 as follows:
- Unit-II: The commission approved normative O&M expenses of Rs 492.2 million and actual expenses of Rs 390.7 million, resulting in a gain of Rs 101.5 million.
- Unit-III: The commission approved normative O&M expenses of Rs 473.9 million and actual expenses of Rs 405.3 million, leading to a gain of Rs 68.7 million.
As per regulatory provisions, 50% of the consolidated gain will be shared with beneficiaries, amounting to Rs 42.5 million.
Petition No: Case No. 21 of 2024 | Read the full order here.
JSERC approves Honeysip Nuriment’s request for load enhancement to 750 KVA
The Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) has approved Honeysip Nuriment Private Limited’s petition directing Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) to enhance its high-tension (HT) connection load from 400 KVA to 750 KVA. The commission has also approved the petitioner’s request to take the connection at a supply voltage of 33 KV instead of 11 KV.
Honeysip Nuriment had initially signed an HT agreement with JBVNL on December 20, 2022, for a 400 KVA connection on an 11 KV line through a single-window system. However, due to the company’s expansion and concerns over poor power quality, it sought an extension to 750 KVA at 33 KV. The commission noted that JBVNL raised no objections to supplying power at 33 KV with the increased contract demand.
JSERC has granted approval, directing JBVNL to provide the HT connection at 33 KV after ensuring proper metering, billing, and network protection. However, the petitioner will not be eligible for a voltage rebate corresponding to the 33 KV level as per the JSERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015.
Petition No: Case No. 34 of 2024 | Read the full order here.
Featured photograph is for representation only.
