Against this backdrop, the State-run power distribution utility has proposed a tariff design based on various factors including ‘rationalisation’ of fixed charges to ensure appropriate recovery of fixed costs. It has proposed several other things including continuation of existing rebates ‘linked to payment discipline’, amendment in the provision of pre-paid meter rebate, recovery of cross-subsidy surcharge as per National Tariff Policy formula ‘without any ceiling’ and all such other charges including wheeling charges and wheeling losses for Open Access consumers as proposed for Control Period etc.

In the same petition, MSEDCL has suggested that ‘it is high time’ for various applicable rebates and incentives to be ‘governed’ certain conditions to create deterrence for defaulting consumers. Accordingly, it has been proposed that the rebate and incentives will be available ‘only if a consumer has no arrears’ with the distribution licensee and payment is made ‘within seven days’ from the date of electricity bill. In case of not availing a prompt payment discount (non-adherence to bill payment within date for availing prompt payment discount for any billing month), ‘benefit of various applicable rebate(s) and incentive(s) shall be withdrawn for the entire period of next billing month’. Further, if a consumer exceeds his contract demand in a particular month, in that month the consumer ‘will not be liable for any type of incentive or rebate approved by MERC’. Also, the State-run power distribution utility has suggested ‘modification’ is tariff applicability for below poverty line (BPL) category.

Accordingly, MSEDCL has proposed to ‘add a constraint’ on applicability of BPL category tariff such that the eligibility of such consumer will be ‘reassessed regularly cumulatively’ at the end of each billing cycle in a financial year. Further, it has suggested that revenue loss at current energy charge of Rs 3.55/unit and at Rs 77 per connection per month ‘will not get cross-subsidised’. MSEDCL’s logic is that if a consumer in BPL category consumes more than 360 units of electricity cumulatively at the end of any billing cycle, then such consumer should be billed as per residential tariff for LTI (B) category. Else, it creates a situation in which benefits of such tariff may get passed on to undeserving consumers.

Interestingly, in its petition, MSEDCL has tried to put onus on MERC through certain statements viz. “Hon’ble Commission has been guided by the Electricity Act, 2003 and the National Tariff Policy while determining retail tariffs across the State of Maharashta.” Another such statement is, “Hon’ble Commission has always laid emphasis on adoption of factors that encourage economy, efficiency, effective performance and improved conditions of supply for the consumers. On the similar guidelines, Hon’ble Commission may apply similar principles considering the ground realities as well as to ensure the financial viability of the Licensee.”