1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY

REGULATORY COMMISSION

AT MUMBAI

CASE NO. ______ OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petition of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

(MSEDCL) seeking relaxation/fresh dispensation from the Hon’ble

Commission w.r.t charging of wheeling charges on different voltage

levels.

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

In the matter of Section 64 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

In the matter of Section 101 and 102 of the Maharashtra Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2015.

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of

Performance of Distribution Licensees, Period for Giving Supply and

Determination of Compensation) Regulations, 2014

 2

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Commission in Case

No. 48 of 2016.

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Order dated 25.04.2018 passed in Case No. 99 of 2017 (Guardian

Castings & 11 Others)

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

….Petitioner

PETITION

1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTY:

(i) The Petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “MSEDCL”

or “The Petitioner”) is a Company constituted under the

provisions of Government of Maharashtra General

Resolution No. PLA – 1003 / C. R. 8588 dated 25th

January 2005 and is duly registered with the Registrar

of Companies, Mumbai on 31st May 2005. The Petitioner

 3

Company is functioning in accordance with the

provisions envisaged in the Electricity Act, 2003 and is

engaged, within the framework of Electricity Act, 2003,

in the business of distribution of electricity to its

consumers situated over the entire State of

Maharashtra, except Mumbai City & its suburbs

(excluding Mulund & Bhandup).

2. PROVISIONS OF LAW AND PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON:

(ii) Section 64 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003:

“(Procedure for tariff order):”

(6) A tariff order shall, unless amended or revoked,

continue to be in force for such period as may

be specified in the tariff order.

(iii) Section 101 and 102 of the Maharashtra

Electricity Regulatory Commission (Multi Year

Tariff) Regulations, 2015

101. Power to amend:

The Commission may, at any time, vary, alter,

modify or amend any provisions of these

Regulations.
 4

102. Power to remove difficulties:

If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the

provisions of these Regulations, the

Commission may, by general or specific order,

make such provisions not inconsistent with the

provisions of the Act, as may appear to be

necessary for removing the difficulty.

(iv) Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Standards of Performance of Distribution

Licensees, Period for Giving Supply and

Determination of Compensation) Regulations,

2014:

14. Power to Amend:

14.1 The Commission may at any time, add to,

vary, alter, modify or amend any

provisions of these Regulations.

(v) Order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Hon’ble

Commission in Case No. 48 of 2016.

Para 8.26 (Wheeling Charge) (Page- 356)

In the present Order, the Commission is,

however, and for the first time, separately

determining the Wheeling Charges for HT

consumer categories, segregated into EHV, 33

kV, and 22 kV /11 kV voltage levels, and the

 5

Supply component for all consumer categories

of HT and LT voltage levels. The consumers

connected at EHV voltage levels (above 33 kV)

will not be subject to any Wheeling Charges or

wheeling losses.

(vi) Order dated 25.04.2018 passed in Case No. 99 of

2017 (Guardian Castings & 11 Others)

41. In the meantime, some relief needs to be given

to those consumers who are eligible for the 33

kV voltage level but are connected at the 22 kV

level in the absence of a 33 kV network, while

at the same time safeguarding the interests of

other consumers. Hence, while consumers

connected at the 22 kV level in these 9

MSEDCL Circles are entitled to apply for

shifting to the 33 kV voltage level

considering the load limits in the SoP

Regulations, 2014, they shall be levied

Wheeling Charges applicable to the 33 kV

level only in the months in which their

Billing Demand is within the load limit

eligible for connecting at the 33 kV level.

In all other months, they shall be levied

the Wheeling Charges applicable to the

 6

22 kV level. This would also limit the

scope for gaming.

42. MSEDCL has many other consumers who are

availing power at higher or lower voltage level

than specified in SoP Regulations. This could

be because of non availability of requisite

network. The possibility of gaming by

consumers to pay lower Wheeling Charge

also cannot be ruled out due to which

MSEDCL is possibly losing their legitimate

Wheeling Charge revenue. The Commission

would look into this aspect and give necessary

direction in the MTR Order.

3. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FILING THE PETITION:

(vii) The present petition is being filed by the Petitioner

seeking a fresh dispensation from this Hon’ble

Commission on the following issues:

(a) Irrespective of the voltage level (i.e 11 KV, 22 KV

or 33 KV) at which a consumer is connected,

MSEDCL should be allowed to bill such consumers

on actual demand/load limit of that consumer in a

billing month.

(b) It is noticed that consumers are connected on 33

LV or 22 KV or 11 KV but are not using

 7

demand/load of such connected voltage level and

are rather using lesser load.

A copy of the data reflecting the said fact is

annexed and marked herewith as Annexure- A.

(c) Consumers are connected to voltage level as

prescribed under SOP, 2014 but are not actually

utilizing such load on actual basis.

(d) Gaming by consumers to get connected on higher

voltage level to evade paying less wheeling

charges is noticed recently in huge number of

cases.

4. Grounds (without prejudice to one another):

(a) That this Hon’ble Commission vide its order

dated 25.04.2018 passed in Case No. 99 of

2017 (Guardian Castings & 11 Others) has

categorically recognized that: “Hence, while

consumers connected at the 22 kV level

in these 9 MSEDCL Circles are entitled to

apply for shifting to the 33 kV voltage

level considering the load limits in the

SoP Regulations, 2014, they shall be

levied Wheeling Charges applicable to the

33 kV level only in the months in which

their Billing Demand is within the load

 8

limit eligible for connecting at the 33 kV

level. In all other months, they shall be

levied the Wheeling Charges applicable to

the 22 kV level. This would also limit the

scope for gaming.”

(b) That this Hon’ble Commission vide its order

dated 25.04.2018 passed in Case No. 99 of

2017 (Guardian Castings & 11 Others) has

categorically recognized that: “The possibility

of gaming by consumers to pay lower

Wheeling Charge also cannot be ruled out

due to which MSEDCL is possibly losing

their legitimate Wheeling Charge

revenue.”

(c) After the order supra. Apprehension expressed

by Hon’ble Commission as well as MSEDCL

about possibility of gaming by the consumers

has come to fruition whereby the existing

consumers has started applying for

enhancement of load, merger of load, change

of voltage level thereby defeating the vary

purpose of passing order in case No. 99 of

2017. MSEDCL herewith is submitting abstract

of such applications received from the

consumer.
 9

A copy of the data reflecting the said fact is

annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-

B.

(d) MSEDCL is enclosing herewith the details of

circle wise network availability as well as

consumer connected on each of these

networks. The data further shows whether the

consumer is connected as per SoP or by

invoking proviso to SoP 5.3.However, the

summry of HT consumers connected on 11

KV/22 KV/33 KV/EHV level network is as

below:

Level Total Consumer Non SoP Non SoP Non SoP

Consumers as per SoP Consumer connections connections

before Nov- after Nov-16

16

11 KV 11444 11440 04 3 1

22 KV 7690 80 7610 6994 616

33 KV 1609 18 1591 1469 122

EHV 271 51 220 203 17

It is submitted that the above summary

includes data of such Circles under which all

network i.e. 11 KV/22 KV/33 KV is not in

existence.

11 That MSEDCL has recently noticed that

consumers are possibly gaming to pay lower

 10

wheeling charges, the possibility and threat of

which was recognized by this Hon’ble

Commission. Hence, any such gaming needs to

be stopped immediately as such gaming

seriously prejudices the revenue recovery of

MSEDCL.

(e) As per proviso of SoP Regulation-2014, in case

the consumer who is eligible for single phase

connection wants to avail supply at three

phases, or any consumer who seeks supply at

the voltage level higher than its eligible

voltage, such consumer can avail such supply

by incurring required expense :

MSEDCL has recently noticed that now

consumers are demanding their load on higher

voltage level by incurring required expense as

per above proviso. MSEDCL submits that the

said proviso was included in the SoP to

facilitate the consumer and MSEDCL alike to

undertake the Universal Service Obligation

envisaged under the Act EA, 2003. However

the said proviso is not enabling or empowering

provision whereby the consumers opts for

connection at higher voltage level to shy away

from paying legitimate wheeling charges to the

licensee.
 11

A copy of the data reflecting the said fact is

annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-

C.

(f) The MSEDCL is hereby putting forth their data

showing connection released on various

voltage level before order in case 48 of 2016

on one hand. And further submitting data

about connections which MSEDCL has released

under the aforesaid proviso post order in Case

No. 48 of 2016. Under USO MSEDCL cannot

deny connection to the consumer which is

prima facie innocuous and confirm with

provisions of SoP, in effect denying legitimate

revenue under wheeling charges to the

MSEDCL. This gaming by consumers is acting

as catalyst to the precarious financial position.

MSEDCL submit that if the gaming as

enumerated above by the consumer is allowed

to be carried out unchecked, MSEDCL will may

lose & face approximate net impact of Rs

629.32 Crs yearly which will go on increasing.

A copy of the data reflecting the said fact is

annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-

D.
 12

(g) That this Hon’ble Commission has categorically

recognized that when a consumer eligible to be

connected on higher voltage level are

connected on lower voltage on account of non-

availability of appropriate voltage level then

such consumers shall be billed as per their

Billing Demand/load limit eligible for that

relevant billing month only meaning thereby

that the actual criteria for billing a consumer

should be his actual Billing Demand/load limit

for a billing month.

(h) That as per this Hon’ble Commission’s

dispensation as provided above, it can also be

said that irrespective of the voltage level at

which a consumer is connected, he shall pay

wheeling charges based on the actual recorded

demand between 6:00 Hrs to 22:00 Hrs for the

relevant billing month. This would certainly

curtail any ambit of gaming by any consumer.

(i) That this Hon’ble Commission being the

regulator/guardian of the electricity sector for

the entire State cannot allow any gaming if

such gaming by consumers is apparent and

evident from evidence placed on record.

 13

5. That relaxation/modification as prayed herein solely vests with

the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission

6. That the Petitioner has not filed any other petition before any

other forum/court.

7. That the Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Commission to

file additional submission/replies/written submissions/documents

at a subsequent stage if deemed appropriate with the prior

permission of this Hon’ble Commission.

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Allow MSEDCL to charge wheeling charges on the actual

recorded maximum demand during 6:00 Hrs to 22:00

Hrs of a consumer in each billing cycle irrespective of its

connected voltage level.

(b) Modify/Alter/Amend the order dated 03.11.2016 passed in

Case No. 48 of 2016 to the extent as prayed herein.

(c) Pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit

and proper in the interest of justice and good conscience.

It is prayed accordingly.

Date:

Place: Mumbai MSEDCL

 14

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY

REGULATORY COMMISSION

AT MUMBAI

CASE NO. ______ OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petition of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

(MSEDCL) seeking relaxation/fresh dispensation from the Hon’ble

Commission w.r.t charging of wheeling charges on different voltage

levels.

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

In the matter of Section 64 (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

In the matter of Section 101 and 102 of the Maharashtra Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2015.

AND
 15

IN THE MATTER OF:

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of

Performance of Distribution Licensees, Period for Giving Supply and

Determination of Compensation) Regulations, 2014

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Commission in Case

No. 48 of 2016.

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Order dated 25.04.2018 passed in Case No. 99 of 2017 (Guardian

Castings & 11 Others)

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

….Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT VERIFYING THE PETITION

I, ____________________, ______________ of the Petitioner

Company, having my office address at ___________________, do

hereby by solemnly declare as under:-

 16

1. That I am the ____________ of the Applicant in the above-

mentioned Application and as such am well conversant with the

facts of the present case and hence competent and authorized to

swear the instant affidavit.

2. The statements made in paragraphs 1___ of the

petition/application/reply are true to my knowledge and belief and

statements made in paragraphs 1 to ____ are based on

information and I believe them to be true.

3. I say that there are no proceedings pending in any court of law/

tribunal or arbitrator or any other authority, wherein the Petitioners

are a party and where issues arising and/or reliefs sought are

identical or similar to the issues arising in the matter pending

before the Commission.

Solemnly affirm at Mumbai on this _____ day of July, 2018 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge, no part

of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

( ) ( )

Identified before me

Dated: Secretary