- (1.) M/s Bharat Forge Ltd. (BFL), Mundhwa, Pune has filed a Petition dated 26 May, 2014, under Sections 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 seeking clarification of the Commission's Tariff Order dated 16 August, 2012 in Case No. 19 of 2012 read with Commercial Circular No. 175 issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) in respect of EHV rebate.
(2.) The Petitioner's prayers are as follows: - a) "Clarify that in view of the Order pronounced by this Hon'ble Commission dated 16.08.2012 in Case No. 16 of 2012 read with Commercial Circular No. 175 of dated September 5, 2012 issued by the MSEDCL, deems to mean and include 'Energy Charges' as energy charge plus TOD and FAC and hence, EHV rebate is payable on entire component of such energy charge. b) In the event, the Hon'ble Commission considers to grant to the Petitioner, relief in terms of prayer (a) above, then the Hon'ble Commission may direct the Respondent to rectify the Impugned Circular to the extent to make in compliance with the order pronounced by this Hon'ble Commission and refund EHV rebate of Rs. 25,92,576/ - to the Petitioner with interest @ 18% p.a. till payment thereof. c) Clarify that Order pronounced by this Hon'ble Commission dated 16.08.2012 in Case No. 16 of 2012 read with Commercial Circular No. 175 of dated September 5, 2012 issued by the MSEDCL, has wrongly reference payment arrears with EHV rebate and the direction to MSEDCL to amend the Impugned Circular to such extent. d) Award costs of these proceedings against the Respondent and in favour of the Petitioner..." The Petition also seeks that the Commission "Pass an ad -interim ex -parte order directing amendment the impugned Circular No. 175 dated September 5, 2012 issued by the Respondent qua the Petitioner in respect of EHV rebate on the entire energy component i.e. including energy charges, TOD and FAC of stay of the operation of and confirm the above order after notice to the Respondent..."
(3.) The Petition states as follows: 3.1. The Petitioner is a consumer of MSEDCL having load of 48.653 MVA. Pursuant to the Tariff Order dated 16 August, 2012 in Case No.19 of 2012, MSEDCL has issued Commercial Circular No.175 wherein Extra High Voltage (EHV) rebate is calculated on "Energy Charges" excluding the Fuel Adjustment Charge (FAC). 3.2. In its judgment dated 26 July, 2012 in Appeal Nos.13 and 198 of 2010 and No.42 of 2011, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) has ruled as follows in respect of creation of separate category for EHV consumers : "New categorization for EHV consumers: The State Commission shall consider creation of separate category for EHV consumers in future Tariff Order after determination of voltage -wise cost of supply and decide the matter after hearing all concerned keeping in view the provisions of Sections 61(g) and 62(3) of the Act and Tariff Policy." 3.3. The proceedings in respect of MSEDCL's Tariff Petition in Case No. 19 of 2012 were already on at the time of the above ATE Judgment. The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated 16 August, 2012, decided that creation of a separate category for EHV consumers may not be appropriate at that point of time. Instead, it allowed a rebate of 3% on Energy Charges to the consumers taking supply at EHV level as follows: "8.26 Incentives and Disincentives EHV supply rebate Consumers availing supply at Extra High Voltage (66 kV and above) will be given a rebate of 3% on Energy Charges. Further, the EHV supply rebate will be available only if the consumer has no arrears with MSEDCL. However, this rebate will be applicable to consumers where payment of arrears in instalments has been granted by MSEDCL, and the same is being made as scheduled. MSEDCL has to take a commercial decision on the issue of how to determine the time frame for which the payments should have been made as scheduled, in order to make the consumer eligible for the EHV supply rebate." 3.4. The basic Energy Charge (Variable Charge) is fixed based on costs of own generation and power purchase at the time of tariff determination or revision. Changes in these costs are passed on to consumers through the FAC mechanism. The MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 provide the mechanism for recovery of uncontrollable costs inclusive of adjustment in cost of fuel and cost of power purchase. FAC is a part and parcel of the basic Energy Charge (Variable Charge). It is primarily the cost of fuel and hence a component of Energy Charges. Exclusion of FAC in the calculation EHV rebate is arbitrary and unjustified. 3.5. Prompt payment discount and power factor incentive/penalty are granted on the bill amount, which includes fixed/demand charges plus Energy Charge, reliability charge and FAC, but EHV rebate is being granted only on Energy Charges plus Time of Day (ToD) charges, and FAC is not taken into account. 3.6. The Order in Case No.19 of 2012 links EHV rebate to the payment of arrears. In case of late payment, the consumer is liable to pay delayed payment charges and interest at 18%. However, EHV rebate is on account of reduced transmission losses (and in the nature of temporary relief till a separate EHV category is framed). Hence, there is no connection between the EHV rebate and delayed payment. Therefore, the EHV rebate should not be linked with delayed payment. 3.7. BFL is incurring financial loss because of denial of legitimate rebate arising from a narrow interpretation of the term "Energy Charges". As on 12 May, 2014, a sum of Rs 25,92,576/ - is recoverable by BFL on account of mis -calculation of EHV rebate by MSEDCL. ;