Order dated January 29, 2004 on Review Petition filed by HVPNL in respect of HERC Order dated 21.8.03 on Electricity Consumer Grievances and related issues

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES AND COMMISSION’S ORDER

HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
SCO 180, SECTOR – 5, PANCHKULA, 134 109, HARYANA

In the matter of Review Petitions seeking review and/or modifications and/or clarifications of the order dated 21^st August, 2003 passed by the HERC in Case No.HERC/PRO-4 of 2003 with respect to “Electricity Consumer Grievances and related issues”.

This order relates to review petitions filed by HVPNL seeking review and/or modifications and/or clarifications of the order dated 21^st August, 2003 passed by the HERC in Case No.HERC/PRO-4 of 2003 with respect to “Electricity Consumer Grievances and related issues”.

1. The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (herein referred to as the Commission) after public consultation passed its order on 21.8.2003 in respect of case No. HERC/PRO-4 of 2003. HVPNL has filed two review petitions dated 8.10.2003 and 21.11.2003 seeking review and/or modification and/or clarification of the Commission order dated 21.8.03. The review petition was filed under Section 10 (1) (h) of the Haryana Electricity Reform Act, 1997 read with Regulations 109, 114 to 120 of Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999.

2. As per Section 109 (1) of HERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations 1999, the review petition is to be filed within 30 days after making any decision, direction or order (other than an award by the Commission in any arbitration). The Commission may on its own motion or on the application of any party or person concerned review any order or decision against which an appeal has been referred.

3. Both the review petitions as mentioned above were filed after 30 days with an application to condone the delay in filing the review petition. Since the matter pertained to the consumer’s grievances, the Commission in public interest condoned the delay and accepted the petition.

4. The Public Notices were issued in Hindi in ‘Danik Jagaran’ and ‘Amar Ujala’ and in English in ‘Hindustan Times’ and ‘The Indian Express’ on 14.11.2003 for holding the hearing on the review petition on 10.12.2003 at 11.00 A.M. in Red Bishop, Sector-1, Panchkula. The interested persons/ organisations were invited to file their comments/ objections to the review petitions under consideration by 28.11.03.

5. The Commission adjourned the hearing scheduled on 10.12.2003. The Commission vide memo no. 7043/HERC/RA-1 of 2003 dated 10.12.2003 informed the petitioner that due to the absence of the Managing Director of the Company or any authorised representative of the petitioner the hearing was adjourned. The next date of hearing was fixed on 06.01.2004.

6. The Public Notices were issued in Hindi in ‘Danik Jagaran’ and ‘Danik Bhaskar’ and in English in ‘Hindustan Times’ on 17.12.2003 for holding the hearing on the review petitions on 6.1.2004 at 11.00 A.M. in Red Bishop, Sector-1, Panchkula. The interested persons/ organisations were invited to file their comments/ objections to the review petitions under consideration by 30.12.03.

7. In response to the Public Notices, the Commission received twelve written representations. These were from: -

i) Sh. Deepak Rai Walia, President, The New Kutir Co-op Group Housing Society, GH-36, MDC, Sec. 5, Panchkula

iii) Sh. G.D. Goyal, Secretary, The Sneh Co-op Gr. Housing Society, GH-52, Sec.20, Panchkula

viii) Shri Parmesh Bindal, M/ S Parshadamal Mukandilal Rice sheller, Ambala City

The public hearing was held as per the schedule and four of the interveners appeared in person to plead their case before the Commission.

8. At the outset the chairman observed that the orders and directions of the Commission are neither widely circulated nor passed down to the level of executing officer. This often results in non-implementation and noncompliance of the orders and directions of the Commission. The need, he stressed is to build a better relationship with the electricity consumers. Further, the practice of filing review petition after the permitted date should be discontinued. In future the Commission may not condone the delay.

9. The following three issues were raised by HVPNL in their Review Petition dated 8.10.2003.

a) Methodology for checking/replacing of electricity meters by licensee (Para 2.5)

b) Introduction of prepaid card meter and improved technology for remote metering, automatic billing and for energy audit (Para 2.6)

The following issue was raised by HVPNL in their 2^nd Review Petition dated 21.11.2003.

10. The issues raised in the Review Petition have been analysed. The Commission has considered the views expressed by the interveners in their written/oral submissions and HVPNL response thereto. The Commission’s order on each issue is presented below.

(A) Methodology for checking/replacing of Electricity Meters by Licensee (Para 2.5 of the HERC order dated 21.8.2003).

11. HVPNL through its representative Mr. S.K. Diwan, Director (Operation), UHBVN Ltd. submitted the following grounds for review:

a) The accuracy of the meter can be checked by various methods e.g by putting phantom load and working out the meter constant which is compared with specified meter constant and, also, with the help of a reference sub standard meter such as Acuchek meter and any other means which is more practical at site. Whereas the order of the Commission restricts them to perform this job by calibrated check meter only.

b) The difficulty in carrying out large-scale replacement of the existing meters with more accurate meters at the cost of the licensee, at the consumer’s premises, under various Schemes/Plans.

c) The difficulty in providing adequate, automatic disconnection devices to protect the meter against electricity fault/over current. The responsibility to protect the meter is that of the consumer and not of the licensee.

12. The Commission reiterates that the order-dated 21.8.2003 is primarily based on the complaints received by the Commission to resolve the grievances faced by the consumers. A large number of complaints under this category were from those consumers who had installed their own meters. Hence the order should be looked in that perspective and due care must be taken to ensure that such grievances of the consumers are addressed as per our order.

13. The method specified in the Commission’s order dated 21.8.2003 for testing the accuracy of meter was based on the instructions contained in the sales manual issued by the Licensee. However, the commission has no reservations on the use of Phantom load and/or reference sub standard meter to check the accuracy of the meter at site. However, if the testing/ checking of meter has not been carried out in the presence of the consumer, no recovery should be made from the consumer on account of any error/defect reported by the licensee.

14. The Commission in its earlier order, as well as during the present hearing, has observed that the intention of the utility for replacing the existing meters was to provide accurate metering at the consumer’s premises at its own cost under various schemes/plans. The commission has no objection to licensee carrying out such activity at its own cost in larger interest of the consumers. The licensee is directed to file a quarterly report of progress of such activity(ies).

15. The Commission in its order dated 21.08.2003 had also given the following directions

“In case where licensee has removed and taken out the meter owned by the consumer from his premises without checking it, Licensee shall reimburse the consumer the cost of such Meter removed at the prevalent market rate / Licensee’s issue rate whichever is more and no Meter rent / meter security will be charged from the consumer.
In cases where Licensee has replaced the meter owned by the consumer without checking it but did not take out meter of the consumer from the premises, then in such cases, the Licensee shall not levy any Meter Rent Meter security from the consumer as it will amount to double investment by the consumer for providing Meter.”
It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that the licensee has not complied with the above direction. The licensee also agreed to this on query by the Commission during the public hearing.
The Commission takes a serious view of it and directs the licensee to immediately comply with the same and send the compliance report by 1.03.2004.

16. Meter provided by the Licensee is the property of the Licensee and as such the responsibility of ensuring its healthiness lies with the Licensee. The Commission reiterates its earlier direction that it is the responsibility of the Licensee to protect the meter. However, the Licensee may do so by providing any suitable methods deemed fit and practical. Consumer will bear the replacement charges of the meter only if damage has been caused due to his fault and negligence.

(B) Introduction of Pre Paid Card meters and improved technologies for remote metering, automatic billing and for energy audit (Para 2.6 of the HERC order dated 21.8.2003)

i) Unless otherwise an existing or prospective consumer opts for a pre paid meter, the utility cannot force him to do so.

ii) Policy guidelines are required to be laid, as pre paid meter will be more expensive necessitating higher meter security from the consumers.

iii) Non-acceptability by the consumers belonging to the economically weaker section of the society and apprehension of theft of energy by them.

18. The Commission in its earlier order had observed that the response from the consumers as well as the Licensee for introduction of prepaid card meter was encouraging. The Members of the Commission Advisory Committee comprising, besides others, the Managing Directors/representatives of HVPNL/DISCOMS, also agreed to the proposal. The following three issues were the cause of concern in its implementation:

iii) Non-acceptability by the consumer and the fact that it has not been implemented anywhere in India.

19. The Commission had directed the utility to publicise the scheme among the consumers, but the Commission has not seen any evidence or effort on part of the licensee so far. The Licensee has made no efforts to assess the acceptability of pre paid meters by the consumers. Until and unless such an exercise is done, it is not fair to reject the views expressed by the public on acceptability of prepaid card meter, which the Commission took in to consideration while passing the order-dated 21.08.2003.

20. Commission had already indicated in its earlier order that those consumers who opt for pre paid meter may get some rebate for advance payment made to the Licensee.

The issue has also been highlighted in Section 47 (5) of The Electricity Act, 2003 which is reproduced below.

“A distribution licensee shall not be entitled to require security in pursuance of clause (a) of subsection (1) (clause (a) of subsection (1) is ‘in respect of the electricity supplied to such person’) if the person requiring the supply is prepared to take the supply through a pre-payment meter.”

21. The issue relating to fixation of tariff and MMC and any other related items was to be worked out after the receipt of proposal from the Licensee and discussion in open public hearing. Licensee by now should have submitted such a proposal to the Commission, which they have not done so far.

22. The Commission ordered floating of global bid at the time of passing of the order dated 21.8.2003 as it was submitted by the licensee that no such technology was available in India. However, now it has been brought to the notice of the Commission that there are a few manufacturers, which are competent to provide such meters, and they have been even exporting such meters to other countries. One of the manufacturers also presented his views during the public hearing on 6.01.2004.

23. The Licensee was also directed to submit bi-monthly report of the progress to the Commission. So far, no such report has been submitted to the Commission.

24. Regarding the cost of meter it does not seems to be as high as pointed out by the licensee. The cost benefit of such meter was deliberated at length in the consultation paper, and the public hearing leading to passing of the order dated 21.8.03. Hence the cost should not be a hindering factor in its implementation.

25. The licensee may like to begin with the demo project in its own premises (as suggested by one of the intervener) and subsequently take it up as a pilot project. This will give the required comfort level to the licensee in ascertaining the merits and demerits/ difficulties of such a scheme before its implementation on a larger scale.

26. The Commission directs the licensee to implement the scheme in a time bound manner and appraise the Commission of the progress in this area.

(C). Refund of Operation& Maintenance Charges (Para 2.18 of the HERC order dated 21.8.2003)

i) To refund this amount by way of adjustment in future electricity bills over a period of 12 months as per the Commission’s orders dated 16.7.2002 because of the huge financial involvement. However, during the hearing, the representative of UHBVNL submitted that they have complied with the order of the Commission and have started refunding the O&M charges as per the order of the Commission dated 21.8.2003. They have also refunded the amount collected as O&M charges to as many as 44 consumers.

ii) DHBVNL expressed its inability to refund this amount on one pretext or the other. The issues mentioned in their oral submission during the public hearing were also presented before the commission on earlier hearing.

28. In our earlier order, we have clearly mentioned that O&M charges is already being allowed by the Commission in the ARR and the same is recovered by the licensee from the consumer through tariff approved by the Commission. The licensee cannot recover any charges that have not been approved by the Commission. Consequently any such charges including the O&M charges, that has been collected by the licensee is not correct and the same should be refunded as per the order of the Commission.

29. The question of huge financial involvement does not arise as the amount has already been collected from the consumers, hence DHBVNL should not have any difficulty in refunding the same.

30. The issues mentioned in DHBVNL’s submission were also presented before the commission on earlier hearing. DHBVNL could not justify these in the context of the order under review and have not submitted any new fact for review of the order. DHBVNL have not implemented our order to refund the amount from 1.1.2001 and have continued to charge this from the consumers, which is against our order. The Commission directs them to refund the O&M charges immediately and submit the compliance report by 31.03.2004.

31. The claims of the DHBVNL with respect to the calculation of O&M and other related issues should be clearly brought out in their submission before the case on their ARR for the FY 2004-05 is heard.

32. The Commission has noted that DHBVNL is still asking for O&M charges from the consumers, which is a violation of our order. The case reported is having a reference of a letter from the EE, Sub urban Division, DHBVNL, Gurgaon, to EE, HUDA Gurgaon – Memo no-Ch-24/ 81-86 dated 22.12.03. Commission considers this as a serious lapse and directs DHBVNL to take up the matter with the field officers and ensure full compliance of Commission’s order.

33. The Petitioner M/s. New Kutir Group Housing Society, GH-36, Manasa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula and Forum for Common Cause (Regd.) through their President Sh. Deepak Rai Walia, 205, G.H., Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula, raised the issue of refund of O&M charges paid by the Group Housing Society between 16.8.1998 to 31.12.2000. The petitioner has reasoned that since Commission was in existence from August 1998, the said order should be applicable from 16.8.1998. The petitioner is requested to refer to our order-dated 16.7.2002 wherein the issue had been dealt with in detail. Commission had given its first distribution and retail supply tariff, effective from 1.1.2001, which took into account the O&M charges as apart of ARR recoverable through the tariff. Prior to 1.1.2001, the tariff of erstwhile HSEB was applicable to the consumers. The Commission had ensured that after 1.1.2001 the O&M charges would be part of the ARR and was not to be separately collected from the consumers. In light of this, the contention of the petitioner to include the period from 16.8.1998 to 31.12.2000 is not justified and hence the petitioner plea is rejected.

34. The petitioner M/s. Amar Nath Aggarwal Pvt. Ltd. has pointed out that their electrification plan was approved vide Memo No. 147 dated 11.1.2001 i.e. after 1.1.2001 and as such no O&M charges is applicable. They have further requested that O&M charges as demanded by UHBVNL be waived off and the already deposited amount in respect of O&M charges amounting to Rs. 1,90,840/- may be refunded

35. UHBVNL explained in the hearing that the electrification plan of above society was approved by the Chief Engg. (Operation), UHBVNL, Panchkula vide his office Memo No. CH-7/Drg/F-90/Vol.III dated 13.12.2000, which is prior to 1.1.2001, and, hence, the charges levied are justified. On further query by the Commission it was submitted that this was an internal approval and the consumer was intimated only vide Memo No. 147 dated 11.1.2001, which is after 1.1.2001.

36. With the facts as presented before the Commission, the date of the letter vide which the consumer was intimated regarding the approval of electrification plan should be considered in the instant case and hence no O&M charges is applicable. Licensee is hereby directed to refund the O&M charges as collected by them and withdraw their letter through which further demand has been raised to the consumer and ensure that the feeder is energised within 15 days. The compliance of this should be reported to the Commission by 01/03/2004.

(D) Computation of load in the premises (para-2.14 of the HERC order dated 21.8.2003)

i) While computing the connected load only notional values are taken for each point.

ii) They also tried to justify the existing procedure adopted for calculation of connected load and expressed its difficulty to implement the order by providing MDI meters in place of the existing meters.

38. Commission in its earlier order had considered the practical problem being faced by some of the consumers who indicated that because of their large size of accommodation, the connected load works out to be very high. The size of the family staying therein is small and the actual requirement is very low during most of the time. The consumption is even less than the MMC level. Under these circumstances the consumer is forced to consume more energy which other wise could have been saved. The Electricity act 2003 also discourages any wastage of electricity by the consumer. In light of the above, Commission had directed the licensee to formulate scheme to dispense with the present system of assessment of load so that it can be made more rational and avoid such inconveniences to the consumers.

39. The licensee should have come out with the solution to address such problems rather than an excuse of its inability to solve such problems. The problem can be solved by adopting suitable methodology. Even the notional value of 40 W can be high in the circumstances of usage of CFL of 11-15 W for light points. Providing MDI is not the only solution to such type of problems. Commission, therefore, once again directs the licensee to develop uniform scheme to dispense with the present system of assessment of load with more practical approach to address such grievances of the consumer. The scheme should be submitted to the Commission by 30th April 2004.

40. The commission has taken a serious note of the fact that the licensee has not been complying with the orders of the Commission in true spirit. Though there had been a few submissions from UHBVNL on beaten track but DHBVNL has not bothered to even respond to the Commission’s order.

41. The licensee submits even the compliance report after the due date and in many cases only the time extension has been sought and that too without giving justifiable reason for the same.

42. The Commission warns the licensee against for noncompliance of its order in future. The Utilities must submit the compliance within the prescribed date failing which in future the Commission may be forced to fix the responsibility on the Chairman/Managing Director of the concerned Discoms and action may be initiated against them under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

This order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on the 29^th day of January 2004.

T.R. Dhaka	S.C. Katyal	Lt.Col (retd.) Raghbir Singh
(Member)	(Member)	(Chairman)

HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SCO 180, SECTOR – 5, PANCHKULA, 134 109, HARYANA

HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
SCO 180, SECTOR – 5, PANCHKULA, 134 109, HARYANA