Power bill shocker: Pkl locals ready to knock at HERC doors
The petition, drafted by the Federation of Residents Associations (FORA), an umbrella body of residents welfare associations, will be formally submitted to the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on Thursday in a bid to challenge and reduce the hike.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Residents have shown solidarity and pushed for fair and affordable utility pricing.
"We studied different bills and found that the cumulative effect of this revision, as notified by the respondent, is not only excessive and disproportionate but also amounts to an unjust enrichment by way of inflated charges imposed on consumers without adequate justification or supporting cost analysis. These arbitrary escalations, especially in the domestic and industrial sectors, violate the principle of reasonableness in tariff setting, fail to protect the consumer interest envisaged under the Electricity Act, 2003, and merit urgent judicial scrutiny," said RP Malhotra, president, FORA.
"Thus, we are moving the petition Thursday. During elections, we were told that no power rates would be hiked, but the opposite happened, that too unannounced. Fixed charges are adding to a huge increase," he added.
Solution Box's founder Mohit Gupta said, "At this stage, very few people understand the implications. It is around Rs 10,000 per year for 10 kW+ connections and Rs 4,000 per year for 5 kW connections. Add to this the enhanced slab rates.
It will make a huge impact on small and medium domestic consumers."
B R Mehta, a Sector 25 resident, said, "How will HERC justify before the court of law when challenged legally that consumers with much higher consumption are getting much lower bills than consumers with much lower consumption being asked to pay much higher amounts of bills?"
Many residents said they have received bills with an increase of almost 100 to 400% compared to last year's bill. They are calling it illogical while the power department has said they have prepared bills as per commission's revised order.
The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission had raised domestic and industrial categories from 20 to 30 paise per kWh (kilowatt hours)/kVAh from last year.
MSID:: 121627153 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Supreme Court pulls up states, discoms; sets April 2028 dues deadline
The Supreme Court ordered on Tuesday that electricity distribution companies must liquidate all their pending 'regulatory assets' by April 1, 2028. A two-judge apex court Bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta also held that fresh regulatory assets created by distribution companies (discoms) should be liquidated within three years of their creation. 'Regulatory commissions must provide the trajectory and road map for liquidation of the existing regulatory asset, which will include a provision for dealing with carrying costs. Regulatory commissions must also undertake strict and intensive audits of the circumstances in which the discoms have continued without recovery of the regulatory asset,' the apex court said in its judgment. A regulatory asset is an intangible asset created by electricity discoms to account for the gap between the price at which they purchase power and the price at which they sell it to customers, due to discounts or electricity bill waivers provided by the respective state governments. For accounting purposes, discoms treat regulatory assets as receivables from state governments over a future period. This portion of the revenue requirement is not included while determining the electricity tariff for that particular year. The top court was hearing pleas and appeals filed by BSES Rajdhani Power (BRPL), BSES Yamuna Power (BYPL), and Tata Power Delhi Distribution, which had challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC's) tariff-setting practices. The regulatory asset burden across the three Delhi discoms stood at a staggering ~27,200 crore, including carrying costs, until 2020–21. Regulatory commissions must undertake joint and collaborative efforts with other authorities to enable access to electricity across urban and rural areas and improve affordability through tariff rationalisation, the court said. 'The statutory authorities must work in cohesion towards a common goal of ensuring supply of electricity across regions and terrains, and cheaper and affordable...,' the court said. Regulatory asset not statutory, but permissible The Bench also clarified that while the creation of regulatory assets is not a statutory mandate under the Electricity Act, 2003, it is a recognised regulatory mechanism designed to prevent sudden tariff shocks to consumers. However, it must be exercised sparingly and in strict compliance with the principles laid down under the Electricity Act, the National Tariff Policy of 2006 and 2016, and Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, the court said. 'Electricity is a public good,' the court observed, adding that regulatory commissions must balance consumer interests with the financial viability of power discoms. 'A disproportionate increase and long-pending regulatory assets depict a 'regulatory failure'. It has serious consequences for all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden falls on the consumer,' the court observed. Court faults DERC for delay, inaction The court found that DERC failed to comply with multiple statutory guidelines requiring that regulatory assets be created only in exceptional circumstances and recovered within three to seven years. The Commission's road map, submitted in 2014 and promising liquidation of the assets by 2020-21, was never implemented, the court said. Instead, the quantum of regulatory assets kept ballooning, driven by delayed true-ups, unrealistic tariff assumptions, unpaid government subsidies, and rising power purchase costs, the apex court observed. 'This creeping regulatory inaction has undermined investor confidence and the commercial viability of the distribution sector,' the court noted, adding that such prolonged revenue gaps go against the very objective of private sector participation envisioned under the Electricity Act. Other directions issued The Supreme Court also said that DERC should ensure that no further regulatory assets are created, except in extraordinary and clearly defined circumstances. It also asked the electricity regulatory commission to use mechanisms such as the deficit recovery surcharge, fuel adjustment charges, tariff rationalisation, and government subsidies to recover the gap between the amount paid by users and the amount owed to the discoms. Any surplus revenues should first be adjusted against existing regulatory assets, the court said. The court also reminded state governments of their constitutional obligation to ensure equitable electricity access. If states wish to grant subsidies, they must do so upfront and through budgetary allocations — not by forcing distribution companies to bear the burden, the court said. The two-judge Bench further stressed that the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, particularly Rule 23, must now form the baseline for all regulatory commissions in handling tariff gaps. The court, however, clarified that it was not adjudicating individual liabilities or recoveries in this judgment. Appeals by BRPL and BYPL against earlier orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Aptel) remain pending and will be heard separately. However, the court reiterated that orders of the Aptel must be implemented unless stayed.
India Today
10 hours ago
- India Today
Electricity bills to rise as Supreme Court orders states to clear dues in 4 years
Electricity consumers across India should brace for a hike in power bills as the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed all states and Union Territories to clear long-pending dues owed to power distribution companies (DisComs) within four years. The dues, classified as "regulatory assets", have been accumulating for decades and now exceed Rs 1.5 lakh crore across the country.A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar passed a sweeping order asking State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) to submit a time-bound roadmap for recovery of these amounts, while also tasking the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to supervise the implementation of this court came down heavily on the regulatory commissions and APTEL itself for failing to curb the unchecked growth of regulatory assets over the years. "Disproportionate increase in long-pending regulatory assets ultimately puts burden on the consumer," the bench noted, adding that "inefficient and improper functioning of the Commission and acting under dictation can lead to regulatory failure".Regulatory assets refer to the shortfall between the actual cost of electricity supplied by DisComs and the lower tariffs approved by state regulators. To keep consumer tariffs affordable, regulators often defer these payments to DisComs, creating a backlog. Over time, these deferred payments attract interest, turning into ballooning the case began with petitions filed by Delhi-based DisComs, the Supreme Court expanded its scope and issued notices to all states with pending regulatory assets. Advocate Shri Venkatesh, appearing for Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd, told India Today TV that "for years various commissions and state governments, due to lack of political will, allowed the regulatory assets to grow. The SC has now ordered that all such dues must be amortised over four years".The top court affirmed that Parliament had vested electricity regulators and APTEL with sufficient authority under the Electricity Act to manage tariff and payment structures, but lamented the failure to use these powers the Supreme Court acknowledged that tariffs will need to rise, it cautioned that "tariff increase must be reasonable" and that "regulatory assets should not exceed statutory percentage" going K Srivastava, another lawyer involved in the case, said that the ruling may actually help consumers in the long run. "This was a ticking time bomb. Now, with a fixed four-year window, the cost will be distributed gradually. It's not like tariffs will jump overnight from Rs 2 to Rs 4 per unit. The increase will be marginal and shared across all categories — domestic, commercial, and industrial," he Supreme Court has also asked State Commissions to explore the possibility of de-linking recovery of regulatory assets from tariffs, if feasible, to minimise consumer Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) and other state regulators must now submit implementation plans, under the monitoring of APTEL, as India's power sector stares at one of the most significant billing adjustments in recent years.- EndsTrending Reel
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Time of India
Industrialists Back Torrent Power's Bid For Licence; MSEDCL, Unions Raise Red Flags
Nagpur: Torrent Power Ltd's (TPL) proposal for a parallel power distribution licence in parts of Maharashtra has sparked a heated debate, with industrialists backing the move while MSEDCL and workers' unions strongly opposing it. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) held an e-public hearing on Tuesday, which saw sharp divisions among stakeholders. TPL sought a distribution licence for areas under Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) and the adjoining regions of Kamptee, Hingna, Mouda, and Kalmeshwar, along with parts of Pune, Mumbai suburbs, and Thane-Palghar. The online public hearing on Tuesday was for all these areas together. While the majority of attendees, including MSEDCL officials and union leaders, voiced their opposition, power sector expert RB Goenka and several industries in Nagpur region came out in favour of the application. "There is a need for a parallel distribution licensee to develop competition in the power sector and to break the monopolistic nature of business of MSEDCL," said Goenka. Quoting the Electricity Act, he added, "The commission shall grant the licence for distribution of electricity without prejudice to the other conditions or requirements under this Act, comply with the additional requirements (including the capital adequacy, credit-worthiness, or code of conduct) as may be prescribed by the central govt, and no such applicant who complies with all the requirements for grant of licence, shall be refused grant of licence on the ground that there already exists a licensee in the same area for the same purpose. " MSEDCL, however, strongly opposed the move, raising concerns about the financial and operational impact of granting a parallel licence. The utility cited several grounds, including the risk of stranded power purchase agreements, distortion of cross-subsidy mechanisms, competitive imbalance, and redundancy of existing infrastructure. "Considering the current demand and projected demand until 2035, MSEDCL entered into long-term power purchase agreements. If existing consumers are allowed to switch to another provider, the fixed cost burden will increase on the remaining consumers. This would jeopardise MSEDCL's financial stability," the state discom stated. Advocate Deepa Chavhan, representing TPL, dismissed MSEDCL's arguments, adding that the Electricity Act, 2003, already opened the sector to competition, and discoms like MSEDCL had 22 years to prepare. She also cited a Supreme Court ruling that held that licences could not be denied to new entrants solely because their presence would cause financial loss to the incumbent utility. Prayas Energy Group's (PEG) representative Shantanu Dixit said the current petition failed to address key risks. "Parallel licensee petitions do not address the risks of cherry-picking high-value customers, network duplication, and power procurement planning inherent in the proposed approach," he said. Given the long-term impact on Maharashtra's power sector, PEG recommended that any new licences should be subject to clear commitments on meeting Universal Service Obligations (USO) within 5–7 years. "The Commission should establish comprehensive operational frameworks as detailed in Section 3 of this submission," PEG added. MERC is expected to review all stakeholder submissions before arriving at a decision that could potentially reshape the power distribution landscape in the state. Currently, parallel licensees are operating in Mumbai and other suburbs, and their power tariffs are very low compared to MSEDCL. Box POWER-FUL ARGUMENTS Torrent Power applied for power distribution licences in Nagpur, Pune, Mumbai suburbs, and Thane-Palghar RB Goenka, backed by six industries association, supported it, saying it would end MSEDCL's monopoly Goenka said law allows a new licence if all conditions are met MSEDCL and unions opposed licence, citing financial and operational risks MSEDCL said cost burden would rise on remaining users if TPL allowed to operate TPL lawyer said parallel licence should be issued if all criteria are met under 2003 Act Prayas Energy Group (PEG) warned of cherry-picking high-value customers and network duplication PEG suggested licences must include 5–7 year service obligation plans
