In response to the various Public Notices, only two written objection were received till the last date of filing objections mentioned in the public notices. The Commission believes that active public participation will help in developing awareness and understanding about the regulatory process and the approach underlying the decision-making process of the Commission. The Commission has provided adequate opportunity to all the concerned persons / organisations to put forward their views and objections on the filings made by the Licensee. Mr. Parmesh Bindal on behalf of M/s Parshadamal Mukandilal Rice Sheller and the staff of the Commission presented their views during public hearing. A list of interveners is given in Annexure – 4.
(A) Mr. Parmesh Bindal asked certain information / data related to the licensee’s working and activities in his written objections, but as a copy of his comments was not received by the licensee before public hearing, UHBVNL could not submit reply to their observations at the time of public hearing.
The information asked for by Mr. Parmesh Bindal and reply of UHBVNL thereon as per its Memo. No. Ch-44/SE/RA/N/F-25/Vol-IX dated 13.10.2005, which was received on 18.10.2005, is given below in regard to the important issues :
a. Why the various sales circulars have been issued by UHBVNL without the prior permission of the Commission?
Reply of the licensee – The Nigam is to implement the policy directives of the Government. The interaction of the HERC with the State Government is required in the issue of policy directives.
b. Why the figure in the Profit and Loss Account of the licensee under the head of ‘Provision for bad debts’ have been increased from Rs.167.72 million to Rs.1000/- million in the FY 2005-06.
Reply of the licensee – The licensee has launched a waiver scheme during the year to find out permanent solution to the issue of pending arrears and current payment default in substantial rural area of the State. The exact amount written off from the Profit and Loss Account will be known only after the scheme is completed.
c. How the waived amount of Rs.1600/- crores to the agriculture consumers, which have been written off by the Govt. of Haryana, will be compensated/received by the utilities (both) and credited in the Balance Sheet?
Reply of the licensee – It has been proposed to the State Government that 70% of the component of waived amount representing the principle shall be compensated by the State Government and balance 30% amount representing the waived surcharge shall be absorbed by the utility.
d. What is the net effect of amount of subsidy after 15.8.2004 when the agriculture tariff was reduced?
Reply of the licensee – The total subsidy amount for FY 2004-05 was enhanced by the State Government from Rs.1016 crore to Rs.1102.57 crore after reduction in the tariff of the tube-wells.
e. Cost of Service data for the last three years have not been provided by the licensee which was required to be filed in the ARR.
Reply of the licensee - No cost of service has been filed by the licensee for the last three years.
f. Why the recovery efficiency has come down in respect of the current year and overall as shown in 2003-04 and up to 9/2005?
Reply of the licensee - Rural area consumers stopped paying their bills in anticipation of fresh waiver scheme by the State Government but the Government could not undertake measures to increase collection efficiency due to stay from the High Court and Election Code of Conduct.
g. How the licensee has assessed the sale of power at 7760 MU for FY 2005-06, whereas the licensee could sold 7004 MU FY 2004-05 and 6821 MU in 2003-04 with marginal increase of 0.26%?
Reply of the licensee – The sale has increased for FY 2005-06 because of increase in purchase as well as a reduction in the losses to 29%. The projected sale for the FY 2005-06 is 7984.94 MU.
Other issues raised by the intervenor related to data which has since been provided by the licensee to the intervenor.
(B) Shri Ranjit Singh, ADIG, GC, CRPF, Pinjore, Distt. Panchkula also submitted their objections vide their office Memo No. L-7-1/2005-06-Group Kendra Bhawan, dated 23.9.2005. It was mentioned that the residential houses situated in their Group Kendra have been provided electricity at Bulk supply tariff, which is higher than the domestic tariff. So, all their residential units should be provided electricity at domestic tariff.
UHBVNL replied vide Memo. No. Ch-44/SE/RA/N/F-25/Vol-IX dated 13.10.2005 that the electric connection to Addl. DIG CRPF, Pinjore was released on 25.9.1992 as Bulk Supply connection at the connected/sanctioned load of 495.080 KW. The connection was released at a single point on 11 KV and thereafter CRPF is distributing the supply to their residential accommodations through their own arrangements. The consumer was charged on the prevailing bulk supply tariff of Rs.1.56 Paise per Kwh at the time of release of connection.
Further, in compliance to the orders passed by Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on 22.12.2000 on retail supply application, the tariff was revised to Rs.4.09 paise per Kwh and the same is still being charged to the above consumers. The anomaly has arisen because of the merger of the various categories of the Bulk Supply Tariff by the HERC in its tariff order dated 22.12.2000.
(C) Taneja Designer Tiles (P) Ltd., Ambala Cantt. also submitted their written comments during the Public Hearing regarding Monthly Minimum Charges (MMC) on industrial connection in rural areas. It was mentioned that MMC charges on industry in rural area may be waived off till such time the UHBVNL is able to provide uninterrupted power supply to rural area at par with urban area. In reply to this observation, UHBVNL replied vide Memo. No. Ch-44/SE/RA/N/F-25/Vol-IX dated 13.10.2005 that MMC is being levied to recover the fixed cost of the infrastructure provided by the Nigam to the consumers and the MMC could not be linked to 24-hour supply.
(D) The staff of the Commission also made a detailed submission during the public hearing on the various aspects of the ARR.
The Commission has ensured that the due process contemplated under the law is followed at each and every stage and adequate opportunity is given to all the stakeholders.
