final tariff order of upcl for fy 2015-16 11.04 -...

Order on

Retail Tariff

for

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. for

FY 2015-16

April 11, 2015

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Vidyut Niyamak Bhawan,

Near I.S.B.T., P.O. Majra, Dehradun – 248171

i

Table of Contents

1. Background and Procedural History ............................................................................................. 4

2. Stakeholder’s Responses and Petitioner’s Comments ................................................................ 9

2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Compliance to Regulations/Directions of Commission ......................................................... 9

2.1.2 Clarification on Commercial Consumer................................................................................. 10

2.1.3 Delays in providing connection and meter reading .............................................................. 10

2.2 Domestic Tariff ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.3 Non-Domestic Tariff .............................................................................................................. 15

2.3.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 15

2.3.2 Clarification in fixation of Units ............................................................................................. 16

2.4 Tariff for Charitable Institutions .......................................................................................... 16

2.5 Street Lighting ........................................................................................................................ 17

2.6 Independent Advertising Hoardings ..................................................................................... 17

2.7 Agricultural Tariff .................................................................................................................. 18

2.7.1 Private Tube Wells ................................................................................................................... 18

2.8 Mixed Load (RTS-8) Tariff ..................................................................................................... 20

2.9 Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) ....................................................................................... 20

2.10 Rebate and Incentives ............................................................................................................ 21

2.11 Industrial Tariff ...................................................................................................................... 24

2.11.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 24

2.11.2 Textile Industry ........................................................................................................................ 26

2.11.3 Fixed/Demand Charge and Energy Charge .......................................................................... 27

2.11.4 Time of Day Tariff.................................................................................................................... 29

2.11.5 Rostering and Load Shedding ................................................................................................ 31

2.11.6 Load Factor based Tariff.......................................................................................................... 32

2.11.7 Minimum Load for Induction Furnaces ................................................................................. 35

2.11.8 Wheeling Charge ..................................................................................................................... 36

2.12 Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) .......................................................................... 36

2.13 Energy Sale Forecast............................................................................................................... 39

2.14 Cost of Supply and Cross Subsidy ........................................................................................ 40

ii

2.15 Continuous Supply .................................................................................................................41

2.16 Components on ARR and Revenue ........................................................................................42

2.16.1 Power Purchase Cost ................................................................................................................ 42

2.16.2 Return on Equity ...................................................................................................................... 45

2.16.3 Operation & Maintenance Expenses ....................................................................................... 46

2.16.4 Interest on Working Capital..................................................................................................... 48

2.16.5 Interest & Finance Charges ...................................................................................................... 48

2.16.6 Depreciation .............................................................................................................................. 49

2.16.7 Provision for bad and doubtful debts ..................................................................................... 49

2.16.8 Non-tariff Income (NTI) ........................................................................................................... 51

2.16.9 Sharing of Gains & Losses ........................................................................................................ 52

2.16.10 Capital Cost of Original Assets and Depreciation .................................................................. 53

2.16.11 Non Capitalization of Assets ................................................................................................... 53

2.16.12 Truing-up for Past Years .......................................................................................................... 54

2.16.13 Past Adjustments ...................................................................................................................... 55

2.16.14 Consumer Security Deposit ..................................................................................................... 55

2.17 Enhanced Pension for Employees ..........................................................................................56

2.18 Fuel Charge Adjustment .........................................................................................................56

2.19 Revenue from Tariff and Distribution losses .......................................................................58

2.20 Metering and Billing ...............................................................................................................58

2.21 Distribution Line/ Line Losses...............................................................................................60

2.22 KCC Data ................................................................................................................................64

2.23 Quality of Power ....................................................................................................................64

2.24 Open Access .............................................................................................................................65

2.25 Renewable Energy Promotion ...............................................................................................66

2.26 Views of Advisory Committee Meeting ................................................................................66

2.27 Commission’s Views ...............................................................................................................68

2.27.1 Load Shedding .......................................................................................................................... 69

2.27.2 Compliance to the Directives of the Commission .................................................................. 69

2.27.3 Fuel Charge Adjustment Mechanism ...................................................................................... 70

2.27.4 KCC Data .................................................................................................................................. 70

2.27.5 Recovery of Electricity Dues .................................................................................................... 70

2.27.6 Incentive for Timely Payment.................................................................................................. 70

2.27.7 Customer Services .................................................................................................................... 71

iii

2.27.8 Issue of Voltage wise Losses ................................................................................................... 71

3. Petitioner’s Submission, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing Up

for FY 2013-14 ........................................................................................................................................... 72

3.1 Past Adjustments ................................................................................................................... 73

3.2 Truing-up for FY 2013-14 ........................................................................................................ 74

3.2.1 Sales .......................................................................................................................................... 74

3.2.2 Distribution Losses .................................................................................................................. 83

3.2.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) ............................................. 84

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses ...................................................................... 86

3.2.5 Cost of Assets & Financing ..................................................................................................... 91

3.2.6 Financing of Capital Assets ..................................................................................................... 95

3.2.7 Interest and Finance Charges .................................................................................................. 97

3.2.8 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 101

3.2.9 Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts...................................................................................... 102

3.2.10 Interest on Working Capital (IoWC) ..................................................................................... 104

3.2.11 Return on Equity ..................................................................................................................... 105

3.2.12 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 106

3.2.13 Tariff Revenue ......................................................................................................................... 107

3.3 Sharing of gains and losses .................................................................................................. 111

3.3.1 ARR & Revenue for FY 2013-14 ............................................................................................. 113

4. Petitioner’s Submission, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Annual

Revenue Requirement for FY 2015-16 ................................................................................................. 115

4.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 115

4.2 Energy Sales .......................................................................................................................... 117

4.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory ............................................................................................... 122

4.4 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost for FY 2015-16 .......................................................... 125

4.4.1 Power Purchase Quantum ..................................................................................................... 125

4.4.2 Energy Availability from UJVN Ltd. ..................................................................................... 126

4.4.3 Energy Availability from Central Generating Stations ........................................................ 127

4.4.4 Energy Availability from Vishnuprayag Hydro Electric Project ......................................... 129

4.4.5 New Generating Stations ....................................................................................................... 129

4.4.6 Energy Availability from Independent Power Producers (IPPs)......................................... 130

4.4.7 Power Purchase to meet RPO Obligations ............................................................................ 131

4.4.8 Summary of Energy Availability for FY 2015-16 .................................................................. 131

iv

4.4.9 Power Purchase Cost .............................................................................................................. 132

4.4.10 Water Charges ........................................................................................................................ 140

4.4.11 Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL and PTCUL ........................................................ 140

4.5 Cost of Assets & Financing .................................................................................................. 141

4.5.1 Capital Cost of Original Assets .............................................................................................. 141

4.5.2 Capitalisation of Assets .......................................................................................................... 142

4.5.3 Financing of Capital Assets.................................................................................................... 144

4.6 Interest and Finance Charges ............................................................................................... 144

4.6.1 Interest on Consumer Security Deposit ................................................................................ 147

4.6.2 Government Guarantee Fee ................................................................................................... 149

4.7 Depreciation .......................................................................................................................... 150

4.8 Return on Equity ................................................................................................................... 152

4.9 Operation and Maintenance Expenses ................................................................................ 154

4.9.1 Employee Costs (EMPn) ......................................................................................................... 154

4.9.2 Repair and Maintenance Expenses (R&Mn) .......................................................................... 157

4.9.3 Administrative and General Expenses (A&Gn) .................................................................... 158

4.10 Interest on Working Capital ................................................................................................ 160

4.11 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts ............................................................................... 161

4.12 Non-Tariff Income ................................................................................................................ 162

4.13 Revenue Gap for UJVNL....................................................................................................... 163

4.14 (Gap)/ Surplus of Previous Years......................................................................................... 164

4.15 Annual Revenue Requirement for 2015-16 .......................................................................... 164

4.16 Revenue at Existing Tariff .................................................................................................... 165

4.17 Revenue Gap .......................................................................................................................... 166

4.17.1 Revenue Gap for FY 2015-16 at Existing Tariff ..................................................................... 166

5. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues ....................................................... 168

5.1 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-Determination of Tariff for FY 2010-11 ............ 168

5.2 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2015-16 .................................................. 169

5.2.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 169

5.2.2 Petitioner’s Proposals ............................................................................................................. 170

5.2.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures ................................................... 172

5.2.4 Treatment of Revenue Gap .................................................................................................... 192

5.2.5 Cross Subsidy ......................................................................................................................... 192

5.2.6 Category-wise Tariff Design .................................................................................................. 192

v

5.2.7 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff ................................................................................................... 195

5.2.8 RTS-3: Public Lamps ............................................................................................................... 196

5.2.9 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump sets and Agriculture Allied Activities .......................... 197

5.2.10 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System .................................................................................. 198

5.2.11 RTS-6: Public Water Works .................................................................................................... 198

5.2.12 RTS-7: Industry ....................................................................................................................... 199

5.2.13 RTS-8: Mixed Load ................................................................................................................. 201

5.2.14 RTS-9: Railway Traction ......................................................................................................... 201

5.3 Revenue for FY 2015-16 ........................................................................................................ 202

5.4 Cross Subsidy ........................................................................................................................ 202

5.5 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................ 204

6. Review of Commercial Performance of the Petitioner ........................................................... 206

6.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 206

6.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14 .................................................................. 207

6.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14 ....................................................... 209

6.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14 ............................................................... 211

6.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance ............................ 212

6.2.1 Metering .................................................................................................................................. 214

6.2.1.1 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF ........................................................................................ 214

6.2.1.2 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters ....... 215

6.2.1.3 Replacement of Mechanical Meters ....................................................................................... 216

6.2.1.4 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers .................................................................................................. 217

6.2.1.5 Un-metered Consumers ......................................................................................................... 218

6.2.2 Billing....................................................................................................................................... 219

6.2.2.1 NB & SB Cases ........................................................................................................................ 219

6.2.2.2 Outstanding Arrears ............................................................................................................... 220

6.2.2.3 Load Factor of KCC Consumers ............................................................................................ 221

6.2.2.4 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold ........................................................................... 222

6.2.3 Collection System ................................................................................................................... 222

6.3 Energy Audit ......................................................................................................................... 224

6.4 AT&C Losses ......................................................................................................................... 225

6.5 Anomalies Observed in Commercial Diary (SG-IV).......................................................... 229

6.5.1 RTS-3 (Public Lamps) ............................................................................................................. 229

6.5.2 RTS-4 (Private Tube Well) ...................................................................................................... 230

vi

6.5.3 RTS-6 (Public Water Works (PWW)) ..................................................................................... 231

UPCL is directed to ensure timely compliances of the directions issued in this regard. The

Commission has also decided to review the monthly performance of UPCL in this regard

and, accordingly, UPCL is also directed to submit the monthly commercial report (SG-IV).232

6.5.4 RTS-7 (LT & HT Industries): .................................................................................................. 232

6.5.5 RTS-8 (Mixed Load): ............................................................................................................... 233

6.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 234

7. Commission’s Directives ............................................................................................................ 236

7.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 ......................... 236

7.1.1 Past Adjustments .................................................................................................................... 236

7.1.2 Functioning of UPCL .............................................................................................................. 237

7.1.3 Performance Report ................................................................................................................ 238

7.1.4 Sales ......................................................................................................................................... 239

7.1.5 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 241

7.1.6 AT&C Losses / Energy Audit ............................................................................................... 241

7.1.7 Power Purchase Expenses ...................................................................................................... 242

7.1.8 Power Procurement Plan for the Control Period .................................................................. 242

7.1.9 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost ..................................................................................... 243

7.1.10 Capitalization of Assets added till FY 2011-12 ..................................................................... 244

7.1.11 Fixed Assets Register .............................................................................................................. 244

7.1.12 Electrical Inspector Certificate ............................................................................................... 244

7.1.13 Cost of Assets and Financing ................................................................................................. 245

7.1.14 Interest on Security Deposit ................................................................................................... 246

7.1.15 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 247

7.1.16 Return on Equity .................................................................................................................... 247

7.1.17 Employee Expenses ................................................................................................................ 248

7.1.18 A&G Expenses ........................................................................................................................ 250

7.1.19 Bad & Doubtful Debts ............................................................................................................ 250

7.1.20 Reliability Indices ................................................................................................................... 251

7.1.21 Voltage wise Cost of Supply .................................................................................................. 251

7.1.22 Demand Side Management Measures ................................................................................... 252

7.1.23 Electrical Accidents ................................................................................................................ 253

7.1.24 Filing of APR and Truing up Petitions .................................................................................. 253

vii

7.1.25 Issues raised by the Petitioner again despite Commission’s ruling in previous Tariff

Orders ...................................................................................................................................... 253

7.1.26 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-determination of Tariff for FY 2009-10 ................ 254

7.1.27 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-determination of Tariff for FY 2010-11 ................ 254

7.2 Compliance to the Directives issued in APR Order dated April 10, 2014 ........................ 254

7.2.1 Fictitious Sales ......................................................................................................................... 254

7.2.2 Open Access Sale .................................................................................................................... 255

7.2.3 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 256

7.2.4 Metering of unmetered connections ...................................................................................... 256

7.2.5 Interest on GPF Trust.............................................................................................................. 257

7.2.6 Treatment of Assets sent for repairs ...................................................................................... 257

7.2.7 Segregation of LT and HT/ EHT Works ............................................................................... 259

7.2.8 Provision for bad and doubtful debts ................................................................................... 259

7.2.9 Billing of Departmental Employees ....................................................................................... 260

7.2.10 Power Purchase....................................................................................................................... 261

7.2.11 UI Overdrawal and Underdrawal ......................................................................................... 261

7.2.12 Subsidy from GoU for disaster affected areas ...................................................................... 262

7.2.13 Capitalization of Assets .......................................................................................................... 262

7.2.14 Capitalization Policy and Fixed Asset Registers................................................................... 262

7.2.15 Installation of Meter ............................................................................................................... 263

7.2.16 Consumers under Snow Bound (RTS-1 Category) ............................................................... 263

7.2.17 kWh Tariff ............................................................................................................................... 264

7.2.18 MCG Charges .......................................................................................................................... 264

7.2.19 Adjustment of Revenue Surplus ............................................................................................ 265

7.3 Fresh Directives .................................................................................................................... 265

7.3.1 Issue of Voltage wise Loss ...................................................................................................... 265

7.3.2 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) ............................................ 265

7.3.3 Cost of Deficit Power .............................................................................................................. 265

7.3.4 RTS-4 (Private Tubewells) ...................................................................................................... 266

7.3.5 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF ........................................................................................ 266

7.3.6 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters ....... 266

7.3.7 Replacement of Mechanical Meters ....................................................................................... 266

7.3.8 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers .................................................................................................. 266

7.3.9 NB & SB Cases ........................................................................................................................ 267

viii

7.3.10 Outstanding Arrears............................................................................................................... 267

7.3.11 Status of KCC Consumers ...................................................................................................... 267

7.3.12 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold .......................................................................... 267

7.3.13 Billing and Collection System ................................................................................................ 267

7.3.14 Energy Audit .......................................................................................................................... 267

7.3.15 Abnormal Sales in Public Lamps Category .......................................................................... 268

7.3.16 Abnormal Sales in Private Tubewell Category ..................................................................... 268

7.3.17 Abnormal Sales in Public Water Works Category................................................................ 268

7.3.18 Abnormal Sales in LT Industries ........................................................................................... 268

7.3.19 Abnormal Sales in HT industries (Upto 1000 kVA) ............................................................. 268

7.3.20 Abnormal Sales in Mixed Load Category ............................................................................. 269

7.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 269

8. Annexures ..................................................................................................................................... 270

8.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2015......................................................... 270

8.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges ................................................................ 296

8.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice .................................................................................................... 297

8.4 Annexure 4: List of Respondents .......................................................................................... 301

List of Respondents for In-House Paper on tariff related issues ............................................... 303

8.5 Annexure 5: Public Notice on Inhouse Paper ...................................................................... 304

8.6 Annexure 6: List of Participants in Public Hearings ......................................................... 305

8.7 layXud ¼nj vuqlwph dk fgUnh :ikUrj.k½ ........................................................................................... 311

ix

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Publication of Notice ................................................................................................................. 5

Table 1.2: Publication of Notice on Inhouse Papers ................................................................................. 5

Table 1.3: Schedule of Hearings................................................................................................................. 6

Table 2.1: Summary of Total Gap as submitted by the Petitioner ........................................................ 14

Table 2.2: Cost of Power as submitted by the Petitioner ....................................................................... 14

Table 2.3: Comparison of Tariff for Private Advertisement Boards ..................................................... 18

Table 2.4: Comparison of Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) in various States ................................. 21

Table 2.5: Level of Cross-subsity proposed by the Petitioner ............................................................... 38

Table 2.6: Energy Input requirement for FY 2015-16 as submitted by Petitioner ................................ 40

Table 2.7: Comparison of Power Purchase Cost as submitted by Petitioner ....................................... 44

Table 2.8: Distribution Losses as proposed by the Petitioner................................................................ 63

Table 3.1: Break up of Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 (MU) ................................... 76

Table 3.2: Consumption Pattern for some of the Consumers of Domestic Category .......................... 76

Table 3.3: Re-casted sales for Domestic Category for FY 2013-14 (MU) ............................................... 78

Table 3.4: Consumption Pattern of PTW for FY 2013-14 as per Commercial Diary ............................ 79

Table 3.5: Consumption Pattern for some of the Consumers of PTW Category ................................. 79

Table 3.6: Average Consumption of PTW for FY 2013-14 considered by the Commission (MU) ...... 80

Table 3.7: Re-casted sales for Public Lamps for FY 2013-14 (MU) ........................................................ 81

Table 3.8: Division-wise Sales recasting for PWW Consumers ............................................................. 82

Table 3.9: Category-wise Sales for FY 2013-14 (MU) ............................................................................. 83

Table 3.10: Assessed Distribution losses for FY 2013-14 (MU) .............................................................. 84

Table 3.11: Power Purchase Expenses for FY 2013-14 ............................................................................ 85

Table 3.12: Revised Employee Expense Trajectory for MYT Control Period (Rs. Crore) .................... 87

Table 3.13: Proposed Sharing of Gains for Employee Expenses (Rs. Crore) ........................................ 87

Table 3.14: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ................................................ 89

Table 3.15: Approved revised K Factor for MYT Control Period (Rs. Crore) ...................................... 90

Table 3.16: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 90

Table 3.17: Approved A&G Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 91

Table 3.18: Approved O&M Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 91

Table 3.19: GFA and Additional Capitalisation for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ................. 95

x

Table 3.20: Means of Finance as considered for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ....................... 97

Table 3.21: Interest on Govt. of Uttarakhand Loans (Rs. Crore) ........................................................... 98

Table 3.22: Interest on CSD paid and accounted by Petitioner (Rs. Crore) .......................................... 99

Table 3.23: Carrying Cost on excess CSD allowed by the Commission and that paid by Petitioner

(Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................................................ 100

Table 3.24: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)................................................. 100

Table 3.25: Depreciation for FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ............................. 101

Table 3.26: Variation in Depreciation for FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ........ 101

Table 3.27: Depreciation for FY 2013-14 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) .......................... 102

Table 3.28: Interest on working capital for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ..................................................... 105

Table 3.29: Variation in Interest on Working Capital for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) .............................. 105

Table 3.30: Return on Equity claimed for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 106

Table 3.31: Variation in Return on Equity FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ..................................................... 106

Table 3.32: Equity approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............................................................. 106

Table 3.33: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) .................. 106

Table 3.34: Non Tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ................ 107

Table 3.35: Revenue loss due to higher distribution loss for FY 2013-14 ............................................ 108

Table 3.36: Revenue for FY 2013-14 Corresponding to Assessed Sales .............................................. 110

Table 3.37: Revenue from Sale of power for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ................................................... 111

Table 3.38: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2013-14................................... 111

Table 3.39: Sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY

2013-14 (Rs. Crore) .......................................................................................................................... 113

Table 3.40: True-up of FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ...................................................................................... 114

Table 4.1: Actual Energy Sales for Consumer Categories from FY 2006-07 to FY 2013-14 (MU) ...... 118

Table 4.2: Sales Forecast from draft 18th EPS ........................................................................................ 119

Table 4.3: CAGR Calculated for Energy Sales to Each Consumer Category ...................................... 120

Table 4.4: Energy Sales (MU) for FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 ......................................... 121

Table 4.5: Sales Approved for FY 2015-16 (MU) ................................................................................... 122

Table 4.6: Distribution Loss Trajectory.................................................................................................. 123

Table 4.7: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission .............................................. 124

Table 4.8: Energy Input Requirement at Distribution Level for FY 2015-16 ...................................... 124

xi

Table 4.9: Summary of Power Availability projected by UPCL for FY 2015-16 (MU)....................... 125

Table 4.10: Summary of Energy Availability from UJVNL and UREDA for FY 2015-16 (MU) ........ 127

Table 4.11: Summary of Energy Availability from GGS for FY 2015-16 (MU)................................... 128

Table 4.12: Summary of Energy Availability from New Generating Stations for FY 2015-16 (MU) 130

Table 4.13: Summary of Total Firm Energy Available during FY 2015-16 (MU) ............................... 131

Table 4.14: Rate of Free Power approved for FY 2015-16 .................................................................... 136

Table 4.15: Total Power Purchase Cost for FY 2015-16 ........................................................................ 138

Table 4.16: Quarterly Power Purchase Quantum and Cost approved for FY 2015-16 ..................... 139

Table 4.17: Variable Cost of Fuel Based Station for FY 2015-16 (Rs. /kWh) ..................................... 140

Table 4.18: Capital Investments made from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) .......................... 142

Table 4.19: Phasing of Capital Expenditure (Rs. Crore)...................................................................... 142

Table 4.20: Capital Expenditure and Capitalization Proposed for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs.

Crore) ............................................................................................................................................... 143

Table 4.21: Capitalization approved for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .............................. 143

Table 4.22: Financing Plan as approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ........................................... 144

Table 4.23: Projected Interest Expenses (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................. 145

Table 4.24: Interest Expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .................. 147

Table 4.25: Projected Consumer Security Deposit (Rs. Crore) ............................................................ 148

Table 4.26: Interest on Consumer Security Deposit approved for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ............... 148

Table 4.27: Guarantee Fees approved for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ...................................................... 149

Table 4.28: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ................................................ 149

Table 4.29: Projected Depreciation (Rs. Crore) ..................................................................................... 150

Table 4.30: Opening GFA for FY 2015-16 considered by the Commission (Rs. Crore) .................... 150

Table 4.31: Depreciation for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)............................................................................. 152

Table 4.32: Projected Return on Equity (Rs. Crore) .............................................................................. 152

Table 4.33: Approved Equity eligible for Return (Rs. Crore) .............................................................. 153

Table 4.34: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .................. 153

Table 4.35: Projected Employee Costs for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ............................ 156

Table 4.36: Comparison of proposed Recruitment vis-à-vis approved in MYT Order ..................... 156

Table 4.37: Employee Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................. 157

Table 4.38: Projected R&M Expenses for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ............................. 157

xii

Table 4.39: R&M expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ......................................................................... 158

Table 4.40: Projected A&G Expenses for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .............................. 159

Table 4.41: A&G Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ......................................................................... 159

Table 4.42: O&M Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................ 159

Table 4.43: Projected Interest on Working Capital (Rs. Crore) ............................................................ 160

Table 4.44: Interest on Working Capital approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) 160

Table 4.45: Provision for Bad Debts for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .......................................................... 161

Table 4.46: Energy Charges to be paid by UPCL for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) ..................................... 163

Table 4.47: Capacity Charges to be paid by UPCL for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)................................... 164

Table 4.48: ARR for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)........................................................................................... 165

Table 4.49: Approved Revenue at Existing Tariffs for FY 2015-16 ...................................................... 166

Table 4.50: Revenue Gap for FY 2015-16 claimed by Petitioner(Rs. Crore) ........................................ 166

Table 4.51: Summary of Gap to be recovered in FY 2015-16 submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

.......................................................................................................................................................... 167

Table 4.52: Summary of ARR and Revenue Surplus/(Gap) for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore).................... 167

Table 5.1: Additional Surcharge to be recovered from Subsidised Categories and Rebate to

Subsidising Categories on account of re-determination of Tariff for FY 2010-11 ...................... 169

Table 5.2: Tariff proposed for Private Advertisement Boards and Hoardings .................................. 170

Table 5.3 : Tariff for Domestic Consumers............................................................................................ 194

Table 5.4 : Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas ......................................................................... 195

Table 5.5: Tariff for Non-domestic consumers ..................................................................................... 196

Table 5.6 : Tariff for Public Lamps ......................................................................................................... 197

Table 5.7: Tariff for Private tube Wells/ Pump Sets............................................................................. 198

Table 5.8: Tariff for Government Irrigation System ............................................................................. 198

Table 5.9 : Tariff for Public Water Works .............................................................................................. 199

Table 5.10: Tariff for LT Industries ........................................................................................................ 200

Table 5.11: Approved Tariff for HT Industry ....................................................................................... 201

Table 5.12: Tariff for Mixed Load .......................................................................................................... 201

Table 5.13: Tariff for Railway Traction .................................................................................................. 201

Table 5.14: Revenue for FY 2015-16 ....................................................................................................... 202

Table 5.15 : Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply......................................................................... 203

xiii

Table 5.16 : Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2013-14 and FY 2015-16 ................................. 203

Table 5.17: Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2015-16 ..................................................................... 204

Table 6.1: Detail of Sub-stations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2014 .................................. 206

Table 6.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2014....................................................... 207

Table 6.3: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access............................................................. 210

Table 6.4: Formats prescribed vide Commission’s letter dated 17.05.2012 ....................................... 212

Table 6.5: Revised Formats prescribed by the Commission vide letter dated 27.11.2014 ................ 213

Table 6.6: Status of NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF ..................................................................................... 214

Table 6.7: Status of Defective Meters.................................................................................................... 215

Table 6.8: Status of Mechanical Meters ................................................................................................ 216

Table 6.9: Status of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers ................................................................................ 217

Table 6.10: Status of Unmetered Consumers ....................................................................................... 218

Table 6.11: Status of NB & SB Cases ..................................................................................................... 219

Table 6.12: Status of Outstanding Arreas............................................................................................. 220

Table 6.13: Status of KCC Consumers .................................................................................................. 221

Table 6.14: Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold ...................................................................... 222

Table 6.15: Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL........................................................................................ 226

Table 6.16: Divisions having excessive consumption under Public Lamps during FY 2013-14 ....... 230

Table 6.17: Divisions having excessive consumption under Public Water Works during FY 2013-14

.......................................................................................................................................................... 232

Table 6.18: Divisions having lower average revenue in LT Industrial category during FY 2013-14 233

Table 6.19: Divisions having lower revenue in HT Industrial category (upto 1000 kVA) during FY

2013-14 ............................................................................................................................................. 233

Table 6.20: Divisions having lower revenue in Mixed Load category during FY 2013-14 ................ 234

Table 7.1: Detail of Interest on Security Deposit .................................................................................. 246

Table 7.2: Summary of Direct Recruitment........................................................................................... 249

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission 1

Before

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Petition No.: 49 of 2014

In the Matter of: Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited for True-up of FY 2013-14, APR for FY

2015 & determination of ARR and Retail Tariffs for the FY 2015-16.

AND

In the Matter of:

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited ……… Petitioner

Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun

Coram

Shri Subhash Kumar Chairman Shri C. S. Sharma Member Shri K. P. Singh Member

Date of Order: April 11, 2015

Section 64(1) read with Section 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to

as “Act”) requires the generating companies and the licensees to file an application for

determination of tariff before the Appropriate Commission in such manner and along with such fee

as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission through Regulations. In accordance with the

provisions under Section 61 and Section 181 of the Act, the Commission had notified MYT

Regulations, 2011 specifying therein terms and conditions and norms of operations for licensees and

the generating companies. Based on the Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited

Order on Retail Supply Tariff of UPCL for 2015-16

2 Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission

(hereinafter referred to as “UPCL” or “Petitioner” or “licensee”), the Commission had issued an

MYT Order dated May 6, 2013 covering the Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. As per

the provisions of Regulation 13(2) of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011, UPCL filed a Petition (Petition No. 49 of 2014) and hereinafter referred to as the

“Petition”), giving details of its projections of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Tariff

Petition for FY 2015-16, based on true up of FY 2013-14 and Annual Performance Review (APR) for

FY 2014-15, on November 29, 2014. Along with the above Petition, UPCL also submitted retail tariff

proposals for different category of consumers so as to meet its projected ARR for FY 2015-16.

The Petition filed by UPCL had certain infirmities/deficiencies. The Commission,

accordingly, vide its letter no. UERC/6/TF-240/14-15/2014/1703 dated December 9, 2014 and

letter no. UERC/6/TF-240/14-15/2014/1714 dated December 10, 2014 directed UPCL to rectify

these infirmities/deficiencies and to submit certain additional information necessary for admission

of the Petition. UPCL vide its letter no. 2695/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated December 16, 2014 submitted

most of the information sought by the Commission. Based on the submissions dated December 16,

2014 by UPCL, the Commission vide its Order dated December 22, 2014 admitted the Petition, with

the condition that UPCL shall furnish any further information/clarifications as deemed necessary

by the Commission during the processing of the Petition and provide such information and

clarifications to the satisfaction of the Commission within the time frame, as may be stipulated by

the Commission, failing which the Commission may proceed to dispose of the matter as it deems fit

based on the information available with it. UPCL further vide its letters no. 2766/UPCL/RM/B-16

dated December 26, 2014, 2794/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated December 29, 2014 and 13/UPCL/RM/B-16

dated January 02, 2015 submitted most of the response to the remaining queries sought by the

Commission.

The Commission issued in-house paper inviting comments and suggestions from all the

stakeholders on same by February 16, 2015 on five tariff related issues as shown below:

1. Levying Fixed Charges for Domestic Consumers based on Consumption;

2. Removal of the Tariff Category ‘RTS-1A:Snowbound’;

3. Extension of Continuous Supply Option to the Non-Continuous Industries as well;

4. Load Factor based slabs for HT Industrial Consumers;

5. Tariff Categorisation for Horticulture and Floriculture Consumers;


This Order, relates to APR Petition filed by UPCL for FY 2015-16 and is based on the original

as well as all the subsequent submissions made by UPCL during the course of the proceedings

alongwith the relevant findings contained in the MYT Order dated May 6, 2013, APR Order for FY

2014-15 dated April 10, 2014 and suggestions received on inhouse papers on tariff related issues.

Tariff determination being the most vital function of the Commission, it has been the

practice of the Commission to elaborate in detail the procedure and explain the principles utilized

by it in determining the ARR and tariffs. Accordingly, in the present Order also, in line with past

practices, the Commission has tried to elaborate on the procedure and principles followed by it in

determining the ARR requirement of the licensee. For the sake of convenience and clarity, this

Order has further been divided into following Chapters:

Chapter 1 – Background and Procedural History

Chapter 2 – Stakeholders’ Responses and Petitioner‘s Comments

Chapter 3 - Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion

on Truing up for FY 2013-14

Chapter 4 – Petitioner’s Submission, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on

Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2015-16

Chapter 5- Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

Chapter 6- Review of Commercial Performance of the Petitioner

Chapter 7 - Commission’s Directives


1. Background and Procedural History

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) is a company wholly owned by the

Government of Uttarakhand and the sole distribution licensee engaged in the business of

distribution and retail supply of power in the State of Uttarakhand. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Act)

read with the Commission’s relevant Regulations framed under Section 181 of the Act requires the

distribution licensee to file with the Commission, the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) & Tariff

Proposals for the ensuing Financial Year, on or before 30th November each year.

In exercise of power conferred on it under Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and all

other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Commission notified the UERC (Terms and conditions

for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 in December 2011. Further, the Commission vide its

Order dated May 6, 2013 issued the Order on approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff for

UPCL for the first Control Period FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. The Commission, in the approval of

Business Plan, approved the Energy Sales Forecast, Efficiency Parameters, Power Procurement Plan,

Capital Expenditure Plan, Capital Structure, Human Resource Plan, and in the approval of MYT,

approved certain elements of Aggregate Revenue Requirement for each year of the Control Period

FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. In accordance with the Regulation 13(2) of the UERC (Terms and

Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011, the Distribution Licensees are required to

file a Petition/application for Annual Performance Review by November 30 of every year.

As mentioned earlier, in accordance with provisions of the Act and Regulation 13(2) of the

UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011, the distribution

licensees are required to file a Petition/application for determination of its ARR and Tariff for the

ensuing FY latest by November 30 of current Financial Year. UPCL filed its Aggregate Revenue

Requirement and Tariff Petition for FY 2015-16 on November 29, 2014. The Petition consisted of

truing up of the figures of FY 2013-14 based on the audited accounts, review of the figures of FY

2015-16 based on the revised estimates and projections for FY 2015-16. The Petition was admitted by

the Commission vide its Order dated December 22, 2014. The Commission, through its above

Admittance Order dated December 22, 2014, to provide transparency to the process of tariff

determination and give all the stakeholders an opportunity to submit their

objections/suggestions/comments on the proposals of the Distribution Company, also directed



UPCL to publish the salient points of its proposals in the leading newspapers. The salient points of

the proposal were published by the Petitioner in the following newspapers:

Table 1.1: Publication of Notice S. No. Newspaper Name Date of publication 1. Dainik Jagran 25/12/2014 2. Amar Ujala 25/12/2014 3. Hindustan 25/12/2014 4. Rashtriya Sahara 25/12/2014 5. Hindustan Times 26/12/2014 6. Times of India 26/12/2014

Through above notice, the stakeholders were requested to submit their comments latest by

January 31, 2015 (copy of the notice is enclosed as Annexure-3).

The Commission on its own initiative also sent the copies of salient points of tariff proposals

to the Members of the State Advisory Committee, the State Government and also made available

the details of the proposals submitted by the Petitioner in the Commission’s office and on the

Commission's website.

The Commission received 52 objections/suggestions/comments in writing on the

Petitioner’s ARR and Tariff Petition for FY 2015-16. The list of stakeholders who have submitted

their objections/suggestions /comments is enclosed at Annexure-4.

The Commission on its own initiative invited comments and suggestions on the inhouse

papers on five tariff design related issues as shown below:






The Commission also published the public notice inviting comments on the inhouse papers

in the following newspapers.

Table 1.2: Publication of Notice on Inhouse Papers S. No. Newspaper Name Date of publication 1. Dainik Jagran 17/01/2015 2. Amar Ujala 17/01/2015 3. Hindustan Times 18/01/2015



Through above notice, stakeholders were requested to submit their comments latest by

February 16, 2015 (copy of the notice is enclosed as Annexure-5).

The Commission received 04 objections/suggestions/comments in writing on the inhouse

papers issued by the Commission. The list of stakeholders who have submitted their

objections/suggestions /comments is enclosed at Annexure-4.

The Commission also organized a meeting with the Members of the Advisory Committee on

February 05, 2015, wherein, detailed deliberations were held with the Members of the Advisory

Committee on the various issues linked with the Petition filed by UPCL.

For direct interaction with all stakeholders and public at large so as to give them an

opportunity of being heard, the Commission conducted common public hearings on the proposals

filed by UJVNL, PTCUL, SLDC and UPCL at the following places in the State of Uttarakhand:

Table 1.3: Schedule of Hearings S. No. Place Date

1 Almora February 18, 2015 2 Rudrapur February 19, 2015 3 Pauri February 24, 2015 4 Dehradun February 27, 2015

The list of participants who attended the Public Hearing is enclosed at Annexure-6. The

objections/suggestions/comments, as received from the stakeholders in writing as well as during

the course of public hearing were sent to the Petitioner for its response. All the issues as raised by

the stakeholders and Petitioner’s response on the same are detailed in Chapter 2 of this Order. In

this context it is also to underline that while finalizing the Tariff Order, the Commission has, as far

as possible, tried to address the issues raised by the stakeholders.

Based on the preliminary scrutiny of the ARR and tariff proposals submitted by UPCL, the

Commission identified certain data gaps in Petition. Accordingly, following additional

information/clarification from the Petitioner were sought by the Commission vide its letter no.

UERC/6/TF-240/14-15/2014/1703 dated December 9, 2014 and letter no. UERC/6/TF-240/14-

15/2014/1714 dated December 10, 2014.

• Submission of all forms in MS Excel Format.

• Computation of Distribution Losses and Inter-State Transmission Losses for FY 2013-14.

• Clarification on data inconsistency in various figures in the Petition vis-à-vis the Formats.



• Details of Financial Packages as per Form F-7.1

• Actual category wise, month-wise load shedding data for FY 2013-14.

• Copy of Trial Balance for FY 2013-14

• SLDC Certification for intra state transmission losses for FY 2013-14.

• Segregation of the additions in GFA in LT and HT/EHT works giving the means of finance

of the same and clearances of Electrical Inspector with regard to HT/EHT works for FY

2007-08 onwards.

• Details of consumer security deposit for FY 2013-14 (Opening Balance, Additions during the

year, Closing balance) along with computation of interest on consumer security deposit for

FY 2013-14.

• Details of actual interest on consumer security paid/adjusted on security deposit from FY

2011-12 to FY 2013-14.

• Detailed workings in soft copy (MS Excel) for computing scheme-wise IDC for FY 2013-14.

• Necessary documentary support for consideration of Interest on working capital as 14.50%

for FY 2013-14.

• Capitalisation policy for Employee and A&G Expenses.

• Detailed break up of Non Tariff Income for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 respectively.

• Proposed tariff hike in terms of percentage for each consumer category for FY 2015-16 to

meet the projected revenue gap and justifying the proposed tariff revision, in terms of

reduction of cross-subsidy between various consumer categories in accordance with the

provisions of the EA 2003, Tariff Policy, and previous Orders of the Commission.

• Details of actual employees recruited and retired during FY 2013-14.

• Details of fees/fines/penalties/compensation paid during FY 2013-14 & booked under A&G

expenses.

• Details of asset additions and deletions (asset sent for repair) since FY 2001-02 to FY 2013-14.

• Consumer category wise energy sold and revenue billed.

• Computation of cost of power from stations belonging to NTPC, NHPC, NPCIL, THDC,

SJVNL for FY 2015-16.

• Details of works to be carried out under Deviya Apada & Other Capex during FY 2014-15

and FY 2015-16 alongwith its financing.

• Category wise and Voltage wise cost of supply.



In its reply the Petitioner submitted the information vide its letters no. 2695/UPCL/RM/B-

dated December 16, 2014, 2726/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated December 26, 2014, 2794/UPCL/RM/B-16

dated December 29, 2014 and 13/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated January 02, 2015. Further, with an

objective to have a better clarity, for removal of inconsistency in the data submitted in the Petition

and for obtaining additional information, the Commission held a Technical Validation Session

(TVS) with the Petitioner on January 15, 2015, during which the issues raised vide letter no.

UERC/6/TF-240/14-15/2014/1703 dated December 9, 2014, letter no. UERC/6/TF-240/14-

15/2014/1714 dated 10 December, 2014 and replies submitted by Petitioner vide letters no.

2695/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated December 16, 2014, 2766/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated December 26, 2014,

2794/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated December 29, 2014 and 13/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated January 02, 2015,

were discussed.

Based on these discussions, the Commission, vide its letter no. UERC/6/TF-240/14-

15/2014/1914 dated January 20, 2015 forwarded the minutes of the first TVS, seeking some further

clarification/information from the Petitioner. The information as sought by the Commission was

subsequently submitted by the Petitioner vide letters no. 380/UPCL/RM-B-16, 390/UPCL/RM/B-

16 dated February 04, 2015, 402/UPCL/RM/B-14 dated February 05, 2015, 691/UPCL/RM/B-16

dated February 10, 2015, 722/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated February 11, 2015 and 769/UPCL/RM/B-16

dated February 13, 2015.

The submissions made by Petitioner in the Petitions as well as in additional submissions have been

discussed by the Commission at appropriate places in the Tariff Order along with Commission’s

views on the same.


2. Stakeholder’s Responses and Petitioner’s Comments The Commission has received suggestions and objections on UPCL’s Petition for True-up of

Expenses & Revenues for FY 2013-14, Annual Performance Review (APR) of FY 2014-15 and Tariff

for FY 2015-16. The Commission also obtained responses from UPCL on the comments received

from the stakeholders. The Commission also invited comments and suggestions on inhouse papers

issued by it on five tariff related issues as shown below:






Since, several issues are common and have been raised by more than one respondent all

comments have been clubbed issue-wise and summarized below. Further, the Commission has also

considered suggestions received on inhouse papers and had expressed its views in Chapter 5 of this

Order.

2.1 General

2.1.1 Compliance to Regulations/Directions of Commission

2.1.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Pankaj Gupta, President, Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that

Tariff/ARR fixation exercise is not only about approving the expense and revenue, but also an

exercise of taking stock of the past work done and setting a road map for future performance. In

this respect the Commission gave various directions to UPCL. These directions have huge

implications on the overall performance of UPCL and impacts cost of supply to the consumers.

These directives are being reiterated in various ARR Tariff Orders, however, with great regret, it is

pointed out that in this Petition there is no mention of such directives or of action taken with respect

to the follow up in respect of these directives. Therefore, he requested UERC to take up the matter

seriously with UPCL for compliance of these directives.



Shri Bhagwati Khanduri submitted that thorough investigation should be carried out for all

cables connected from an electric pole for checking its genuineness. He also submitted that

Vigilance Dept. should be active and honest towards their duties.

Shri Suresh Kumar, President, LA OPALA RG Ltd., Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Manager-HR &

Admin, Packaging India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Kumar Gupta, Factory Manager, Khatima Fibres Ltd., Shri

Achal Sharma, President, East West Products Ltd., Shri Rudramurthy N of M/s P.E.S Engineers

Private Limited, M/s Arjan Auto Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ashok Bansal, President, Kumaun

Garhwal Chamber of Commerce Industry submitted that since beginning the Commission has been

directing the licensee in every Tariff Order to workout actual voltage wise, category wise losses and

cost of supply for fixation of category wise tariffs. However, the licensee has failed to comply with

this direction. The Commission will be again constrained to make assumptions for HT level losses

while approving the ARR/Tariff for FY 2014-15. Such assumption not based on actual facts and

figures may be detrimental to the interest of the HT consumers. The Commission may, therefore,

take serious note for such non-compliance on the part of the licensee on a repeated basis and take

action provided in the Act and fix the tariff of the consumers fixing HT level losses on a rational

basis.

2.1.1.2 Petitioner’s Reply

The Petitioner submitted that the compliance status of the directions issued by Commission

has been submitted. The progress reports in respect of various works are submitted by UPCL as and

when required by the Commission.

2.1.2 Clarification on Commercial Consumer


Shri Bhagwati Khanduri submitted that all commercial establishment irrespective of their

size and role should be given commercial connection. He also submitted that supply of power from

domestic meter for commercial purpose should be strictly monitored.

2.1.3 Delays in providing connection and meter reading


Shri H. D. Arora, President, Mohalla Shwachta Samiti, Rudrapur submitted that there is

delay in providing new connections, installation of meters at premises, timely meter reading and

2. Stakeholder’s Responses and Petitioner’s Comments


disbursement of bills. In this regard, appropriate measures should be taken and the licensee should

improve their collection efficiency.

Shri Avresh Kumar Singh, Perfect Dynamics Auto Private Ltd. submitted that the work of

an industrial feeder was started on 05.08.2014 for their industry at Fulsungha, Rudrapur. This work

was required to be completed in time duration of 1 month, however, the same has not yet been

completed. In this regard, the Commission is requested to take appropriate action.

2.2 Domestic Tariff

2.2.1 Tariff Hike


Ms. Rashmi Agarwal of Kashipur submitted that UPCL has proposed the following increase

in tariff for Domestic Consumers:

From To (a) Fixed charges - Rs. 35/- p.m. Rs. 45/- p.m.

Rs. 90/- p.m. Rs. 120/- p.m. (b) Energy Charges- Rs. 2.30/kWh Rs. 2.90/kWh

Rs. 2.70/kWh Rs. 3.40/kWh Rs. 3.35/kWh Rs. 4.20/kWh Rs. 3.50/kWh Rs. 4.40/kWh

In this regard, she submitted that the proposed tariff hike for Domestic Consumers appears

to be very high and, therefore, should not be accepted by the Commission.

Ms. Rashmi Agarwal of Kashipur further submitted that UERC in its first Tariff Order dated

September 20, 2003 had fixed the following Tariff for domestic consumers:

(c) Fixed charges - Nil (d) Energy Charges - Rs. 1.80/kWh

On the insistence of UPCL, the Domestic Tariff is being continuously increased and UPCL

has proposed the following tariff:

(a) Fixed charges - 120/- p.m. (b) Energy Charges - Rs. 4.40/kWh



She further submitted that the honest domestic consumer who is paying electricity charges

regularly should not be penalized by increasing tariff abnormally thereby inducing consumers to

adopt pilferage and theft practices.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Kashipur submitted that UPCL has proposed to increase the

energy charges for RTS-1 (Domestic) by approx 26.24% which is unacceptable. As general consumer

is severely affected by the inflation, therefore, he requested the Commission not to accept such

proposal.

Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (President and General Secretary, Shri Karuna Jan Kalyan

Samiti, Almora) submitted that the tariff rates are already higher and, therefore, there should be

maximum tariff hike of 5%. There should not be any tariff hike for the Kutir Jyoti Yojana BPL

Consumers. Further, rebate should be provided to consumers living in hilly areas and border areas

to improve their living condition.

Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal further submitted that fixed charges should be removed & if

not then fixed charge should be charged per KW of load and not according to connection for

domestic consumers.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that there were no fixed charges before 2008. Since

2008, fixed charges have increased from Rs 15/month to Rs 35/month and this charge is

unnecessary. Therefore, fixed charges should be removed.

Shri Maherban Singh Negi submitted that there should be no provision of giving free power

to any family, home or office. Rebate should be on the basis of some quota.

Further, Shri H. D. Arora and Shri M. S. Nayaz submitted that the proposed hike in tariff is

unacceptable. Indeed, UPCL should provide 24 hour electricity supply to consumers in State.

Shri Surendra S. Negi, Shri M. S. Nayaz and Shri Gopal Shankar Shrivastav submitted that

UPCL should not give free power to any its employee or to any category for misuse. Further, there

should be some limit for consumption by departmental employees.

Shri Ajay Bhargava, Secretary, Mussoorie Hotels Association and Shri R. N. Mathur,

President, Mussoorie Hotels Association submitted that free/subsidised supply of electricity should

be stopped to the working/retired employees of UPCL so as to curtail misuse of electricity.



Shri Bhagwati Khanduri submitted that any departmental consumer, employee and ex-

employees should not be allowed to use unlimited free electricity irrespective of status.

Shri R. P. Joshi and Shri K. B. Pandey, Secretary, Retired Central Employee Kalyan Samiti

Almora submitted that every departmental employee or ex-employee of UPCL should be metered.

This will result in electricity saving as well as increase in revenue.

Shri V. K. Birdi submitted that in case meters installed by UPCL are running fast than the

standards, then in such cases check meters are installed by UPCL. In this regard, he suggested that

the Commission should arrange for providing seal to check meters after adjusting their speed in

accordance with norms and standards.

Shri Suresh Kumar, President, LA OPALA RG Ltd., Shri Gopal Shankar Shrivastav, Shri

Rudramurthy N and Shri Jaan Ali submitted that the proposed tariff hike of 26.7% for FY 2015-16 is

too high and act as a shock to consumers.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma, Member, Bhartiya Kisan Club Delna submitted that 1 kW load in

domestic connection should be removed as the difference between Contracted Load and Connected

Load is too high. He further submitted that in rural areas, the PTW lines and Domestic Lines

should be separate.

Adv. N. D. Dobriyal, Mahasachiv, Government Pensioners Association, Dehradun

suggested that Fixed Charge, Electricity duty and Surcharge is unnecessarily charged on consumers

and should be abolished


As regards the contention raised by several stakeholders regarding tariff hike, the Petitioner

submitted that UPCL is a commercial organization and is required to meet its Annual Revenue

Requirement out of the revenue realized from the consumers through electricity tariffs. The revenue

deficit for the period upto FY 2015-16 excluding the deficit of FY 2014-15 is expected to be Rs.

1131.38 Crore, which necessitates a tariff hike of 26.24%, and if not recovered, will impose a huge

financial burden on UPCL, which will make the distribution business unviable. Summary of gap to

be recovered in FY 2015-16 is as follows:-



Table 2.1: Summary of Total Gap as submitted by the Petitioner S. No. Particulars Rs. Crore Rs./Unit %

1 Cost of Power* 4047.79 3.91 80.04% 2 Cost of Service 1009.73 0.97 19.96% 3 ARR (1+2) 5057.52 4.88 100.00% 4 Gap for FY 14 385.70 0.37 7.63% 5 Net ARR (3+4) 5443.22 5.25 107.63% 6 Existing Tariff 4311.84 4.16 85.26% 7 Increase in Tariff Required (5-6) 1131.38 1.09 26.24%

The details of the above referred Cost of Power is as follows:

Table 2.2: Cost of Power as submitted by the Petitioner S. No. Particulars Rs./Unit %%

1 Power Purchase 2.81 71.83% 2 Transmission Charges 0.36 9.33% 3 Transmission Loss 0.06 1.50% 4 Cost of Power at Distribution Periphery (1+2+3) 3.23 82.66% 5 Distribution Loss 0.68 17.34% 6 Cost of Power (4+5) 3.91 100.00%

The deficit for FY 2014-15 based on accounts shall be claimed in the next year during truing

up exercise. As against average increase required of Rs. 1.09 per unit (ARR of Rs. 5.25/unit minus

existing Tariff of Rs. 4.16/unit), UPCL has proposed average increase of Rs. 0.76/unit for Domestic

Category.

Further, as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the tariff of each category should be

fixed in a manner that it reflects cost of supply, keeping the cross subsidy level as per law. In case

tariff is not increased, the level of cross subsidy will go beyond permissible limits.

As regards the contention raised by stakeholders regarding fixed charges, the Petitioner

submitted that in accordance with Section 45(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 about 50% of the UPCL’s

total costs are fixed in nature including the capacity / fixed charge of power purchase, which

should be recovered to a certain extent through fixed charges to ensure revenue stability. Hence,

levy of fix charge is necessary and as per the provisions of law. The Commission is in the process of

rationalizing the tariff including levying of Fixed Charges for Domestic Consumers based on the

consumption.

As regards the contention raised by Shri Maherban Singh Negi and Shri Surendra S. Negi

regarding no free power supply, the Petitioner submitted that presently no electricity is being



supplied to any consumer free of cost. The employees of UPCL are being given the facility of

departmental electricity connection since U.P. State Electricity Board was in existence. Under this

facility, a fix lump-sum amount is charged from the employees, according to their designation,

towards electricity charges for electricity supplied to them. Erstwhile UPSEB was unbundled under

the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 and Section 23(7) of the said Act

provides “terms and conditions of service of the personnel shall not be less favourable to the terms

and condition which were applicable to them before the transfer”. The same spirit has been echoed

under first proviso of Section 133(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The benefits for employees/

pensioners as provided in Section 12(b)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Reform Transfer Scheme, 2000

include “concessional rate of electricity”, which means concession in rate of electricity to the extent

it is not inferior to what was existing before 14th January, 2000. The rates and charges indicated

above for this category are strictly in adherence of above statutory provisions. As UPCL is the

successor entity of UPPCL (formed as a result of unbundling of UPSEB), the above legal provisions

are also applicable on UPCL. However, UPCL is in process to evolve a mechanism to give the

concession in tariff for supply of Electricity to the employees and pensioners as per Commission’s

directives.

2.3 Non-Domestic Tariff

2.3.1 Tariff Hike


Shri Vijay Kumar, President- Atta Chakki Union, Haridwar submitted that it is not justified

to increase tariff when there was profit last year. Further, the fixed charges should not be charged in

electricity bills. Also, the tariff should be reduced for Atta Chakkis.

Shri Ajay Bhargava, Secretary and Shri R. N. Mathur, President submitted that UPCL has

proposed an increase in tariff from Rs. 4.55/kVAh to Rs. 5.65/kVAh in RTS-2 (Non-Domestic)

Category. They also mentioned that as per news article dated January 22, 2015 , the Central

Government had advised all state governments to ensure that the tariff should not be increased as

this will adversely affect the economy of the country and increase inflation. Therefore, the

Commission should not accept the proposed tariff hike.

Shri Ajay Bhargava and Shri R. N. Mathur also suggested that UPCL should take steps to

reduce the theft of electricity and reduce the distribution losses.



Shri Jaan Ali submitted that UPCL charges Rs. 80/kW as fixed charge on Atta chakki and

this should be removed. He further submitted that on one hand Government is promoting

industries, but on the other hand UPCL is charging excess bills which has no reference in tariff

order.


With regard to Atta Chakkis, the Petitioner submitted that in accordance with the provisions

of Electricity Act, 2003, tariff of all categories is required to be determined at Average Cost of

Supply with permissible level of cross subsidy. Accordingly, tariff of all categories including Atta

Chakki has been proposed. However, MCG in respect of Atta Chakki has been kept at lower level of

40 unit/kW/Month in place of 60 unit/kW/Month applicable for other LT Industry consumers.

2.3.2 Clarification in fixation of Units


Shri Ram Kumar, Senior Vice President, Hotel Association requested the Commission to fix

the Unit of energy charges in kWh, fixed charges and the MCG in “kWh/kW” as all the contracted

load of consumers is also in kW and it will be easier for consumers to understand.

2.4 Tariff for Charitable Institutions 2.4.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Kailash Chand Sharma and Shri Raj Singh of Dev Bhumi Dharmsala Committee,

Haridwar submitted that due to flood in Kedarnath, Dharmshalas are empty and they are not able

to pay the tariffs. Therefore, they requested the Commission to abolish the fixed charge per unit for

Dharamshalas. They further submitted that Dharamshalas are put in Domestic Category in other

States of India. However, in Uttarakhand, Dharamshalas are put under Commercial Category and

have the compulsion of Income-Tax Act 1961. In this regard, they requested UERC that all the

dharamshalas/trusts should be exempted from the compulsion of Income-tax Act 1961.


The Petitioner submitted that in accordance with the existing categorization of consumers,

Dharamshala/Trust/ Ashrams fall under the category of RTS-2 (Non-domestic). The domestic

category applies only on the residential premises for light, fan & power and other domestic

purposes including single point bulk supply above 50 kW for residential colonies, residential



multistoried buildings where energy is exclusively used for such purpose. Non-domestic category is

a subsidizing category whereas the domestic category is subsidized category. As per the provisions

of Electricity Act, 2003 and National Tariff Policy, the cross subsidy should be maintained at the

level of ±20% of the average cost of supply. In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, consumers

covered under subsidizing category cannot be transferred into the subsidized category. Thus, the

Dharamshala/Trust/Ashrams are rightly categorized under Rate Schedule RTS-2 (Non-domestic).

Further, about 50% of the UPCL’s total costs are fixed in nature including the capacity/fixed

charge of power purchase, which should be recovered to a certain extent through fixed charges to

ensure revenue stability. Hence, levy of fix charge is necessary and as per the provisions of law.

2.5 Street Lighting


Shri Maherban Singh Negi submitted that there should be proper checking of street

light/security light. LED bulb should be installed. Street light should be installed at proper

direction on each pole with proper location of switches.

Col. S. K. Bhattacharya, Dehradun submitted that there is a huge wastage of electricity due

to street lights as most of the street lights are lit for 24x7 hrs.

Shri Bhagwati Khanduri submitted that every street lights should be metered and local body

should pay the bill on time.


The Petitioner submitted that streetlights are controlled by the local authority/municipal

corporations. However, UPCL is always ready to cooperate with the local authority/municipal

corporations to stop the wastage of electricity in street lights.

2.6 Independent Advertising Hoardings 2.6.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that Fixed & Energy Charges for the new category

proposed for “Independent Advertising Hoardings” should be on a lower side.




The Petitioner submitted that the new category proposed for Private Advertisement Boards

and Hoardings is on similar lines to the neighbouring states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi,

however, the tariff proposed is on a much lower side than that charged by utilities in these States.

The tariff comparison across States has been shown in the Table below:

Table 2.3: Comparison of Tariff for Private Advertisement Boards State Fixed Charge (Per Month) Energy Charge (Per Unit)

Delhi Rs. 500/hoarding Rs.11.20/kVAh Haryana Rs. 150/kW Rs. 7.45/kWh Uttar Pradesh Rs. 1200/kW MCG Rs. 14.00/kWh

2.7 Agricultural Tariff

2.7.1 Private Tube Wells


Shri Mukesh Chauhan of Dehradun submitted that Minimum Consumption Charges (MCG)

should be abolished for Private Tube Wells (PTW) connections & per unit charge may be increased

for such connections. He further submitted that chaff cutter, thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller

should not be removed from RTS-4 (PTW) Category.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Kashipur submitted that proposed tariff increase for RTS-4

(PTW/Pumping set) is 27% due to which farmers have to bear extra burden. In this regard, he

requested to reduce the energy charges from Rs. 1.40 per unit to Rs. 1 per unit. He further requested

to remove MCG.

Shri Kuldeep Singh Cheema, Bhartiya Kishan Union submitted that current tariff of PTW

category consumers is Rs 1.10/unit and additional MCG on tariff is an extra burden on farmers. He

also submitted that the in interest of State, tube well connection should be given quickly and at

minimum charges. Further, meters on PTW should be insured from a insurance company to remove

burden from farmers in case of meter defect and theft.

Farmers of Bhartiya Kishan Union, Uddham Singh Nagar submitted that PTW tariff should

not be increased as farmers are not getting proper price for their yields and there is reduction of

around 30% in yield every year. They also submitted that many states have given relief package or

subsidy to farmers in bills to improve financial condition of farmers. They requested to provide



subsidy to farmers on PTW bills. They further stated that on an average a farmer uses PTW for 97

hrs resulting into a bill of approx Rs. 300/- per month. Farmers have not used PTW connection

since October 2014 for 6 months due to proper rain. Therefore, tariff should not be increased for

PTW category.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma submitted that there should be physical verification of Contracted

Load and Connected Load. In this regard, he suggested that fixed charges should be increased for

unmetered connections from Rs. 180/BHP/month to Rs. 200/BHP/month. Energy charges should

not be increased for metered connections. He further submitted that there are around 70% PTW

meters with IDF billing, but are shown as Not Read (NR) billing. Further, there should be

verification of small sugarcane crushers as most of them are running on PTW connections.


The Petitioner submitted that Section 45(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, stipulates for levy of

fixed charges as follows:

“The charges for electricity supplied by a distribution licensee may include:

• a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied ;

• a rent or other charges in respect of any electric meter or electrical plant provided by the

distribution licensee.”

About 50% of the UPCL’s total costs are fixed in nature including the capacity/ fixed charge

of power purchase, which should be recovered to a certain extent through fixed charges to ensure

revenue stability. Levy of minimum consumption guarantee charge is a way of ensuring minimum

revenue to the licensee from the consumers. Minimum Consumption Guarantee has been proposed

at very low level of consumption i.e. 70 kWh/ BHP/Month (13% load factor). In case during certain

month, actual consumption is less than MCG, MCG is charged in those months. Any excess of billed

consumption (over actual consumption or minimum consumption, whichever is higher) is adjusted

at the end of the financial year.

Further, UPCL proposed that thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller should be covered under

the Rate Schedule RTS - 7 as these activities are of industrial nature. It may also be noted that under

the existing classification, it is difficult to identify the incidental agricultural production of the



connection which is sanctioned for irrigation purpose and are prone to be misused by availing

subsidized tariff for the activities not covered under this rate schedule.

2.8 Mixed Load (RTS-8) Tariff 2.8.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri G. S. Bedi, General Manager of India Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited submitted that

proposed increase in fixed/demand charge and energy charge is very high in Mixed Load (RTS-8)

Tariff.


In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL has proposed a uniform increase of

26.24% in each category.

2.9 Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) 2.9.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui, DGM (Commercial), Kashi Vishawanth Textile Mill limited and

Shri P. S. Tomar, Director, Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. submitted that at present DPS is levied at

1.25% on the unpaid amount even if the payment is done just after 1 day. This interest translates

into 15% annually which is very high. In this regard, they suggested that Delayed Payment

Surcharge should be charged on pro-rata basis @ 0.75% if the payment is made within 15 days after

the due date and @ 1% if the payment is made after 15 days from the due date.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that late payment surcharge should not be applied

on account of N.R/I.D.F meters.


The Petitioner submitted that Delayed Payment Surcharge is the cost of money not received

to UPCL in time. This surcharge is also levied with a view to discourage the consumers who do not

pay their bills within the due date. Delayed Payment Surcharge in Uttarakhand is lower than that

charged by other utilities across various states. The DPS charged across various States are as under:



Table 2.4: Comparison of Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) in various States State DPS

Haryana 1.5 % on unpaid amount of the bill for each 30 days successive period or part thereof until the amount is paid in full.

Uttar Pradesh 1.5% per month on unpaid amount Delhi 1.5% per month on unpaid amount

Accordingly, no change should be made in the Delayed Payment Surcharge.

As regards the contention raised by Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the Petitioner submitted

that UPCL has already developed a detailed metering plan for replacing all defective meters and to

ensure 100% meter reading. However, late payment surcharge is levied to compensate the cost of

money received beyond due date and borne by UPCL by borrowing this money from market.

Hence, late payment surcharge cannot be discontinued.

2.10 Rebate and Incentives 2.10.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri G. S. Bedi requested the Commission to provide rebate/incentive to consumers directly

connected to PTCUL substation on account of lower line losses. Further, he requested the

Commission to provide rebate/incentive for reactive power management in case of Mixed Load

tariff (RTS-8) as it would encourage consumers for maintaining very high Power Factor based on

kW/kWh billing.

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that the State of Uttarakhand had released its textile

policy on 11.12.2014 extending attractive subsidies and relaxations to promote textile industry in the

State comprising power bill rebate of Rs. 1/- per unit and 100% relief on electricity duty.

Accordingly, he suggested that textile industries in the State should be allowed power rebate @ Rs.

1/- per unit and waiver in electricity duty.

Shri Manu Kochhar and Shri P. S. Tomar suggested that rebates offered for availing supply

at higher voltages than the base voltage should be increased from 2.5% to 7.5% for supply at 33 kV

and from 7.5% to 12.5% for supply at 132 kV and above.

Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Enterprises requested the Commission to provide a rebate of

7.5% to industries connected on independent feeder at 33 kV as distribution losses at independent

feeders is around only 1%.



Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that high voltage

rebate should be provided on both energy charge and demand charge to industries connected to

independent feeder. Further, he requested the Commission to increase the rebate for industries

connected to independent feeder from 1% to 2.5% at 11 kV, from 2.5% to 7.5% at 33 kV and from

7.5% to 12% at 132 kV because the distribution losses at independent feeders is around 1% only.

Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that a rebate should be given for unreasonable

power cut, roastering and for low/high voltage as a penalty to UPCL. Further, a rebate should be

given to consumers for encouraging use of solar power and for using CFL/LED. He requested the

Commission to provide a rebate in bill payment within 15 days to encourage consumers for timely

payment.

Shri Suresh Kumar, (President, LA OPALA RG Ltd.), Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, (Manager-HR

& Admin, Packaging India Pvt. Ltd.), Shri Kumar Gupta, (Factory Manager, Khatima Fibres Ltd.),

Shri Achal Sharma, (President, East West Products Ltd.), Shri Rudramurthy N (M/s P.E.S Engineers

Private Limited), M/s Arjan Auto Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ashok Bansal, (President,

Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce Industry) submitted that the Commission in its Tariff

Order dated 25.04.2005 had provided the high voltage rebates to the consumers on rate of charge

(demand and energy charge) as follows:

(a) LT Consumers - 5% for supply voltage at 11 kV.

(b) HT Consumers - 2.5% for supply voltage at 33 kV, 5% for supply voltage above 33 kV i.e.,

for 132 kV and 220 kV.

In the next Tariff Order dated 12.07.2006, the Commission linked the H.V. rebate mechanism

to systems technical requirement ignoring the fact that the tariff therein was not reflecting cost of

supply at different voltages but was being computed on average cost of supply. Based on the

comments/objections on subsequent Tariff Proposals, the Commission restored the HV rebates

partially on rate of charge in its Tariff Order dated 06.05.2013 as under:

(a) LT Consumers - 5% for supply voltage above 400 Volts and upto 11 kV.

(b) HT Consumers – 1.5% for supply voltage of 33 kV, 5% for supply voltage of 132 kV and

220 kV.



Thus, the Commission while restoring previously admissible rebates of other supply

voltages, the rebate for 33 kV voltage was fixed at 1.5% without any justification for such a change.

On being pursued further, the Commission in the last Tariff Order for FY 2014-15 provided for H.V.

rebates on energy charge instead of rate of charge (demand and energy charge) as follows:

(a) LT consumer - 5.0% for supply voltage above 400 Volts and upto 11 kV.

(b) For HT consumer - In case of supply at 33 kV voltage rebate of 2.5% on energy charge

and for supply at 132 kV and above voltages, 7.5% on the energy charge.

Thus, the Commission increased the rebate of HT consumers of 33 kV and above but made it

admissible only on energy charge while previously it was admissible on rate of charge. Therefore,

the Commission is requested to review the matter and allow HV rebates on rate of charge, i.e.

demand and energy charge instead of energy charge only.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission increased the voltage rebate on demand of

consumers as follows:-

• at 132 kV supply rebate increased in FY 2013-14 from 2.5% to 5% and in FY 2014-15

from 5% to 7.50%.

• at 33 kV supply rebate increased in FY 2014-15 from 1.5% to 2.50%.

Hence, this rebate should not be increased further.

With regard to providing rebate for timely payment, the Petitioner submitted that timely

payment is the duty of the consumers against the service provided as UPCL has to manage its

working capital requirements. The Commission also allows normative working capital to the

Petitioner, assuming timely payment by all consumers. Hence, no rebate should be allowed to the

consumers for timely payment. Further, in case timely payment rebate is allowed, the proportionate

increase in energy/demand charges will be required.

As regards the contention raised Shri G. S. Bedi regarding rebate/incentive for reactive

power management in case of Mixed Load tariff (RTS-8), the Petitioner submitted that tariff is

determined considering that the consumer will maintain a healthy power factor. Further in



accordance with the provisions of Tariff Orders., penalty is levied on consumers for not maintaining

healthy power factor.

UPCL further submitted that, there is no relation of distribution losses with contracted load

and demand charges and, therefore, voltage rebate should not be admissible on demand charges.

With regard to providing rebate for using CFLs and non-conventional sources of energy, the

Petitioner submitted that consumers using CFLs are automatically awarded in terms of reduced

bills on account of reduced consumption due to CFLs.

2.11 Industrial Tariff 2.11.1 Tariff Hike


Dr. Kirit Somaiya, Chairman, Parliamentary Committee on Energy, mentioned that crude oil

prices have reduced from $ 140/barrel to $ 50/barrel during last year. Similarly, there was drastic

reduction in prices of imported coal. Accordingly, UPCL’s expenses will reduce by around 40% in

FY 2014-15 and 50% in FY 2015-16. Therefore, electricity tariff should be reduced.

Shri G. S. Bedi submitted that UPCL has proposed average electricity tariff hike of 26.24% in

the existing retail tariff of consumers. If proposed hike of tariff by PTCUL, SLDC & UJVNL are

accepted by Commission, then it would necessitate a further hike of 10%. He further submitted that

proposed increase in Fixed/Demand charges & TOD charges in RTS-7 (HT industries) is so high

that it may break the back-bone of industries.

Shri Munish Talwar, Head- Electrical, Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that any hike in

Tariff at this juncture would put industry into further hardship as their industry is already

burdened by many issues like high manufacturing cost, etc. Therefore, the Commission should ask

for relevant data from UPCL to fix the tariff. Care must be taken to check the cost of inefficiency of

the public/electricity utilities and this should not be passed on the consumers. Rather than the

approach of tariff hike by about 26.24%, UPCL should prepare a “Power system Master Plan” for

estimating the Load forecast, calculating the region wise deficit and formulating ways of bridging

this gap.

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that the average cost of supply for the licensee has gone

up due to increase in power purchase cost and increase in capital expenditure. The increase in



power purchase cost proposed is not only due to higher rates of CGS considered by UPCL but is

also due to higher system losses. Further, the HT/EHT industries have losses even less than 5%,

however, they are being burdened with the inefficiencies of the distribution licensee. He further

suggested that the tariff should be reduced by 10% keeping in view the net profit of UPCL as per

their balance sheet for the FY 2013-14.

Shri Ram Kumar submitted that UPCL has proposed 26% increase in tariff and has failed to

control its expenses and line losses and wants to put the burden on its honest consumers. In this

regard, he suggested that UPCL may check its expenses by taking the following measures:

a. UPCL should take strict measures to prevent the line losses.

b. No free electricity should be provided to current and retired employees of UPCL.

c. Steps should be taken to encourage the consumers in saving electricity by using energy

efficient appliances.

d. The street lights be changed from sodium and halogens to energy efficient LED lamps with

automatic timers.

e. Proper earthing should be done in the electric poles so that during lightning the

transformers are not damaged.

Shri Anil Kansal and Shri Pawan Agarwal, Vice President, Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers

Association submitted that UERC charges a cess of 40 to 50 Paise per kWh for the power sourced

from UJVNL. This cess amount is charged so that the consumers are not habitual of cheaper power

and the amount collected is utilized in the power development of the State. He has further

requested the Commission that the cess amount should be adjusted in the tariff determination for

FY 2015-16 to reduce the tariff hike.

Shri Sagar Suman, BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the proposal of increase in tariff

by 26% is unacceptable and it should be reduced to maximum level.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia, President, Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted

that nos. of industrial consumers in State are even less than 1% but industries consume 58%

electricity and accounts for 64% of UPCL’s revenue. Even after so much share, UPCL has proposed

hike in industrial tariff without any appropriate reason.



He also submitted that UPCL has huge pending bills on State Government departments like

water department, Nagar Nigam, Ganga Pollution plan, etc. UPCL should take proper steps to

collect such pending bills.


The Petitioner submitted that revenue deficit for the period upto FY 2015-16 excluding the

deficit of FY 2014-15 is expected to be Rs. 1,131.38 Crore, which has necessitated a tariff hike of

26.24%, and if not recovered, will impose a huge financial burden on UPCL, which will make the

distribution business unviable. Hence, the Commission is requested to consider the tariff proposal

of UPCL keeping in view the aforesaid facts submitted.

Further, profit in the Annual Accounts of FY 2013-14 is reflecting due to the reason that

some prior period adjustments have been made and the Commission had allowed the gap of Rs.

239.28 Crore in FY 2013-14. Hence, the tariff increase as proposed by UPCL is necessary.

2.11.2 Textile Industry


Shri P. K. Rajput, Executive Director of ALPS Industries Ltd. submitted that their first unit in

SIDCUL, Haridwar became operational in 2005. In 2005, the basic rate of electricity was Rs. 1.90 per

unit and total per unit cost was Rs. 2.50 (approx.). However, in few years the basic rate is revised to

Rs. 3.60 per unit & total per unit cost to Rs. 5.29 (approx.). Therefore, any tariff increase is

unjustified. He further submitted that the Textile sector is already in downfall due to rise in raw

cotton price, lower productivity & cost competitiveness and increase in employment cost & other

miscellaneous costs. Further, the Central Govt. was giving 8% incentive in the form of Draw Back &

DEPB under Import & Export Policy. Such incentive was withdrawn in April 2010 particularly for

Cotton yarn and recently only 3% is allowed. Therefore, he requested the Commission for not

revising electricity tariff particularly for Textile Sector as they are already under heavy financial

loss. Moreover, he also requested to provide more concession for smooth working of spinning units

as any tariff increase will affect the viability of their textile units.

Further Shri P. K. Rajput& Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that Uttarakhand State Govt.

vide its Order No. 791/VII-1/40-SIIDCUL/2014 Dehradun dated 11.12.2014 extended a Textile

Policy for the Textile Industries being set up in Uttarakhand. In accordance with Point No.9 (v) of

this Order, there will be no power cut for next 7 years and a rebate of Rs. 1.00 per unit will be



allowed plus 100% exemption from electric duty for next 7 years. Accordingly, with reference to

such Order, he requested for a rebate of Rs. 1 per Unit plus 100% exemption from electricity duty

for 7 years.


The Petitioner submitted that the revenue deficit for the period upto FY 2015-16 excluding

the deficit of FY 2014-15 is expected to be Rs.1131.38 Crore, which necessitates a tariff hike of


distribution business unviable. Therefore, the Commission is requested to consider the tariff

proposal of UPCL.

As regard the contention raised regarding rebate as per Textile Policy, the Petitioner

submitted that there is around 22 hours per day power supply to all the categories in Uttarakhand

and continuous process industries can avail continuous power. Tariff is determined at cost of

supply plus cross subsidy level allowed under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Government

grant along with equity and loan is also invested in fixed assets of UPCL and PTCUL and such

grant (return/depreciation) is not included in the Tariffs of consumers. Thus, the consumers are

being benefited from this grant. Further, in accordance with section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Electricity

(Duty) Act (Uttarakhand adaptation and modification) Order 2001, State Government is

empowered to fix the rates of Electricity Duty to be charged from various category of consumers.

Government of Uttarakhand has fixed these rates w.e.f. 01.12.2003. The Electricity duty charged

from consumers is payable by UPCL to GoU. Therefore, the matter may be taken up with GoU.

2.11.3 Fixed/Demand Charge and Energy Charge


Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Enterprises and Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal of Kashi Vishwanath

Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the Commission has increased energy charges by around 20 paisa per

kVAh/Year in the previous financial years for HT Category of consumers. However, UPCL is

demanding a hike of 95 paisa per kVAh , i.e. 26.38%. Further, he submitted that the Commission has

also increased demand charges in the previous financial years for HT Category of Consumers. Such

hike in energy charge and demand charge for HT Category of consumers is unreasonable and

unjustified and should not be approved.



Shri Suresh Kumar, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Shri Kumar Gupta, Shri Achal Sharma, Shri

Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that the licensee has proposed a hike in the tariff

of industrial category by increase in fixed/demand charges as well as in energy charges. The fixed

charges to LT industries have been proposed as Rs. 130/- per kW against existing rate of Rs. 100/-

per kW and demand charges for HT industries as Rs. 270/- and Rs. 345/- per kVA against existing

rate of Rs. 210/- per kVA and Rs. 270/- per kVA, respectively for contracted load upto 1000 kVA

and contracted load more than 1000 kVA. The steep hike in fixed/demand charges and energy

charges would increase the effective tariff by about 30% from the existing level. Such sharp hike is

not only disgusting but discouraging to the industries in this new State and is highly opposed.

Further, UPCL in its Tariff Proposal has stated that in accordance with provision of Electricity Act,

2003, drawing of demand in excess of contracted demand is unauthorized use of electricity and the

tariff for such unauthorized use should be equal to twice the normal tariff applicable. Accordingly,

UPCL has proposed demand charges and energy charges corresponding to the excess demand to be

charged at twice the normal rate. In this regard, Shri Suresh Kumar, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Shri

Kumar Gupta, Shri Achal Sharma, Shri Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that the

demand in excess of the contracted demand is not covered in unauthorized usage of electricity as

per Electricity Act, 2003 or UERC Electricity Supply Regulations, 2007. As per the provision in the

Tariff Order the consumers are already being charged at twice the rate of demand charges for the

maximum demand recorded in excess of the contracted load. Unauthorized usage of energy cannot

be said in such cases if load factor on the basis of the contracted load is not more than 100%. As such

the proposal of the licensee is not worth.

Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that demand

charges are charged by UPCL, but assets are not maintained, hence, the tariff hike is not acceptable.

Shri S. S. Chopra, Manager, Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited submitted that

fixed/demand charges should be reduced from 80% to 70%.


The Petitioner submitted that the revenue deficit for the period upto FY 2015-16 excluding

the deficit of FY 2014-15 is expected to be Rs.1131.38 Crore, which necessitates a tariff hike of




distribution business unviable. Therefore, the Commission is requested to consider the tariff

proposal of UPCL.

The Petitioner further submitted that about 50% of the UPCL’s total costs are fixed in nature

including the capacity/ fixed charge of power purchase, which should be recovered to a certain

extent through fixed charges to ensure revenue stability.

The Petitioner also submitted that UPCL does not agree with the contention that assets are

not maintained. Presently 80 number of 33 kV substations in various locations of the State are

under construction to meet the demand of new consumers and to further improve the quality of

power. Further, regular R&M is done by UPCL of all its assets.

2.11.4 Time of Day Tariff


Shri G. S. Bedi requested the Commission for abolishing morning peak hours beyond 8 am

because it is obstructing the general shift of 8 hours at normal rates.

Shri Rajeev Gupta submitted that peak hour surcharges should be calculated @ 50% for all

type of load factors. He further requested to discontinue the morning peak hours from 6.00 am to

9.30 am in winter season. He also requested to increase the rebate from 10% to 50% during off peak

hours to encourage utilization of power during off peak hours.

Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that ToD tariff at peak hours is 50-77% higher than the

normal rates. Accordingly, rebate of 50-77% should be provided at off peak hours. During off peak

hours, the rate of power purchased through open access should be less.

Shri Anil Kansal and Pawan Agarwal submitted that ToD tariff for peak hours is at a flat

rate of Rs 5.40/kVAh, whereas, for load factor above 50% it is Rs. 3.60/kVAh. Thus, the ToD tariff

for peak hours is 50% higher than the normal rates. In this regard, they suggested that this increase

should not be more than 15%. They further submitted that morning peak hours should not be

allowed as it is not allowed in all other States including Himachal Pradesh. He further submitted

that rebate for night off peak hours should be 20%, instead of 10%.


Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that morning peak hours as envisaged in the

tariff needs to be reviewed as in no other hill state except Uttarakhand, the morning peak hours



have been specified for charging higher energy charges. In the existing power buy/sale market of

open access higher energy rates are not prevailing for morning hours transactions.

Shri Sagar Suman, BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the peak hours from 6:00 am to

9:30 am in winter season is completely wrong and should be abolished immediately.


The Petitioner submitted that the objective of introduction of ToD Tariff was to minimize the

gap between maximum (peak) demand and minimum demand and to bring the peak demand

closer to the average demand as possible. On every reduction of this gap, the generation cost,

transmission cost and distribution cost and power cuts will be reduced and the higher demand can

be catered from the available capacity. In other words, ToD Tariff is a very effective tool of demand

side management which facilitates the optimum utilization of the available capacity of Generation,

Transmission and Distribution, resulting in reduction of costs. The benefit of such reduction in cost

is passed on to the consumers. The nature of consumption of Domestic Category and Non-Domestic

Category is that it cannot be shifted to any other time of the day and, therefore, peak hours

surcharge has been specified for the Industrial Consumers who can shift their load and the rate of

energy charge during peak hours for consumers having any load factor has been kept same and this

is not based on the Energy Charge of any load factor slab.

Further, peak hour extra charges have been kept at a rate more than the rate of rebate during

off peak hours so that the load during peak hours may be shifted to the off peak hours and this

rebate should not be increased.

As regard the contention raised by Shri G. S. Bedi regarding abolition of morning peak

hours, the Petitioner submitted that morning peak hours have been kept only in the winter season,

i.e. from October to March of the financial year. The timings of morning peak hours are from 06:00

hrs to 09:30 hrs. Morning peak hours have been provided due to heating load and reduced

generation in winter season, whereas the Air Conditioning load during summer season in the Hilly

State of Uttarakhand from 06:00 hrs to 09:30 hrs is negligible. Therefore, morning peak hours in

winter are required to be continued.



2.11.5 Rostering and Load Shedding


Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui and Shri P. S. Tomar submitted that there has been continuous load

shedding in the State. In the Tariff Order dated May 06, 2013, the Commission directed UPCL to

obtain the prior approval for load shedding to be carried out continuously for certain number of

hours in a day for 15 or more days. However, UPCL has been rostering loads of industrial consumer

continuously for 13 days and after exempting the load shedding for such consumers for 1 or 2 days,

has been again rostering the loads of such consumers. In this regard, they requested the

Commission that 20% rebate should be given in the monthly bill. In case of non–compliance by

UPCL in that month, UPCL should compensate the heavy losses incurred by the industrial

consumers. Further, he requested the Commission for strict action against UPCL for non-

compliances of Commission direction on load shedding. Shri P. S. Tomar further suggested that

area wise emergency rostering should be mentioned in the yearly ARR.

Further, Shri Anil Kansal and Shri Pawan Agarwal submitted that in the current year there

was rostering for 8 to 10 hours per day for the steel industries. In this regard, he suggested that this

rostering should not be more than 4 hours per day. In this regard, they suggested that 20% rebate

should be provided in case of rostering beyond 4 hours instead of applicable 6 hours.

Shri Manu Kochhar, Chairman submitted that UPCL should comply with Commission’s

Order on prior approval of load shedding and number of days should be reduced from 15 days to

10 days.

Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that Emergency Rostering and Scheduled Rostering

should be communicated and defined in a proper manner. The duration of rostering per month

should be properly defined and there should be a provision of refund for rostering beyond such

limit.

Shri Jaan Ali submitted that there is load shedding of 5 hours continuously in rural areas,

however, this load shedding is for 3 hours in urban areas. In rural areas, there is load shedding from

morning 6:00 am to 8:00 am and evening 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm on account of over load.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that Commission has directed UPCL as stipulated

below:



"the Commission observed that the Petitioner is resorting to regular load shedding under the garb of

unscheduled/emergency outages. The Commission hereby once again directs the Petitioner obtain the

prior approval for load shedding to be carried out continuously for certain number of hours in a day

for 15 or more days".

He further submitted that Commission should take step so that Commission order should be

followed.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that there should be no unscheduled load shedding.


As regard the contention raised regarding 20% rebate on monthly bill, the Petitioner

submitted that the unscheduled/emergency load shedding is done to meet the gap in demand and

availability. It is done only under unforeseen and unavoidable conditions. The communication to

the consumers on the same is given by way of SMS on registered mobile numbers. Further,

continuous supply industries can opt for continuous supply on payment of extra charges.

As regard the contention raised by Shri Anil Kansal regarding 20% rebate for rostering

beyond 4 hours, the Petitioner submitted that scheduled load shedding is done only after approval

from the Commission. The unscheduled load shedding is done to meet the gap in demand and

availability and only under emergency conditions. During this emergency rostering, complete care

is taken that no category is discriminated and equitable curtailment is done.

Further, as per the existing provisions, if the minimum average supply to HT Industry

Consumer is less than 18 hours per day during the month, demand charges for such industry is

reduced by 20%. The supply hours of 18 per day should not be increased for this purpose.

2.11.6 Load Factor based Tariff


Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui and Shri P. S. Tomar submitted that higher load factor leads to

better asset utilization and this should be encouraged. Accordingly, he requested the Commission

to reconsider the concept of charging higher energy charges for higher load factor. Additional

charge based on load factor within the sanctioned load should be incentivized with a lower tariff.

The Commission should provide incentives/rebate to the consumers for every unit increase in

power factor.



Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui, Shri Munish Talwarand Shri P. S. Tomar, Director submitted that

the Commission in the last Tariff Order for FY 2014-15 had rightly corrected the formula for

calculating the Load Factor by reducing the energy received by a HT Industrial Consumer from the

total consumption. In this regard, they suggested that the power scheduled through open access

may be reduced from the total consumption and that cost of such power must be deducted from the

bill of consumer as the same is received by UPCL.

Shri Anil Kansal and Shri Pawan Agarwal submitted that for consumers with load factor

upto 33%, the tariff is charged at the rate of Rs. 3.05/kWh whereas, for consumers with load factor

above 33% and upto 50%, the tariff is charged at the rate of Rs. 3.30/kWh at total units. For

consumers with load factor above 50%, the tariff is charged at the rate of Rs. 3.60/kWh at total units.

In this regard, he submitted that in case load factor based tariff is imposed, then telescopic basis

should be provided for charging incremental consumption beyond specified load factor limit on

higher rates. He further submitted that there should be less tariff rate for the consumers with high

load factor.

Shri Suresh KumarShri Raj Kumar Sharma, Shri Kumar Gupta, Shri Achal Sharma, Shri

Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that load factor based tariff to HT industries is

penalizing them with consumption within their contracted demand being charged in the higher slab

of energy charges on whole of their consumption. This approach is most unscientific and illogical.

Further, the Commission has devised the following formula for the calculation of the load factor as

follows:

In this regard, they suggested that the above formula does not allow consumer for the

consumption for load factor based on the contracted load if the consumer is running load less than

its contracted load and paying demand charges for 80% of contracted load and thus consuming less

power than at the contracted load. On this account, a consumer using less maximum demand than

the contracted demand but paying demand charges for minimum 80% of contracted load is

subjected to higher energy charges for the high load factor based on his actual low maximum

demand even without consuming power for the minimum billable demand. A consumer is legally



entitled to consume power upto the contracted demand or at least for billable demand if it is less

than the contracted demand in lowest load factor slab. In the present tariff structure there are cases

when consumers being billed for MCG units in a month are made to pay higher energy charges

based on their load factor above 33% or 50%. This anomaly can be rectified by revising the formula

for calculation of load factor as follows:

Therefore, the concept of Load Factor based tariff needs to be reviewed.

Shri Sagar Suman submitted that load factor based tariff is completely illegal and should be

abolished immediately as tariff is being designed on average cost of supply.


The Petitioner submitted that Load Factor based Tariff in Uttarakhand was introduced from

01-03-2008. According to this, the consumers consuming more energy were required to pay higher

rate of Energy Charges. This Load Factor based tariff was introduced keeping in view the fact that

due to heavy industrialization the power surplus State has turned into power deficit State and

UPCL was/is required to buy the deficit power from open market at a rate higher than the average

rate of firm power.

Further, Para 8.2.1(1) of Tariff Policy provides that the consumers willing to avail continuous

and quality power supply are required to pay a tariff which reflects efficient costs. The additional

surcharge for availing uninterrupted continuous supply is a kind of premium that the consumers

will have to pay to enjoy the uninterrupted supply of power irrespective of supply in case of

shortage. If the Licensee has to supply the uninterrupted continuous supply to some of the

consumers, it has to make additional arrangement for procuring such power during supply deficit

scenario or resort to load shedding to other consumers and, hence, the cost of such additional

power needs to be recovered from the consumers getting such benefits.

With regard to disincentivizing higher load factor, the Petitioner submitted that higher

energy charges are levied for higher consumption due to the fact that Uttarakhand is power deficit

State and deficit power is procured at a rate higher than the average rate of firm power. Secondly, at



higher load factor demand charges per unit is reduced which is an incentive to the consumer for

having higher load factor.

As regards the contention raised regarding open access in formula for calculating the Load

Factor, the Petitioner submitted that the embedded Open Access consumers receive power supply

from UPCL through Open Access on same connection (through same meter) sanctioned by UPCL

and the wheeling charges for the Open Access Energy is adjusted from the demand charges which

are fixed for UPCL Energy. Therefore, the contracted/maximum demand of the connection should

be apportioned on both the energy, i.e. on UPCL Energy and on Open Access Energy. As the

Commission, while defining the load factor formula, reduced the Open Access Energy from the

total consumption but not reduced the demand against the Open Access Consumption from the

total contracted/maximum demand, this formula needs to be revised as follows:

Here, it is assumed that the Maximum Demand/Contracted Demand, whichever is less, will

reduce in proportion to the energy consumed through open access and total energy consumption.

With regard to charging LT/HT industry as per telescopic approach, the Petitioner

submitted that the nature of consumption of Domestic Category and Industrial Category is

absolutely different and should not be treated at par. Presently, the Tariff of Domestic Category is

not load factor based Tariff and only the slabs of consumption (irrelevant of load) have been

specified in this category i.e. 0 to 100 units, 101 to 201 units, 201 to 400 units above 400 units.

However, the Tariff of HT Industries is load factor based Tariff and presently in this category load

varies from 76 kW to 34 MVA. Hence, it is not practical approach to implement the slab system of

Domestic Category into HT Industrial Category.

2.11.7 Minimum Load for Induction Furnaces


Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal and Shri P. S. Tomar submitted that there has been tremendous

development and improvement in the furnace technology. Therefore, ceiling of minimum load limit

is 400 kVA of 1 tons furnace should be removed from Steel Industries.




The Petitioner submitted that the Commission reduced the minimum load of one tonne

furnace on the demand of Industries from 600 kVA to 500 kVA in FY 2013-14 and from 500 kVA to

400 kVA. Accordingly, the demand of further eliminating this limit is not justified.

2.11.8 Wheeling Charge 2.11.8.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Sagar Suman submitted that he didn’t receive any refund of excess wheeling charges

nor received any feedback from UPCL. He further submitted that the Commission in its Tariff

Order for FY 2014-15 imposed Wheeling Charges on open access power @ Rs. 3470.41/MW/Day for

33 kV embedded consumers, but these charges are still being taken by IEX & UPCL also. These

charges are taken by IEX and UPCL from the starting of FY 2014-15. In this regard, he had sent a

letter to the Commission on 05.02.2015 for necessary instructions to UPCL to correct this mistake

and provide full credit to him by adjustment in the electricity bill of February 2015. UPCL has

credited approximately Rs. 6,44,612.34 to his account till January 2015. He further submitted that

wheeling charges should be nil as demand charges are already being paid to UPCL.

He, further, submitted that they are not getting any refund on the unused open access power

due to breakdowns in the UPCL lines etc.

2.12 Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) 2.12.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Ram Kumar submitted that Small and medium Hotels in hilly areas fall in RTS-2

category above 25 kW load. The tourism industry in hilly areas is seasonal and with minimum

charges, the hotels are penalized to pay the energy charges for electricity not consumed by them

during off-season. In this regard, he requested the Commission to abolish MCG completely in the

interest of consumers. He further submitted to fix the unit of energy charges, fixed charges and the

MCG (if at all to be charged) should be in kWh/kW and the contracted load of the consumers

should be charged in KW.

Shri Manu Kochhar requested theCommission to abolish MCG.

Shri Pankaj Gupta submitted that Minimum Consumption Guarantee should not be

continued as the stage of rationalized tariff structure is reached after a lot of deliberation in the past.



This is also envisaged in the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, UPCL has not projected revenue receipt

on account of MCG. As per past data, this amount is very low and it causes very heavy burden on

the consumer paying such MCG. Therefore, it is requested that MCG should be removed from this

ARR Fixation.

Shri Harpal Singh Sethi requested to abolish MCG. He stated that he is a RTS-2 consumer

having 70 kW load. He further stated that he is also charged Rs. 286650 (= 70 kW x 900 units x Rs

4.55/unit) in the form of MCG on yearly basis apart from actual power consumption.

Shri Avresh Kumar Singh submitted that MCG was charged on their bills which is 50% of

their power consumption and, therefore, should be reduced.


Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that the Commission had abolished MCG from

Consumers in the Tariff Order for FY 2005-06. Thereafter, in the Tariff Order dated 18.03.2008 the

Commission had again introduced monthly minimum consumption charge over and above the

fixed charges/demand charges on the industrial consumers which has been retained upto the last

Tariff Order for FY 2014-15. The rationale given by the Commission for introducing MCG charges

was deficiency in billing data of the licensee. This clearly indicates that the industrial consumers are

being burdened with an additional charge to compensate the inefficiency of UPCL in ensuring

proper meter reading and billing of its consumers. Ideally, the Commission should have directed

the distribution utility to improve its internal mechanisms to ensure prompt meter reading, billing

and diligent recovery of the bills.

Shri Ajay Bhargava and Shri R. N. Mathur suggested that Minimum Consumption

Guarantee should be removed for hotel industry as this industry is seasonal.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma submitted that MCG Charges per kW should be implemented on

Domestic Connection also as this will reduce power theft.


Petitioner submitted that Section 45(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, stipulates for levy of fixed

charges as follows:


• a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied ;



• a rent or other charges in respect of any electric meter or electrical plant provided by the

distribution licensee.”

About 50% of the UPCL’s total costs are fixed in nature including the capacity/fixed charge

of power purchase, which should be recovered to a certain extent through fixed charges to ensure

revenue stability. Levy of minimum consumption guarantee charge is a way of ensuring minimum

revenue to the licensee from the consumers.

Minimum Consumption Guarantee has been proposed at very low level of consumption, i.e.

at 8.33% load factor in respect of non-domestic category and LT industry category and at 15% in

respect of HT industry category. In case during certain month, actual consumption is less than

MCG, MCG is charged in those months. Any excess of billed consumption (over actual

consumption or minimum consumption, whichever is higher) is adjusted at the end of the financial

year.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL while computing the revenue has also

considered revenue from MCG as follows:-

• RTS - 2 - Rs. 6.74 Crore

• RTS - 7 - Rs. 27.81 Crore

The description of the same may be seen in Form F-14 of the Petition. As per the provisions

of Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of Tariff Policy, the level of cross subsidy should be

reduced to the level of ± 20% by FY 2010-11. The proposed level of cross subsidy is as follows:-

Table 2.5: Level of Cross-subsity proposed by the Petitioner Category Cross Subsidy

RTS-1: Domestic -30.00% RTS-2: Non Domestic 17.52% RTS-3: Public Lamps -2.64% RTS-4: Private Tube Wells -74.51% RTS-5: Govt. Irrigation System 2.76% RTS-6: Public Water Works 3.95% RTS-7: Industry 13.50%

LT Industry 6.55% HT Industry 13.91%

RTS-8: Mixed Load -4.92% RTS-9: Railway Traction 19.31%



Hence, it is clear that the provisions of Tariff Policy are complied by UPCL by having cross-

subsidy level of all subsidizing categories upto 20%. Therefore, MCG should be retained as per the

existing provisions of Tariff Order.

As regards the contention raised by Shri Ram Kumar regarding charging of fixed charges

and MCG in kW/kWh and contracted load in kW, the Petitioner submitted that kVAh based billing

is important to impart discipline in power factor and to discourage losses in the form of reactive

energy, which are not measured in kWh based billing. In kVAh billing, consumer is motivated to

maintain the power factor near to one and in this way he suffers no loss even by preventing energy

loss.

2.13 Energy Sale Forecast 2.13.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Suresh Kumar, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Shri Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal

submitted that UPCL has reported CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of past 8 years as

9.62% based on actual energy sales data of previous years. It has assumed energy sales for FY 2015-

16 based on last 5 years CAGR and considered annual growth rate in sales for the main consumer

categories for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. UPCL has over estimated growth rate of HT and LT

industries. The annual growth rate of these categories on annual basis beyond 2013-14 may not be

more than 4% as many of industries have started winding up due to expiry of benefits of industrial

package and further trend of migration to open access due to deteriorating supply position in the

State in the last 2 years.

Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal and Shri Pramod Singh Tomar submitted that UPCL has

proposed energy requirement of 10360.63 MU for 2015-16 which is 17.44% more as compared to last

year. Such proposal of UPCL is unjustified.


The Petitioner submitted that the sales in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 is 9047.07

MU (actual), 9678.38 MU (estimated) and 10360.63 MU (projected). Thus, it is clear that during FY

2014-15 and FY 2015-16 growth in sales has been estimated @ 7% p.a. and not 17%. The sales for HT

category consumers has been escalated @ 5% p.a. for FY 2014-15 and 2015-16. Further, the power

available at State periphery for FY 2015-16 is 10625.78 MU. However, the power demand comes out



to be 12766.38 MU after factoring in the distribution losses @ 17.34% & intra state losses of 1.82%.

The detailed calculation has been shown in the table below:

Table 2.6: Energy Input requirement for FY 2015-16 as submitted by Petitioner Particulars As per Petition

Total sales 10360.73 MU Distribution loss 17.34% Power needed after considering Distribution Loss 12534.03 MU Intra state transmission loss 1.82% Total Demand 12766.38 MU

2.14 Cost of Supply and Cross Subsidy 2.14.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that cross subsidy does not depict the true picture of the

burden on subsidizing consumers. In this regard, SERCs should move towards cost to serve

philosophy for tariff determination in light of sales mix being dominated by HT consumers. The

Commission may initiate the process by conducting a detailed study to determine cost to serve for

various categories. This will give the correct picture of tariff vis-à-vis cost to serve.

Shri Manu Kochhar requested the Commission to direct UPCL to work out the cost to serve

for various categories of consumers and that should be reflected in tariff.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that there is a provision to reduce cross subsidy. Even

many times the Commission has directed UPCL on elimination of cross subsidy. However, it seems

that the Commission is itself encouraging cross subsidy. This results in proportionate surcharge to

the industrial consumers. Therefore, cross subsidy should be reduced in accordance with the

Electricity Act, 2003.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar requested the Petitioner for detailed calculation of Cost to serve to

various categories of Consumers in the State with break-up of proposed sales. He further requested

the Petitioner to shift to determination of tariff based on Cost to serve model.


The Petitioner submitted that presently voltage wise/category wise losses are not available

and Category wise Tariff has been calculated on the basis of average cost of supply and permissible

level of cross subsidy. This is as per provision of Tariff Regulations. Further, high voltage rebate has

been proposed in the Petition.



2.15 Continuous Supply 2.15.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that HT consumer has to pay a 15% premium over the

regular tariff charges for getting continuous power supply. In this regard, he requested the

Commission that these charges should not be levied for the full duration but should be charged

only during periods of rostering.

Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that UPCL in its ARR had proposed to purchase

power at higher rates from NHPC (Dulhasti @ Rs. 6.20/kWh, Sewa @ Rs. 5.99/kWh), NTPC (NCT-

II), NTPC- Dadri @ Rs. 5.33/kWh, Kahalgaon- II- @ Rs. 6.47/kWh, NTPC- AGPS @ Rs. 6.15/kWh.

Thus, UPCL is trying to burden consumers on account of its poor planning. In this regard, it is

requested that the Commission should put pressure on UPCL to purchase power at lower tariff

instead of higher tariff.


Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that the Commission in its previous Tariff Order

provided anoption of continuous supply only to continuous process industries operating 24x7

hours basis connected on either independent feeder or industrial feeders with the condition that all

the industries connected on such feeders have to opt for continuous supply and in case anyone

consumer does not wish to opt, the remaining consumers will also not be able to avail continuous

supply. This provision is discriminative and, therefore, needs to be reviewed by the Commission.

In this regard, they further suggested that the industries opting for continuous supply connected on

independent/industrial feeder should be provided continuous supply irrespective of their process

and option by remaining industries. The non-opting industries can be restricted to use small

percentage of load during restricted hours and in case of exceeding such restricted load, they

should be heavily penalized for excess usage of load and continuous supply surcharge can be

imposed on them. Thus, the licensee would be able to get good revenue by way of penalties and

continuous supply surcharge from defaulting and violating consumers.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that by paying 15% premium UPCL provides

uninterrupted power supply. However, other small and medium industrial consumers have to face

power cuts. He further requested that this system should be removed.



Shri S. S. Chopra, Manager submitted that the continuous supply charges should be reduced

to 10% as against existing 15%. Further, UPCL should propose to reduce the continuous supply

charges to the extent of NIL or maximum 5% in further three years. He also submitted that the

consumers opting for continuous supply pay additional charges on account of continuous supply

tariff. Such consumers should be provided electricity supply without any interruption/planned

shutdown with advance intimation. This will help industries in minimizing the operational losses.

2.16 Components on ARR and Revenue

2.16.1 Power Purchase Cost


Shri Munish Talwar submitted that power purchase at State periphery is Rs. 3483.76 Crore

for FY 2015-16 which is very high. Increase in the power purchase cost (including transmission

charges) along with the increase in Capital Related Expenses has resulted in escalation of revenue

gap of different financial years as highlighted in the Petition and projected by UPCL. Therefore, a

separate energy audit should be carried out to check the actual facts rather than creating an impact

directly on customers.

Shri Munish Talwar further submitted that the high cost of power purchase reflects

inefficient management of utility. Therefore, some comprehensive plan should be created for

efficient utilization of available resources. He further submitted that there is a possibility of energy

deficiency every year due to which power is purchased at higher rates. In this regard, some type of

long term contractual agreement should be made with energy suppliers.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar submitted that UPCL has different sources to fulfill the demand

of consumer and does not require power purchase from other States. Further, average Cost of

Supply for the licensee has gone up due to increase in power purchase cost due to higher rates of

CGS considered by UPCL & high distribution losses than that approved by the Commission and

increase in capital expenditure. He further suggested that cross subsidies, transmission losses and

continuous supply surcharge should be reduced to promote purchase of power through open

access.


submitted that UPCL in its true up petition for FY 2013-14 has claimed power purchase expense of

Rs. 3182.27 Crore instead of approved power purchase expense of Rs. 3198.42 Crore (as per MYT



order 2013), means saving of Rs. 16.15 Crore. Therefore, it is requested that the Commission should

scrutinize actual power purchase cost for FY 2013-14.

Shri Jaan Ali submitted that Uttarakhand is known as Power State and every power project

has to give 12% free power towards royalty to State. The consumers are not getting benefit of this

free power.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that UPCL purchased power from within State and

outside State. UPCL has the power purchase from NHPC of around Rs. 450.49 Crore at an average

power purchase cost of Rs. 4.54 per unit. Cost of power of Uttarakhand is Rs. 1.12 per unit. They

have to pay extra cost for power due to poor management of UPCL and lack of infrastructure to

handle power. In this regard, he requested the Commission to consider these factor while

determining tariff.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that UPCL has provided the details of power supply

and demand in its Tariff Petition. In this regard, he suggested that UPCL should also provide feeder

wise details of power consumption and revenue. This will help in checking the feeders with poor

revenue collection and such feeders should be charged with separate tariff instead of burdening all

consumers.


submitted that UPCL has worked out its power purchase requirement on the basis of its proposed

distribution loss trajectory and approved inter-state transmission losses as 4% and intra state

transmission losses as 1.82% as per the last Tariff Order. In this regard, they suggested that power

purchase should be considered as per loss trajectory approved by UERC in its MYT Order, 2013 and

the inefficiency burden of the licensee should not be passed on to the customers.


submitted that licensee has calculated cost of royalty power for each year on the basis of UERC's

approach adopted in its MYT Order 2013 and, accordingly, considered its rate equal to average rate

of power purchased by UPCL from large hydel stations.


The Petitioner has submitted the comparison of power purchase cost of UPCL in current

year with the cost of previous year as follows:



Table 2.7: Comparison of Power Purchase Cost as submitted by Petitioner

Source 2013-14 2014-15 (Upto Dec)

MU Rs. Crore Rate MU Rs. Crore Rate NHPC 450.49 203.24 4.51 490.07 183.49 3.74 SJVNL 68.13 19.46 2.86 40.18 20.82 5.18 THDC 202.39 90.05 4.45 106.44 53.59 5.03 NTPC 2757.73 864.86 3.14 1811 583.15 3.22 NPCIL 297.64 95.37 3.20 166.1 53.05 3.19 UJVNL 3866.37 421.03 1.09 3148.47 534.43 1.70 IPPs 346.93 116.95 3.37 520.68 147.69 2.84 State Royalty Power 754.54 118.46 1.57 654.8 111.97 1.71 Open Market Purchases 2520.81 841.08 3.34 1881.37 621.25 3.30 Total 11265.03 2770.5 2.46 8819.11 2309.44 2.62

Hence, it is clear that there is about 7% increase in rates of power with respect to previous

year and such increase has been considered while projecting the power purchase cost for FY 2015-

16. The average rate of power purchase cost projected for FY 2015-16 is Rs. 2.81 per unit.

UPCL further submitted that it purchases power in a planned manner. However, there is

uncertainty on introduction of short term open access allowed to the consumers and, therefore, it is

beneficial to procure deficit power through short term arrangements.

With regard to encouraging power purchase through open access, the Petitioner submitted

that the level of cross subsidy is regularly reducing which is reflected in each Tariff Order. The

transmission losses are also very low i.e. @ 1.81% in FY 2013-14.

With regard to higher power purchase cost, the Petitioner submitted that power is

purchased from NHPC and NTPC stations in accordance with long term Power purchase

agreements (PPAs) and at the rates as allowed by Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

(CERC). Some of the plants are new and the tariff for new plants is higher in the initial years and

decreases afterwards. However, it may be noted that the rates from these plants may be higher

compared to short terms prices in some cases, but short term power purchase do not give certainty

of power availability, it is only long term PPAs, which provide certainty at the pre-fixed prices, and

it is essential to have certainty of power availability to provide reliable and quality supply to the

consumers.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that the details of actual source wise power purchases for

FY 2013-14 as per audited accounts are provided at para 3.4 of the petition. Audited Accounts for

FY 2013-14 are also submitted to the Commission for analysis. Apart from State Generating Stations,



UPCL procures power from Central Generating Stations as per allocation by Ministry of Power,

Government of India. The shortage in supply due to excess demand is met through various short

term arrangements, i.e. buying power from open market, power exchanges and over drawing

power from the grid within permissible limits. Presently, there is a deficit of about 20% which is

procured through short term arrangements.

In FY 2013-14, UPCL procured 2585.25 MU power through short term sources as against

total power purchases of 11265.02 MU. Similarly against a requirement of 12766.38 MU in FY 2015-

16, UPCL has considered 2140.61 MU to be purchased from open market and 526.69 MU availability

from new Central Generating Stations and IPPs.

2.16.2 Return on Equity


Shri Munish Talwar submitted that there is a huge gap to the tune of several hundred crores

in case of Return on Equity. This indicates failure in gap analysis and, therefore, proper techniques

must be governed rather than approaching UERC every year with a proposal to increase Tariff

without complying with any directives.

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that UPCL’s claim of Rs. 211 Crore towards RoE for FY

2015-16 against Commission’s approved RoE of Rs. 40 Crore appears to be quiet high and

unreasonable.

Shri Manu Kochhar submitted that UPCL has projected RoE of Rs. 211.03 Crore for FY 2015-

16 which is more than 5 times of Rs. 40.42 Crore approved by the Commission in FY 2014-15.

Shri. Pankaj Gupta submitted that UERC in its Order of April 11, 2012, has commented on

return on equity as follows:

“In this regard, the Commission has already given its view in its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2010

that though conversion of power bonds into share capital has resulted in an increase in the equity base

of the Petitioner, however, as per Tariff Regulations, only that equity which is invested in creation of

fixed assets is entitled for Return. Merely having share capital in the Balance Sheet does not qualify it

to be eligible for return. Share capital lying unutilised, or utilized to finance the current assets or to

cover the losses of the Petitioner Company will not be eligible for return purpose.”

In this regard, he requested UERC to maintain its previous stand on Return on Equity.




submitted that UPCL has claimed RoE of Rs. 182.23 Crore against Rs. 25.48 Crore as approved RoE

in MYT Order, 2013 for FY 2013-14. Therefore, they requested the Commission to scrutinize the

variation in RoE.


The Petitioner submitted that Return on Equity has been calculated based on the guidelines

prescribed by UERC in its MYT Regulations, 2011, which are also consistent with the methodology

and guidelines used by other state regulators and CERC. The difference in RoE as allowed by UERC

and as claimed by UPCL is due to the following reasons:-

• As per transfer scheme of Assets and Liabilities executed between UPPCL and UPCL, the

GFA of UPCL as on 08.11.2001 is Rs. 1058.18 Crore but Commission is considering the

same as Rs. 508 Crore. This issue has been challenged before APTEL and Judgment on the

same is awaited.

• As against net addition of assets of Rs. 1789.80 Crore for the period from FY 2007-08 to FY

2012-13, the Commission considered this addition as Rs. 97.08 Crore only due to non-

submission of certificate of Electrical Inspector in respect of HT/EHT assets and due to

non segregation of assets into HT and LT assets.

• UPCL have computed claim in the Petition on the basis of GFA as given in the transfer

scheme and total additions of assets from FY 2007-08 to 2012-13. Hence, it is worthwhile to

mention here that no claim has been made in respect of assets made out of Government

Grant or Consumer Deposits. As UPCL’s investments are involved in creation of above

assets, the Commission is requested to allow return on same as claimed by UPCL in its

Petition.

2.16.3 Operation & Maintenance Expenses


Shri Munish Talwar submitted that Repair and Maintenance, Employees expenses and

Administrative & General (A&G) Expenses are very high with overall increase of 30% with respect

to O&M expenses in preceding financial years. Therefore, better maintenance practices should be

adopted so that repeated failures are prevented and cost factor will ultimately be reduced. In this

regard, new timely initiatives (such as meter testing, increase in collection centres, adoption of



effective Maintenance plan and budgeted implementation of strict A&G expenses) should be

implemented in near future so that overall O&M Costs are within limits and control.

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui and Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that 30% increase in

O&M is unrealistic, considering the current inflationary trends and no recruitments in the

preceding years.


requested the Commission to check the Employee expense as per records and admissibility of

variations claimed by UPCL for FY 2012-13. Further, UPCL has claimed A&G expenses of Rs. 18.01

Crore against Rs. 23.25 Crore as approved in MYT order 2013 resulting into a saving of Rs. 5.24

Crore. Similarly, there is a saving of Rs. 14.09 Crore in R&M expenses for FY 2013-14 as UPCL has

claimed R&M expenses of Rs. 77.10 Crore against Rs. 91.27 Crore approved in MYT Order 2013.

Thus, by taking together all the components, i.e. employee expense, A&G expense and R&M

expense, UPCL is claiming excess O&M expenses of Rs. 13.85 Crore in FY 2013-14. These projections

appear to be overestimated on year to year basis and, therefore, the Commission should allow O&M

expenses on rational basis after proper scrutiny of the claims. They further submitted that UPCL’s

claim of R&M Expenses, A&G Expenses and Employee Cost for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 appears

to be overestimated on year on year basis and, therefore, requested the Commission to allow the

same on rational basis after proper scrutiny.

Shri P. S. Tomar submitted that UPCL has demanded 18.54% higher O&M Expenses which

is on a much higher side in comparison to previous years.


The Petitioner submitted that the Employee expenses are calculated as per UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011 considering the growth factor approved by the Commission in the MYT Order

2013. Further the Administrative & General Expenses & Repair & Maintenance expenses are

considered at the same level as approved by the Commission in the MYT Order, 2013.

Further, the increase in O&M Expenses is appearing primarily on comparison of A&G

expenses and R&M expenses for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15. As mentioned above, the expenses for

FY 2014-15 are projected at the same level as already approved by the Commission in the MYT

Order. The increase is appearing because the R&M and A&G Expenses incurred by UPCL for FY

2013-14 are comparatively less as compared to that approved by the Commission in the MYT Order.



This is because UPCL could not implement number of schemes due to financial constraints. UPCL,

however, has claimed R&M and A&G Expenses as approved in the MYT Order 2013.

The increase in employee expenses is on account of the revision of base year expenses for FY

2012-13. It is hereby assured that UPCL has tried to keep the estimates as conservative as possible

considering inflation rate as the average of past three years.

2.16.4 Interest on Working Capital


Shri Munish Talwar submitted that the Petitioner has projected higher Interest on working

capital and Gross Expenditure.

Shri Manu Kochhar submitted that UPCL has projected Interest on Working Capital of Rs.

21.03 Crore for FY 2015-16 which is more than thrice of Rs. 6.36 Crore approved by the Commission

in FY 2014-15.


submitted that against approved expense of Rs 7.26 Crore, UPCL has claimed nil interest on

working capital as working capital required was negative. Thus, there is a saving of Rs. 7.26 Crore.


The Petitioner submitted that it has calculated Interest on Working Capital as per the

provisions of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 and the detailed computation has been given in the

Petition. In this regard, further replies to queries raised by the Commission have also been

submitted to the Commission.

2.16.5 Interest & Finance Charges 2.16.5.1 Stakeholder’s Comments


submitted that UPCL has claimed Interest & Finance Charges of Rs. 126.90 Crore for FY 2013-14

against Rs. 118.99 Crore approved in MYT Order 2013. Thus, there is an excess claim of Rs. 7.21

Crore. They further requested the Commission to check the claim of Rs. 18.39 Crore towards interest

on GPF.



2.16.6 Depreciation


Shri Manu Kochhar submitted that the projected depreciation for FY 2015-16 is Rs. 151.94

Crore, which is 119% higher than Rs. 69.38 Crore as approved by the Commission in FY 2014-15.

Such hike in depreciation is unjustifiable.

Shri Suresh Kumar, President, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Shri Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok

Bansal submitted that UPCL has claimed depreciation of Rs. 108.23 Crore against Rs. 69.46 Crore

approved in MYT Order 2013. Thus, there is an excess claim of Rs. 38.77 Crore under depreciation.

UPCL has calculated depreciation on opening and closing values of Gross Fixed Assets (GFA) of Rs.

2031.76 Crore & Rs. 2161.43 Crore, respectively. They further submitted that matter of finalization of

transfer scheme is still sub-judice before APTEL and, therefore, GFA is under dispute. In this

regard, they requested the Commission that excess claim of Rs. 38.77 Crore under depreciation

should not be approved.

Shri Ajay Bhargava and Shri R. N. Mathur suggested that depreciation should be charged on

the assets that are actually in use and in possession of UPCL.


The Petitioner submitted that depreciation has been claimed on the basis of GFA as given in

the Transfer Scheme and total additions of assets from FY 2007-08 to 2012-13. Hence, no claim has

been made in respect of assets made out of Government Grant or Consumer Deposits. As UPCL’s

investments are involved in creation of the above assets, therefore, the Commission is requested to

allow the depreciation as claimed by UPCL in its Petition.

2.16.7 Provision for bad and doubtful debts


Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that UPCL has proposed 1.5% as bad & doubtful debt

which should not be accepted because consumers should not be burdened on account of

inefficiency of UPCL. Indeed, UPCL should try to recover such bad and doubtful debts. Further, if

UPCL want to get rebate of 1.5% for debt collection, then industries, which are also a part of

economy, should also get 2% rebate in tariff.



Shri. Pankaj Gupta referring to the relevant sections of the UPCL Petition, submitted that

UPCL is trying to move in its own direction without taking into consideration the observations of

the Commission on bad and doubtful debts. It is the common practice to take utmost care to realise

the money due from its consumers and nowhere a provision as a percentage is allowed for bad

debts. Therefore, the earlier stand taken by the Commission should hold good for this year also.


submitted that the Commission in its MYT Order 2013 did not allow any provision for bad and

doubtful debts for earlier years. In spite of this, UPCL has again calculated the same in true up as

Rs. 59.11 Crore for FY 2013-14 towards bad and doubtful debts. Rather than making such requests

again and again, UPCL should come clearly with the quantum of bad and doubtful debts written off

in the previous years against the provisioning allowed by the Commission in the earlier ARR and

Tariff orders.

Further, Shri Suresh Kumar, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, Shri Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok

Bansal submitted that UPCL has made a provision of bad debt of Rs. 81.65 Crore for FY 2015-16 @

2% of projected revenue assessment. The Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2014-15 disallowed

any provision for bad and doubtful debt and rejected claims stating that the licensee had not

utilized the provisions of bad debts already provided in the previous Tariff Orders. The

Commission had also directed UPCL to carry out audit of its receivables and also identify and

classify such debts and submit the report to the Commission. UPCL has been allowed a total

provision of Rs. 520.31 Crore against bad and doubtful debts upto the financial year 2010-11, but the

quantum of debts written off from the books has not been disclosed by the licensee in any ARR so

far. As the license has not utilized the existing provision of bad and doubtful debt, therefore, it is

not entitled for any further provision in the ARR towards bad and doubtful debts.

Shri H. D. Arora submitted that many government department like Forest dept., SDM

Haridwar, DM, SSP office, Education and Health Dept. etc and some big consumers have huge

pending bills.

Shri Ajay Bhargava and Shri R. N. Mathur suggested that reserve for doubtful debts should

be reviewed properly and only such reserves, which have matching Sundry Debtors, should be kept

into account. Excess reserves should be reverted back. This shall reduce the losses.




The Petitioner submitted that as per fundamentals of accounting and costing (matching

principle and principle of conservatism) every business should be provided that portion of debtors

which is likely to be bad and not recoverable. This should be provided as an expense in the same

year in which sales revenue is recognized. The Commission in its MYT Order, 2013 has approved

collection efficiency of 98.5% for FY 2015-16. Based on this, UPCL requested the Commission to

approve bad debts @ 1.5% of estimated revenue. As against the provision allowed by the

Commission amounting to Rs. 103.74 Crore for the period from FY 2001-02 to FY 2013-14, UPCL

written off the Bad Debts amounting to Rs 102.01 Crore till FY 2013-14 and the details of such

amount written off has been submitted to the Commission. Thus, UPCL has a balance provision of

Rs. 1.73 Crore only and is entitled for further provision as per Regulation 32 (1) of the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011.

2.16.8 Non-tariff Income (NTI) 2.16.8.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Suresh Kumar, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma Shri Rudramurthy N and Shri Ashok Bansal

submitted that Non Tariff Income (NTI) should be shared with the consumer. In this petition, UPCL

has claimed NTI of Rs. 129.09 Crore for FY 2013-14 as per provisional account and this includes

delayed payment surcharge of Rs. 18.11 Crore. UPCL has proposed partial sharing of income with

the consumers of Rs. 86.51 Crore only on account of non-sharing of delayed payment surcharge

earned with a plea of making short term arrangement due to delay in payment by consumers and

50% sharing of rebate earned on account of timely payment of power purchase bills with a plea of

its efficiency in payments of power purchase bills. Thus, UPCL has earned Rs. 19.81 Crore

additionally against provision of Rs. 66.70 Crore claimed in its MYT Petition 2013. In this regard,

they suggested that the gains should be shared with the consumers in accordance with UERC Tariff

Regulation, 2011 which has a provision for sharing of approved gains on account of controllable

factors, i.e. 20% to be passed on to consumers through tariff and balance 80% to be retained and

utilized by UPCL.

Shri Pankaj Gupta submitted that UPCL has not included income from Late Payment

Surcharge in Non Tariff Income. As per the Tariff Regulation, UERC has to provide for all expenses

incurred by UPCL in any year. In this regard, he requested the Commission to include Late



Payment Surcharge in Non Tariff Income. He further submitted that any shortfall between income

and expenditure should be met by appropriate increase in Tariff. While truing up for the year in this

tariff fixation, UERC has correctly taken rebate earned out of early payment as income as per Tariff

Regulations for taking in consideration all incomes by appropriate increase of Tariff. Therefore, he

requested the Commission to maintain the rebate as part of income as done by it in past.


The Petitioner submitted that Late Payment Surcharge is levied on consumers who do not

make timely payment of their electricity bills. Due to the delay in making the payment, there is a

shortfall in cash flow available with UPCL to incur its expenses. In such a situation, to meet such

shortfall in cash flow, UPCL is constrained to meet the expenses through borrowings/internal

accruals. Further, ARR and Tariff of UPCL is determined on the assumption that UPCL receives the

payment of electricity bills from the consumers within time (before due date). Therefore, the

Commission has been requested either to allow interest cost of shortfall in cash flow due to delay in

making the payment of the bills by the consumers or to not treat the Late Payment Surcharge paid

by the consumers as the income of UPCL.

With regard to including entire rebate in Non Tariff Income, the Petitioner submitted that

the Commission while allowing interest on working capital considers one month credit to UPCL by

power suppliers. UPCL by making the payment to power suppliers within 07 days avails 2% rebate,

which is 1% for making payment within 30 days. Due to making the payment within 07 days, there

is excess cash outflow of UPCL. This is managed by UPCL by arranging the funds through internal

accruals/borrowings. Therefore, the Commission has been requested either to consider actual credit

availed by UPCL from power suppliers or not to consider the rebate availed by UPCL due to

making the payment before 30 days.

2.16.9 Sharing of Gains & Losses 2.16.9.1 Stakeholder’s Comments


Bansal submitted that in FY 2013-14, UPCL has gained against the targets in performance

parameters for Employee Expenses, R & M expenses, A & G expenses and collection efficiency but

has been loser for non-achievement of performance target with respect to distribution losses. Such

failure of UPCL to achieve loss target should be entirely attributed to UPCL and total loss of



revenue on this account should be absorbed by the licensee rather than sharing the loss with

consumers.

2.16.10 Capital Cost of Original Assets and Depreciation


Shri. Pankaj Gupta suggested that the Commission should consider Gross Fixed Assets

(GFA) of Rs. 508.00 Crore as on 08.11.2001 as considered by the Commission in previous Tariff

Orders. Accordingly, depreciation should be allowed on GFA. He further submitted that UERC in

its previous Tariff Orders had not allowed depreciation on assets created out of grant and should

follow the same analogy in Tariff Order for FY 2015-16.

2.16.10.2 Petitioner’s Reply In reply, the Petitioner has submitted the following points:

• GoU vide Order dated 27-04-2012 approved the Transfer Scheme of Assets & Liabilities.

• UERC refused to consider the transfer scheme finalized on the basis of above Order of

GoU.

• UPCL vide its letter dated 22-06-2013 informed the view of UERC to GoU and requested to

issue proper notification in accordance with the Reorganisation Act, 2000.

• No notification is required under Reorganisation Act, 2000. The Act specifically provides

for notification wherever required, such as Section 22(5), 23(1) and (2), 71(2), 80(1)(v),

80(3)(c), 89 etc. Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin and Ors Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal

also gave such ruling.

• UPERC in its Order dated 21-05-2013 while truing up the expenses and revenue of UPPCL

considered the GFA of UPCL as Rs. 1058.18 Crore (as given in the Transfer Scheme).

• Depreciation has been claimed on the opening GFA of Rs. 1058.18 Crore.

• However, the matter of GFA is pending before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.

Further, UPCL in its APR and Tariff Petition for FY 2014-15 has not claimed depreciation on

the assets created out of grants.

2.16.11 Non Capitalization of Assets


Shri Pankaj Gupta submitted that the Commission in previous tariff orders had not allowed

capitalization of assets pending Electrical Inspector Certificate. In this regard, it is requested that the



Commission should follow same analogy as no change has taken place in present ARR and not

allow capitalization till such Certificate is received.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has segregated the capitalized assets for the period from

FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 into LT Assets and HT/EHT Assets. This segregation has been submitted

to the Commission during this Tariff Petition. On the request of UPCL, Government of Uttarakhand

under the provisions of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 authorized the officers of UPCL to inspect the

HT/EHT Assets and these officers have started the work of inspection of assets. It is expected that

the clearance certificate in respect of all HT/EHT Assets capitalized from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14

shall be submitted to the Commission by 15.03.2015.

2.16.12 Truing-up for Past Years

2.16.12.1 Stakeholder’s Comment

Shri. Pankaj Gupta submitted that UPCL has not provided clear explanation for variance of

its expenses as against approved by the Commission. He submitted that in this time of

transparency, it is important that the government utilities must also be transparent. If the actual

expenses are more than that approved by the Commission then the same needs to be clearly

explained otherwise licensee will be running its operation in losses and this will not be good for

anyone in the long run. UPCL must, therefore, give better explanations for such variance. He

further submitted that UI overdrawal and open market purchase are being resorted to without

proper sanction from the Commission and such extra expenses are being claimed without any clear

explanation for resorting to such high cost power.

Col. S. K. Bhattacharya submitted that details of the agency auditing the Tariff Petition

should be provided.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL in the Tariff Petition has provided all details of actual

expenses and revenues for FY 2013-14 including justifications of the same. All other

information/justifications are also being provided as and when required by the Commission.

Further, the actual rate of power purchase cost from open market including UI over drawl has

reduced from Rs. 4.00/unit in FY 2012-13 to Rs. 3.18/unit in FY 2013-14. Thus, UPCL has tried its

best to control the open market purchase and has kept it as low as possible.



With regard to the details of agency auditing the Tariff Petition, the Petitioner submitted

that the Tariff Petition is examined by the Commission through its officers/consultant.

2.16.13 Past Adjustments


Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that past adjustments on account of revenue gap of

previous years should not be adjusted in the Tariff for FY 2015-16.

Shri P. S. Tomar submitted that UPCL in its APR has calculated previous year's dispute

burden in the tariff proposal for 2015-16. In this regard, it is requested that this should only be

considered after proper scrutiny.

Col. S. K. Bhattacharya submitted that UPCL should provide the reasons for not computing

revenue details for FY 2014-15. In this regard, gap/surplus should also be provided.


The Petitioner in its ARR and Tariff Petition submitted the details of expenses and revenue

for FY 2013-14 as per the Annual Accounts and computed the gap of Rs. 385.70 Crore (including

carrying cost). This has been calculated as per the provisions of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 and,

accordingly, claimed to be approved along with the ARR for FY 2015-16.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that UERC had approved the estimated expenses and

revenue for FY 2014-15 vide its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014. These expenses and revenues shall

now be trued up on the basis of actual audited figures, which will be available on completion of FY

2014-15 and, therefore, claim based on truing up for FY 2014-15 shall be claimed in next tariff

determination exercise. However, as per the Tariff Petition for FY 2015-16, the details of revenue

and expenses for FY 2014-15 are as follows:-

• ARR/ Expenses - Rs. 4673.55 Crore

• Revenue - Rs. 4050.92 Crore

• Gap - Rs. 622.63 Crore

2.16.14 Consumer Security Deposit


Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that UPCL provides the interest of 9% on Consumer

Security Deposits. However, industries have to pay the interest of 14% on loan to respective banks.



Accordingly, the interest on Consumer’s Security Deposits should also be increased from 9% to

14%. He further submitted that payment of Consumer Security Deposit should be in the shape of

bank guarantee instead of cash.

Adv. N. D. Dobriyal submitted that UPCL should provide interest on Consumer Security

Deposit.


The Petitioner submitted that in accordance with Section 47 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and

regulations, security deposits should be deposited only in cash.

2.17 Enhanced Pension for Employees 2.17.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Manu Kochhar submitted that UPCL was directed by the Govt. of Uttarakhand, vide

letter No 173, dated 5 Feb 2013, from Additional Secretary Energy, to release enhanced pension

from their own fund. Accordingly, UPCL has started paying enhanced pension to it employees who

retired during January 1, 1996 to July 20, 2010. He suggested that this cannot be included in O&M

expenses.


The Petitioner submitted that the Government had directed it to meet the expenses incurred

due to enhanced pension of employees from its own resources. However, UPCL is compelled to

include it as a part of O&M Expenses projected for FY 2015-16 as the tariff realized from the

consumers is the only source of revenue for UPCL. O&M expenses form an integral part of the

running cost of the business, therefore, it has to be recovered.

2.18 Fuel Charge Adjustment 2.18.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Rajeev Gupta and Shri P. S. Tomar submitted that UERC vide its order dtd. 11.09.2014

has already directed UPCL to stop charging FCA from consumers with immediate effect. However,

UPCL vide its office memo dtd. 17.01.2015 has imposed Fuel Charge Adjustment (FCA) to all the

consumers in Uttarakhand at different rate per unit. Accordingly, he requested that any additional

charges such as FCA should be approved by the Commission before collection from consumer.



Further, FCA charges already been charged in July to September, 2014 by UPCL should be refunded

to the consumers at the earliest.

Brig Kishan Gopal Behl (Retd.), President, All India Consumers Council, submitted that FCA

charges are required to be computed and charged on the basis of actual variation in fuel costs

relating to power generated from own generating stations and power procured from Central

Generating Stations. In accordance with Regulation 83 of the MYT Regulations 2011, the monthly

bills are required to be raised by the Central Thermal generating stations where FCA is applicable.

However, it has been observed that such monthly bills raised by these generating stations include

substantial amount of past year arrears. Regulation 83(2) of the MYT Regulations 2011 specifies that

the FCA charge shall be computed and charged on the basis of actual variation in power purchase

cost on account of increase in cost of fuel during any month during the period under review. The

past years arrears raised by the generating stations do not relate to the cost of fuel consumed for the

months during the period under review and, therefore, past arrears should not be included in

computation of FCA. Further, FCA charges of Rs 0.06/unit is too high and should not be allowed.

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui submitted that currently there is no uniform policy for charging

Fuel Cost Adjustment from the consumers. In the prevailing tariff UERC has directed the surplus of

Rs. 20.92 Crore to be adjusted from FCA and no further guideline was given to UPCL to charge the

same. UPCL without consent/approval of UERC imposed FCA charges on consumers in the month

of July and August, 2014 on which UERC has taken stand to stop charging the same, but the

amount was not refunded. Again assuming post facto approval from UERC, UPCL has again

started charging FCA from January 2015. Therefore, it is requested that the Commission should

provide some clear guidelines for charging FCA.


The Petitioner submitted that in accordance with Regulation 83 of the UERC (Terms and

Conditions for determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011, post facto approval is required for

recovery of FCA and no prior approval is required.

As regard the contention raised regarding refund of FCA charges from July to September

2014, the Petitioner submitted that as per Regulation 83 of the UERC (Terms and Conditions for

determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011, post facto approval is required for recovery of FCA and

no prior approval is required. Further, the Commission vide its order dated 11.09.2014 had directed



UPCL to stop charging of FCA and to adjust the recovered amount of FCA in the FCA of the

subsequent quarter of FY 2014-15. As per direction of UERC, levy of FCA was stopped and the

recovered amount has been adjusted in FCA of the subsequent quarter of FY 2014-15.

2.19 Revenue from Tariff and Distribution losses



submitted that during FY 2013-14, UPCL has billed actual revenue of Rs. 3755.67 Crore which is

lower by Rs. 187.27 Crore from UERC approved sale of power of Rs. 3942.94 Crore. In the petition,

UPCL has claimed to predetermine the distribution loss trajectory keeping in view the actual

distribution loss for FY 2012-13 which is 21.70% against 17% considered by the Commission in MYT

Order. In this regard, UPCL requested the Commission to review the distribution loss targets so

that non-achievement of revenue targets could be imposed on the consumers for recovery through

tariff hike. The Commission should not accept such proposal of UPCL as it is against consumer

interest.

2.20 Metering and Billing


Shri Bhim Sen Rawat, Coordinator, Dangaria Jan Kalyan Samiti submitted that the bills of

domestic consumers have increased by 3-4 times after installation of new electronic meters at their

premises. He further submitted that tariff should be increased after the slab of 600-700 units only,

else tariff should be reduced.

Shri Maherban Singh Negi submitted that every single electrical equipment should be

connected to meter. Every bill should be paid in time. Bills may also be paid through bank cheque.

Further, electronic meters should be placed outside the premises.

Shri Bhagwati Khanduri submitted that no one should be given unmetered power

irrespective of category of consumer. As un-metered connections are prone to theft and misuse and

if government wants to subsidize then government should pay the bill.

Shri R. P.Joshi submitted that the timing for payment of bill should be done upto 3 PM as

banks and post-office has timing upto 4-5 PM for transaction.



Shri K. B. Pandey submitted that UPCL should install Synthetic Metering Cubical Box (SMC)

at all places and should connect it with all the meters. This will help in actual energy accounting.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that Commission in previous Tariff Order had directed

for abolishing unmetered power supply. However, UPCL has not submitted in its Petition that all

power supply is through meter. Further, the Commission had also directed to replace all

mechanical meters with electronic meters. However, mechanical meters are still in use and no

scheme is available in this regard.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that the current electricity distribution supply system

and the metering and billing system should be improved.

Shri Manu Kochhar submitted that defective electronic meters are installed in replacement

of mechanical meters.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma submitted that there should be more transparency in metering

system.

Adv. N. D. Dobriyal submitted that there should be proper sitting arrangements in the

billing counters of UPCL.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has metered more than 99.50% electricity connections.

The remaining connections are also being metered. Further, the meter reading of the consumers is

being taken by the meter readers and the bill is being provided at the time of meter reading. The

consumers also have the facility to pay their bills online by using Debit Card/ Credit Card/Net

Banking. Further, UPCL is also in the process to make arrangement with an agency of Central

Government who will collect the payment of Electricity Bills in different locations of the State

including rural and remote areas. This arrangement is expected to be finalized very soon.

Further, all new connections are being released by installing the meter outside the premises

of the consumers. All defective meters are being replaced by installing the new meter outside the

premises of the consumers. All mechanical meters are being replaced by installing the new

electronic meter outside the premises of the consumers.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that proper care is taken for installation of a new meter or

for replacement of the old meter. Electronic Meters are properly tested before being installed in the



premises of the consumers. In case of a specific grievance the consumer can approach the concerned

division office or lodge his complait at customer care centre of UPCL. He can also file his complaint

before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Dehradun/Haldwani.

2.21 Distribution Line/ Line Losses


Shri Munish Talwar submitted that Guidelines of Govt. of India, Ministry of Power for

Restructured Accelerated Power development programme (R-APDRP) should be followed. MoP’s

R-APDRP and power generating & transmission bodies should take steps for modernization &

strengthening of distribution system. In this regard, UPCL should plan for installation of energy

efficient equipments in their substations and use insulated transmission lines with good conductor

to keep the losses under control. Existing Infrastructure and utilities should be improved with

reliable Metering and Billing system so as to minimize Distribution Losses. UPCL may also think on

broader level to improve the equipment healthiness of entire EHT System with recent up gradation

and systematic maintenance plan so that losses pertaining to distribution system are minimized.

Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui and Shri Pramod Singh Tomar submitted that the HT/EHT

industries have losses even less than 5%, however, they are being burdened with the inefficiencies

of the distribution licensee. Accordingly, Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui has suggested that either the cost

to serve to various consumer categories is determined or the voltage rebate may be increased as

under:

a) For supply at 33 kV, the rebate should be increased from existing 2.5% to 7.5%.

b) For supply at 132 kV and above, the rebate should be increased from existing 7.5% to 12%.

Shri Manu Kochhar suggested that UPCL should prepare a detailed plan to bring down

losses and requested the Commission to monitor it on monthly basis.

Shri Pankaj Gupta suggested UERC to direct UPCL to carry out energy audit at Sub-station

level and also at the different voltage levels separately so that actual reason of losses be ascertained

and action be taken to bring down the losses to the level below that directed by UERC. He further

submitted that if transmission and distribution losses will be less, it will result in less purchase of

energy for same level of consumption.



Shri Pankaj Gupta further suggested that for investigating losses and energy audit, the

Commission should appoint an agency for carrying out this investigation. If HT consumers are

consuming more than 50%, whose losses should not be more than 5-6% then the losses in other

categories are more than 45%. This is enough reason for proper investigation. For UPCL, to

properly control losses is the most important issue. It is also suggested that UPCL should convert

their sub-stations into Cost-Centres and any sub-station found to be losing money should be

subjected to penalties.

Shri. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal submitted that distribution lines should be repaired and proper

steps should be taken to rectify line damage caused by monkeys which is a common phenomena.

Further, lines should be maintained in hilly areas.

Col. S. K. Bhattacharya submitted that there are high losses due to widespread power theft

at both domestic & commercial category, tampering of meters, rampant use of ‘kantias’, and no

ceiling limit for free power consumption. UPCL has projected distribution loss of 17.34% and this be

checked by the Commission through an independent auditor of integrity. Further, distribution

losses should be reduced. Further, Shri K. B. Pandey submitted that underground cabling needs to

be done to reduce line damages and power theft.

Shri Dhirendra Maithani submitted that any increase in electricity tariff should be accepted

only after establishing an effective mechanism to stop transmission leakage/loss or theft, misuse of

electricity etc. and recovery of old bills specially from bulk users.

Shri Bhagwati Khanduri submitted that theft prone area should be identified and insulated

cables should be installed instead of naked wire system to reduce the losses.

Shri H. D. Arora submitted that line losses and theft is a serious issue which leads to heavy

financial loss of around 30% to State.

Shri Kuldeep Singh Cheema submitted that farmers have to face lot of problems in case of

damaged/burnt transformers. In this regard, UPCL should take appropriate measures to

replace/repair damaged transformers. Further, there is always a threat of fire in farms due to lose

distribution lines crossing through farms. Therefore, it is requested to maintain distribution lines

properly and replace old cables.



Shri H. D. Arora submitted that UPCL should properly maintain its department stores. This

will reduce the problem in repair/replacement of burnt/damaged equipment like transformers.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia submitted that Commission directed UPCL in previous order to

reduce lines losses so that tariff should be reduced. UPCL not only disobeyed Commission’s

directions and didn’t give anything with regard to 21% loss including technical losses, commercial

losses and power theft but also didn’t mention about the level of technical line losses, commercial

losses and power theft and steps taken to reduce losses. UPCL should provide the details of

program to reduce the losses to 15%. He further requested the Commission not to give any

relaxation and should monitor work.


Bansal submitted that UPCL has fixed a trajectory for reduction in distribution losses considering

actual losses of 21.70% for FY 2012-13 against 17% approved by the Commission. In this regard,

they suggested that losses approved by Commission in MYT Order 2013 should be considered to

calculate power purchase requirement. They further submitted that UERC in its MYT Order 2013

had considered collection efficiency of 97.0% for FY 2012-13 and this should be taken as a base for

achieving 98.5% collection efficiency at the end of Control Period.

Shri Gopal Shankar Srivastava and Shri M. S. Nayaz submitted that UPCL should take strict

action to make its Vigilance Department more efficient to reduce misuse and theft of electricity.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma submitted that the cost of repaired transformer are claimed equal to

the cost of new transformer. However, the cost of repaired transformer should be less than the new

transformer. Further, UPCL should increase the ratio of HT/LT Lines and transformers to reduce

power cuts.


The Petitioner submitted that presently voltage wise/category wise losses are not available

and category wise tariff has been calculated on the basis of average cost of supply and permissible

level of cross subsidy. This is as per provision of Tariff Regulations. Further, high voltage rebate has

been proposed in the Petition. The Commission on the basis of actual distribution losses for FY

2002-03 had fixed the Distribution Loss Reduction Trajectory for first five years from FY 2003-04 to

FY 2007-08. The said trajectory is being extended without considering the actual losses which are



higher than the level of losses fixed in the trajectory. In this regard, the Commission has been

requested to revise the distribution loss reduction trajectory on the basis of Actual Losses of UPCL.

Further, R-APDRP Part-A and Part-B is being implemented in UPCL. UPCL is continuously

committed to reduce its distribution losses. Significant steps have been taken by UPCL to

modernize & strengthen the system and reduce the distribution loss. UPCL has been successful in

reducing its distribution losses in FY 2013-14 by 2.36% (21.70% in FY 2012-13 as estimated by UERC

minus 19.34% in FY 2013-14 as re-casted by UPCL). UPCL has also reduced its losses by 11.68% in

last five years (31.02% in FY 2008-09 as estimated by UERC minus 19.34% in FY 2013-14 as recasted

by UPCL).

The following initiatives are further being undertaken for loss reduction:

• Installation of Capacitor Bank at 33/11 kV substations

• Implementation of R-APDRP Part A scheme

• Implementation of R-APDRP Part B scheme

• Installation of Double metering in selected 11 kV & 33 kV consumers

• Shifting of 1 Phase & 3 Phase meter outside the premises of the consumers

• Implementation of AMR

• Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters and Installation of Electronic

meters in un-metered connections

• Laying of LT ABC cable

• DT Metering

• Replacement of defective meters

• Metering of unmetered consumers

Further, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL in its Tariff Petition has proposed the following

distribution losses:

Table 2.8: Distribution Losses as proposed by the Petitioner Year Target fixed by UERC Proposed by UPCL

2013-14 16% 19.34% (Actual re casted)

2014-15 15.50% 18.34% 2015-16 15% 17.34%



With regard to investigating losses and energy audit, the Petitioner submitted that as per

Commission’s directives, UPCL had conducted the Energy Audit Exercise through a consultancy

firm. The Energy Audit Report has also been provided to the Commission.

With regard to maintaining distribution lines, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL makes all

its efforts to ensure efficient running of all the equipments and their maintenance. However, if there

is any specific complaint, UPCL shall ensure to resolve it in a timely manner.

2.22 KCC Data 2.22.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comment

Shri Pankaj Gupta, President, Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that UPCL

has done a good job by compiling data in KCC cell. Though the compilation is excellent, it seems

that enough benefit is not being derived from scrutiny of this data. Industries Association of

Uttarakhand suggested that the Commission should set up one cell either in its own office or in

UPCL’s office for scrutiny of this data. Further, such cell should be independent and should not be

reporting to UPCL. The formation of this cell would help in proper diagnostics of ills and malafides

prevailing in UPCL at division level and would highlight the vital areas to be settled.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has covered all the industrial consumers having load

above 5 kW and non-domestic consumers having load above 10 kW under KCC billing. The MRI

report and billing of the HT consumers are being checked at Corporate Office on regular basis.

Corrective actions are being taken on the irregularities found in the checking of the metering system

and billing of these consumers.

2.23 Quality of Power 2.23.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comment

Shri Pankaj Gupta submitted that quality of power is reducing with the passage of time.

Issues like voltage variations amongst different phases, low voltage, high voltage, frequent

breakdowns, etc. has become a common practice. Therefore, he requested the Commission to give

clear direction to UPCL for improvement of quality of power.




The Petitioner submitted that efforts are regularly made by UPCL for improvement in

quality of power. The demand of electricity has become about four times from the date of creation

of State and UPCL is meeting the demand of electricity to the satisfaction of the consumers. It is

worthwhile to mention here that in the whole State average supply of electricity in a day is between

22-24 hours.

2.24 Open Access 2.24.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comment

Shri Manu Kochhar submitted that encouraging open access will help augment power

availability in the State and ease out the deficit power situation. Also the distribution losses

considered for open access need to be rationalized in line with the actual distribution losses

incurred with the consumers on 132 kV and 220 kV.

Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal submitted that cross subsidy surcharge should not be charged in

open access.

Shri S. S. Chopra submitted that the renewal of open access should be on yearly basis

instead of monthly basis.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL is allowing open access to the consumers as per the

provisions of Regulations issued by Commission in this matter. Further, the Tariff of consumers for

FY 2014-15 has been determined considering the distribution losses of 15.50%, whereas the

distribution losses on open access energy at 33 kV and 132 kV are only 13.88% and 8.92%

respectively.

Further, in accordance with Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cross subsidy surcharge is

payable by the consumers on the energy imported through open access.



2.25 Renewable Energy Promotion

2.25.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comment

Shri H. D. Arora submitted that government should encourage projects based on wind,

biomass, solar and hydro power projects. Such power project will increase power generation and

revenue in the State.

Shri Ajay Bhargava and Shri R. N. Mathur suggested that UPCL should encourage the usage

of LED lamps by the consumers. This can be done by arranging such lamps available at subsidized

rates. This will reduce electricity demand.


Regarding Energy Conversation, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL is already in

discussions with Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. regarding a Scheme of distributing LED bulbs.

Under this project, consumers will be provided LED bulbs at an initial payment of Rs. 10 and

thereafter Rs. 10 per month will be adjusted in their monthly bills. Further, UPCL informed that

UPCL has fulfilled the RPO obligations till FY 2012-13. Further, UPCL will soon execute the PPAs

for fulfilling their solar RPO in ensuing year

2.26 Views of Advisory Committee Meeting

During the advisory Committee meeting held on February 5, 2015, the Members made the

following suggestions on the Petitioner’s Petition for True of FY 2013-14, Annual Performance

Review for FY 2014-15 and Tariff for FY 2015-16.

• Members opined that UPCL has not followed the Distribution loss trajectory as approved by

the Commission. The industrial consumption has increased from 24% to 57% from FY 2003-

04 to FY 2013-14 in Uttarakhand. Members further opined that even though losses in supply

to industries range from 3% to 4%, UPCL has still claimed high distribution loss in the State.

• Members opined that UPCL has projected 5% increase in demand for industrial category

which is on a higher side. 4% increase will be more appropriate assumption for projecting

industrial consumption for FY 2015-16.

• Members opined that UPCL has claimed true up for previous years on the basis of audited

accounts. However, no justification for increased cost has been provided by UPCL in this

regard.



• Members opined that the expenses claimed by UPCL are very high in comparison to that

approved by the Commission. Further, UPCL is repeatedly claiming the expenses, in which

the Commission has already given its ruling in previous tariff orders. The Commission had

disallowed bad & doubtful debts claimed by UPCL in FY 2012-13. Then also, UPCL has

again claimed bad & doubtful debts in FY 2013-14. In this regard, Members further opined

that prudence check is required in approval of actual expenses incurred by UPCL.

• Members opined that 26% hike in tariff should not be allowed. Increase in tariff should be

limited to reasonable level. Members also opined that increase in tariff should not be flat

across all category of consumers and tariff increase should be different for different category

of consumers. Further, increase in tariff should be limited to a reasonable level of around 5-

6%.

• Members opined that the issue of Opening Gross Fixed Assets of UPCL is pending for a long

time and it will be in the interests of all the stakeholders to finalise the same at the earliest.

• Members opined that the ToD slots should be fixed considering the timings of operation of

single shift industry.

• Members opined that fixed charges should be linked for domestic consumers based on

consumption, however, some minimum fixed charge should be levied in case of “zero”

consumption by any consumer.

• Members opined that slabs should be modified for Load Factor based tariff for Industrial

consumers and suggested to check the computations in this regard.

• Members opined that UPCL has proposed to abolish the snowbound category (RTS-1A) as

there are no existing consumers under this category over last 5 years. Such comment about

non-existence of snowbound consumers is not satisfactory. Snowbound areas are not fixed

and vary with the rate of snowfall. Villages with snowbound consumers in hilly areas are in

existence and, therefore, such category should not be removed.

• Members opined that TOD tariffs be designed considering the load pattern of the State and

Demand Supply situation in the State.

• Members opined to link employee expenses with efficiency.

• Members opined that UPCL should outsource for improving billing efficiency. Incentive

should be given for meeting the targets.



• Members opined that Rail transport is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods at

low rates in comparison to road transport. In this regard, new electricification projects are

taken up by Railways and accordingly, the tariff for railways should not be increased for

promoting tourism in State.

• Members opined that separate category should be made for Horticulture & Floriculture and

suggested that all other allied activities should also be included in this category.

• Members opined that the tube wells of State Agriculture Department are under separate

category, GIS. The tube wells of State Agriculture Department should also be included in

Private Tube Wells Category with lower tariff as such tube-wells are used for production of

seeds for farmers in hilly areas.

• Members opined that UPCL should come out with a proposal for energy conservation and

take adequate measures for energy conversation. Further, UPCL should fulfil the Renewable

Purchase Obligations.

2.27 Commission’s Views

The Commission has taken note of various suggestions/objections made by the stakeholders

and appreciates the keen interest and participation of various stakeholders and for their feedback

provided to the Commission on various issues. The Commission is of the view that the foundation

stone of any meaningful regulation of utilities is to have an effective platform for exchange of

operational and performance related information. The information exchange with the Utilities

should be on a regular basis and throughout the year, rather than the interactions being limited to

year-end, i.e. at the time of filing of the Petition. The Commission has, therefore, given its

suggestions for improvement to overcome the shortcomings in their information systems and in

various processes.

The Commission has addressed the issues raised by the stakeholders on the aspects of tariff

rationalization and tariffs such as fixed charges, Minimum Consumption Guarantee charges, ToD

Tariffs, Continuous Supply Surcharge, Reduction in Cross Subsidy etc. in Chapter 5 (Tariff

Rationalisation, Tariff Design and related issues) of the Order. Several respondents from different

consumer categories have opposed the increase in tariff proposed by the Petitioner and submitted

that the tariff increase should be reasonable.



As regards the concerns raised by the respondents, relating to the truing up of expenses and

revenue for FY 2013-14 and projections of expenses and ARR of the Petitioner for FY 2015-16, such

as Power Purchase Cost, O&M expenses, capital related expenditure, Non-Tariff Income, provision

for bad debts, Interest on Working Capital, etc, the Commission has carried out the detailed analysis

of each element of projections, expenses and Revenue as elaborated in Chapter 3 (Truing Up for FY

2013-14) and Chapter 4 (Analysis of Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2015-16) of the Order.

Various stakeholders have requested the Commission to not allow any losses incurred by

the Petitioner to be passed on to the consumers. The Commission, in this regard is of the view that

UERC MYT Regulations, 2011 stipulates sharing of gains as well as losses. The Commission has,

accordingly carried out sharing of gains and losses as discussed in Chapter-3 in this Order.

2.27.1 Load Shedding

With regards to concerns raised on account of frequent load shedding done by the Petitioner

without intimating the consumers, the Commission observed that the Petitioner is resorting to

regular load shedding under the garb of unscheduled/emergency outages.

In this regard, the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 6, 2013 observed that any

outage continuously been affected by the Petitioner for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or

more days shall not be considered as unscheduled/emergency outage. The Commission has also

given directions in its MYT Order dated May 6, 2013. In accordance with the direction, Petitioner

has to obtain the prior approval for load shedding to be carried out continuously for certain number

of hours in a day for 15 or more days. Further, in case, during any month if the average supply

hours are less than 18 hours per day, the Petitioner shall reduce the demand charges for HT

Industrial consumers for that month to 80% of the applicable demand charges for the affected

consumers.

2.27.2 Compliance to the Directives of the Commission

As regards the action taken by the Petitioner on the directives of the Commission, it may be

noted that the Commission obtained the details on the same during the Technical Validation

Session. Moreover, the Commission has included the submission of the Petitioner on the action

taken by it with regard to various directives and the Commission’s views on the same in Chapter 7

(Commission’s Directives) of the Order.



2.27.3 Fuel Charge Adjustment Mechanism

With regard to FCA recovery mechanism, the Commission has already specified the

mechanism in its UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

2.27.4 KCC Data

As regards the suggestion for scrutiny of KCC data, the Commission would like to clarify

that the detailed analysis of KCC data is being done at Commission’s office on regular basis and

monthly report on low load factor consumer is submitted by the Petitioner on regular basis.

2.27.5 Recovery of Electricity Dues

The Commission agrees with the concern raised by the stakeholders /objectors regarding

electricity dues on various Government departments and private consumers. Various stakeholders

suggested that these dues should be recovered. The Commission has been consistently directing the

Petitioner to make concerted efforts for recovering its dues and improve its financial position by

identifying such consumers and writing off dubious/non-existent or ghost consumers from its

records through a policy of writing off bad debts and initiating recovery of its dues from other

consumers. Further, as elaborated in Chapter 4 of the Order, the Commission in this Tariff Order is

not allowing any provision for bad and doubtful debts for FY 2015-16 as proposed by the Petitioner.

2.27.6 Incentive for Timely Payment

As regards the suggestion for incentive for timely payment, the Commission has already

dealt with the matter in its Tariff Order for FY 2003-04 which is being reproduced as under:

“The Commission finds that consumers already enjoy sufficiently long credit for the supplies made to

them. Petitioner has intimated the Commission that even for consumers being billed on monthly basis

the time lag between the first day of supply and actual payment is about two months, resulting in

interest free credit for an average period of 45 days for the entire billed amount. For consumers being

billed once in two months the interest free credit period works out to around two months. This

existing arrangement itself is quite generous and no further concessions seem called for. Allowing

consumers rebate for timely payment and booking the cost of it on tariff through expenses incurred,

gives no real advantage to consumers and is only an exercise of smart packaging. The Commission has

therefore decided to do away with the system of rebate for timely payment of the bills by consumers.”



2.27.7 Customer Services

In this regard, the Commission would like to clarify that complaint registers are available at

all the 33/11 kV Substations of UPCL in Uttarakhand. The consumers can also lodge their

complaints on phones. Further, time schedules have been formed for redressal of each category of

complaints. Consumers can also lodge their complaints with the “Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum” functional in the respective Garhwal and Kumaon Zones of Uttarakhand.

2.27.8 Issue of Voltage wise Losses

The Petitioner in its reply to stakeholder’s comments has submitted that distribution losses

on open access energy at 33 kV and 132 kV is 13.88% & 8.92% respectively. The Petitioner however

has not submitted the basis for the losses as submitted above.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the basis for working out voltage wise

losses alongwith approach & methodology adopted by it within two months from the date of this

Order.


3. Petitioner’s Submission, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and

Conclusion on Truing Up for FY 2013-14

Regulation 13 of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions

for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as UERC Tariff Regulations,

2011) notified on December 19, 2011 provides for Truing up of approved expenses and revenue

either on the basis of provisional or audited accounts and stipulates as follows:

“13. Annual Performance Review

(1) Under the multi-year tariff framework, the performance of the Generating Company or

Transmission and Distribution Licensees or SLDC, shall be subject to an Annual Performance

Review.

(2) The Applicant shall under affidavit and as per the UERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2004

make an application for Annual Performance Review by November 30th of every year;

……

(3) The scope of the Annual Performance Review shall be a comparison of the performance of the

Applicant with the approved forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and expected revenue from

tariff and charges and shall comprise of following:

a) A comparison of the audited performance of the applicant for the previous financial year

with the approved forecast for such previous financial year and truing up of expenses and

revenue subject to prudence check including pass through of impact of uncontrollable

factors;

b) Categorisation of variations in performance with reference to approved forecast into

factors within the control of the applicant (controllable factors) and those caused by factors

beyond the control of the applicant (un-controllable factors).

c) Revision of estimates for the ensuing financial year, if required, based on audited

financial results for the previous financial year;

d) Computation of the sharing of gains and losses on account of controllable factors for the

previous year”

The above Regulation also specifies the procedure for Truing up. In accordance with these

provisions of the Regulations, UPCL submitted its application for provisional true-up of FY 2013-14

along with the Tariff Petition for FY 2015-16.

3. Petitioner’s Submission, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing Up for FY 2013-14


The Commission, in its Order dated April 10, 2014, had already carried out the truing up of

expenses and revenue till FY 2012-13. The Petitioner in this Petition had submitted the provisional

accounts for FY 2013-14 and had requested the Commission for carrying out provisional truing up

of expenses and revenues for FY 2013-14 based on the provisional accounts. However, subsequent

to filing of the petition the final audited accounts for FY 2013-14 became available and the same

were submitted by UPCL. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to carry out the final truing up

of expenses and revenue for FY 2013-14 based on the audited accounts instead of provisional basis.

3.1 Past Adjustments

The Petitioner submitted that it had filed for approval of past adjustments, inter-alia,

considering the value of assets and liabilities as per Transfer Scheme approved by the Government

of Uttarakhand (GoU) along with the Multi-Year Tariff Petition for determination of Tariff for FY

2013-14 including true-up for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12. The Petitioner added that in its MYT

Petition, it had submitted the impact of transfer scheme along with the carrying cost till FY 2012-13

amounting to Rs. 1581.24 Crore. However, the Commission in its Order dated May 6, 2013 did not

consider finalisation of transfer scheme as the same required a notification under the Uttar Pradesh

Re-organization Act, 2000 (Re-organization Act). The Petitioner submitted that from the perusal of

the Re-organization Act, there is no requirement to notify the Transfer Scheme or Order issued by

the Central Government under Section 63 of the Reorganization Act. The Petitioner further

submitted that being aggrieved by the aforesaid MYT Order, it has filed an appeal before the

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE).

The Petitioner further submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

(UPERC) in its Order dated May 21, 2013, has considered the Gross Fixed Assets (GFA) transferred

to the Petitioner as Rs. 1058.18 Crore while carrying out the truing-up of UPPCL for the period from

FY 2000-01 to FY 2007-08, which is the same amount as agreed between UPPCL and the Petitioner in

the Transfer Scheme. The Petitioner added that since the matter is pending before the higher court

of law, it is not filing any claim in this regard in the present Petition.

The Commission is also of the view that as the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble ATE,

the higher court of law, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to give any

comments/observations on the issue. Accordingly, the Commission refrains itself from giving any

ruling on the matter of past adjustments in the present Order and decides to maintain status-quo



ante.

3.2 Truing-up for FY 2013-14

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission vide its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013

determined the expenses and revenue of the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 based on the UERC (Terms

and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 and also on the basis of historical

trends. The Petitioner further submitted the computation of revenue and expenses under various

heads based on actual performance during FY 2013-14 along with relevant records and supporting

documents with reasons justifying such calculations under each head.

The Commission has analysed the head-wise elements of ARR and Revenue for FY 2013-14

in the succeeding paragraphs. The head-wise details of variations in expenses and revenue with

justification are enumerated below.

3.2.1 Sales

The Commission had approved the energy sales for FY 2013-14 in the MYT Order dated

May 06, 2013 as 9283 MU. The Petitioner in the current Petition has submitted the actual sales for FY

2013-14 as 9065 MU. The Petitioner has further re-casted the sales for domestic and PTW category

and has submitted total re-casted sales for FY 2013-14 as 9047 MU.

The Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15 dated April 10, 2014 analysed the actual

billing data for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 and stated as follows:

“On scrutinizing the billing data it was observed that consumption of some of the consumers was

abnormally very high. Some of the consumers having abnormal consumption data as observed by the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.4:Consumption Pattern for some of the Consumers of PTW category Sr. No. Division Name of Consumer Connected

Load (BHP) Consumption

(Units) Month

1 Rudrapur Shri Laxman Singh 5.00 194730.00 Dec 2011 2 Rudrapur Shri Gajendra Singh 5.00 34466.00 June 2011 3 Rudrapur Shri Pradeep Vishwas 5.00 21900.00 June 2011 4 Rudrapur Shri Janaradan Chaudhary 5.00 19962.00 June 2011



Assuming round the clock running of the tube well each day, expected consumption of a 5 HP pump

is 16,000 units in 6 months period. The consumption shown as recorded/assessed is several times of

this maximum achievable consumption.

Based on the above analysis it is evident that these consumers are being used as a bin to park excess

losses by field officers and that the licensee has failed to exercise due diligence. It is unequivocal that

part of these sales are fictitious. It is extremely unfortunate that even the basic record CS-3 is being

intentionally and surreptitiously manipulated to show inflated sales. It is not feasible to assess actual

sales to these consumers in a short period given the quality of data. The Commission intends to

institute a study to go in to the gamut of basis of recording sales for these and domestic consumers.”

The Commission, accordingly, instituted a study and appointed a consultant to carry out a

study on “Examination and Analysis of the sales of the distribution company for Domestic and PTW

consumers and verification of the same vis-à-vis actual billing data for FY 2013-14 for two distribution

Circles, namely EDC Roorkee & EDC Rudrapur comprising of about 4,87,000 consumers for FY 2013-14”.

The Commission during the course of study also added the examination and analysis of PWW and

Public lamps category for two Circles in the TOR as part of the enhanced scope of the study.

Detailed analysis of sales data of FY 2013-14 for the two circles comprising of four divisions namely

Roorkee Urban, Roorkee Rural, Rudrapur and Sitarganj was done by the consultant including

analysis of variation in number of consumers and sales in CS-3 statements with respect to consumer

ledgers, analysis of metered and unmetered consumption, analysis of billing done on the basis of

metered units and on assessment basis. Based on the detailed analysis, clarifications were sought

from the respective divisions. Responses were received and based on the analysis of these

responses, it was observed that the sales data as recorded in CS-3 and CS-4 was not matching with

consumer ledgers as discussed in the findings of the study in detail while analysing the truing up of

sales for FY 2013-14 for the respective categories in the following sections.

The Commission continuing with its approach adopted in its APR Order for FY 2014-15

directed the Petitioner to submit the breakup of sales for all the consumer categories into three

parts, i.e. sales based on actual meter reading, unmetered sales and sales billed on assessment basis

for FY 2013-14 during the current proceedings. In reply to the Commission’s direction, the

Petitioner submitted the following:



Table 3.1: Break up of Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 (MU)

S. N

o

Sub-

Cat

egor

y Based on Actual Meter

Reading Based on Assessment Un-metered Total

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s (N

o)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s (N

o)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s (N

o)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s (N

o)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

1 Domestic (i) BPL and Kutir Jyoti 268734 208845 155.95 25254 20203 15.35 0 0 0.00 293988 229048 171.31

(ii) Other Domestic Consumers 1106028 1619642 1643.46 140648 174403 183.12 11238 13703 15.00 1257914 1807748 1841.58

(iii) UPCL Employees and Pensioners 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 7853 24500 52.28 7853 24500 52.28

(iv) UJVNL Employees and Pensioners 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 615 1653 2.58 615 1653 2.58

(v) PTCUL Employees and Pensioners 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 223 594 1.23 223 594 1.23

(vi) Single Point Bulk Supply 84 18672 37.21 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 84 18672 37.21

Total Domestic 1374846 1847159 1837 165902 194606 198 19929 40450 71 1560677 2082215 2,106 2 Non-domestic 167906 705163 970.12 13713 16730 23.76 0 0 0.00 181619 721893 993.87 3 PTW 23092 122887 191.88 2039 10296 17.50 1577 8513 30.37 26708 141696 239.75 4 LT Industry 8700 173683 282.67 570 3060 4.99 0 0 0.00 9270 176743 287.66 5 Public Lamps 464 9850 31.44 32 392 1.41 148 2091 11.21 644 12333 44.06 6 Govt. Irrigation System 1273 48463 101.50 67 1294 2.73 0 0 0.00 1340 49757 104.23 7 Public Water Works 1093 61183 286.82 53 1392 6.54 0 0 0.00 1146 62575 293.37 8 HT Industry 1771 1375494 4804.91 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1771 1375494 4804.91 9 Mixed Load 71 58483 177.60 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 71 58483 177.60 10 Railway Traction 1 6800 11.49 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1 6800 11.49 11 Other State Supply 6 985 1.88 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 6 985 1.88

Total 1579223 4410150 8697 182376 227770 255 21654 51054 113 1783253 4688974 9065

Note - Consumers shown at Sl. no.1 (iii), (iv) & (V) are metered but their consumption is not being recorded and, therefore, considered as unmetered consumers

a) Domestic Consumers:-

As discussed in the preceding section, the Commission had instituted a study to carry out

analysis of sales data pertaining to FY 2013-14 for four categories of consumers which also included

domestic category. The consultant while analysing the sales data observed various anomalies with

regard to billing of consumers and consumption patterns. Some of the consumers having abnormal

consumption pattern were observed and are shown in the Table below:

Table 3.2: Consumption Pattern for some of the Consumers of Domestic Category Sr. No. Division Meter No. Name of

Consumer Connected Load

(kW) Consumption

(Units) Month

1 Roorkee Urban 109307 Mukammil 2 19288 November 2013 2 Roorkee Rural 733798 Nitin 2 20860 March 2014

3 Rudrapur 323275 Rajeev K Agarwal 5 17085 March 2014

4 Sitarganj 138580 Balram Singh 1 16020 May 2013



Even if round the clock utilisation of all the electrical fittings and appliances is considered,

the maximum possible consumption for two months (as bi-monthly billing is there in case of

domestic consumers) works out to 1440 units for a consumer having a connected load of 1 kW, 2880

units for a consumer having a connected load of 2 kW and 7200 units for 5 kW connected load. The

consumption shown as recorded/assessed is several times of this maximum achievable

consumption. UPCL in its replies submitted that in certain cases, there was an error in arriving at

consumption. In case of consumer at S. No. 2 (Nitin), the multiplier factor has been used as 10

instead of 1. UPCL in its replies also submitted that in certain cases, the consumption booked is

after the adjustments for previous billing periods during which the consumption was booked on

assessment basis.

Further, during the study it was observed that on an average basis, for the entire FY 2013-14,

the number of consumers billed on the assessment basis was 27% in Roorkee Urban Division, 44%

in Roorkee Rural Division, 29% in Rudrapur Division and 30% in Sitarganj division. The percentage

of consumers being billed on assessment basis is alarming and is also one of the reasons for booking

higher consumption for some of the consumers.

Based on the detailed analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted for FY 2013-14, it is

observed that for domestic consumers, the sales/kW of connected load for unmetered consumers

and consumers whose consumption was recorded on assessment basis was substantially higher

than the sales/kW of connected load for consumers whose consumption was recorded on the basis

of actual meter reading. The distribution licensee has not substantiated the basis of recording

assessed sales and unmetered sales. It has also been observed that there are large number of

defective meters as in previous years and substantial number of these meters have not been

replaced for years. The consumption of the unmetered consumers and consumers whose

consumption was recorded on the basis of assessment is substantially higher than the consumers

whose consumption was recorded on the basis of actual meter reading. The Commission in its

previous Tariff Orders have been recasting the unmetered sales and assessed sales based on the

load factor (sales/kW) of metered consumers.

For carrying out the Truing Up of sales for FY 2013-14 the Commission considering the

abnormalities observed while carrying out the sales analysis for FY 2013-14 has continued with the

approach adopted by it in the previous Orders and has recasted the sales for FY 2013-14 of



unmetered consumers and consumers billed on assessment basis. For recasting sales for domestic

category, the Commission has considered the sales per kW per month of metered consumers as the

basis for deriving the sales of unmetered consumers and consumers billed on assessment basis.

The Commission has also recasted sales of departmental employees equivalent to average

consumption per kW of metered domestic consumers in view of the fact that the Petitioner itself has

admitted that although the Departmental employees have been metered, however, the consumption

of Departmental employees is not recorded and hence, the same is considered as unmetered sales.

Further, during the study on examination and analysis of sales for FY 2013-14, the

distribution divisions of UPCL in their responses submitted that due to errors in the CS-3 reports

for the domestic category there was an overestimation of sales by 21.45 MU, 0.25 MU, and 52 MU in

Roorkee Urban, Roorkee Rural and Rudrapur Division respectively. The total overestimation of

sales in CS-3 Reports, thus, works out to 73.70 MU which has been deducted while approving sales

for domestic category of UPCL.

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for Domestic Category for FY

2013-14 works out to 1997.90 MU against 2106 MU submitted by UPCL and the same is

summarised in the Table below:

Table 3.3: Re-casted sales for Domestic Category for FY 2013-14 (MU)

S. N

o

Sub-

Cat

egor

y Based on Actual Meter Reading Based on Assessment Un-metered Total Total

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Sale

s/kW

/M

onth

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Rec

aste

d Sa

les

(MU

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Rec

aste

d Sa

les

(MU

)

Re-

cast

ed

Sale

s (M

U)

(i) BPL and Kutir Jyoti 268734 208845 155.95 62.23 25254 20203 15.35 15.09 0 0 0.00 171.04

(ii) Other Domestic Consumers 1106028 1619642 1643.46 84.56 140648 174403 183.12 176.97 11238 13703 15.00 13.90 1834.33

(iii) UPCL Employees and Pensioners 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 7853 24500 52.28 24.86 24.86

(iv) UJVNL Employees and Pensioners 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 615 1653 2.58 1.68 1.68

(v) PTCUL Employees and Pensioners 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 223 594 1.23 0.60 0.60

(vi) Single Point Bulk Supply 84 18672 37.21 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 37.21

Total Domestic 1374846 1847159 1837 0 165902 194606 198 192 19929 40450 71 41 2069.72 Less: Reduction of overestimation of Sales in Roorkee and Rudrapur Divisions 73.70 Total Sales approved for FY 2013-14 under Domestic Category 1997.90

b) PTW Consumers

As regards the PTW category, the consultant carried out a comprehensive study of the actual



sales data for Roorkee and Rudrapur divisions based on the commercial diary for FY 2013-14. The

Commission observed that Rudrapur and Sitarganj divisions were showing an abnormally high

consumption pattern compared to the average consumption as per their commercial diary & the

same as is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.4: Consumption Pattern of PTW for FY 2013-14 as per Commercial Diary

Division No. of Consumers Connected Load (kW)

Consumption (MU)

Consumption kWh/kW/month

Rudrapur 4267 21525 47.08 182.27 Sitarganj 3016 15804 44.88 236.64

The consultants during the study on examination and analysis of sales for FY 2013-14 further

sought clarifications and billing data from respective divisions for sample consumers. On

scrutinizing the billing data it was observed that consumption of some of the consumers was

abnormally high which is as shown in the Table below. Further, no appropriate response was

received from UPCL on the same.

Table 3.5: Consumption Pattern for some of the Consumers of PTW Category

Sr. No. Division Connection

No. Name of

Consumer Connected Load (BHP)

Consumption (Units) Month

Load Factor Computed assuming

consumption is for 6 months

1 Roorkee Urban 312505 Sulochand

Saini 08 19288 November 2013 75%

2 Roorkee Urban 381417 Babagarib

Shaha 10 17005 January 2014 53%

3 Roorkee Urban 391843 Kaliram 08 17360 December

2013 67%

4 Roorkee Urban 010041 Atma Ram 05 26108 February

2013 162%

Assuming that the consumption as provided for these consumers is for 6 months, due to 6

months billing cycle of PTW consumers, the load factor works out to be in the range of 53% to 75%

for first 3 consumers which is substantially higher than the average load factor of around 19% of the

PTW consumers for entire UPCL. Further, in case of consumer at S. No. 4 in the above Table, the

load factor works out to more than 162% which is practically not possible.

While carrying out the sales study it was also observed that there were huge discrepancies in

the sales data submitted in the CS-3 statements and consumer ledgers especially in case of

Rudrapur and Sitarganj divisions. Sales as submitted in CS-3 for Sitarganj division was 44.88 MU



for FY 2013-14 as against which the consumer ledgers showed only 22.18 MU. Further, with regard

to Rudrapur Division it was observed that the sales as submitted in CS-3 was 47.08 MU for FY 2013-

14 as against which the consumption booked in consumer ledgers was 11.65 MU.

The divisions were asked to reconcile the differences as discussed above, however, no

satisfactory response was received for such variations in sales recorded.

Having said that and given the situation, that the exact quantum of metered and unmetered

consumption is not available, the Commission for the purpose of this true up decides to recast the

PTW consumption based on the average consumption/connected load recorded in the Commercial

Diary by excluding the divisions with abnormal consumption pattern, i.e. Rudrapur and Sitarganj

for which no explanation has been provided by the Petitioner.

Table 3.6: Average Consumption of PTW for FY 2013-14 considered by the Commission (MU)

Division No. of Consumers

Connected Load (kW)

Consumption (MU)

Consumption kWh/kW/month

Total as per Commercial Diary 26708 141696 239.75 141 Excluding Rudrapur, Sitarganj 19425 104367 147.79 118

Thus, the Commission approves the recasted sales of 200.65 MU for FY 2013-14 for PTW

category as against the sales claimed by the Petitioner of 239.75 MU. The licensee may note carefully

that if appropriate corrective actions to improve validity and legitimacy of sale data of these

consumes are not taken, the Commission in future may recognise sale to these consumers at

normative basis to be fixed based on study.

c) Public Lamps

While carrying out the sales study it was observed that the Petitioner, in its reply did not

submit the actual number of hours Public Lamps have been considered to operate for estimating

sales of public lamps. The Consultant based on the CS-3 submitted by the Petitioner observed

anomalies in case of consumption of Public Lamps in Roorkee Rural division and Sitarganj division.

It was observed that average hours of operations for public lamps in Roorkee Rural was 20

hours/day and in case of Sitarganj it was just 3.74 hours/day.

Further, from the detailed analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted by the Petitioner,

it was observed that for public lamps, the sales/kW of connected load for consumers whose

consumption was recorded on assessment basis and unmetered basis was higher than the sales/kW



of connected load for consumers whose consumption was recorded on the basis of actual meter

reading. The distribution licensee did not substantiate the basis of recording assessed and

unmetered sales. It was also observed during the study on examination and analysis of sales for FY

2013-14 that for public lamps which were metered, the bills were issued on assessment basis.

From the data submitted by the Petitioner it was observed that around 23% of consumers in

this category were unmetered and about 5% of metered consumers have been billed on assessment

basis in FY 2013-14. The Commission has carried out similar treatment for the consumers who have

been billed on assessment or unmetered basis as has been done in case of domestic consumers.

Accordingly, the Commission has reduced unmetered consumption and consumption billed on

assessment basis and has approved recasted sales of 39.37 MU as against 44.06 MU claimed by the

Petitioner and the same is as shown in the Table below.

Table 3.7: Re-casted sales for Public Lamps for FY 2013-14 (MU)

S. N

o

Con

sum

er

Cat

egor

y

Based on Actual Meter Reading Based on Assessment Un-metered Total Total

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Sale

s/kW

/M

onth

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Rec

aste

d Sa

les

(MU

Num

ber o

f C

onsu

mer

s

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

Rec

aste

d Sa

les

(MU

)

Re-

cast

ed

Sale

s (M

U)

1 Public Lamps 464 9850 31.44 266 32 392 1.41 1.25 148 2091 11.21 6.68 39.37

d) Public Water Works

The Commission based on the study on examination and analysis of sales for FY 2013-14 for

Roorkee and Rudrapur Circles observed that the consumption in terms of sales/kW in case of

Roorkee Urban and Rudrapur divisions was even more than 720 kWh/kW/month which is

practically impossible. Further, in case of Sitarganj division, the sales/kW/month was observed as

470 kWh/kW/month suggesting a load factor of 65% or a consumption of more than 15 hours per

day, which was again unreasonable.

The Commission, in order to validate such consumption analysed the amount of revenue

booked against such consumption and the average billing rate for all the divisions. The Commission

observed that the energy charges in case of following divisions worked out to be less than the

energy charges approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.



Table 3.8: Division-wise Sales recasting for PWW Consumers

Name of Divisions Sub-Category Energy Sold (MU)

Energy Charges (Rs. Crore)

EC (Rs./kWh)

Reassed Sales (MU)

EDC, Roorkee Jal Nigam 0.93 0.09 0.97 0.22 EDD (R), Haldwani Jal Nigam 0.33 0.13 4.03 0.32 EDD, Almora Jal Nigam 0.11 0.04 3.83 0.10 EDD, Tehri Jal Sansthan 22.48 8.90 3.96 21.70 EDD, Ramnagar Jal Sansthan 6.06 2.28 3.76 5.56 EDD (R), Haldwani Jal Sansthan 6.90 2.76 4.00 6.74 EDD, Bajpur Jal Sansthan 1.71 0.65 3.82 1.59 EDD, Almora Jal Sansthan 12.94 5.27 4.07 12.84 EDD, Rudrapur Jal Sansthan 2.77 0.67 3.01 2.21 EDD, Pithoragarh Jal Sansthan 14.65 6.00 4.09 14.62 EDD, Champawat Jal Sansthan 1.74 0.71 4.06 1.73 EDD, Rishikesh Other Water Works 0.43 0.15 3.56 0.37 Total 71.03 68.01

The Commission has recasted the sales of PWW consumers for above divisions considering

energy charge rate of Rs. 4.10/kWh. The Commission has derived sales for PWW consumers which

works out to be 290.35 MU as against 293.37 MU claimed by the Petitioner.

The Consultant during the study on examination and analysis of sales of Roorkee Urban

Division for FY 2013-14 observed abnormally high consumption under the sub category “Other

Local Bodies” in PWW consumers and directed UPCL to submit the bills of all consumers under the

said sub-category. The Petitioner in its reply submitted that in the month of April 2013, the

consumption under the sub-category was wrongly booked as 9.528 MU as against the consumption

of 0.67 MU which led to an over estimation of 8.86 MU in the CS-3 statements. UPCL having

accepted the error in its CS-3 sales statement and since, this is the basis on which, UPCL has

submitted its actual sales for FY 2013-14, the Commission has appropriately deducted the same

from the above recasted sales and has accordingly, approved total sales of 281.49 MU for FY 2013-

14.

e) HT Industries

The Petitioner submitted the LT and HT sales of 287.66 MU and 4804.91 MU respectively for

FY 2013-14. The Commission in this regard asked UPCL whether the sales made to HT Industrial

category has been adjusted for power consumed by HT Industrial consumers through open access.

The Petitioner in its reply submitted that the energy availed through open access energy by HT

Industrial consumers has been adjusted from the consumption units recorded in respect of HT



Industries. The Petitioner, further, submitted month wise details of energy availed by the open

access consumers totalling 258.13 MU for FY 2013-14 as published by SLDC on PTCUL website. As

the Petitioner has correctly submitted the sales for this category by excluding the energy consumed

by HT Industries through open access, the Commission has approved the sales for HT Industries as

submitted by the Petitioner.

Based on the above analysis, the total sales for FY 2013-14 as re-worked by the Commission

for FY 2013-14 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.9: Category-wise Sales for FY 2013-14 (MU)

Categories MYT Order dated 06.05.2013

Claimed in the Petition

Approved after Truing Up

Domestic (RTS - 1) 1878 2108 1998 Non-domestic, incl Commercial (RTS - 2) 1068 994 994 Public Lamps (RTS - 3) 81 44 39 Private Tubewell/Pump Sets (RTS - 4) 198 240 201 Government Irrigation System (RTS - 5) 164 104 104 Public Water Works (RTS - 6) 396 293 281 Industrial Consumers (RTS - 7) 5290 5093 5093 Mixed Load (RTS - 8) 197 178 178 Railway Traction (RTS - 9) 10 11 11 Total 9283 9065 8899

3.2.2 Distribution Losses

In the present Petition, the Petitioner has submitted its distribution losses for FY 2013-14 at

19.34%. However, as per the actual data submitted by the Petitioner and the sales approved by the

Commission, the actual distribution losses for FY 2013-14 works out to 20.66%. The Commission for

the FY 2013-14 had approved distribution losses of 16%.

The Commission, in accordance with the approach adopted in its previous Orders, has

considered actual power purchased by the Petitioner as 11216.31 MU at distribution periphery

(T&D interface) for FY 2013-14 and applying the approved loss level of 16.00% for the year, the

Commission has estimated the sales of 9365.62 MU for FY 2013-14. As against this sale of 9365.62

MU, the actual sales recasted by the Commission for FY 2013-14 is 8899.17 MU. Therefore, there is a

loss of sales to the tune of 466.45 MU on account of commercial inefficiencies of the Petitioner

resulting from its failure to achieve target distribution losses approved by the Commission. The

Commission has considered additional revenue of Rs. 196.93 Crore worked out at an actual average



billing rate of Rs. 4.22/kWh for the sales lost for FY 2013-14. The following Table shows actual

distribution loss and approved distribution loss along with efficiency loss for FY 2013-14 as

explained above.

Table 3.10: Assessed Distribution losses for FY 2013-14 (MU)

Particulars MYT order dated 6.05.2013

Revised Claim

Approved after Truing

Up Actual/ Recasted Sales (MU) 9,283.28 9046.89 8899.17 Distribution Loss Level (%) 17.00% 19.34% 20.66% Actual Distribution Loss (MU) 1,901.39 2169.42 2,317.14 Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface / Power Purchase Requirement (MU) 11,184.67 11216.31 11216.31

Commercial Loss Reduction (%) 1.00% - 1.00% (Loss)/Gain of sales due to inefficiency/efficiency (MU) (Normative Sales-Actual Re-casted Sales)

111.85 - 466.45

Approved Distribution Loss (%) 16.00% - 16.00% Total Normative Sales (MU) 9395.12 9046.89 9365.62 PTCUL Losses (%) 1.84% 1.81% 1.81% Energy Input at State Periphery 11,394.33 11423.07 11423.07

Further, as Distribution Loss is a controllable parameter, the Commission has carried out the

sharing of impact of excess distribution loss in accordance with the provisions of UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011.

3.2.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

The Petitioner has submitted the actual Power Purchase cost for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 3182.27

Crore. This amount includes inter-State, intra-State transmission charges and short term open access

charges of Rs. 396.66 Crore. The net Power Purchase cost excluding transmission charges for FY

2013-14 works out to Rs. 2785.61 Crore as against the power purchase expenses of Rs. 2841.71 Crore

approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. While working out this power

purchase cost, the Petitioner has submitted that it has considered the cost of free power at the

average power purchase rate in line with the methodology adopted by the Commission.

The Commission has analysed the source-wise actual power purchase from the monthly

data obtained from the Petitioner and audited accounts for FY 2013-14. Further, the Commission has

considered rate for free power equivalent to the average power purchase rate from all major hydro

generating stations except free power in accordance with the methodology laid down by the



Commission. Based on the above approach the rate of free power works out to Rs. 1.63/kWh. The

Commission, accordingly, approves the total power purchase cost including transmission charges

for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 3182.27 Crore as claimed by the Petitioner and is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.11: Power Purchase Expenses for FY 2013-14

Generating Stations

UPCL Claimed Approved after Truing Up

Quantum (MU)

Cost (Rs. Crore)

Cost per Unit

(Rs./kWh)

Quantum (MU)

Cost (Rs. Crore)

Cost per Unit

(Rs./kWh) NTPC 2757.73 858.07 3.11 2757.73 858.07 3.11 NPCL 297.64 95.39 3.20 297.64 95.39 3.20 NHPC (Excluding Tanakpur & Dhauliganga) 450.49 204.82 4.55 450.49 204.82 4.55

UJVN Ltd. 3866.37 433.24 1.12 3866.37 433.24 1.12 SJVNL 68.13 19.29 2.83 68.13 19.29 2.83 THDC (Excluding Free Power) 202.39 90.05 4.45 202.39 90.05 4.45 IPPS 346.93 117.39 3.38 346.93 117.39 3.38 Open Market Purchase 2271.54 772.10 3.40 2271.54 772.10 3.40 UI Overdrawal 313.71 75.68 2.41 313.71 75.68 2.41 Banking 67.97 0.00 0.00 67.97 0.00 0.00 Sub Total 10642.89 2666.04 2.50 10642.89 2666.04 2.50 Free Power Tanakpur 36.40 5.93 1.63 36.40 5.93 1.63 Dhauliganga 32.19 5.25 1.63 32.19 5.25 1.63 Tehri 465.68 75.87 1.63 465.68 75.87 1.63 Koteshwar 173.52 28.27 1.63 173.52 28.27 1.63 Vishnu Prayag 46.73 7.61 1.63 46.73 7.61 1.63 Sub Total 754.54 122.93 1.63 754.54 122.93 1.63 Transmission & Other Cost 396.66 396.66 Less: UI Underdrawal 43.41 3.36 0.77 43.41 3.36 0.77 Banking 88.99 0.00 0.00 88.99 0.00 0.00 Total 11265.02 3182.27 2.82 11265.02 3182.27 2.82

The Commission further observed that the Petitioner in its audited accounts for FY 2013-14

has written back prior period power purchase liabilities amounting to Rs. 261.45 Crore and has also

booked prior period expenses of Rs. 17.33 Crore. The Commission asked the Petitioner to submit the

information regarding details of Prior Period Income in the Annual Accounts for carrying out the

true up for the respective year alongwith the reasons which resulted in excess booking for each

financial year separately. The Petitioner in its reply submitted the bifurcation of such expenses,

however, the Petitioner did not submit the year wise excess provisioning done and sought more

time to submit the same. To take correct and proper view on adjustments to be made to power

purchase costs already allowed in earlier year, the complete year wise details of liabilities written

back is essentially required. It is also observed that unpaid liability towards power purchase is



shown as Rs. 1097 Crore in the annual accounts of UPCL which relates to the power purchase dues

of CGS, UJVN Ltd., etc. This unpaid liability has come down as compared to that in preceding year

by the amount which has been written off. It would, therefore, also be necessary to verify the

bonafide of this liability. As the basic information could not be made available by the Petitioner, the

Commission at present is not taking final view in the matter. The Commission directs the

Petitioner to submit the year wise details of the excess liabilities written off under the head of

power purchase as also the complete details and documentary evidence of unpaid liabilities

mentioned in the accounts of FY 2013-14 to the Commission in the format already sent to it

within one month from the date of issue of this Order. The Commission will take appropriate

view in the matter in the Tariff Order for FY 2016-17.

3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses

The Petitioner has claimed O&M expenses (including employee cost, R&M expenses and

A&G expenses) for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 354.25 Crore based on its audited accounts against the amount

of Rs. 340.40 Crore approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. The sub-

component wise expenses have been discussed below;

3.2.4.1 Employee Expenses

The Petitioner, in its Petition, has submitted that the Commission while approving the

employee expenses for the Control Period had not considered employee expenses for FY 2012-13.

The Petitioner further submitted that since now the actual employee expenses for FY 2012-13 is

available the employee expenses for each year of the Control Period should be revised. The

Petitioner in its Petition has considered employee expenses for FY 2012-13 as the base year expenses

and projected the employee expenses for each year of the MYT Period based on the UERC tariff

Regulations, 2011.

The Petitioner further submitted that it had to bear the responsibility of paying enhanced

pension which is on account of pay revision in third time scale with effect from 01.01.1996 due to

which pension and family pension was revised for the employees who retired between 01.01.1996

and 20.07.2010. The Petitioner further submitted that the treasury department of Uttarakhand

refused to disburse pension on enhanced pay as they did not get contribution on this account. The

Petitioner further submitted that GoU vide GO No. 85 dated 07.07.2011 stated that the

pension/family pension is not allowed on presumptive pay. Further, on February 5, 2013,



Additional Secy (energy) vide letter no. 173 directed UPCL to release enhanced pension from their

own fund. The Petitioner submitted that in accordance with the directions of GoU, UPCL has

started paying enhanced pension to the employees who retired during 01.01.1996 to 20.07.2010.

The Petitioner submitted that the actual impact of enhanced pension for FY 2013-14 was Rs.

17.23 Crore. The Petitioner further submitted that since enhanced pension was not part of the base

employee expenses, i.e. employee expenses for FY 2012-13, this has been considered additionally in

FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner also submitted that in addition to the above cost, additional expenses

incurred on account of new allowances have been considered as part of employee expenses. The

Petitioner has submitted that it has increased the value of certain allowances such as Motor Cycle

Allowance, Conveyance Charges, Cycle Allowance, Washing Allowance, Distribution Profit

Incentive, Bi-Lingual Allowance etc. w.e.f. August 1, 2013. Further, it submitted that the additional

cost on account of such expenses was Rs. 0.63 Crore in FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner further revised the escalation rates as per prevailing CPI indices, however, the

Petitioner has considered Gn factor as considered by the Commission in its MYT Order.

The Petitioner, accordingly, submitted the revised employee expenses trajectory as shown in

the following Table:

Table 3.12: Revised Employee Expense Trajectory for MYT Control Period (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Inflation Factor 9.76% 9.50% 9.50% Growth Factor 5.79% 5.80% 5.81% Gross Employee Expenses 257.98 299.55 347.03 402.08 Impact of enhanced pension 17.23 18.87 20.66 Impact of change in Allowances 0.63 0.94 0.94 Gross Employee Expenses 317.41 366.84 423.68

The Petitioner submitted that during FY 2013-14 it has incurred actual gross and net

employee expenses of Rs. 297.53 Crore and Rs. 259.06 Crore respectively and has proposed the

following sharing of gains and losses on account of O&M expenses.

Table 3.13: Proposed Sharing of Gains for Employee Expenses (Rs. Crore) Particulars MYT Order Actual Variation UPCL (80%) Beneficiary (20%)

Gross Employee Expenses - 297.53 - - - Less: Capitalisation - 38.47 - - - Net Employee Expenses 225.88 259.06 33.24 26.59 6.65



The Commission has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner, so far as considering

base year as FY 2012-13 is concerned, the Commission observes that Regulation 84(2) of UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2011 clearly stipulates the base year as FY 2011-12 and, therefore, considering FY

2012-13 as base year will be against the provisions of the Regulations.

The Commission has re-worked the Normative Employee Expenses for FY 2013-14 by

revising the escalation rates and growth factor. With regards to revised inflation factor, the

Commission has revised the CPI escalation rate from 8.75% as considered in the MYT Order to

10.40% based on the last three years average increase in CPI from FY 2009-10 to FY 2011-12. The

base year expenses of FY 2011-12 has then been escalated by 10.40% to determine the employee

expenses for FY 2012-13. Similarly the Commission has revised the escalation factor considered for

escalating FY 2012-13 expenses to 9.76% from the earlier value of 8.75% based on the average

increase in CPI during FY 2010-11 to FY 2012-13.

Regarding the growth factor, the Commission observed that the number of employees

retiring during the year have exceeded the number of new recruitments for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-

14 as UPCL was unable to recruit the employees as submitted by UPCL in its MYT Petition and as

considered by the Commission in MYT Order. The Commission has, therefore, revised the Gn factor

to zero and has, accordingly, determined the employee expenses for FY 2013-14. However, the

Commission expresses its displeasure on the slow or negligible pace of recruitment. In FY 2013-14,

as per the submissions made by UPCL, only 2 employees were recruited on the post of Senior Law

Officers. However, 235 employees have retired during the year which suggests that number of

employees retired have outpaced the number of employees recruited. This in turn is not only

hampering the quality of supply to the consumers but is also adversely affecting the revenues of

UPCL as the core meter reading, billing and bill distribution function of UPCL has been outsourced.

UPCL is directed to expedite the recruitment process and also submit a quarterly status report to

the Commission detailing the steps taken by it in this regard and also the status of the

recruitments planned.

Further, UPCL has included certain additional expenses on account of enhanced pensions

and new/increased allowances. The Commission is of the view that since O&M expenses have been

allowed to it based on certain norms and moreover, these expenses are controllable in nature,

accordingly, UPCL should exercise proper prudence while incurring these expenses as a



commercial entity. Anything and everything cannot be allowed to be a pass through in tariff.

However, as a one-time exception, the Commission has allowed UPCL the recovery of the burden

of enhanced pension through tariffs since this is a statutory liability of UPCL and has already been

approved by the GoU, however, any further allowance or incentives or benefits granted to its

employees will have to be borne by UPCL from its own resources or through increased efficiency.

Further, the distribution profit incentive should be borne by UPCL from its profit and there is no

rationale for claiming incentive on distribution profit from the consumers. The Commission has,

therefore, not considered any increase in allowances while approving the employee expenses for FY

2013-14.

In the MYT order, the Commission had considered capitalisation of 16.49% of gross

employee expenses based on last five years average. The Commission in this regard is of the view

that since the actual capitalised figures are now available the capitalisation should be done in

proportion of actual employee expenses capitalised. The Commission has, accordingly, capitalised

employee expenses in the same proportion as that submitted by the Petitioner.

The Commission has, accordingly, approved employee expenses as shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.14: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT Order dated 06.05.2013

Revised Claim

Normative Approved

Employee Cost 270.48 297.53 279.22 Less: Capitalisation -44.60 -38.47 -33.88 Net Employee Cost 225.88 259.06 245.35

3.2.4.2 Repair and Maintenance

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that the actual R&M expenses incurred for FY

2013-14 is Rs. 77.18 Crore as against Rs. 91.27 Crore approved in the MYT Order. The Petitioner has,

accordingly, requested for sharing of gains of Rs. 14.09 Crore on account of reduced expenses as per

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

The Commission in its MYT Order had approved K Factor based on the average of actual

R&M expenses and Opening GFA for FY 2009-10 to FY 2011-12 which worked out to 4.98%. The

Commission as discussed in the Asset Capitalisation section has provisionally revised the

capitalisation of assets from FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13. As the K factor is linked to GFA, the same has



undergone change and the K factor based on the average of FY 2009-10 to FY 2011-12 is revised to

2.84%. The same is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.15: Approved revised K Factor for MYT Control Period (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Average of 3 years

R&M Expenses 49.24 55.55 70.38 58.39 Opening GFA 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2056.17 K Factor 2.90% 2.75% 2.87% 2.84%

The Commission for approving R&M expenses in MYT Order for the Control Period had

escalated the expenses based on the available WPI. The Commission has revised the average

increase in WPI for projecting the base year’s expenses, i.e. FY 2011-12 expenses to FY 2012-13 from

7.77% to 7.42%. Similarly the Commission has revised the escalation rate for projecting expenses for

FY 2012-13 to FY 2013-14 from 7.77% to 8.62% based on the average increase in the WPI numbers for

preceding three years. Accordingly, the R&M expenses for FY 2013-14 has been re-determined

considering the revised GFA and K factor as above.

The Commission, accordingly, approves R&M expenses as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.16: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT

Order dated 06.05.2013

Revised Claim

Normative Approved

R&M Expenses 91.27 77.18 101.13

3.2.4.3 Administrative and General Expenses

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that the actual gross and net A&G Expenses

incurred in FY 2013-14 is Rs. 24.97 Crore and Rs. 18.01 Crore respectively as against the net A&G

Expenses of Rs. 23.25 Crore approved in the MYT Order. The Petitioner has, accordingly, sought

sharing of gains on account of reduced expenditure of Rs. 5.24 Crore.

The Commission in its MYT Order had approved the A&G expenses based on the average

expenses for FY 2009-10 to FY 2011-12. The Commission for approving the A&G expenses for the

control period had escalated the average A&G expenses by increasing the WPI for last three years.

The Commission based on the available WPI has revised the average increase in WPI for projecting

the expenses for FY 2012-13 from 7.77% to 7.42%. Similarly the Commission has revised the

escalation rate for projecting expenses for FY 2013-14 from 7.77% to 8.62% based on the average

increase in the WPI numbers for preceding three years.



The Commission had further allowed additional A&G expenses for Rs. 3.48 Crore towards

the data centre cost and call centres. The Commission in its additional queries sought actual

expenses under these heads from the Petitioner. The Petitioner in response submitted that the actual

cost incurred towards the same was Rs. 0.56 Crore. The Commission has, therefore, allowed Rs. 0.56

Crore towards such expenses as against Rs. 3.48 Crore approved by the Commission in its MYT

Order.

With regards to capitalisation of A&G Expenses, the Commission has considered the

capitalisation amount of Rs. 6.96 Crore as submitted by the Petitioner. The Commission has,

accordingly, approved the A&G expenses as shown below.

Table 3.17: Approved A&G Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)



Revised Claim

Normative Approved

Gross Administrative and General Expenses 26.33 24.97 26.45

Provisions for Data Centre Cost and Call Centre 3.48 0.56

Less: Capitalisation -6.56 -6.96 -6.96 Net A&G Expenses 23.25 18.01 20.02

Accordingly, the Commission has allowed net O&M expenses as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.18: Approved O&M Expenses for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT Order dated 06.05.2013

Revised Claim

Normative Approved

Employee Expenses 225.88 259.06 245.35 Repair and Maintenance 91.27 77.18 101.13 Administrative and General Expenses 23.25 18.01 20.02

Total O&M Expenses 340.40 354.25 366.50

3.2.5 Cost of Assets & Financing

3.2.5.1 Capital Cost of Original Assets

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission in its previous Orders has not recognized the

value of GFA amounting to Rs. 441.92 Crore due to non-finalisation of transfer scheme. Though the

matter of finalization of transfer scheme is sub-judice in Hon’ble ATE, the Petitioner has considered

the Gross Fixed Assets including the transfer scheme.

The Commission observed that the issue of original value of fixed assets for the Petitioner



was examined in detail in Paras 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of the Order dated April 25, 2005. For reasons

provided in the said Order, the original value of GFA as on November 09, 2001 was fixed at Rs. 508

Crore for the Petitioner, instead of the value of Rs. 1058.18 Crore assigned in the Provisional

Transfer Scheme. The Commission had already recorded the reasons for the same in its previous

Tariff Orders. Since, there is no change in the factual position and the matter is pending before the

Hon’ble ATE, the Commission decides to maintain Status-quo ante.

3.2.5.2 Capitalisation of Assets

Prior to Tariff Order for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 dated March 18, 2008, the Commission

had been allowing capitalisations of HT/EHT works without specific need for clearance certificate

by the Electrical Inspector. However, in view of occurrences of electrical accidents and taking

cognizance of the provision of Indian Electricity Rules which compulsorily requires Electrical

Inspector’s Certificate before energization of HT/EHT works, the Commission from the Tariff

Order for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 dated March 18, 2008 onwards, insisted for Electrical

Inspector’s Certificates for capitalisation of any assets and allowed capitalisation of only such

HT/EHT works for which Electrical Inspector’s clearance certificate was provided.

During the proceedings of the MYT Order, the Petitioner had submitted Electrical Inspector

Certificate for Capitalization of Rs. 142.13 Crore from FY 2007-08 onwards. The Commission in its

MYT Order had allowed capitalization of assets for which Electrical Inspector Certificate was

submitted from FY 2007-08 to FY 2011-12 and had, accordingly, updated the value of Opening GFA

for FY 2011-12. Further, in its MYT Order, the Commission had directed the Petitioner to submit the

Electrical Inspector Certificate for the balance assets along with reconciliation of capitalization

amount as per accounts. The Commission had further ruled in its MYT Order that it would consider

allowing the impact of capitalization from FY 2007-08 onwards only after the complete details of the

same are submitted by the Petitioner.

Further, in the APR Order for FY 2014-15 the Petitioner did not comply with the directions

of the Commission and provided the Electrical Inspector Certificate for only few HT works while

for most of the balance assets, the Electrical Inspector Certificate were still not submitted.

Accordingly, the Commission in its APR Oder for FY 2014-15 had approved additional

capitalization only for those HT works for which the Petitioner has submitted the Electrical

Inspector Certificate.



The Commission in the current proceedings directed the Petitioner to submit the Electrical

Inspector Certificate from FY 2007-08 for all the HT Works executed till date. However, the

Petitioner could only submit EI certificates for few of its HT works. The Petitioner also filed a

supplementary Petition in this regard wherein it stated that on the request of the Petitioner,

Government of Uttarakhand vide its letter no. 208/1/2015-04/08/201 dated 05.02.2015 authorized

the Managing Director of the Petitioner Company to nominate the officers in the pay scale of Rs.

15000 - 39100 (GP Rs. 6600) or above for inspection of works energized on or after 09.11.2001 under

Rule 5 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The Petitioner further submitted that the two officers

were to be nominated from each zone of Nainital, Roorkee and Dehradun.

The Petitioner submitted that in compliance of the above order of the Government of

Uttarakhand, the Petitioner vide its O.M. No. 1510, dated 11.02.2015 nominated its Executive

Engineers to inspect the District – wise HT / EHT works / assets constructed on or after 09.11.2001.

The Petitioner submitted that the authorized officers have started the work of inspecting the

HT/EHT works energized on or after 09.11.2001 and for this purpose the total inspection fee of Rs.

1,62,11,097.00 has already been deposited in the office of Electrical Inspector, Government of

Uttarakhand. The Petitioner further submitted that the certification work in respect of HT/EHT

Assets amounting to Rs. 109.79 Crore has been completed and submitted in the office of the

Commission.

The Petitioner submitted that being the last quarter/month of the year, the officers of the

Petitioner are focusing mainly on Revenue Collection at present. Further, the Petitioner submitted

that the work of certification of HT/EHT Assets shall be focused in the first quarter of FY 2015-16

and, therefore, the Petitioner will be in a position to submit the certificate of Electrical Inspector in

respect of remaining HT/EHT Assets energized for the period from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 by

31.07.2015.

The Petitioner, accordingly, requested the Commission to consider the capitalization of the

Petitioner Company for the period from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 on the basis of Audited Annual

Accounts, while determining the ARR and Tariff for FY 2015-16. The Petitioner has further

provided an undertaking that the certificate of Electrical Inspector in respect of remaining HT/EHT

Assets energized for the period from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 shall be submitted in the office of the

Commission by 31.07.2015.



In view of the above and taking cognisance of the efforts made by the Petitioner so far to get

the clearances of all the HT/EHT works and also of the fact that the Petitioner has deposited the

requisite fee & has also given an undertaking to submit EI certificates for all the HT works executed

till FY 2013-14 by July 31, 2015, the Commission has provisionally considered capitalisation of all

the assets as per the audited accounts till FY 2013-14. The capitalisation so allowed is provisional

and is subject to submission of EI certificates. Since the capitalisation of assets is being considered

on the provisional basis, the Commission has not carried out the truing up for FY 2007-08 to FY

2012-13 for capital related expenses and the same shall be carried out in the next tariff proceedings

after the Petitioner submits before the Commission all the clearance certificate of HT/EHT works

capitalised and also upon submission of additional information/details as directed in the Order.

However, the Commission in this regard, in its Order dated 10.04.2014 had held as under:

“The delay on this account clearly shows inefficiency of the Petitioner for which it should be penalized

and, accordingly, in view of the above facts the Commission directs the Petitioner to provide the

desired information at the earliest to carry out the truing up in this regard. As the delay in providing

information is on account of the Petitioner, no carrying cost will be allowed to the Petitioner on the

delayed approval of the capitalization in this regard.”

The Commission, therefore, once again reiterates its views in the matter that the delay in

obtaining clearance certificates from the Electrical Inspector and also the segregation of LT and

HT/EHT works was due to the inefficiency of UPCL, hence, no carrying cost will be admissible to

UPCL on account of truing up of the capital works.

The Commission has, thus, considered the opening GFA for FY 2007-08 based on the closing

GFA of FY 2006-07 approved by the Commission. Further, the assets addition for FY 2007-08 to FY

2013-14 have been allowed as per the Balance Sheet for the respective years on the basis of net asset

addition during the year, i.e. Gross Asset capitalised during the year reduced by the amount of

asset written off/adjusted during the year as provided by the Petitioner.

The details of capitalization as provisionally approved by the Commission for FY 2007-08 to

FY 2013-14 have been presented in the Table given below:



Table 3.19: GFA and Additional Capitalisation for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

LT Lines 46.85 33.64 83.21 178.80 109.94 18.23 99.22 LT Plants & Machinery 30.32 14.26 35.60 39.36 43.04 22.62 (0.44) HT Lines 182.50 67.82 163.48 175.43 164.51 120.71 59.00 HT Plants & Machinery 36.67 27.15 28.87 (5.14) 4.28 22.12 55.93 Other LT works 3.30 3.41 2.66 35.61 3.17 0.38 5.45 Other HT Works 13.05 12.14 7.06 6.06 12.24 46.44 (34.15) Total 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50 185.01

The negative values appearing above are cases where deletion of assets was higher than the

assets addition during the year.

3.2.6 Financing of Capital Assets

Financing of an asset (i.e. debt, equity and grants components) is required to ascertain the

capital related expenses such as Interest, Depreciation and Return on Equity of a licensee. As

discussed above the GFA for the period FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 have been revised. The

Commission in its additional queries asked the Petitioner to submit the year wise financing details

of capitalisation for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14. The Petitioner in its response submitted the year wise

financing of the capitalisation from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14. The Commission has gone through

the submission of the Petitioner on financing of capitalisation and observed that the financing

submitted by the Petitioner is for the net capitalisation (i.e. total additions less total deletions) which

doesn’t reflect the actual debt and equity position. Further, the Commission in its APR Order for FY

2014-15 stated as follows:

“Till FY 2006-07, the Commission has been allowing UPCL capitalization based on the audited

details of additions and financing submitted by UPCL. The practise of writing off the assets sent for

repairs and capitalising it again after the repairs has been in existence since inception of UPCL. As a

consequence, the Commission had been considering the capitalization and the capital related expenses

on the same considering the entire capitalization as fresh capitalization which may have led to

capitalization of an existing asset more than once. This fact was also not pointed out in the Auditor’s

Report submitted by UPCL in this regard. Hence, there is a need to examine the entire exercise once

again. Accordingly, UPCL is directed to get this examined through an external agency,

preferably a CA firm and submit an audited report on the additions made by it since FY



2001-02 and classify them into new additions and additions made after repairs of existing

assets and the financing of the new assets along with the tariff petition for FY 2015-16

failing which the Commission would consider not to allow any capitalization of any

repaired assets put to use thereafter. Similarly, UPCL is also required to submit the break

up of deduction in GFA into assets sent for repairs and assets written off since FY 2001-02.

UPCL is also directed to submit quarterly status in this regard.”

In the above context, it is pertinent to mention that since the old assets sent for repairs are

being written off and again capitalised in the books, therefore, the net capitalisation and deletions as

appearing in the books includes such old assets for which actual financing has not been provided by

the Petitioner. The Commission, therefore, cannot carry out the actual funding analysis of the

capitalisation done. Further, as observed in the APR Order for FY 2014-15, that such principle has

been in practice since the inception of the Petitioner Company. The Commission in the current

proceedings is provisionally considering the financing of the assets as submitted by UPCL.

In this regard, it will also be relevant to mention that UPCL in its statement of accounts for

FY 2011-12 has carried out an adjustment of grants to the tune of Rs. 1296.24 Crore in its GFA in line

with the AS-12 issued by ICAI. However, as per the submissions made by UPCL before the

Commission total assets financed out of grants till FY 2011-12 works out to Rs. 1243.02 Crore. UPCL

is directed to submit the year wise reconciliation of the financing of the assets, submitted to the

Commission within 6 months of the date of the Order.

The Commission also directs the Petitioner to analyse the capitalisation amount from FY

2001-02 onwards and segregate the same under the following heads:

1. Asset class wise actual capitalisation incurred on creation of new assets;

2. Asset class wise capitalisation on account of receipt of repaired assets,

3. Asset class wise actual asset deletion/written off;

4. Asset class wise asset deletion on account of an asset being sent for repairs.

Further, the Petitioner should also segregate the associated financing with regard to S.No

1 to 4, i.e. financing of the assets capitalised and financing of the assets written off. Further, the

Petitioner is required to submit the above information within six months from the date of issue

of this Order and the Petitioner should also submit quarterly status report in this regard. The



Commission, in absence of required information has, therefore, not carried out final truing up of FY

2013-14 and has not undertaken truing up for previous years. On receipt of such information the

Commission would undertake complete review of capitalisation from FY 2001-02 onwards in the

next tariff proceedings.

The following Table shows the revised means of finance as considered by the Commission

for assets allowed to be capitalised from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 which shall be subject to review

once all the details are submitted by the Petitioner.

Table 3.20: Means of Finance as considered for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

RGVVY Loan 13.24 9.99 6.05 19.94 - - 7.78 AREP Loans 0.02 - - - 16.84 - - State/District Plan 29.43 12.93 10.76 23.19 84.14 10.90 1.89 APDRP Loan - 1.82 0.68 4.17 - - - R-APDRP Part A Loan - - - - - - 2.97* REC Loan - - - - - 42.58 79.90 PMGY/MNP - - - 9.92 17.64 - - PTW Loan 4.63 - - - - - - Deposit Works 26.07 43.52 164.82 60.40 47.25 26.50 28.98 Grant 152.13 35.85 63.06 186.94 104.34 93.20 - Internal Resources 87.18 54.32 75.51 125.56 66.96 57.32 63.49 Total 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50 185.01

* Considered as grant

3.2.7 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner has claimed Interest and Finance Charges of Rs. 126.20 Crore for FY 2013-14

against the amount of Rs. 118.99 Crore approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May

06, 2013.

The Petitioner submitted that it has claimed interest expenses on the following basis:

a) Actual interest accrued during the year has been claimed which is net off

capitalisation.

b) Interest on UPPCL Loans has not been considered.

c) Interest on REC (Old) loans has been taken in accordance with the interest

determined by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

d) Government Guarantee fees is considered on actual basis.



e) Interest on GPF has been considered. The Petitioner requested the Commission to

allow interest on GPF as part of interest expense as this is the statutory liability of the

Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted that the Government of Uttarakhand (GoU) has

in the past refused to provide support on account of Interest on GPF. The Petitioner

added that GoU is already bearing the terminal liability of the old employees unlike

other States. The Petitioner, further, requested the Commission that in case the

interest on GPF has to be borne by the State Government, the Commission should

issue suitable directions to GoU in this regard.

f) No Interest on short-term funding through overdraft facility has been considered.

It is observed that the Petitioner has again claimed interest on AREP Loans which has not

been allowed by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders for reasons given in the respective

Orders. In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that since it is paying interest on AREP Loans, the

same should be allowed. However, the Petitioner chose to ignore the fact that the same was interest

free loan and interest was payable in case of default by the borrower and the costs associated with

any default cannot be allowed to be pass through in tariffs. Hence, the Commission again disallows

the interest claimed on AREP Loans. The Commission has also not considered interest on R-APDRP

Loans for reasons elaborated in Chapter-4 of this Order.

Regulation 28 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 stipulates the methodology for

computation of interest expenses. The Commission in accordance with the above regulation has

worked out the Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2013-14 considering the loan amounts

corresponding to assets capitalised in the year based on the approved means of finance, and the

interest rate of 10.81% has been computed on the basis of weighted average interest rate on the

actual loan portfolio at the beginning of each year. The interest approved for FY 2013-14 on Govt. of

Uttarakhand loans is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.21: Interest on Govt. of Uttarakhand Loans (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Opening Balance Repayment Closing

Balance Interest

Approved Total Opening Loan Balance 525.69 70.32 589.38 53.03

The Petitioner has again requested the Commission to allow interest on GPF as part of

interest expenses as the same is a statutory liability of the Petitioner. The Commission in the past

has not allowed such expenses for reasons given in the respective Orders. Hence, the Commission



again disallows the interest claimed on GPF.

The Petitioner has claimed interest liability on consumers’ security deposits for FY 2013-14

as Rs. 56.35 Crore. The Commission in its additional queries asked Petitioner to submit the opening

value of consumer security deposit, closing balance and average balance of consumer security

deposit (CSD) for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner in response to the query submitted the opening,

closing and average balance of CSD as Rs. 447.78 Crore, Rs. 505.41 Crore and Rs. 476.60 Crore

respectively. The Commission further observed that the data of interest on security deposit from FY

2008-09 to FY 2013-14 is not matching with that given in audited accounts as well as compliance to

the directives submitted in November 2014. The Commission, accordingly, sought the actual data of

interest on security deposit reconciled with audited accounts along with comparison of the same

with the Commission’s approved figures. In response to the above queries, the Petitioner through

its reply dated February 02, 2015 submitted the details as follows:

Table 3.22: Interest on CSD paid and accounted by Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Year Interest

paid/ adjusted

Accounted for by field

units

Provision made by

Corporate Office

Total Interest

Interest as shown in the

Audited Accounts

Interest allowed by

UERC during truing up exercise

A B C D E (C+D) F G 2008-09 7.75 3.13 6.57 9.70 9.70 9.70 2009-10 9.72 4.10 8.74 12.84 12.84 12.84 2010-11 13.17 6.25 10.32 16.57 16.57 16.41 2011-12 17.19 8.07 12.29 20.36 20.36 20.36 2012-13 36.10 8.49 0.00 8.49 8.49 39.36 2013-14 40.38 94.27 -37.92 56.35 56.35 - Total 124.31 124.31 0.00 124.31 124.31 98.67

The Petitioner further submitted that the interest to be allowed in FY 2013-14 was Rs. 25.64

Crore, i.e. the difference between the interest actually paid till FY 2013-14 and interest allowed by

the Commission till FY 2012-13 while carrying out the truing up till FY 2012-13 (Rs. 124.3 Crore – Rs.

98.67 Crore).

The Commission has analysed the interest expenses approved by it in the previous tariff

Orders and those actually paid by the Petitioner. The Commission has, accordingly, allowed the

interest on CSD for FY 2013-14 which works out to Rs. 25.64 similar to the latest submission made

by the Petitioner. However, the Commission observed that the actual amount paid by the Petitioner

for FY 2008-09 to FY 2013-14 was lesser than the amount approved by the Commission. The



Commission has, accordingly, computed carrying cost on the excess amount allowed by the

Commission and has deducted the same from the interest on consumer security deposit as

approved above. The carrying cost computed on the excess amount allowed in the truing up of

previous years expenses is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.23: Carrying Cost on excess CSD allowed by the Commission and that paid by Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Opening Gap 0.00 2.07 5.63 9.73 14.37 19.99 Additions 1.95 3.12 3.24 3.17 3.26 0.00 Closing gap 1.95 5.19 8.87 12.90 17.63 19.99 Average 0.98 3.63 7.25 11.31 16.00 19.99 Interest rate 0.12 0.12 11.75% 13.00% 14.75% 14.45% Carrying cost 0.12 0.44 0.85 1.47 2.36 2.89 Closing Gap 2.07 5.63 9.73 14.37 19.99 22.87 Carrying Cost upto FY 2013-14 8.13

The carrying cost of Rs. 8.13 Crore so worked out has been deducted from the interest on

security deposit of Rs. 25.64 Crore and the same works out to Rs. 17.51 Crore. The Commission,

accordingly, approves interest on consumer security deposit for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 17.51 Crore.

Further, the Guarantee Fee and interest on REC Old Loan has been allowed as claimed by

UPCL. Also, the Commission has not reduced the amount of interest capitalised as the Commission

has considered the loans corresponding to the assets capitalised and not the total loans as taken by

the Petitioner.

The Commission has worked out the Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2013-14

considering the loan amounts corresponding to assets capitalised in the year based on the approved

means of finance, as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.24: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars MYT Order Revised Claim Approved after Truing Up

Govt. of Uttarakhand Loan 54.16 41.96 53.03 REC Old Loan 26.92 26.92 26.92 Interest on other loans - 34.06 - Total Interest on Loan 81.08 102.94 79.95 Guarantee Fee 2.35 0.56 0.56 Interest on Security Deposit 35.56 56.35 17.51 Other finance and bank charges - 1.20 1.20 Total Interest Charges 118.99 161.05 99.21 Capitalisation - (34.84) - Net Interest and Finance Charges 118.99 126.20 99.21



3.2.8 Depreciation

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that it has calculated depreciation considering

the opening and closing GFA for FY 2013-14 on the average basis. Further, the rate of depreciation

considered by it was as specified in UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Petitioner has computed

depreciation at the rate of 5.16% for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner has, accordingly, claimed total

depreciation of Rs. 108.23 Crore as against Rs. 69.46 Crore approved by it in the MYT Order.

The depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 is detailed in the Table below:

Table 3.25: Depreciation for FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) Particulars Actual as per Accounts

Opening GFA minus Grant (Adjustment on account of AS-12) 2031.76 Additions as per Accounts 239.97 Deduction (110.31) Closing GFA 2161.43 Average Depreciation Rate 5.16% Depreciation 108.23

The Table below details the variation in the depreciation approved for FY 2013-14 in MYT

Order against the depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14:

Table 3.26: Variation in Depreciation for FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars MYT Order dated 06.05.2013 Revised Claim Variation Depreciation 69.46 108.23 38.77

The Commission with regard to depreciation rate is of the view that the Petitioner has failed

to submit the asset class wise GFA and, therefore, considering the rate as specified in UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011 is not practical. In absence of the same, the Commission has allowed depreciation

at a weighted average rate of 4.57% based on the audited balance sheet for FY 2013-14.

Further, the Commission has been allowing depreciation on the value of opening GFA

keeping in line with the practice being followed by the Petitioner of capitalising the asset in its

accounts on the last day of the financial year.

The Tariff Regulations of the Commission provides for depreciation on pro-rata basis,

however, the Petitioner has neither been able to provide exact dates of capitalisation of fixed assets,

nor has provided any capitalisation and depreciation policy despite being asked to do so by the

Commission. In fact the Petitioner in its accounts also calculates depreciation on the opening GFA



as is evident from its Notes to Accounts. Therefore, the Commission finds no justification to depart

from the practice adopted in previous Tariff Orders of allowing depreciation on the opening

balance of GFA.

The Commission in its additional information asked the Petitioner to confirm that it has not

claimed depreciation in excess of 90% for its assets. The Petitioner in its reply confirmed that

depreciation in FY 2013-14 has been less than 90% of GFA for all assets in accordance with the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

The Commission has, accordingly, approved the depreciation of Rs. 75.63 Crore for FY 2013-

14 based on the Opening GFA for FY 2013-14 against the Petitioner’s claim of Rs. 108.23 Crore.

The summary of Depreciation approved in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013, depreciation

claimed by the Petitioner and depreciation approved by the Commission in this Order for FY 2013-

14 is shown in the following Table:

Table 3.27: Depreciation for FY 2013-14 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars MYT Order Revised Claim Approved after Truing Up

Depreciation 69.46 108.23 75.63

3.2.9 Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that the Commission in the MYT Order dated

May 06, 2013 did not allow any provisioning of bad debts for earlier years.

The Petitioner submitted that annual provision towards bad & doubtful debts is an accepted

method of accounting and considering the peculiarity of retail supply of electricity business, the

same has also been recognized by the SERCs. The Petitioner added that the amount, if any, written

off towards bad debts is only adjusted against the accumulated provisions in the books, irrespective

of the actual amount of bad debts during any particular financial year.

The Petitioner requested the Commission to allow provision for bad and doubtful debts on

actual basis after considering the geographical spread of the large consumer base across the State

including a large part of the same prevailing in the difficult terrain and hilly region and the problem

of realizing energy dues from retail consumers.

The Petitioner further submitted that in line with the approach followed by Commission in

the previous Tariff Order, the Petitioner has not included any amount on account of provisioning of



bad debts in the ARR but has calculated the same and has requested the Commission for its

approval.

The Petitioner further submitted that as per the directions of the Commission, the process of

writing off bad debts has already been initiated. The Petitioner in its Petition has requested the

Commission to consider the increase in debtors, which is Rs. 59.11 Crore during FY 2013-14 towards

the provision for bad debts.

It is to be noted that the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2011-12 had observed as

follows:

“…Hence, for FY 2011-12 as mentioned in its last Tariff Order dated 10.04.2010, the Commission

has not allowed any Provision for Bad Debts in the ARR as UPCL has not complied with the

direction of the Commission to frame guidelines and procedures for identifying, physically verifying

and writing off the bad debts. The Commission would take a view on this issue in future years when

UPCL submits to the satisfaction of the Commission, its sincere and concerted efforts to realize the

pending dues.”

Further in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 the Commission had observed as follows:

“…it has been observed that the Petitioner has failed to take any serious effort to the satisfaction of the

Commission to arrest the increasing level of bad debts which have reached alarming levels by any

standard for any commercial organisation. The Commission in its Order for FY 2011-12 had directed

the Petitioner to carry out an audit of its receivables and also identifying and classifying the same and

submit the report to the Commission within 6 months of the issuance of the Order. Subsequently,

UPCL was also required to initiate recovery of its dues from the erring consumers.”

The Commission in its APR Order stated as follows:

“The Petitioner is also directed to submit an Action Plan as to how it intends to move

forward upon receipt of the Audit Report within one month of the date of this Order along with

the Audit Report.”

The Petitioner in its current Petition has submitted that the division wise summary of the

Audit Report has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter dated 22-11-2014. The

Petitioner has further submitted that with a view to writing off fictitious and irrecoverable arrears,

the Petitioner has prepared a policy for writing off of Bad Debts. The Petitioner submitted that the



said policy is under finalization and on finalization of the same exercise for writing off of fictitious

and irrecoverable arrears shall be taken up.

Moreover, the MYT Regulations, 2011 specifies as under:

“The Commission may allow a provision for bad and doubtful debts upto one percent (1%) of the

estimated annual revenue of the distribution licensee, subject to actual writing off of bad debts by it in

the previous years.

Provided that where the amount of such provisioning for bad and doubtful debts exceeds five

(5) per cent of the receivables at the beginning of the year, no such appropriation shall be

allowed which would have the effect of increasing the provisioning beyond the said

maximum.”

The Commission had already allowed the Petitioner a total provision of Rs. 333.74 Crore till

FY 2008-09 including the opening balance of the provision inherited from UPPCL. Even considering

the actual write off debt of Rs. 10.96 Crore in FY 2011-12 and Rs. 44.04 Crore during FY 2012-13, the

Petitioner was left with a provision of Rs. 278.74 Crore. The closing debtors of UPCL as on

31.03.2014 were to the tune of Rs. 2,110.00 Crore. Hence, the provision available with UPCL is to the

extent of 13.20% of the existing debtors and any additional provision is not allowable in accordance

with the Regulations as referred above.

The Commission, accordingly, directs the Petitioner to finalise the policy and submit the

same for Commission’s perusal within three months from the date of this Order.

3.2.10 Interest on Working Capital (IoWC)

The Petitioner has submitted that it has computed interest on working capital as per UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2011. However, as per the computation submitted by the Petitioner the net

working capital is submitted as Rs. -33.19 Crore. The Petitioner has submitted that it has not

claimed any IoWC.

. The computation of interest on working capital as submitted by the Petitioner is detailed in

the Table below:



Table 3.28: Interest on working capital for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Operation and Maintenance Expenses (one month) 29.52 Maintenance @ 15% of O&M Expenses 53.14 Receivables (2 months) 625.94 Sub-total 708.60 Less: Adjustment for security deposits & Credit available for Power Purchase 741.79 Net working capital -33.19 Interest on working capital 0.00

The Petitioner submitted the variation in Interest on working capital as claimed by it and

that approved by the Commission & the same is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.29: Variation in Interest on Working Capital for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT Order dated 6.05.2013 Revised Claim Variation

Interest on Working Capital 7.26 0.00 -7.26

The Commission has computed the working capital requirement as per UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011. As in case of Petitioner’s submission, the net working capital as worked out

based on the approved expenses is negative, therefore, the Commission is not approving any IoWC

for FY 2013-14. As the working capital requirement itself is also coming negative considering the

approved expenses, the Commission has not carried out any sharing of gains and losses on account

of working capital requirement.


The Petitioner submitted that it has computed Return on Equity (RoE) for FY 2013-14 based

on actual equity invested in the business. The Petitioner further submitted that it has calculated RoE

on the basis of the following:

a) Closing Equity for FY 2012-13 has been considered as Opening Equity for FY 2013-14

b) Capitalisation for FY 2013-14 with its funding pattern has been considered.

The Petitioner further submitted that the amount of capitalisation has been reduced by grant

and deposit works and the balance amount has been split in 70:30 debt equity ratio. The Petitioner

further submitted that Internal accrual deployed in the capitalisation higher than 30% equity has

been considered as normative loan.

The Petitioner has calculated the RoE for FY 2013-14 on the basis of average equity for FY



2013-14. The Petitioner has calculated RoE on average basis at normative rate of return of 16%. The

RoE claimed by the Petitioner is Rs. 182.23 Crore. The detailed working for the same as submitted

by the Petitioner is provided in the Table below:

Table 3.30: Return on Equity claimed for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Opening equity 1107.04 Addition 63.83 Closing equity 1170.87 Average equity 1138.95 RoE (@16%) 182.23

The Petitioner has submitted the variation in Return on Equity approved by the Commission

in the MYT Order against the Return on Equity now claimed for FY 2013-14 as shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.31: Variation in Return on Equity FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Approved in MYT Order

dated 06.05.2013 Revised Claim Variation

Return on Equity 25.48 182.23 -156.75

As discussed in the preceding section, the Commission has provisionally approved the

capitalisation as per the audited accounts for FY 2013-14. The Commission has, accordingly, revised

the equity component from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 which is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.32: Equity approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Equity 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Opening 68.17 94.32 110.61 133.27 170.94 191.03 208.22 During the year 26.15 16.30 22.65 37.67 20.09 17.20 19.05 Closing 94.32 110.61 133.27 170.94 191.03 208.22 227.27

Thus, the Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 is shown in the

following Table:

Table 3.33: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars MYT Order dated 6.05.2013 Revised Claim Approved after

Truing Up Return on Equity 25.48 182.23 33.32

3.2.12 Non-Tariff Income

The Petitioner submitted that the Non-Tariff Income includes income from non-tariff sources

such as income from investments, delayed payment surcharge, etc. The Petitioner in its Petition has

claimed non-tariff income as Rs. 129.09 Crore on the actual basis as per provisionally audited



accounts, including delayed payment surcharge of Rs. 18.11 Crore. However, the Petitioner has

proposed to share only Rs. 86.51 Crore with the consumers.

The Petitioner has requested the Commission to not include the revenue from delayed

payment surcharge while approving non-tariff income as the Utility has to make short term

arrangements against that amount when the amount due from the consumers is not received in

time. The Petitioner submitted that the Commission allows normative working capital to the

Petitioner, assuming timely payment by all the consumers.

The Petitioner had further proposed to share only 50% of the rebate earned on account of

timely payment of the power purchase bills. The Petitioner submitted that it earns 2% rebate by

paying bill within 2-3 days of production of bill while if it pays on 30th day, it is entitled for 1%

rebate. The Petitioner submitted that it has earned higher rebate (more than 1%) due to its efficiency

and, has, therefore, requested the Commission to allow it to retain the same.

The Commission in this regard is of the view that as the matter is sub-judice before the

Hon’ble ATE, the Commission in line with its previous approach has considered the rebate earned

and delayed payment surcharge as part of Non Tariff Income while carrying out the truing up for

FY 2013-14.

The Commission as discussed above has considered entire NTI of Rs. 111.03 as per the

audited accounts along with delayed payment surcharge of Rs. 40.75 Crore for FY 2013-14 and.

Accordingly. approves the following NTI for FY 2013-14.

Table 3.34: Non Tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars MYT Order dated 6.05.2013 Revised Claim Approved after Truing Up

Non–Tariff Income 66.70 86.51 151.78

3.2.13 Tariff Revenue

The Petitioner submitted the revenue at existing tariff as Rs. 3755.67 Crore as against the

revenue of Rs. 3942.94 Crore approved by the Commission in its MYT Order.

The Petitioner submitted that as per UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011, the baseline values for

the Control Period shall be determined by the Commission based on the historical data, latest

audited accounts, estimates for the relevant year and prudence check as applied by the

Commission. The Petitioner further submitted that in case there is a substantial difference between

the estimates provided earlier or considered for the determination of baseline values and the actual



audited accounts, the Commission may re-determine the baseline values for the base year suo-moto

or on an application filed by the Applicant.

Based on the above, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to re-determine the

distribution loss trajectory keeping in mind the actual approved distribution loss for FY 2012-13

which is 21.70% against 17% considered by the Commission in the MYT Order based on which the

trajectory for the Control Period was projected.

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission, in previous Tariff Orders, has been

computing additional deemed revenue earned by the Utility for adjusting the approved losses

against the actual, which in reality is not earned by the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted that till

FY 2012-13, the Commission has considered additional revenue of Rs. 983.01 Crore, which has not

been received by the Petitioner but has been considered by the Commission for adjustment of

losses.

The Petitioner submitted that it has always strived to achieve the targets of distribution

losses fixed by the Commission and, thereby, provide the best service to its consumers. The

Petitioner further submitted that it has reduced distribution losses and AT&C losses by 5.35% and

9.05% respectively in last 4 years, i.e. from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner, further, submitted that for the loss target not achieved during a particular

year, the Utility is being penalised every year for its non-achievement. It contended that for a Utility

already in a state of financial distress, this amount makes a huge impact. Therefore, the Petitioner

requested the Commission to not consider any additional revenue towards adjustment of losses and

revisit and adjust the revenue that has been considered in the past on this account. However, in

order to comply with the approach adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Petitioner has calculated additional revenue for FY 2013-14 and is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.35: Revenue loss due to higher distribution loss for FY 2013-14 Particulars Formula Amount

Actual/recasted sales (MU) A 9047 Actual energy input at distribution periphery (MU) B 11216 Approved distribution losses (%) C 16% Sales at approved distribution loss level (MU) D = C*(1-B) 9422 Loss of sale due to inefficiency in distribution loss (MU) E=D-A 375 Revenue for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) F 3755.67 ABR (Rs./kWh) G= F/A 4.15 Revenue from additional sale (Rs. Crore) F=E*G 155.52



The Petitioner has claimed actual recasted distribution losses for FY 2013-14 at 19.34% as

against 16.00% approved by the Commission. Accordingly, the Petitioner has considered deemed

revenue for excess distribution losses at an ABR of Rs. 4.15/kWh.

The Petitioner has submitted that as per UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 distribution losses is

controllable parameter and hence, it has proposed to share losses on account of under achievement

of distribution losses for FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner has further submitted that as per the UERC Tariff Regulation, 2011, collection

efficiency is a controllable parameter. The Petitioner further submitted that the Commission in the

MYT Order dated 6th May, 2013 has fixed the collection efficiency target for the Petitioner for FY

2013-14 as 97.50%. The Petitioner submitted that the actual collection efficiency achieved by the

Petitioner was 98.43%, resulting in gain due to higher collection by Rs. 34.78 Crore. The Petitioner

has further proposed to share gains with the consumer @ 20% in accordance with the UERC Tariff

Regulations 2011. The Commission with regard to Petitioner’s claim of sharing on account of

increased collection efficiency is of the view that as per the Regulations, the Commission has been

approving the revenue to meet the ARR on accrual basis and not on cash basis and hence, sharing

on account of increase in collection efficiency is not correct and, therefore, the Commission has not

considered the same. The Commission as discussed earlier has carried out the sharing of losses for

under-achievement in distribution losses.

The Commission has considered distribution loss for FY 2013-14 as approved by it in its

MYT Order and, accordingly, has computed the loss of sales as 466.45 MU.

As discussed while approving category wise sales for FY 2013-14, the Commission has

recasted the sales of domestic, PTW, PWW, Public Lamps consumers from the sales submitted by

the Petitioner. Since, the sale has been reduced, the Commission has, accordingly, reduced the

revenue corresponding to the assessed sales from the total revenue submitted by the Petitioner for

domestic category and public lamps. The revenue corresponding to the assessed sale is shown in

the Table below:



Table 3.36: Revenue for FY 2013-14 Corresponding to Assessed Sales

Particulars

Assessed Sales to be reduced based

on average metered sale (MU)

ABR as per CS-4

(Rs./kWh)

Revenue Corresponding to

Assessed Sales (Rs. Crore)

BPL and Kutir Jyoti 0.27 2.10 0.06 Other Domestic Consumers 7.25 2.80 2.03 Public Lamps 0.16 4.20 2.03 Total 7.68 4.12

As regards the revenue from departmental employees both in service and retired, it is

observed that per unit rate of Rs. 0.36/kWh for this category is very low compared to other

domestic category of consumers. The Petitioner has submitted that departmental employees have

been metered, thus, actual consumption of departmental employees should have been recorded on

metered basis and, accordingly, the rate applicable to domestic category of consumers should have

applied to these consumers also. The consumption of these consumers is on assessed basis and as

mentioned earlier even sales booked under this head has been recasted to align it with average

metered sale. The tariff prescribed by this Commission does not provide any special dispensation

for serving or retired employees of the licensee. As such, they are like any other domestic

consumers and revenue recognition for them should be based on tariff prescribed for domestic

consumers. Apparently, this is not being done. It is understood that the licensee has prescribed a

fixed sum to be recovered from them for domestic use of electricity. The cost of subsidised supply of

power to its employees will have to be borne by the licensee and cannot be allowed to devolve on

other consumers. The Commission has added the impact of difference in the ABR of departmental

consumers and the ABR of other domestic consumers in the revenue for FY 2013-14.

Considering the re-casted consumption of 27.14 MU and the average billing rate of other

domestic consumers which are metered, i.e. Rs. 2.80/kWh the revenue works out to Rs. 7.60 Crore.

However, as per the submission of the Petitioner the revenue realized from the departmental

employees is only to the extent of Rs. 2.03 Crore. As detailed in earlier paragraphs, the Petitioner

shall have to bear the burden of any subsidy it wants to provide to the departmental employees

from its own resources and, therefore, the Commission has added the difference of Rs. 5.57 Crore as

additional revenue towards sale to departmental employees.

Based on the above, the revenue from the sale of power, as worked out by the Commission

is shown in the Table below:



Table 3.37: Revenue from Sale of power for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Actual Revenue 3755.67 Less: Revenue corresponding to reduction in Sales 4.12 Add: Revenue corresponding to departmental employees 5.57 Total Revenue 3757.12

Further, as discussed above there is a loss of 466.45 MU on account of commercial

inefficiencies of the Petitioner failing to achieve target distribution loss approved by the

Commission. The Commission has considered the revenue of Rs. 196.93 Crore at an average billing

rate of Rs. 4.22/kWh for this additional loss of sale on account of higher distribution losses while

truing up the ARR for FY 2013-14 as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.38: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2013-14

Sr. No. Particulars Approved in MYT

Order dated 06.05.13 Revised Claim

Approved after Truing

Up a Actual/ Re-casted Sales (MU) 9,283.28 9046.89 8899.17 b Approved Distribution Loss Level (%) 17.00% 19.34% 17.00% c Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface (MU) 11,184.67 11,216.31 11,216.31

d Sales at Actual Energy Input with 16.50% Loss (MU) (c*(1-b)) 9,396 9,047 9,366

e Loss of Sales due to Inefficiency (d-a) (MU) 113 - 466.45 f Revenue at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) 3942.94 3755.67 3757.12 g ABR (Rs./kWh) 4.19 4.15 4.22

h Additional Revenue due to higher distribution losses (Rs. Crore) 155.52 196.93

i Losses to borne by Petitioner (75% of (h)) 116.64 147.70

Accordingly, the Commission has considered tariff revenue of Rs. 3904.82 Crore including

Rs. 147.70 Crore as deemed revenue on account of excess loss for FY 2013-14 as against total

revenue of Rs. 3872.31 Crore claimed by the Petitioner.

3.3 Sharing of gains and losses

Regulation 13 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, specify that:

“13. Annual Performance Review

………………….

(5) The “uncontrollable factors” shall include the following factors which were beyond the control

of, and could not be mitigated by, the applicant, as determined by the Commission. Some

examples of uncontrollable factors are as follows:-



………………

c) Economy wide influences such as unforeseen changes in inflation rate, market interest rates,

taxes and statutory levies;

…………….

(6) Some illustrative variations or expected variations in the performance of the applicant which

may be attributed by the Commission to controllable factors shall include, but not limited to, the

following:-

…………..

d) Variations in working capital requirements;

……………

h) Variation in operation & maintenance expenses

………………..

(10) Upon completion of the Annual Performance Review, the Commission shall pass on an order

recording-

a) The approved aggregate gain or loss to the Applicant on account of uncontrollable factors and

the mechanism by which the Applicant shall pass through such gains or losses in accordance with

Regulation 14;

b) The approved aggregate gain or loss to the Applicant on account of controllable factors and the

amount of such gains or such losses that may be shared in accordance with Regulation 15;

c) The approved modifications to the forecast of the Applicant for the ensuing year, if any;

The surplus/deficit determined by the Commission in accordance with these Regulations on account of

truing up of the ARR of the Applicant shall be carried forward to the ensuing financial year.”

Regulation 14 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specify that:

“14. Sharing of Gains and Losses on account of Uncontrollable factors

(1) The approved aggregate gain or loss to the Applicant on account of uncontrollable factors shall be

passed through as an adjustment in the tariff/charges of the Applicant over such period as may be

specified in the Order of the Commission;

……………………”

Regulation 15 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specify that:



“15. Sharing of Gains and Losses on account of Controllable factors

(1) The approved aggregate gain to the Applicant on account of controllable factors shall be dealt

with in the following manner:

a) 20% of such gain shall be passed on as a rebate in tariffs over such period as may be

specified in the Order of the Commission;

b) The balance amount of gain may be utilized at the discretion of the Applicant.

(2) The approved aggregate loss to the Applicant on account of controllable factors shall be dealt

with in the following manner:

a) 25% of the amount of such loss shall be allowed by the Commission to be recovered through

tariffs over such period as may be specified in the Order of the Commission under;

b) The balance amount of loss shall be absorbed by the Applicant.”

Hence, in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011, the O&M expenses and

Distribution losses are controllable factors and any gain or loss on account of the controllable factors

is to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 15.

The sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY

2013-14 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 3.39: Sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Actual Normative as Trued up Aggregate

gain/(loss) Consumer’s

Share Petitioner’s Share

of Gain/(Loss)

A B C=B-A Gain: D=20% x C Loss D=25% x C E=C-D

O&M expenses 354.25 366.50 12.25 2.45 9.80 Distribution Loss 16% 20.66% (196.93) (49.23) (147.70) Total (184.68) (46.78) (137.90)

3.3.1 ARR & Revenue for FY 2013-14

The Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 had approved an ARR for FY 2013-14

as Rs. 3932.60 Crore. The Petitioner has now claimed an ARR of Rs. 3866.67 Crore for FY 2013-14

based on its audited accounts. However, based on the various elements of the ARR as discussed

above and approved by the Commission, the summary of final Truing up for FY 2013-14 is given in

the Table below:



Table 3.40: True-up of FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Particular MYT Order dated 06.05.2013

Revised Claim

Approved after Truing Up

A. Expenditure Power purchase expenses 2,838.88 2,785.61 2,785.61 Transmission Charges-PGCIL 163.91 201.03 201.03 Transmission Charges-PTCUL 195.63 195.63 195.63 O&M Charges 340.40 354.25 364.05 Interest Charges 118.99 126.20 99.21 Depreciation 69.46 108.23 75.63 Interest on Working Capital 7.26 - - B. Gross Expenditure 3,734.53 3,770.95 3721.16 Return on equity 25.48 182.23 33.32 C. Net Expenditure 3,760.01 3,953.18 3754.47 Less: Non Tariff Income 66.70 86.51 151.78 Add: Impact of truing up for FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 alongwith carrying cost

239.30 239.30 239.30

D. Net annual revenue requirements 3,932.60 4,105.97 3,842.00

E. Revenue at existing tariffs 3,896.00 3,755.67 3757.12 Revenue from additional sale 46.94

147.70 F. Total Revenue 3942.94 3755.67 3904.82 G. Other Adjustment Losses to be borne by UPCL as per sharing statement

0.00 57.44 0.00

H. Adjusted Revenue Surplus/(Gap)[F-D+G)

10.34 (292.86) 62.82

The Petitioner in its Petition had requested the Commission to approve the gap of Rs. 292.86

Crore. However, the Commission has approved a surplus of Rs. 62.82 Crore for FY 2013-14. The

surplus for FY 2013-14 with carrying cost works out to Rs. 77.34 Crore which has been adjusted by

the Commission in ARR of FY 2015-16.


4. Petitioner’s Submission, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2015-16

4.1 Background

As regard the MYT framework and determination of ARR, UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011

specifies as follows:

“5. Multi-year Framework

The Commission shall adopt multiyear tariff framework for approval of ARR and expected

revenue from tariffs and charges for the control period. The multiyear tariff framework shall

be based on the following: -

a) Business plan submitted by the applicant for the entire control period for the

approval of the Commission prior to the beginning of the control period;

b) Applicant’s forecast of expected ARR for each year of the control period, based on

reasonable assumptions and financial & operational principles/parameters laid down

under these Regulations submitted alongwith the MYT petition for determination of

Aggregate Revenue Requirement and Tariffs for first year of the control period;

c) Trajectory for specific parameters as may be stipulated by the Commission based on

submissions made by the Licensee, actual performance data of the Applicants and

performance achieved by similarly placed utilities;

d) Annual review of performance shall be conducted vis-à-vis the approved forecast

and categorization of variations in performance into controllable factors and

uncontrollable factors;

e) Sharing of excess profit or loss due to controllable and uncontrollable factors as per

provisions of these Regulations.

...

8. Determination of Baseline



The baseline values (operating and cost parameters) for the base year of the control period

shall be determined by the Commission based on historical data, latest audited accounts,

estimates for the relevant year and prudence check as may be applied by the Commission:

Provided that in case of substantial difference between the estimates earlier provided /

considered for determination of baseline values and the actual audited accounts, the

Commission may re-determine the baseline values for the base year suo-moto or on an

application filed by the Applicant.”

In accordance with the above provisions of the Regulations, the Commission approved the

Aggregate Revenue Requirement of the Petitioner for all the years of the first Control Period, i.e.

from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 excluding power purchase cost for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 vide

its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

As regards the Annual Performance Review, Regulation 13(3) of the UERC (Terms and

Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 specify as follows:

“The scope of Annual Performance Review shall be a comparison of the performance of the Applicant

with the approved forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and expected revenue from tariff and

charges and shall comprise the following:-

a) A comparison of the audited performance of the applicant for the previous financial year with the

approved forecast for such previous financial year and truing up of expenses and revenue subject

to prudence check including pass through of impact of uncontrollable factors;

b) Categorisation of variations in performance with reference to approved forecast into factors within

the control of the applicant (controllable factor) and those caused by factors beyond the control of

the applicant (un-controllable factors);

c) Revision of estimates for the ensuing financial year, if required, based on audited financial results

for the previous financial year;

Computation of sharing of gains and losses on account of controllable factors for the previous year.”

The Petitioner in the present APR Petition has requested the Commission to approve the

revised estimates for FY 2015-16 based on the revised submissions in the APR Petition. The

Commission has already approved most of the ARR components for the Control Period FY 2013-14

to FY 2015-16 after detailed analysis, scrutiny and prudence check of the Petitioner’s submission



vide its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. As the Commission had not approved the power purchase

cost for FY 2015-16 in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013, hence, in the present Order the

Commission has approved the power purchase quantum and cost associated therewith based on the

analysis and scrutiny of Petitioner’s projections in the Petition and considering the subsequent

submissions including actual data available for FY 2013-14. As discussed in previous Chapter, the

Commission in this Order has carried out the Truing up for FY 2013-14 in accordance with the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 wherein the Commission has provisionally allowed capitalisation of

assets since FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 pending clearance certificate from Electrical Inspector for

reasons recorded therein. In accordance with Regulation 13(3) of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011

the scope of annual performance review is limited to the revision of estimates for the ensuing year,

if required, based on the audited financial results for the previous year and give resultant effect on

this account in the estimates of the said current year.

The Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 stated as follows:

“Commission shall carry out the truing up of FY 2013-14 based on the audited accounts for FY 2013-

14 and give effect to the same in the ARR of FY 2015-16 in accordance with Regulation 13(3) of the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.”

Accordingly, the Commission under the provisions of Regulation 13(3) of the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011 has revised such elements of the ARR for FY 2015-16 which have linkage with

Gross Fixed Assets like the R&M expenses and also other capital related expenses based on the

updated GFA considered for truing up of FY 2013-14. The Commission in the subsequent

paragraphs has elaborated proposal of the Petitioner and its view on each element of ARR for FY

2015-16.

4.2 Energy Sales

The Petitioner submitted that the State of Uttarakhand, like most of the other States in the

country, is operating under an energy deficit scenario, i.e. the demand exceeds the supply of power.

The Petitioner submitted that one of the reasons for the State witnessing a gap between electricity

demand and supply is on account of rising per capita power consumption. According to the Central

Electricity Authority’s (CEA) General Review, 2008, the per capita electricity consumption in the

State was 706.8 kWh in FY 2006-07 which increased to 1112.29 kWh in FY 2009-10 in a span of three



years. The Petitioner submitted that since FY 2009-10, the energy sales in the State have increased at

an average rate of 14.53% per annum upto FY 2011-12. The Petitioner added that there was a

reduction in the rate of growth of sales in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 but the same is expected to

recover in the future.

The energy for retail supply depends on the availability of power in the State. The Petitioner

submitted that the projection for the total energy available for sale is based on the total energy input

from all Central and State Generating Stations and added that the State is mainly dependent on

State-owned generation. The Petitioner, further, submitted that based on actual energy sales data,

the energy consumption in the State had increased at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of

9.62% over the past eight years from FY 2006-07 to FY 2013-14, as shown in the following Table:

Table 4.1: Actual Energy Sales for Consumer Categories from FY 2006-07 to FY 2013-14 (MU)

Consumer Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 RTS-1: Domestic 1108.52 1163.74 1223.06 1388.38 1485.57 1676.70 1795.06 2107.07 RTS-2:Non-Domestic 542.31 607.75 663.48 734.66 812.52 885.42 953.94 993.87 RTS-3: Public Lamps 40.53 45.23 41.36 51.42 53.86 66.89 87.20 44.06 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells/Pumping sets 275.63 205.41 171.35 181.19 183.02 188.46 244.80 222.82 RTS-5:Government Irrigation System 83.36 94.79 94.71 116.96 112.97 136.56 130.20 104.23 RTS-6: Public Water Works 196.07 217.38 207.87 247.30 276.37 324.52 302.68 293.37 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 1567.91 2287.65 2980.83 3399.16 4197.72 4805.52 4884.88 5092.57 Total LT 155.22 156.20 192.86 201.82 234.96 269.78 289.42 287.66 Total HT 1412.69 2131.46 2787.97 3197.34 3962.76 4535.74 4595.46 4804.91 RTS-8: Mixed Load 65.07 104.68 100.39 122.81 120.86 160.26 167.55 177.60 RTS-9: Railway Traction 6.50 9.48 10.68 7.34 7.80 8.39 7.83 11.49 Total 3885.92 4736.10 5493.73 6249.21 7250.68 8252.72 8574.15 9047.07

The Petitioner assumed that energy consumption in the future will continue to grow based

on the past growth trends in electricity consumption. Further, the Petitioner submitted that

projection of energy sales has been done as specified in Regulation 76 of UERC (Terms and

Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011. The Petitioner submitted that for

projecting category-wise energy sales for the remaining years of the Control Period, the Adjusted

Trend Analysis Method has been applied in line with the approach followed by the Commission in

the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. The Petitioner also submitted the sales projections from the

report of the 18th Electric Power Survey (EPS) undertaken by the CEA which is reproduced below:



4.2.1.1 Energy Sales from Draft 18th Electric Power Survey Projections

The Petitioner submitted that the primary objective of the 18th EPS forecast is to determine

the electricity demand for States and Union Territories so that they can plan and arrange to meet the

energy demand. The Petitioner submitted that the EPS forecast is a projection of aggregate power

demand over the year and category-wise electricity consumption. The sales forecast for 3 years from

FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17 as per Draft 18th EPS is given in Table below:

Table 4.2: Sales Forecast from draft 18th EPS Total Annual Sales FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17

Total Sales (MU) 9387 9974 10600

The Petitioner submitted that the projections of the Draft 18th EPS are on the lower side. For

FY 2013-14, the Draft 18th EPS projects a sale of 8832 MU as against the actual recorded recasted

sales of 9047 MU.

4.2.1.2 Projection of Energy Sales – Adjusted Trend Analysis (CAGR) Method

The Petitioner submitted that for projecting the category-wise energy sales, it has considered

past growth trends in each consumer category, as explained below:

a) The Petitioner has adopted an Adjusted Trend Analysis Method for projecting the

sales for all consumer categories. The Petitioner submitted that this method assumes

that the underlying factors which drive the demand for electricity are expected to

follow the same trend as in the past, however, this approach also discounts any out-

lier (relative to the trend) observed in the growth rates over the period of 5 years and

excludes them while projecting energy sales for FY 2015-16.

b) The Petitioner submitted that this method makes use of a statistical tool, namely the

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) and, accordingly, Compound Annual

Growth Rates (CAGRs) were calculated from the past figures for each category,

corresponding to different lengths of time in the past five years, along with the year

on year growth rates from FY 2008-09 to FY 2013-14.

c) The Petitioner submitted that for projection of sales for FY 2015-16 for each consumer

category, the CAGR of five – year period from FY 2008-09 to FY 2013-14, the CAGR

of four – year period from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14, the CAGR of three – year period



from FY 2010-11 to FY 2013-14, the CAGR of two – year period from FY 2011-12 to FY

2013-14, along with the one – year growth rate in FY 2013-14 over FY 2012-13 has

been computed for each consumer category as summarised in the Table below:

Table 4.3: CAGR Calculated for Energy Sales to Each Consumer Category Consumer Category 5 Year 4 Year 3 Year 2 Year 1 Year

RTS-1: Domestic 11.49% 10.99% 12.34% 12.08% 17.41% RTS-2:Non-Domestic 8.42% 7.85% 6.95% 5.95% 4.19% RTS-3: Public Lamps 1.27% -3.79% -6.47% -18.84% -36.90% RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 5.39% 5.31% 6.78% 8.73% -8.98% RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 1.93% -2.84% -2.65% -12.63% -19.95% RTS-6: Public Water Works 7.13% 4.36% 2.01% -4.92% -3.08% RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 11.31% 10.63% 6.65% 2.94% 4.25% Total LT 8.32% 9.26% 6.98% 3.26% -0.61% Total HT 11.50% 10.72% 6.63% 2.92% 4.56% RTS-8: Mixed Load 12.09% 9.66% 13.69% 5.27% 6.00% RTS-9: Railway Traction 1.46% 11.83% 13.75% 16.99% 46.64% Extra State Consumer 17.51% 13.28% 37.11% 55.71% -11.05% Total 10.49% 9.69% 7.66% 4.70% 5.73%

a) The Petitioner further submitted that 5 year CAGR has been chosen for the purpose of

projections, except for few categories like RTS-3 (Public Lamps), RTS-7 (LT and HT

Industry), RTS-5 (Government Irrigation System) and RTS-8 (Mixed Load).

(i) The Petitioner submitted that the sales for LT and HT industry have been projected

to increase at a subjective rate of 5% similar to the assumption of the Commission in

the MYT Order dated 6th May 2013.

(ii) The Petitioner submitted that the Y-o-Y growth in sales for Public Lamps &

Government Irrigation systems has been uneven and, hence, the CAGR

methodology is not reliable in this case. The Petitioner further submitted that sales

projections for these categories have also been done based on a subjective rate of

5%, similar to the assumed rate for Industries.

(iii) The Petitioner submitted that the sales for Mixed Load category has been done

based on Y-o-Y Growth rate as the increase observed was evenly distributed during

the past few years.

b) The Petitioner submitted that for projection of sales for FY 2015-16, the sales for FY

2013-14 for each consumer category have been taken as the base, i.e. the chosen growth



rate is applied over the sales for FY 2013-14 to make projections for each category for FY

2015-16.

c) The Petitioner submitted that the energy sales to un-metered consumers under

Domestic, Public Lamps and Private Tube Wells in FY 2013-14 have been recasted as

per the methodology (based on the consumption per connected load for the un-metered

consumers vis-à-vis that for metered consumers in the same consumer category)

specified by the Commission before considering them for projections.

The Petitioner has submitted the projected sales for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 for each

consumer category as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.4: Energy Sales (MU) for FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16

Consumer Category FY 2013-14

(Actual) Method Adopted

Growth Rate

FY 2014-15 (RE)

FY 2015-16 (Projected)

RTS-1: Domestic 2107.07 CAGR-5 year 11.49% 2348.91 2618.75 RTS-2:Non-Domestic 993.87 CAGR-5 year 8.42% 1077.54 1168.24 RTS-3: Public Lamps 44.06 Subjective Rate 5.00% 46.27 48.58 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 222.82 CAGR-5 year 5.39% 234.83 247.50

RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 104.23 Subjective Rate 5.00% 109.54 114.92

RTS-6: Public Water Works 293.37 CAGR-5 year 7.13% 314.29 336.71 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 5092.57 5347.20 5614.56 Total LT 287.66 Subjective Rate 5.00% 302.04 317.14 Total HT 4804.91 Subjective Rate 5.00% 5045.16 5297.41 RTS-8: Mixed Load 177.60 1 year 6.00% 188.26 199.56 RTS-9: Railway Traction 11.49 CAGR-5 year 1.46% 11.65 11.82 Total 9047.07 9678.38 10360.63

The Commission observed that the Petitioner has projected the sales to the consumers using

CAGR method as done by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. The Commission

has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner. The Commission in its MYT Order dated May

06, 2013 had approved total sales of 10593 MU for FY 2015-16 as against which the Petitioner has

projected sales of 10361 MU. The Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15 considered the sales

for FY 2014-15 as approved by it in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. However, the actual sales in

FY 2013-14 is lower than that considered in MYT Order for FY 2013-14 as discussed in previous

Chapter of the Order on Truing up for FY 2013-14. Considering this fact, the Petitioner itself has

projected lesser sales than that approved by the Commission in MYT Order and hence, the



Commission is revising the total sales for FY 2015-16 as submitted by the Petitioner. The

Commission observed that the Petitioner has projected higher growth rates. However, the

Commission has not considered the category wise projections as submitted by the Petitioner as it is

observed that the Petitioner for certain categories has considered very high growth rates. The

Petitioner for instance has considered growth rate of 11.49% for projecting sales on actual sales of

FY 2013-14 for domestic category which appears to be very high. Further, as discussed in the

previous Chapter of the Order on Truing up for FY 2013-14, the Commission has re-casted the sales

for Domestic, PTW, Public Lamps and Public Water Works for approving the sales for FY 2013-14

for these categories. The Commission has then projected the re-casted sales for FY 2013-14 by

multiplying it using appropriate CAGR based on historical data and has derived category wise sales

for FY 2015-16. Further, the total sales derived in the manner above works out as 10144.70 MU.

The Commission for approving category wise sales for FY 2015-16 has considered the ratio

of category wise sales to total sales as derived by projecting the re-casted sales for FY 2013-14 and

has applied the same ratio to total sales as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2015-16.

The Commission has, accordingly, approved the category wise sales as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.5: Sales Approved for FY 2015-16 (MU)

Category Approved in the MYT Order dated 06.05.2013 Proposed Approved

Domestic (RTS - 1) 2214 2619 2477 Non-domestic, incl Commercial (RTS -2) 1289 1168 1214 Public Lamps (RTS - 3) 99 49 44 Private Tubewell/ Pump Sets (RTS - 4) 223 247 226 Government Irrigation System (RTS - 5) 197 115 117 Public Water Works (RTS - 6) 484 337 317 Industrial Consumers (RTS - 7) 5832 5614 5734 Mixed Load (RTS - 8) 243 200 219 Railway Traction (RTS - 9) 11 12 12 Total 10593 10361 10361

4.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory

The Petitioner submitted that the following initiatives are undertaken/proposed to be

undertaken for loss reduction:

a) Installation of Capacitor Bank at 33/11 kV substations



b) Implementation of R-APDRP Part A scheme

c) Implementation of R-APDRP Part B scheme

d) Installation of Double metering in selected 11 kV & 33 kV consumers

e) Shifting of 1 Phase & 3 Phase meter outside the premises of the consumers

f) Implementation of AMR

g) Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters and Installation of Electronic

meters in un-metered connections

h) Laying of LT ABC

i) DT Metering

j) Replacement of defective meters

k) Procurement of High value consumer management system (HVCMS)

The Petitioner submitted that distribution losses are measured considering the difference

between the energy input at distribution periphery and the energy billed to the consumers. For FY

2013-14, the Petitioner has submitted actual (recasted) distribution losses of 19.34%.

The Petitioner submitted that it has not been able to achieve desired loss reduction in FY

2013-14 as the Commission has set the distribution loss trajectory for each year of the MYT Control

Period based on the target fixed for base year, i.e. FY 2012-13. The Petitioner further requested the

Commission to set realistic distribution loss trajectory for the MYT Control Period considering

actual distribution loss for FY 2012-13. The Petitioner has proposed to reduce the distribution loss

by 1% in FY 2014-15 & 1% in FY 2015-16 in each of the remaining year of the MYT Control Period.

The distribution loss trajectory as proposed by the Petitioner is detailed below:

Table 4.6: Distribution Loss Trajectory

Year FY 2012-13 (Actual)

FY 2013-14 (Actual)



Distribution Loss 20.53%* 19.34%* 18.34% 17.34%

*re-casted

The Petitioner in this Petition has projected the energy requirement for FY 2014-15 and FY

2015-16 based on the loss trajectory as proposed above.



The Commission, in its MYT Order, has approved the distribution loss trajectory for the

Control Period with a loss reduction of 1.00% for FY 2013-14 and 0.50% in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-

16 to attain the overall loss level target of 15.00% in FY 2015-16. The distribution loss reduction

trajectory approved by the Commission for the Control Period in the MYT Order dated May 06,

2013 is given in the Table below:

Table 4.7: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Distribution Loss 17.00% 16.00% 15.50% 15.00%

The Commission has been considering reasonable loss reduction targets in its previous

Orders which should have been achieved. As the issue of distribution loss trajectory has been

challenged by the Petitioner in Hon’ble APTEL and the matter is sub-judice, status-quo ante is being

maintained.

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Commission has considered the entire distribution loss reduction target approved by the

Commission for FY 2015-16 as reduction in commercial losses of the Petitioner and has, therefore,

considered the impact of distribution loss reduction in terms of increase in sales due to efficiency

improvement. Hence, the Commission for arriving at energy input requirement for FY 2015-16 has

considered the distribution loss level of 15.50% and has considered the additional sales equivalent

to 0.50% (loss reduction target) of the energy input requirement, thus, approving the distribution

loss level as 15%.

Accordingly, the estimated energy requirement at distribution periphery, State periphery

and approved loss level for FY 2015-16 are given in the Table below:

Table 4.8: Energy Input Requirement at Distribution Level for FY 2015-16



Proposed Approved

Estimated Sales (MU) 10,593.18 10,360.63 10,360.63 Loss level (%) 15.50% 17.34% 15.50% Energy Input Required T-D Interface / Power Purchase Requirement (MU) 12,536.31 12,534.03 12,261.10

Additional sales due to efficiency improvement (%) 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% Additional sales due to efficiency improvement (MU) 62.68 0.00 61.31 Sales at approved Energy Input with 15.00% loss (MU) 10,655.86 10,360.63 10421.94 Approved Distribution Loss (%) 15.00% 17.34% 15.00% PTCUL Losses% 1.80% 1.82% 1.80% Energy Input at State Periphery (MU) 12,766.09 12,766.38 12,485.85



4.4 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost for FY 2015-16

4.4.1 Power Purchase Quantum

The Petitioner in its APR Petition has submitted the following major sources from which

power is procured by UPCL:

a) UJVN Ltd.

b) NTPC Ltd.

c) NHPC Ltd.

d) NPCIL

e) SJVNL

f) THDC

g) Independent Power Producers (IPP)

h) New Stations

i) Short-term power arrangements: Banking, open market purchase etc.

The summary of source wise energy projected by the Petitioner as submitted in its Petition is

as given below:

Table 4.9: Summary of Power Availability projected by UPCL for FY 2015-16 (MU) Major Sources Quantum

NTPC 2687.59 NHPC 736.53 UJVN Ltd. Large Hydro 3083.69

Maneri Bali-II 1102.40 Small Hydro 121.80

Sub-total 4307.90 SJVNL 245.63 THDC (inc Free Power) 779.74 NPCIL 251.04 UREDA 18.33 IPPs 1072.32 New Stations 526.69 Total power from firm sources 10625.78 Others Less: Sale of Surplus power 231.51 Add: Procurement of power through short term power purchase 2372.11 Grand-Total 12766.38



The Commission for projecting energy availability for FY 2015-16, has considered all the

above mentioned sources as considered by the Petitioner. However, the detailed approach adopted

by the Commission for source wise projection of energy availability from these sources for FY 2015-

16 has been discussed as follows:

4.4.2 Energy Availability from UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the energy availability from generating stations of UJVN

Ltd. for FY 2015-16 as under:

§ For 9 LHPs generating stations of UJVN Ltd., the Commission has considered

average gross generation of FY 2008-09, FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 and FY

2014-15 (i.e. upto Feb 2015). The energy generation for FY 2009-10 has not been

considered as the year was exceptionally dry year and energy generation for FY

2013-14 has not been considered as most of the plants were affected due to natural

calamity. For MB-II generating station, the Commission has considered average of

gross generation of FY 2008-09, FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13. The energy

generation for FY 2009-10 has not been considered as the year was exceptionally dry

year, energy generation for FY 2013-14 has not been considered as the plant was

affected due to natural calamity. Further, during FY 2014-15 as the plant was under

shutdown for considerable time, generation during FY 2014-15 has not been

considered.

§ For the SHPs transferred to UREDA, generation has been considered based on

monthly projections submitted by UREDA.

§ For existing SHPs, generation has been considered based on actual monthly

generation submitted by UJVN Ltd. for FY 2014-15.

The Commission has estimated the energy sent out from these generating stations after

reducing the normative auxiliary consumption and transformation losses (wherever applicable) in

accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. Accordingly, the availability of power from

UJVN Ltd. stations to the Petitioner for FY 2015-16 after excluding Himachal Pradesh’s (HP) share

works out to 4395.13 MU. The summary of the energy availability for FY 2015-16 from UJVN Ltd.

stations as estimated by the Commission is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.10: Summary of Energy Availability from UJVNL and UREDA for FY 2015-16 (MU) Particulars Approved

UJVN Ltd.-Main Stations 3,020.66 Maneri Bhali-II 1,209.24 UREDA-SHPs 11.78 Pathri 99.00 Mohammadpur 54.45 Total 4395.13

4.4.3 Energy Availability from Central Generating Stations

In continuation with the approach adopted by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May

06, 2013 and APR Order dated April 10, 2014, the Commission has considered the average

generation of the previous three years for estimating the energy availability for FY 2015-16 from

existing generating stations of NTPC, NHPC, SJVNL and THDC under operation for three or more

than three years. However, for estimating the energy availability for FY 2015-16 from Dhauliganga,

the Commission has considered the design energy as the available energy as the plant was under

shutdown for substantial time in FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 and, hence, the average generation of

last three years would not reflect the correct picture for projecting availability in FY 2015-16.

With regard to Chamera-III and URI-II, the Commission has considered available energy on

the basis of their design energy. Further, the Commission has considered monthly design energy as

approved by the CERC for projecting the monthly energy availability for FY 2015-16. The energy

sent out from these stations has been estimated considering the normative auxiliary consumption as

specified by CERC in the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014.

For Rihand–III, the Commission has considered energy availability from the station equal to

that available from Rihand-II as both the units are of same capacity and unit sizes. Since the plant

has already been commissioned, the allocation from the station to the State of Uttarakhand has been

considered as per the latest allocation order issued by Ministry of Power.

The Petitioner has a firm allocation of share of power from generating stations of NTPC Ltd.,

NHPC Ltd., Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), Tehri Hydro Development

Corporation Ltd. (THDC) and Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (SJVNL) stations. In addition to the firm

share allocation, most of these stations have 15% unallocated power. The distribution of this

unallocated power among the constituents of Northern Region is decided from time to time based

on the power requirement and power shortages in different States. For projecting the energy



availability from Northern Region Central Generating Stations for FY 2015-16, the Commission has

considered the average of actual weighted average allocation of power (firm share of UPCL as well

as unallocated power) from March 2013 to February 2014. The Commission has also considered the

northern region transmission losses of 4% based on the submission of the Petitioner, for purchase of

power from Central Generating Stations and other sources outside the State. The summary of the

energy availability to the Petitioner from CGS as estimated by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is

shown in the Table below:

Table 4.11: Summary of Energy Availability from GGS for FY 2015-16 (MU)

Particulars Gross Generation ESO State

Share

Availability after Inter-State Transmission

loss NHPC Salal 3,303.86 3,270.82 1.21% 37.99 Tanakpur 431.74 427.42 3.89% 15.96 Tanakpur Free Power 12.00% 49.24 Chamera-I 2,411.99 2,383.04 3.53% 80.76 Chamera-II 1,427.50 1,410.37 1.55% 21.02 Chamera –III 1,086.38 1,073.34 5.40% 55.02 Uri 2,766.03 2,732.84 3.48% 91.30 Dhauliganga 1,134.69 1,121.07 5.36% 57.03 Dhauliganga free power 12.00% 127.60 Dulhasti 2,086.31 2,061.28 5.40% 106.92 Sewa-II 521.28 515.02 5.46% 27.01 Uri-II 1,123.77 1,121.07 4.92% 51.77 Sub-Total 16,293.55 16,116.29 721.62 THDC Tehri-I 3,435.64 3,394.41 3.55% 115.81 Free Power - Tehri I 12.00% 391.04 Koteshwar 1,303.00 1,287.36 4.24% 52.44 Free-Power Koteshwar 12.00% 148.30 Sub-Total 3,435.64 3,394.41 707.60 SJVNL Nathpa Jhakri 6,934.56 6,851.34 0.855% 56.27 Sub-Total 6,934.56 6,851.34 56.27 NTPC Anta 1,973.63 1,924.29 5.09% 93.99 Auraiya 2,081.04 2,029.02 4.74% 92.26 Dadri Gas 3,475.87 3,388.97 4.01% 130.62 Unchahar-I 3,234.98 2,951.27 8.78% 248.15 Unchahar-II 3,234.98 2,943.83 4.27% 120.58



Table 4.11: Summary of Energy Availability from GGS for FY 2015-16 (MU)

Particulars Gross Generation ESO State

Share

Availability after Inter-State Transmission

loss Unchahar-III 1,617.49 1,471.92 6.85% 96.74 Rihand-1 8,130.17 7,500.09 4.52% 325.37 Rihand-2 8,130.17 7,662.69 4.02% 295.82 Rihand -3 8,130.17 7,662.69 4.59% 337.73 Singrauli 15,622.46 14,470.30 5.41% 751.86 Dadri-II 12,353.37 11,395.99 0.64% 69.69 Jhajjar 5,752.54 5,306.72 0.65% 33.35 Kahalgaon 9595.18 8965.96 1.87% 160.96 Sub-Total 83,332.06 77673.72 2,757.12 NPC NAPP 2,681.88 2,440.51 4.81% 112.74 RAPP Unit 5&6 3791.72 3450.46 5.13% 169.93 Sub-Total 6,473.60 5,890.98 282.67 Total 1,16,469.41 1,09,926.75 4,525.27

4.4.4 Energy Availability from Vishnuprayag Hydro Electric Project

The Commission with regard to Vishnuprayag station has considered the annual design

energy for estimating the annual energy availability from Vishnuprayag HEP to the Petitioner for

FY 2015-16. Since the plant was under shutdown for most of the part of FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15

due to damages suffered on account of flood, three year generation data has not been considered for

the station. The auxiliary consumption has been considered on normative basis. For projecting the

energy available to the Petitioner, the Commission has considered the free power of 12% available

to the State of Uttarakhand. With these assumptions, the total energy available from this station

during FY 2015-16 is estimated at 192.58 MU at State Periphery.

4.4.5 New Generating Stations

The Petitioner has projected power from new generating stations that are likely to

commence supply in FY 2015-16. The Petitioner for new Central Generating Stations, i.e. Koldam

Parbati Stage-III and Barh STPS has considered 4% allocation for projecting energy availability. The

Commission has considered the monthly/annual quantum energy projected by the Petitioner for

these stations.



With regard to Rampur Hydro, the Commission has considered the present allocation of

11.12% and has computed availability on the basis of design energy.

For Sasan UMPP, the Commission has considered 65% PLF and estimated energy available

from six units in a phased manner for FY 2015-16.

For rest of the new generating stations scheduled to get commissioned during FY 2015-16,

the Commission has considered energy availability from the generating stations as projected by the

Petitioner. The Commission has, accordingly, estimated the energy availability from new generating

stations for FY 2015-16 as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.12: Summary of Energy Availability from New Generating Stations for FY 2015-16 (MU)

New Generating Stations Quantum NTPC Koldam 74.31 NTPC- Barh 343.45 NHPC Parbati Stage-III 34.07 SJVNL RHEP 198.48 Others Sasan 466.08 Himalaya Hydro Pvt. Ltd. 17.34 Solar Plant (Dehradun) 0.08 Lakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd, Cogen 38.36 Avani Bio Energy Pvt. Ltd, Biomass 0.76 UREDA – Others 38.71 Hershil Hydro 52.03 Gangani 50.00 Badiyar 25.00 Total 1338.67

4.4.6 Energy Availability from Independent Power Producers (IPPs)

The Commission has considered the availability from existing stations based on the

projections submitted by the Petitioner. The total availability from these sources, thus, works out to

333.02 MU.



4.4.7 Power Purchase to meet RPO Obligations

The Commissioned had notified UERC (Compliance of Renewable Purchase Obligations),

2010, and as per the Regulations the Petitioner has to fulfil the following RPO obligations in FY

2015-16:

1. Solar RPO – 0.10% 2. Non-Solar RPO – 8.00%

The Petitioner, in its Petition, has projected cost of procuring RE Certificates to meet RPO

targets. The Commission is, however, of the view that the Petitioner, on best effort basis, should

procure power from Renewable Energy sources (Solar as well as non Solar) to meet the above RPO

targets set out by the Commission and only if such energy is not available, it should procure RECs.

The Petitioner is already procuring power from various SHPs and solar plants, however, despite the

same, the Petitioner would be required to procure additional 5.99 MU from solar plants for meeting

its solar RPO target and around 284.81 MU from eligible sources for meeting its non-solar RPO

targets. The Commission has, accordingly, considered this energy to be procured from Renewable

Energy sources to meet the RPO targets, and the Commission has considered this energy to be

available to meet the energy requirement for FY 2015-16.

4.4.8 Summary of Energy Availability for FY 2015-16

Accordingly, as discussed above the Commission approves the Energy availability for FY

2015-16 as shown below:

Table 4.13: Summary of Total Firm Energy Available during FY 2015-16 (MU) Source of Power Quantum

UJVNL Total 4395.13 NHPC 721.62 THDC 707.60 NTPC 2757.12 NPC 282.67 Vishnu prayag (free power) 192.58 SJVNL 56.27 Others-IPPs 333.02 New Generating Stations 1338.67 RPO Purchase of Power 290.81 Total Firm Energy Available 11075.48 Monthly Surplus to be Banked 290.08 Firm Energy Available net of Banking 10785.39 Power Purchase Requirement 12485.85 Deficit Power Purchase 1700.46



As shown above, the total energy availability from the above firm sources works out to

11075.48 MU. The Commission has worked out the monthwise energy requirement and energy

availability from various sources. Considering the month wise requirement and availability, it is

observed that surplus power of 290.08 MU is projected to be available during the months of June to

September 2015.

The Commission in its Tariff Order for 2014-15 dated April 10, 2014 has considered the

availability of 1345.54 MU from Medium Term PPA during FY 2014-15. However, as the medium

term PPA during FY 2014-15 is not materialised, UPCL has procured the power through short term

sources as well as received the banking energy during 2014-15. The actual banking energy received

by UPCL for the period April 2014 to January 2015 is around 504 MU, which UPCL will have to

return in FY 2015-16. The Commission in line with its approach adopted in its MYT Order dated

May 06, 2013 directs the Petitioner to utilise the surplus power for returning the energy received

through banking or bank the same for utilisation in next financial year.

Taking into consideration the month wise requirement and availability, the total firm energy

available for meeting the total energy requirement of 12485.85 MU works out to 10785.39 MU

leaving a deficit of 1700.46 MU. Hence, the Commission has considered the deficit power purchase

to the extent of 1700.46 MU during FY 2015-16 as against 2372.11 MU projected by the Petitioner.

4.4.9 Power Purchase Cost

4.4.9.1 Power Purchase Cost from Generating Stations of UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has approved the tariff for ten major generating stations of UJVNL for FY

2015-16 vide its Order dated April 11, 2015 on the ARR Petition filed by UJVN Ltd. for FY 2015-16.

Accordingly, the power purchase cost for UPCL has been estimated from these generating stations

based on UPCL’s percentage share in these generating stations. The Commission observed that

though UPCL was being allowed, the power purchase cost for these stations on the basis of

normative performance, however due to lower generation and plant availability, the actual

payment made to UJVN Ltd. has been considerably lesser. The Commission in its MYT Order dated

May 06, 2013 for FY 2013-14 had approved power purchase cost of Rs. 555 Crore for UJVN Ltd.’s

stations as against which the actual power purchase cost was only Rs. 433 Crore. On detailed

analysis it was observed that the actual Annual PAF of some of the stations (plant availability

factor for the year) on the basis of which capacity charges are allowed to recovered were lower than

the Normative PAF approved by the Commission. Further, actual generation on the basis of which



energy charges are being recovered for most of the stations were also lower than that approved by

the Commission, which has resulted in reduction in power purchase cost for UJVNL stations.

The Commission, therefore, to project power purchase cost has factored in the expected

performance of these stations based on the past years’ performance. As discussed in the previous

section, the Commission for projecting quantum of power purchase from 9 LHPs has considered

actual generation for FY 2008-09, FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 and FY 2014-15. The

Commission has also projected the Annual PAF for these stations for FY 2015-16 based on the

average of actual PAF achieved by these stations in FY 2008-09, FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11, FY 2012-13

and FY 2014-15. For Maneri Bhali-II as discussed for projection purpose FY 2008-09, FY 2010-11, FY

2011-12 and FY 2012-13 has been considered. The Commission has also projected the annual PAF

for these stations considering the average annual PAF achieved by the station in these years.

Accordingly, capacity charges have been considered based on the projected PAF of these stations

based on actual PAF achieved in previous years and energy charges have been considered based on

the projected station wise energy availability. In case UJVN Ltd. achieves higher Annual PAF

additional recovery through capacity charges shall be allowed to UJVN Ltd. and shall be pass

through in ARR of UPCL at the time of truing up of FY 2015-16. In cases where the energy

availability works out to be more than the original design saleable primary energy, secondary

energy charge at the rate of 80 paisa/kWh has been considered.

Further, in accordance with the GoU Notification No. 1632/I(2)/2009-04(3)/22/2008 dated

October 26, 2009, while estimating the power purchase cost of the Petitioner from main stations of

UJVN Ltd., the Commission has considered rate of cess imposed by GoU for the purpose of Power

Development Fund as 30 paise/unit. The above cess is, however, not applicable on the generation

from Maneri Bhali-I, Dhalipur, Ramganga, Khodri and Maneri Bhali-II Generating Stations, in

accordance with the Government of Uttarakhand Notification No. 1632/I(2)/2009-04(3)/22/2008

dated October 26, 2009 read with Notification No. 2837/I/2004-05-13/2003 dated June 20, 2005 and

Notification No. (6604/03)/567/IX-3-Urja/Power Fund/03, as their approved energy rate (tariff)

for FY 2015-16 is more than 80 paise/unit and, further, Maneri Bhali-II is a new generating station

commissioned during March 2008 and, hence, it also does not fulfil the eligibility requirement that

the station should be more than 10 years old at the time of notification of the PDF Act. In addition to

the above, the Commission has also considered 10 paise per unit towards the royalty to the State

Government for the purchase of power from UJVN Ltd.’s generating stations excluding MB-I,



Dhalipur, Ramganga, Khodri and MB-II based on the notification no. 1933/I/2005-01(3)/1/03 dated

25.04.2005 on royalty. Accordingly, the Commission has worked out total power purchase cost of

Rs. 477.62 Crore for FY 2015-16 for the 10 LHPs of UJVN Ltd.

Power Purchase Cost from other SHP’s, commissioned after 01.01.2002, has been considered

based on the rates approved by the Commission in accordance with the prevalent Renewable

Energy Tariff Regulations. In case of SHP’s having capacity more than 1 MW and commissioned

before 01.01.2002, power purchase cost has been considered based on the rates approved by the

Commission vide its Order dated May 19, 2009. In case of SHP’s with capacity below 1 MW and

commissioned prior to 01.01.2002, power purchase cost has been considered on the principle of

weighted average cost of power allocated to the State from Central Generating Stations as per their

applicable Orders.

4.4.9.2 Power Purchase Cost from Central Generating Stations

CERC had issued the Tariff Orders for the Control Period FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 for

NTPC and NHPC stations, from which UPCL procures power based on its allocation. However,

CERC is yet to determine the tariff of these stations for FY 2015-16. The Commission in the APR

Order for FY 2014-15 had stated as follows:

“The Commission, with regard to projecting AFC for FY 2014-15, is of the view that as per the CERC

Tariff Regulations, 2014 the tax component of AFC will reduce whereas there will be marginal

increase in AFC due to increase in O&M expenses, increase in special R&M allowance and increase

in compensation allowance for some of the stations. The Commission has, therefore, considered the

AFC approved for FY 2013-14 as the AFC for FY 2014-15.”

The Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15 had not considered any increase in the

AFC. The Commission with regard to CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014 is of the view that for the first

year of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2014-15, the increase in AFC will be due to increase in O&M

expenses including R&M allowance and compensation allowance which is likely to get adjusted

with reduction in tax component of AFC. However, from second year onwards, the AFC may

increase as compared to previous year’s AFC due to the increase in O&M Expenses. Hence, the

Commission for computing AFC for FY 2015-16 has considered 5% escalation on the AFC approved

by the Commission for FY 2013-14.



Further, while projecting the variable cost of NTPC coal based stations for FY 2015-16, the

Commission has considered an escalation of 5% and applied the same on the actual average

variable charges including Fuel Price Adjustment (FPA) charges for the period October, 14 to

December 2014 as per the actual bills for these three months.

For gas based stations, the Commission has taken cognisance of recent increase in gas price

during FY 2014-15. The applicable gas price is valid till FY 2017-18 and, therefore, the Commission

has not considered any escalation on the variable charges for gas based stations. The Commission

has considered the variable charges for gas based stations on the basis of the energy charges billed

for the month of January and February 2015.

For new central generating stations likely to supply power in FY 2015-16, for whom tariff

orders are yet to be issued by CERC, the Petitioner has projected a rate of Rs. 4.50/kWh. The

Commission, however, has considered a provisional rate of Rs. 4.00/kWh for energy available from

new CGS stations based on the consideration of fixed charge at Rs. 1.80/kWh and variable charge of

Rs. 2.20/kWh except for Parbati Stage III for which CERC has issued provisional tariff.

4.4.9.3 Power Purchase cost from IPPs and UREDA Projects

The cost of power from IPPs and UREDA projects has been considered based on the rates

approved by the Commission, in accordance with the prevalent Renewable Energy Tariff

Regulations.

4.4.9.4 Power Purchase Rate for Free Power

The Commission, in the interest of consumers of the State, in its MYT Order, has revisited

the methodology adopted by it for computation of the rate of free power. The Commission,

accordingly, continues its approach of computing free power rate as the weighted average rate of

power from large hydro generating stations to be received in FY 2015-16 as approved by the

Commission for FY 2015-16. The Commission has, accordingly, computed the rate of free power for

FY 2015-16 as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.14: Rate of Free Power approved for FY 2015-16

S. No. Particulars Quantum (MU) Total Cost (Rs. Crore) Average Cost

(Rs. /kWh) 1 UJVNL-Main Stations 3020.66 315.66 1.05 2 Maneri Bhali-II 1209.24 161.96 1.34 3 NHPC 578.85 184.24 3.18 4 Tehri-I 115.81 62.32 5.38 5 Koteshwar 52.44 17.96 3.42 6 SJVNL 254.75 96.44 3.79

Average of LHPs 5231.75 838.58 1.60

4.4.9.5 Cost of Power to meet RPO Targets

The Commission, as discussed earlier, has considered that the Petitioner, for meeting RPO

targets shall endeavour to procure power from eligible sources of power on best effort basis.

Accordingly, the Commission has considered Rs. 4.75/kWh as the cost of power for meeting its

non-solar RPO target and for meeting its solar RPO target, the Commission has considered Rs.

6.99/kWh as approved by the Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15.

4.4.9.6 Cost of Deficit Power Purchase

The Commission for considering the cost of short term power purchase has gone through

the prevailing rates at which the Petitioner has procured power during the period April 2014 to

January 2015 and has considered 5% escalation on the same which works out to be around Rs.

3.88/kWh. The Commission has, therefore, for projecting cost of deficit power considered a rate of

Rs. 3.88/kWh.

The Petitioner, in its APR Petition for FY 2013-14 considered energy availability on account

of Medium Term PPA of 200 MW for FY 2014-15. The Commission also accorded in principle

approval for procurement of 200 MW power on medium term basis. However, no progress has been

made for procurement of medium term power by the Petitioner. Considering the power available

from firm sources, the quantum of power to be procured from market on short term basis works out

to around 13.62% of total energy requirement during FY 2015-16. The Commission is of the view

that the Petitioner needs to plan properly to meet the energy requirement of the State from firm

sources. The Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite the process of medium term

procurement of power through competitive bidding from FY 2015-16 onwards and submit the

details of steps taken towards the same within 3 months from the date of this Order.



4.4.9.7 Unscheduled Interchange Charges (UI)

The Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 stated as follows:

“As a progressive step towards better management of deficit power, the Commission hereby directs

the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal from the grid within its drawal schedules whenever

the system frequency is below 49.85 Hz. The Commission would further like to clarify that while

truing up the power purchase costs for FY 2013-14, the Commission will consider the actual UI

overdrawls upto the grid frequency of 49.85 Hz and the UI charges and penalty thereof, if applicable,

for any overdrawl below grid frequency of 49.85 Hz shall not be allowed while truing up the ARR for

the FY 2013-14.”

The Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 stated as follows:

“The Commission in accordance with above directs the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal

from the grid within its drawal schedules whenever the system frequency is below 49.90 Hz

in order to ensure better grid discipline.”

The Commission, therefore, directs the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal from the grid

within its drawal schedules whenever the system frequency is below 49.90 Hz in order to ensure

grid discipline.

4.4.9.8 Total Power Purchase Cost for FY 2015-16

Based on the above, the Commission approves the total power purchase cost for the

Petitioner for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 3,254.39 Crore for purchase of 12,775.93 MU which includes surplus

power of 290.08 MU which is to be banked. The summary of the power purchase from different

generating stations during FY 2015-16 and the corresponding costs as approved by the Commission

are shown in the Table below:



Table 4.15: Total Power Purchase Cost for FY 2015-16

Source of Power Power Purchase (MUs)

Total Cost (Rs. Crore)

Average Rate (Rs./kWh)

UJVNL-Main Stations 3,020.66 315.66 1.05 Maneri Bhali-II 1,209.24 161.96 1.34 UREDA-SHPs 11.78 2.74 2.32 Pathri 99.00 10.40 1.05 Mohammadpur 54.45 6.53 1.20 UJVNL Total 4395.13 497.28 1.13 NHPC Salal 37.99 3.89 1.02 Tanakpur 15.96 4.15 2.60 Tanakpur free power 49.24 7.89 1.60 Chamera-1 80.76 14.02 1.74 Chamera-2 21.02 6.19 2.94 Chamera III 55.02 20.39 3.71 Uri 91.30 15.45 1.69 Dhauliganga 57.03 17.47 3.06 Dhauliganga free power 127.60 20.45 1.60 Dulhasti 106.92 59.89 5.60 Sewa-2 27.01 12.25 4.53 Parbati Stage-III 34.07 13.69 4.02 Uri-II 51.77 16.86 3.26 NHPC Sub-Total 755.69 212.59 2.81

THDC Tehri-I 115.81 62.32 5.38 Koteshwar 52.44 17.96 3.42 Free Power - Tehri I 391.04 62.68 1.60 Free Power - Koteshwar 148.30 23.77 1.60 THDC Sub-Total 707.60 166.73 2.36 NTPC Anta 93.99 45.64 4.86 Auraiya 92.26 56.03 6.07 Dadri Gas 130.62 71.18 5.45 Unchahar-I 248.15 88.55 3.57 Unchahar-II 120.58 43.12 3.58 Unchahar-III 96.74 39.53 4.09 Rihand-1 325.37 88.12 2.71 Rihand-2 295.82 86.09 2.91 Rihand -3 337.73 96.67 2.86 Singrauli 751.86 147.35 1.96 Koldam 74.31 29.72 4.00 NTPC- Barh 343.45 137.38 4.00 Dadri II 69.69 40.94 5.87



Table 4.15: Total Power Purchase Cost for FY 2015-16

Source of Power Power Purchase (MUs)

Total Cost (Rs. Crore)

Average Rate (Rs./kWh)

Jhajhar 33.35 23.85 7.15 Kahalgaon 160.96 69.33 4.31 NTPC Total 3174.88 1063.50 3.35 NAPP 112.74 29.21 2.59 RAPP 169.93 63.34 3.73 NPC Total 282.67 92.55 3.27 Vishnu prayag (free power) 192.58 30.87 1.60 NJHPS 56.27 17.05 3.03 RHEP 198.48 79.39 4.00 Sasan 466.08 65.25 1.40 Others-IPPs* 846.12 369.40 4.37 Firm Energy Available 11075.48 2594.62 2.34 Banking for next year 290.08 - Deficit Power Purchase 1,700.46 659.78 3.88 Total Power Purchase 12,485.85 3,254.39 2.61

*Includes power purchase to meet RPO targets

The Commission, further, directs the Petitioner to seek prior approval of the Commission,

in case the variation in power purchase quantum or power purchase cost in any quarter exceeds

by more than 5% of the approved power purchase quantum and cost for the respective quarter

worked out on pro-rata basis from the total approved quantity and cost for FY 2015-16 as

indicated in the Table below, failing which, the Commission may disallow such additional

power purchase cost while truing up the ARR for FY 2015-16:

Table 4.16: Quarterly Power Purchase Quantum and Cost approved for FY 2015-16

Particulars April 15 to June 15 July-15 to Sept-15 Oct-15 to Dec-15 Jan-16 to March 16 FY 2015-16 Quantum

(MU) Cost (Rs.

Crore) Quantum

(MU) Cost (Rs.

Crore) Quantum

(MU) Cost (Rs.

Crore) Quantum

(MU) Cost (Rs.

Crore) Quantum

(MU)* Cost (Rs.

Crore) Power Purchase 3143.44 725.80 3465.49 743.91 3113.87 875.97 3053.13 908.71 12775.93 3254.39

*Includes purchase of surplus energy of 290.08 MU

For the purpose of computing FCA, the base variable cost of thermal stations (base fuel cost)

for the purpose of computation of FCA is given in the Table below:



Table 4.17: Variable Cost of Fuel Based Station for FY 2015-16 (Rs. /kWh) Name of Generating Station Variable Charges

Anta 3.506 Auraiya 4.520 Dadri Gas 4.226 Unchahar-I 2.524 Unchahar-II 2.503 Unchahar-III 2.499 Rihand-I 1.815 Rihand-II 1.895 Rihand –III 1.894 Singrauli 1.342 NTPC- Barh 2.200 Dadri II 4.150 Jhajhar 4.621 Kahalgaon-II 2.647

4.4.10 Water Charges

The Commission, in its APR Order for FY 2014-15 in addition to the power purchase cost,

has considered water charges of Rs. 20 Crore for procurement of power from CGS based on the

actual water charges for FY 2013-14. This was due to the reason that CERC in its Tariff Regulations,

2014 has stated that water charges shall be paid separately and, therefore, the Commission had

considered the same separately for FY 2014-15. The Commission, in line with its previous

methodology, has approved water charges of Rs. 20 Crore for FY 2015-16 and hence, the total power

purchase cost approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is Rs. 3274.39 Crore.

4.4.11 Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL and PTCUL

4.4.11.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL

The Petitioner in its Petition has projected PGCIL charges for FY 2015-16 on the following

basis:

i. Inter-state Charges have been projected on “per MU basis” for FY 2013-14.

ii. The actual per MU PGCIL Charge for FY 2013-14 has been escalated at 4% p.a. and

then multiplied by the power projected for FY 2015-16.



The Commission for the purpose of approval of PGCIL charges has considered the actual

data for FY 2014-15 (April 2014 to December 2014) and computed PGCIL charges on per unit basis.

The per unit charges so derived have been escalated by 3% per annum and multiplied by the Power

Purchase quantum approved to be imported through PGCIL network for FY 2015-16. Accordingly,

the Inter-State Transmission charges approved for FY 2015-16 works out to Rs. 226.72 Crore.

4.4.11.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges Payable to PTCUL

While projecting intra-state transmission charges payable to PTCUL for FY 2015-16, the

Petitioner has projected the same ARR as approved by the Commission in its APR Order for FY

2014-15 dated April 10, 2014. The Commission has determined annual transmission charges for

State Transmission Utility (PTCUL) as Rs. 295.30 Crore for FY 2015-16 vide its Order dated April 11,

2015. In accordance with the aforesaid Order, these charges are payable by the Petitioner and are,

therefore, included in its ARR for FY 2015-16.

4.4.11.3 SLDC Charges

The Commission has determined annual fixed charges for State Load Despatch Centre

(SLDC) as Rs. 7.45 Crore for FY 2015-16 vide its Order dated April 11, 2015. In accordance with the

aforesaid Order, these charges are payable by the Petitioner and are, therefore, included in its ARR

for FY 2015-16.

4.5 Cost of Assets & Financing

4.5.1 Capital Cost of Original Assets The Petitioner has submitted that need for capital expenditure in UPCL is for two primary

reasons:

1. Increase in electricity demand makes it essential for the Petitioner to make investments

in procuring power to meet the demand and also prepare its distribution infrastructure

for evacuating the increasing power that shall be procured and subsequently distributed

to its increasing number of consumers.

2. Making investments to facilitate loss reduction, increase operational efficiency through

IT and automation to improve the quality and reliability of supply.



The Petitioner submitted that the Commission in its MYT Order, 2013 had approved the

capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 360.47 Crore in each year of the Control Period. The Petitioner

further submitted that the Commission had mentioned that the Petitioner did not get the Capital

expenditure schemes approved by the Commission and in the absence of cost benefit analysis; the

Commission had approved the capital expenditure on average basis. The Petitioner submitted that

the Commission in the said Order stated that it will analyse the capital expenditure plan in detail

once the Petitioner submits the scheme wise details while carrying out the Annual Performance

Review.

The Petitioner further submitted the details of Capital Investments made during the last five

years which is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.18: Capital Investments made from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Year Rs. (Crore)

2009-10 250.71 2010-11 264.99 2011-12 301.94 2012-13 256.97 2013-14 313.84 Total 1388.45

The Petitioner further submitted that the capital expenditure for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16

has been projected based on scheme wise capital expenditure and the Petitioner submitted the

phasing of proposed capital expenditure plan as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.19: Phasing of Capital Expenditure (Rs. Crore) Particulars Capex FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

REC Scheme 262.52 106.72 155.80 Devi Aapda 17.20 17.20 APDRP-Part A 42.77 9.86 32.91 R-APRDRP- Part B 512.63 108.63 404.00 Other Capital expenditure 503.93 176.18 217.74 Total 1229.05 418.60 810.45

4.5.2 Capitalisation of Assets

The Petitioner submitted that the Opening CWIP of Rs. 697.90 Crore is proposed to be

capitalised within two years. The Petitioner further submitted that the capital expenditure proposed

in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 would be capitalised within two years from the year in which the



expenditure has been incurred. The Petitioner, accordingly, submitted the capitalisation plan for FY

2014-15 and FY 2015-16 as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.20: Capital Expenditure and Capitalization Proposed for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Capital Expenditure FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Opening CWIP 697.90 348.95 348.95 Capital expenditure for FY 2014-15 418.60 209.30 209.30 Capital expenditure for FY 2015-16 810.45 0.00 405.23 Total 558.25 963.47

The Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15 stated as follows:

“As discussed in the above paragraphs, the Commission is of the view that it would not be appropriate

to revise the capitalisation for FY 2014-15 as approved in the Business Plan and MYT Order based on

the estimated figures submitted by the Petitioner. The Commission shall consider the variation in

capitalisation for each year during the truing up for the respective year based on the audited accounts.

However, it is observed that the Petitioner is going ahead with the capital expenditure without seeking

prior approval from the Commission which is in contravention to the Regulations and license

conditions. In this regard, the Petitioner is directed to seek approval of the Commission before

starting any capital works in accordance with the Regulations, failing which the works not

approved by the Commission would not be considered during truing up.”

Since, FY 2014-15 was not yet over, the Petitioner did not submit the details of assets

capitalised during FY 2014-15. Thus, in view of the above, the Commission has approved the total

Capitalisation as approved by it for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013

and is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.21: Capitalization approved for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT Order dated 06.05.2013 Proposed Approved

Capitalisation for FY 2014-15 350.64 558.25 350.64 Capitalisation for FY 2015-16 355.77 973.47 355.77

The Commission re-iterates its direction and directs the Petitioner to seek approval of the

Commission before starting any capital works in accordance with the Regulations, failing which

the works not approved by the Commission would not be considered during truing up.



4.5.3 Financing of Capital Assets

The Petitioner submitted that the funding of RAPDRP – Part A has been considered as

entirely funded through debt and for RAPDRP – Part B, 90% has been considered as funded

through grant and remaining 10% through loan. It added that the remaining capital expenditure is

assumed to be funded through the debt:equity ratio of 70:30. As detailed in the above paragraphs,

the Commission has considered the same capitalization for FY 2015-16 as approved in the MYT

Order dated May 06, 2013, hence, the financing of the capitalisation has also been considered

equivalent to that approved in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. In the MYT Order, the

Commission had considered financing through grants on pro-rata basis based on the Petitioner’s

submission and the balance financing requirement was worked out in line with the Commission’s

earlier approach and as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 considering the debt-equity ratio of

70:30 for the Control Period. Further, the Commission in its MYT Order had mentioned that it shall

reconsider the means of financing during the APR and truing up proceedings while approving the

scheme wise capitalisation of the Petitioner.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Order, the Commission has provisionally considered

capitalisation amount for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 as per the audited balance sheets for respective

years. Therefore, the Opening Value of Grant, Loan and Equity have undergone changes. However,

with regard to financing of the capitalisation for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16, as discussed above the

Commission has considered the financing as approved in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

Accordingly, the financing plan as approved by the Commission is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.22: Financing Plan as approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Grant Loan Equity Total Grant Loan Equity Total

Opening Value 1,394.67 1,329.08 478.80 3,202.56 1,484.58 1,511.60 557.02 3,553.20 Additions in the year 89.91 182.51 78.22 350.64 106.90 174.21 74.66 355.77

Less: Deletions during the year - - - - - - - -

Closing Value 1,484.58 1,511.60 557.02 3,553.20 1,591.49 1,685.80 631.68 3,908.97

4.6 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner submitted that it has computed interest expenses based on the existing loans

and new loans proposed for funding the capital expenditure. The Petitioner submitted that for



existing loans, it has computed the interest separately for each loan based on the arrangement with

the funding agency from which the loan is taken. The Petitioner further submitted that for any

amount that is to be received in the existing scheme during the year has been covered under

existing loans. As regard the new loans, the Petitioner submitted that the funding agency would be

REC and PFC and the new loans have been considered with 3 years moratorium, 10 years

repayment period and 13% rate of interest. The Petitioner added that the same is in line with

existing arrangement of loans with REC and PFC. The Petitioner further submitted that it has

claimed guarantee fee of Rs. 2.20 Crore. The projected interest expense claimed by the Petitioner for

FY 2015-16 is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.23: Projected Interest Expenses (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Interest on existing loans 89.42 84.98 Interest on new loans 13.48 47.38 Total 102.90 132.35 Guarantee Fees 2.20 2.20

The Commission has worked out the Interest and Finance Charges considering the loan

amount corresponding to the assets as at the beginning of FY 2015-16 based on the approved means

of finance. As detailed in the above Paragraphs, the Commission has not revised the capitalization

and source of funding for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. However, as the Commission has

provisionally approved revised capitalisation for FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14, the impact thereof has

been considered while computing the interest on loan amount. Interest rates for estimating interest

for FY 2015-16 has been considered as the weighted average rate of interest calculated on the basis

of the actual loan portfolio corresponding to the asset capitalized at the beginning of the year. As

stated in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 also, any variation in the interest due to change in rate

of interest shall be considered while undertaking true up based on the Audited Accounts of FY

2015-16.

The Regulations provides for treating repayment for each year equal to the depreciation

allowed for that year. However, in case of a distribution company most of the assets are either old

or are created out of grants. Accordingly, depreciation allowed to UPCL would work out lower

than the actual repayment as per the loan schedule. Hence, the Commission has considered the

repayment of loans based on the approved repayment schedule for different schemes and for



normative loans, 10 year repayment period has been considered for computation of interest expense

for the Control Period.

The Commission, unlike the Petitioner, has not considered the works funded through

RAPDRP – Part A as loan. As per the terms and conditions of sanction for loan under Part-‘A’

SCADA/DMS of R-APDRP scheme:

“14.9 Conversion of loan into grant:

I. The Part-‘A’ loan along with interest thereon shall be converted into grant once the

establishment of the required system is achieved and verified by an independent agency

appointed by Ministry of Power (MoP). No conversion to grant will be made in case

projects are not completed within 3 years from the date of sanctioning of the project. In

such cases the concerned utility will have to bear full loan and interest repayment. The

project will be deemed to be completed and the establishment of the required system duly

verified by an independent agency appointed by MoP.

II. Whenever the loan from GoI and FI’s will be converted into grant, interest and other

charges paid on the converted amount will also be treated as grant & reimbursed to

utility. For the loan and interest which could not be converted into grant on account of

not meeting the conditions of conversion, the utility/State will have to bear the balance

burden of loan and interest repayment.”

Thus, from the terms it is very clear that Part-‘A’ loan along with interest thereon shall be

converted into grant once the establishment of the required system is achieved and whenever the

loan from GoI and FI’s are converted into grant, interest and other charges paid on the converted

amount will also be treated as grant & reimbursed to utility. However, for the loan and interest

which could not be converted into grant on account of not meeting the conditions of conversion, the

utility/State will have to bear the balance burden of loan and interest repayment. Accordingly,

UPCL will be getting refund of the interest when the loan is converted into grant on successful

implementation of the Scheme, and thus, the Commission does not see any reason to treat the same

as loan. The Commission has treated the amount as financed through grant. The Commission has

also not considered the AREP loans eligible for interest in line with its approach detailed in the

previous Orders. Further, since the practise of the Petitioner Company is to capitalise the assets in

its accounts on March 31st every year and nothing has been brought on record by the Petitioner to



show that the asset is capitalised when it is put to use. Hence, the Commission has not allowed any

interest for capitalisation during the year, as any interest before capitalisation forms part of CWIP.

The Commission has worked out the interest on the balance loan worked out by reducing the

opening loans by the amount of repayments considered by it.

Based on the loans and repayment considered and interest rates adopted by the

Commission, the interest for the FY 2015-16 has been estimated, the details of which are indicated in

the Table given below:

Table 4.24: Interest Expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved Loans

Opening Balance Addition Repayment Closing Balance

Loans corresponding to works capitalised till FY 2013-14 APDRP 7.75 0.00 0.28 7.47 District Plan 94.56 0.00 1.28 93.28 PMGY 29.73 0.00 0.60 29.13 REC Loan 105.97 0.00 12.25 93.73 State Plan 0.75 0.00 0.50 0.25 MNP 38.02 0.00 4.23 33.79 APDP 13.84 0.00 0.89 12.95 AREP 11.79 0.00 11.79 0.00 RGGVY 31.52 0.00 6.48 25.04 Normative Loans 188.05 0.00 53.03 135.01 Sub Total 521.98 0.00 91.33 430.65 Loans corresponding to MYT Works for FY 15 & FY16

164.26 174.21 35.67 302.80

Total 686.25 174.21 127.00 733.45 Interest 66.68

4.6.1 Interest on Consumer Security Deposit

The Petitioner submitted that interest on consumer security deposit has been projected

based on enhancement of load in each year as was projected in the MYT Petition. The Petitioner has

claimed interest on consumer security deposit for each year on the average of opening and closing

balance of consumer security deposit @ 9.00%. The projected consumer security deposit as claimed

by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.25: Projected Consumer Security Deposit (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Opening Balance of Security Deposit 505.41 534.35 Estimated Addition during the year 28.94 31.61 Closing balance of Security Deposit 534.35 565.95 Average Balance 519.88 550.15 Interest Rate 9.0% 9.0% Interest on Security Deposit 46.79 49.51

The Commission has considered the addition of consumer security deposit during the year

as approved by it in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. However, the Commission has revised the

opening balance of security deposit for FY 2015-16 based on the closing balance of security deposit

as on March 31, 2014 in the audited accounts for FY 2013-14. In view of the above, the Commission

has considered the additions in security deposit for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 similar to that

approved in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. Further, the Commission vide Order dated July 27,

2007 had ruled as follows:

“1. With effect from 1st April 2007, the distribution licensee shall pay interest on Security Deposit of

consumer, both consumption and material security, at the Bank Rate as on 1st April of the financial

year for which interest is due. Bank Rate shall mean the Rate as notified by Reserve Bank of India u/s

49 of the RBI Act, 1934.”

Accordingly, the Commission has allowed Interest on Consumer Security Deposit for FY

2015-16 at the interest rate of 8.50% which is the Bank Rate as on April 01, 2015. However, the

amount of interest on security deposit shall be trued up based on the actual amount paid for FY

2015-16 by the Petitioner to the consumers towards interest on their security deposit held by it. The

following Table shows the working of Interest on Consumer Security Deposits for FY 2015-16 as

approved by the Commission in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013, as claimed by the Petitioner

and as approved by the Commission in the present Order:

Table 4.26: Interest on Consumer Security Deposit approved for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Approved in the MYT

Order dated 06.05.2013 Proposed Approved

Opening Balance of Security Deposit 460.53 534.35 534.35 Estimated Addition during the year 31.61 31.61 31.61 Closing Balance of Security Deposit 492.14 565.95 565.95 Average Balance of Security Deposit 476.34 550.15 550.15 Interest Rate considered 8.50% 9.00% 8.50% Interest on Security Deposit 40.49 49.51 46.76



4.6.2 Government Guarantee Fee

The Petitioner has further claimed guarantee fee of Rs. 2.20 Crore, which is the fees payable

by it to GoU in FY 2015-16. The Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 had approved

guarantee fees for FY 2015-16 as Rs 2.03 Crore. A Guarantee fee @ 1.00% p.a. is payable to the

Government on the outstanding REC old loans and amount of L/C opened by the Petitioner.

The Commission has considered guarantee fee as approved in the MYT Order dated May 06,

2013. The Guarantee Fee for FY 2015-16 as claimed by the Petitioner and as approved by the


Table 4.27: Guarantee Fees approved for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 Proposed Approved

Government Guarantee Fees @ 1.00% 2.03 2.20 2.03

In addition, the Commission has considered an interest of Rs. 23.97 Crore towards REC Old

loan, which is as approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

Further, the Commission has not reduced the amount of interest capitalised as the

Commission has considered only those loans which have been utilised for creation of assets and not

the total loans as taken by the Petitioner and the interest on balance loans utilised for capital

expenditure pending capitalisation have been assumed to be in CWIP. The summary of Interest and

Finance Charges approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is given in the Table below:

Table 4.28: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in MYT Order dated 06.05.2013 Proposed Approved

Interest on Loan 78.99 132.35 66.68 Guarantee Fee 2.03 2.20 2.03 Interest on Security Deposit 40.49 49.51 46.76 REC Old Loan 23.97 - 23.97 Total Interest Charges 145.47 184.07 139.44 Capitalisation 0.00 0.00 0.00 Net Interest and Finance Charges 145.47 184.07 139.44



4.7 Depreciation

The Petitioner submitted that depreciation has been computed based on the projected gross

fixed assets for each year. The Petitioner submitted that it has computed depreciation at an average

rate of of 5.20% as approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

The Commission observed that the Petitioner had not submitted asset-wise depreciation

details for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15. In this regard, the Commission directed the Petitioner to

submit the asset-wise depreciation details for FY 2015-16 in the respective format prescribed in the

Regulation. The Petitioner, did not submit the said computation, however, it apportioned the total

depreciation among various asset class in the same proportion of asset class wise depreciation for

FY 2013-14. The depreciation projected by Petitioner is given in the Table below:

Table 4.29: Projected Depreciation (Rs. Crore) Year FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Opening GFA 2161.43 2719.68 Additions 558.25 963.47 Closing GFA 2719.68 3683.15 Opening grant 0.00 97.77 Addition Grant 97.77 363.60 Closing Grant 97.77 461.37 Opening less grant 2161.43 2621.91 Addition less Grant 460.48 599.87 Closing less grant 2621.91 3221.78 Depreciation rate 5.20% 5.20% Depreciation 124.37 151.94

The Commission has considered the opening GFA of FY 2014-15 as the revised closing GFA

of FY 2013-14 after truing up as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order. Further as discussed in

previous Paras, the Commission has not revised the capitalisation approved for FY 2014-15 and FY

2015-16.

Table 4.30: Opening GFA for FY 2015-16 considered by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Opening GFA 3202.56 3553.20 Additions During the Year 350.64 355.77 Closing GFA 3553.20 3908.97 Grant 1394.67 1484.58 Depreciable Opening GFA 1807.89 2068.62



The Petitioner has claimed depreciation on the average assets held by it during the year, i.e.

on average of opening and closing balance of the GFA. However, as already discussed above, it has

been observed that the Petitioner follows the practice of capitalizing the assets on the last day of the

Financial Year. Nothing has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show that the asset is

capitalised when it is put to use. Hence, the Commission has adopted the similar approach as

adopted by it in the previous Tariff Orders of allowing depreciation on the opening GFA.

Pro-rata depreciation on assets capitalised during the year would not be admissible in case

the asset is capitalised at the year end. Hence, to validate the same, pre-requisite would be the

capitalisation policy as well as the fixed asset register showing the date of additions made in the

assets during the year. In this regard, the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 had

directed the Petitioner to take note of the above pre-requisite and submit the same along with the

next filing and also claim depreciation based on the rates specified in the Regulations for each class

of asset. The Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15 dated April 10, 2014 reiterated its

observation and directed the Petitioner once again to frame a capitalization policy and maintain

fixed asset registers and submit the same along with the next filing and also claim depreciation

based on the rates specified in the Regulations for each class of asset. The Petitioner in its current

Petition has submitted that it has submitted Fixed Asset Register till FY 2012-13 to the Commission.

However, the same has not been maintained up to date. The Commission directs the Petitioner to

maintain proper Fixed Asset Register showing amongst others the date of capitalisation of each

asset, their location, alongwith the accumulated depreciation on the same and submit the same

along with the next filing and also claim depreciation based on the rates as specified in the

Regulations for each class of asset.

In the absence of complete Fixed Asset Register, the Commission at this stage has considered

average rate of 4.57% as computed for FY 2013-14 and has applied the same on the opening GFA.

The depreciation rate and, accordingly, the depreciation expenses will be trued up by applying the

asset wise depreciation rate in accordance with the provisions of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 at

the time of truing up in this regard. The summary of Depreciation for FY 2015-16 as approved by

the Commission in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013, as proposed by the Petitioner and as

approved by the Commission in this Order is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.31: Depreciation for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the

MYT Order dated 06.05.2013

Proposed Approved

Depreciable Opening GFA 1877.33 2621.91 2068.62 Depreciation Rate 5.20% 5.20% 4.57% Depreciation 97.68 151.94* 94.54

* Depreciation computed on average GFA

4.8 Return on Equity

The Petitioner submitted that as per UERC MYT Regulations, 2011, equity has to be

calculated on post tax basis at 16%. The Petitioner submitted that it has computed RoE at 16% on the

average equity. The Petitioner further submitted that opening equity for FY 2015-16 has been

considered based on the closing equity for FY 2014-15 which has been projected based on the

opening and closing equity for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner further submitted that addition in equity

in each year is based on the funding pattern projected for investing in the capital expenditure plan.

The projected return on equity as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16

is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.32: Projected Return on Equity (Rs. Crore) Year FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Opening Equity 1170.87 1258.76 Additions 87.90 120.29 Closing Equity 1258.76 1379.05 Average Equity 1214.82 1318.91 Rate of Return (%) 16.00% 16.00% Return on equity 194.37 211.03

The Petitioner subsequently revised its computation of Equity, however, it did not revise the

RoE claimed by it.

As regards the sources of internal resource the Commission in its APR Order for FY 2014-15

had stated that it was not appropriate to use the current liabilities as internal resources to create

long term assets, the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 also had stated as follows:

“In case the petitioner has to pay these liabilities it will have to either liquidate its assets or resort to

external borrowings. Both the options would not be in the interest of the corporation. Further, with

holding any payment and utilizing it elsewhere can also attract punitive action which can be in the



form of penalty or surcharge and the Commission has already taken a view that no penalty or

surcharge due to the inefficiency of the petitioner would be allowed to be a pass through in tariffs. The

management of the petitioner’s company is, therefore, directed to look into the issue and

take appropriate remedial action for correcting this practice.”

In this regard, Regulation 22(3) of UERC (Term and conditions for determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011 specifies as under:

“The premium raised by the Generating Company, or the Transmission Licensee or the Distribution

Licensee or SLDC while issuing share capital and investment of internal resources created out of free

reserve, if any, shall also be reckoned as paid up capital for the purpose of computing return on equity,

provided such premium amount and internal resources are actually utilised for meeting capital

expenditure.”

Thus, the Regulations clearly stipulate that investment of internal resources created out of

free reserve shall be considered as equity eligible for return purposes. In view of the above, the

Commission based on its previous approach and the approach as discussed in previous Sections on

truing up for FY 2013-14, has worked out the Return on Equity on opening eligible equity based on

the approved means of finance at the rate of 16% in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

The Return on Equity approved by the Commission is shown in the Tables below:

Table 4.33: Approved Equity eligible for Return (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Opening Equity 208.22 227.27 305.49 Addition 19.05 78.22 74.66 Closing 227.27 305.49 380.15

Table 4.34: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Sr. No. Particulars Approved in MYT Order

dated 06.05.2013 Proposed Approved

1 Opening Equity 322.00 1258.76 305.49 2 Addition 74.66 120.29 74.66 3 Closing Equity (1+2) 396.66 1379.05 380.15 4 Rate of Return 16.00% 16.00% 16.00% 5 Total Return on Equity (1 X4) 51.52 211.03 48.88



4.9 Operation and Maintenance Expenses

The Petitioner submitted that as per UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of

Tariff) Regulations, 2011, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses for the nth year shall

comprise of the following components:

a) R&Mn: Repairs and maintenance expenses

b) EMPn: Salaries, wages, pension contribution and other employee costs

c) A&Gn: Administrative and general expenses including insurance charges if any

O&Mn = R&Mn + EMPn + A&Gn

Where, O&Mn–Operation and Maintenance expense for the nth year; EMPn – Employee Costs

for the nth year; R&Mn – Repair and Maintenance Costs for the nth year; A&Gn – Administrative and

General Costs for the nth year.

4.9.1 Employee Costs (EMPn)

The Petitioner submitted that as specified in Clause 84(4) of Uttarakhand Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011,

employee costs for the nth year and also for the year preceding the Control Period will be calculated

as per the method given below.

EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (CPIinflation)

Where - EMPn-1 : Employee Costs for the (n-1)th year; CPIinflation: is the average increase in

the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for immediately preceding three years;

Gn is a growth factor for the nth year. Value of Gn shall be determined by the Commission in

the MYT tariff order for meeting the additional manpower requirement based on

Distribution Licensee’s filings, benchmarking and any other factor that the Commission feels

appropriate.

The Petitioner further submitted that it has followed the same approach as the one followed

in the true-up for FY 2013-14 to calculate the Employee Expenses for FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16. The

Petitioner further submitted that the Commission had not considered the employee expenses for FY

2012-13 for projecting the employee expenses for the each year of the MYT control Period. It further

submitted that the actual employee expenses for FY 2012-13 based on the audited account is now



available and the actual gross and net employee expenses for FY 2012-13 are Rs 257.98 Crore and Rs

222.76 Crore respectively. The Petitioner further submitted that it has considered employee

expenses for FY 2012-13 as the base year and projected the employee expenses for each year of the

MYT Period based on the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

The Petitioner further submitted that it had to bear the responsibility of paying enhanced

pension which is on account of pay revision in third time scale with effect from 01.01.1996 due to

which pension and family pension was revised for the employees who retired between 01.01.1996 to

20.07.2010. The Petitioner further submitted that the Treasury department of Uttarakhand refused

to disburse pension on enhanced pay as they did not get contribution on this account. GoU vide GO

No. 85 dated 07.07.2011 stated that the pension/family pension is not allowed on presumptive pay.

The Petitioner also submitted that on February 05, 2013, Additional Secy (energy) vide letter no. 173

directed UPCL to release enhanced pension from its own funds. It submitted that in accordance

with the directions of GoU, it has started paying enhanced pension to the employees who retired

during 01.01.1996 to 20.07.2010. The Petitioner submitted that actual impact of enhanced pension for

FY 2013-14 was Rs. 17.23 Crore and since enhanced pension was not part of the base employee

expenses, i.e. employee expenses for FY 2012-13, the same has been considered additionally in FY

2013-14 and increased in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 by the same factors as applied for other

employee expenses.

The Petitioner submitted that in addition to the above cost, additional expenses incurred on

account of new allowances has been considered as a part of employee expenses. The Petitioner

submitted that it has increased the value of certain allowances such as Motor Cycle Allowance,

Conveyance Charges, Cycle Allowance, Washing Allowance, Distribution Profit Incentive

Allowance, Bi-Lingual Allowance etc. w.e.f. August 1, 2013. The Petitioner has, accordingly, claimed

additional cost on account of such expenses as Rs. 0.94 Crore for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16.

The summary of total employee cost projected by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-

16 is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.35: Projected Employee Costs for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Components FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Gross Employee Expenses 257.98 299.55 347.03 402.08 Inflation Factor (3 years avg.)(CPI) 9.76% 9.50% 9.50%

Growth Factor(Gn) 5.79% 5.80% 5.81% Enhanced Pension 17.23 18.87 20.66 Additional Allowance 0.63 0.94 0.94 Total Employee Expenses 317.41 366.84 423.87 Less: Capitalisation 38.47 57.67 66.80 Net Employee Expenses 278.94 309.17 357.07

The Commission in Chapter 3 while carrying out truing up for FY 2013-14 has already

discussed in detail the reasons for not considering the base year as FY 2012-13. The Commission for

projecting the employee expenses for FY 2015-16 has revised the CPI escalation rate for the Control

Period to 9.50% from the earlier rate of 8.75%.

Also it would be relevant to mention that in the MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 the

Commission had allowed recruitment of 888 employees in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 to UPCL.

However, the pace of recruitment submitted by UPCL is much below the mark as shown in the

Table below:

Table 4.36: Comparison of proposed Recruitment vis-à-vis approved in MYT Order

Particulars Approved in the MYT Order dated 6.05.2013 Proposed

FY 2013-14* 444 02 FY 2014-15 444 713 FY 2015-16 444 45

*Actual

The Commission has revised the Gn Factor for FY 2013-14 as zero as the number of

retirement exceeded number of new recruitment. The Commission has, however, considered the Gn

factor as approved by it for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. The

Commission once again cautions UPCL that any saving in the employee expenses on this account

would not be shared with UPCL.

Further, UPCL has projected certain additional expenses on account of enhanced pensions.

The Commission is of the view that since O&M expenses have been allowed to it based on certain

norms and moreover, these expenses are controllable in nature, accordingly, UPCL should exercise



proper prudence while incurring these expenses as a commercial entity. As a one-time exception,

the Commission has allowed UPCL the recovery of the burden of enhanced pension through tariffs

for reasons dealt in Chapter 3 of the Order. However, any further allowance or incentives or

benefits granted to its employees will have to be borne by UPCL from its own resources or through

increased efficiency. Hence, UPCL is advised to exercise caution in incurring the expenditure as

the Commission would allow the expenses during truing up after examining the prudence of the

same. The Commission, however, has not allowed any new allowances for reasons as stated in

Chapter 3 of this Order.

The following Table shows the summary of the projected and approved employee expenses

for FY 2015-16:

Table 4.37: Employee Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the MYT Order dated 6.05.2013 Proposed Approved

Employee expenses 299.31 357.07 329.63

4.9.2 Repair and Maintenance Expenses (R&Mn)

The Petitioner submitted that as per Clause 84 (4) of 'Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2011, repair and

maintenance expenses for the nth year and also for the year preceding the Control Period will be

calculated as per the method given below.

R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (WPIinflation)

The Petitioner in its Petition has considered the R&M expenses for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-

16 as approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

Table 4.38: Projected R&M Expenses for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Components FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

R&M Expenses 119.56 152.41

It is to be noted that R&M expenses are based on the capitalization approved by the

Commission. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Order, the GFA of the Petitioner has been

provisionally revised from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14. However, as discussed earlier the Commission

has not revised the capitalization for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. The Commission as discussed in

Chapter 3 of this Order has revised K factor to 2.84% and the Commission has, accordingly, re-

computed the R&M expenses for FY 2015-16. Further the Commission has considered the revised



WPI escalation rate of 7.42% for the control period as against the earlier escalation rate of 7.77%.

However, the Commission in its Order dated May 06, 2013 had held as under:

“The Commission for projecting the various Capital related expenses of ARR, i.e. Depreciation,

Interest on Loan Capital and Return on Equity for the Control Period has considered the Capital

Expenditure Plan and Capitalisation approved for the Control Period in this Order. The Commission

will analyse the actual Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation while carrying out the truing up of

ARR for respective year. In case, the actual Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation during any year

of the first Control Period is less than that approved by the Commission in this Order, the impact of

the same shall be considered while carrying out the truing up and any reduction in expenses on

account of lower actual capitalization as compared to capitalization considered by the Commission in

this Order shall not be considered as reduction in expenses on account of controllable factors.”

Accordingly, UPCL is cautioned that if the actual capitalisation for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-

16 is less than the capitalisation approved by the Commission, the impact of the same shall be

considered while carrying out the truing up and any reduction in expenses including R&M

expenses on account of lower actual capitalization as compared to capitalization considered by the

Commission in this Order shall not be considered as reduction in expenses on account of

controllable factors.

The following Table shows the summary of the projected and approved R&M expenses for

FY 2015-16:

Table 4.39: R&M expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)


R&M expenses 152.41 152.41 134.39

4.9.3 Administrative and General Expenses (A&Gn)

The Petitioner submitted that according to the Multi-year Tariff Regulations, 2011 of the

Commission, administrative and general expenses for the nth year and also for the year preceding

the Control Period will be calculated as per the method given below.

A&Gn = (A&Gn-1) x (WPIinflation) + Provision

The Petitioner further submitted that it has considered the A&G expenses as approved by

the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013. Thus, the summary of projected A&G



Expenses for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16, as submitted by the Petitioner, is shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.40: Projected A&G Expenses for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

A&G Expenses 24.79 27.57

As regards A&G expenses, the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 has

observed as follows:

“The Commission would write back the amount of provisions remaining unutilized with the

petitioner during the truing up exercise for the control period. Here the Commission would also

like to caution the petitioner that the A&G expenses are controllable in nature and the

Petitioner is expected to exercise prudence and propriety while incurring expenses under this

head.”

The Commission has revised the WPI escalation rate for the control period from the earlier

considered rate of 7.77% to 7.42% and has, accordingly, approved the A&G expenses for FY 2015-16

as follows.

Table 4.41: A&G Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)


Net A&G Expenses 27.57 27.57 27.50

4.9.3.1 O&M Expenses

The total O&M expenses claimed and approved for FY 2015-16 based on the discussions

above, are given in the following Table:

Table 4.42: O&M Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)


Employee expenses 299.39 357.07 329.63 R&M expenses 152.41 152.41 134.39 A&G expenses 27.57 27.57 27.50 Total O&M expenses 479.29 537.05 491.52



4.10 Interest on Working Capital

The Petitioner submitted that it has worked out Interest on Working Capital in line with

Regulation 34(a)(i) of the MYT Regulations, 2011 and, accordingly, it has considered rate of 14.50%

as per Regulation 34 of UERC Tariff Regulations which is the prevailing SBAR.

Table 4.43: Projected Interest on Working Capital (Rs. Crore) Year FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

One month O&M expense 37.79 44.75 Add: Maintenance spares @ 15% of O&M 68.03 80.56 Add: 2 months of expected revenue @ prevailing tariff 778.92 907.20 Minus: Amount held as security deposit 519.88 550.15 Minus: One month of PP cost 317.93 337.32 Total 46.94 145.05 Interest Rate 14.50% 14.50% Interest on working capital 6.81 21.03

As per the Regulations, the Commission has computed the net Working Capital

Requirement of the Petitioner by taking into account the allowable O&M expenses, receivables for

two months. Further, necessary adjustments as required under the Regulations for security given by

the consumers and credit given by Generators/Power suppliers have been made. The Commission

has considered the SBAR as on the date of filing of Petition, i.e. November 29, 2014 which is 14.75%,

as the rate at which interest on working capital would be allowed in accordance with UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011. The Interest on Working Capital claimed by the Petitioner and approved by the


Table 4.44: Interest on Working Capital approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Proposed Approved O&M expenses for one month 44.75 40.96 Maintenance Spares 80.56 73.73 Receivables (2 months) 907.20 765.15 Sub-Total 1032.51 879.83 Less: Adjustments for security deposits 550.15 550.15 Adjustment for credit by power suppliers 337.32 272.86 Sub Total 887.47 823.02 Net Working Capital 145.05 56.81 Rate of Interest on Working Capital 14.50% 14.75% Interest on Working Capital 21.03 8.38



4.11 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts

The Petitioner submitted that as per UERC MYT Regulations, 2011, the Commission shall

allow a provision for bad and doubtful debts upto one percent (1%) of the estimated annual revenue

of the distribution licensee, subject to writing off bad debts by it in the previous years.

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission, in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013, had

not allowed any provision for bad debts in the absence of actual writing off the bad debts. The

Petitioner submitted that the Commission, in the MYT Order, 2013, approved collection efficiency

of 98.50% for FY 2015-16. Based on this, the Petitioner requested the Commission to approve bad

debts at one and half percent (1.50%) of estimated revenue. The Petitioner further submitted that

bad debts have not been included as a part of ARR in compliance with the approach followed by

the Commission. However, the Petitioner requested the Commission to allow this amount and

submitted the provision for bad debts for FY 2015-16, which is reproduced below:

Table 4.45: Provision for Bad Debts for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Year Amount

Approved Collection efficiency (%) 98.50% Bad debts (%) 1.50% Projected revenue at existing tariff 5443.73 Provision for bad debt 81.65

The Commission in the previous Tariff Orders had again and again directed the Petitioner to

carry out an audit of its receivables and also identify and classify the same, however, till date the

Petitioner has not complied with the directions of the Commission. As detailed in previous section

of truing up of FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has submitted that the policy for writing off bad debts is

under finalisation and upon finalisation of the same exercise writing off of fictitious and

irrecoverable arrears shall be taken up.

As already discussed in Chapter 3 of Truing up of FY 2013-14 the Commission is not

considering any provisioning towards bad and doubtful debts. The Petitioner should submit the

policy with regards to writing off bad debts and the Commission shall take a view on the same at

the time of truing up for FY 2015-16.



4.12 Non-Tariff Income

The Petitioner, in its Petition, has submitted that it has claimed non-tariff income by

escalating the actual non tariff income for FY 2013-14 by 5% p.a. Further, the Petitioner in its

Petition has not considered delayed payment surcharge as a part of non-tariff income. The

Petitioner has, accordingly, submitted non-tariff income of Rs. 95.38 Crore.

As per Regulation 86 of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011, the indicative heads to be considered in Non-Tariff Income are as follows:

“The indicative list of various heads to be considered for Non-Tariff Income shall be as under:

(a) Income from rent of land or buildings;

(b) Income from sale of scrap;

(c) Income from statutory investments;

(d) Interest on delayed or deferred payment on bills;

(e) Interest on advances to suppliers/contractors;

(f) Rental from staff quarters;

(g) Rental from contractors;

(h) Income from hire charges from contactors and others;

(i) Income from advertisements, etc.;

(j) Miscellaneous receipts;

(k) Interest on advances to suppliers;

(l) Excess found on physical verification;

(m) Prior period income.

The Commission for FY 2015-16 has considered non-tariff income of Rs. 73.54 Crore as

approved in the MYT Order. The Commission will consider the actual non-tariff income while

carrying out the truing up for FY 2015-16.



4.13 Revenue Gap for UJVNL

The Commission has issued the Order on UJVNL’s ARR Petition FY 2015-16 on April 11,

2015, in which the Commission has approved a revenue gap of Rs. 118.54 Crore pertaining to MB-II

for the period FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 which is to be recovered by UJVNL from UPCL in FY 2015-

16.

The Commission in its APR Order for UJVN Ltd. has also determined the revenue

gap/surplus for 10 LHPs for FY 2013-14. Since the recovery mechanism for FY 2013-14 shall be as

per MYT Tariff Regulations, 2011 which is on the basis of NAPAF and energy billed to UPCL the

recovery of the gap has to be in accordance with the MYT Regulations, 2011. To give effect to the

gap, the Commission analysed the station-wise actual payment made by UPCL to UJVN Ltd.

The Commission while analysing the payments made, has looked into both energy and

capacity charges. The Commission has computed the energy charges corresponding to the actual

billed energy for FY 2013-14 at trued up energy charge rates and has compared the same with the

energy charges already paid by UPCL and recovered by UJVN Ltd. The Commission has

considered any gap or surplus on this account to be recovered or refunded to UJVN Ltd. The

comparison of actual energy charges paid by UPCL and the balance amount payable/recoverable

by UPCL is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.46: Energy Charges to be paid by UPCL for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Name of the Station

AFC Approved (Rs. Crore)

Actual Billed Energy (MU)

Per unit rate trued

up (Rs./kWh)

Total EC (Rs. Crore)

Allowable EC (Rs. Crore)

Secondary energy (MU)

Sec EC (Rs.

Crore)

Total EC paid by

UPCL (Rs. Crore)

Total Energy charges

allowable (Rs. Crore)

Net Gap/(Surplus) (Rs.

Crore) Dhakrani 8.30 113.48 0.36 4.15 4.03 - - 3.85 4.03 0.18 Dhalipur 11.33 189.39 0.40 5.67 7.50 - - 7.92 7.50 (0.41) Chibro 30.00 703.71 0.27 15.00 18.99 - - 20.27 18.99 (1.27) Khodri 17.33 325.41 0.34 8.67 11.01 - - 12.17 11.01 (1.16) Kulhal 7.57 138.65 0.31 3.79 4.29 - - 4.41 4.29 (0.12) Ramganga 22.57 231.47 0.37 11.29 8.46 - - 8.87 8.46 (0.41) Chilla 44.75 767.46 0.34 22.38 24.41 42.46 3.40 25.40 27.81 2.40 Tiloth 45.40 374.76 0.58 22.70 21.69 - - 19.30 21.69 2.39 Khatima 11.71 111.23 0.30 5.86 3.38 - - 3.50 3.38 (0.12) Sub-Total 198.96 2955.55 99.48 103.76 - - 105.68 107.16 1.48 MB-II 223.87 826.12 0.72 111.94 59.64 - - 58.41 59.64 1.23 Total 422.83 3781.67 211.42 163.41 42.46 3.40 164.09 166.80 2.71

With regards to recovery of capacity charges, the Commission has compared the actual

NAPAF with NAPAF approved by the Commission while computing the allowable capacity

charges. The Commission has computed the allowable fixed charges based on the AFC trued up for



FY 2013-14 and has compared the allowable capacity charges with the actual capacity charges

already paid by UPCL in FY 2013-14. The AFC already paid by UPCL, AFC approved now, and the

net recovery/refund for FY 2013-14 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.47: Capacity Charges to be paid by UPCL for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Name of the "Station

AFC Approved (Rs. Crore)

Capacity Charges

(Rs. Crore)

NAPAF (%)

Actual PAFY

(%)

Capacity charges

allowable (Rs. Crore)

Capacity charges

after sharing (Rs.

Crore)

Capacity charge

paid (Rs. Crore)

Net impact

(Rs. Crore)

Dhakrani 8.30 4.15 57.00% 70.30% 5.12 4.92 4.88 0.04 Dhalipur 11.33 5.67 57.00% 68.22% 6.78 6.56 7.15 -0.59 Chibro 30.00 15.00 62.00% 65.83% 15.93 15.74 16.98 -1.24 Khodri 17.33 8.67 55.00% 59.35% 9.35 9.21 10.31 -1.10 Kulhal 7.57 3.79 65.00% 77.98% 4.54 4.39 4.66 -0.27 Ramganga 22.57 11.29 19.00% 14.71% 8.74 9.37 9.14 0.24 Chilla 44.75 22.38 74.00% 70.50% 21.32 21.58 20.98 0.60 Tiloth 45.40 22.70 77.00% 64.66% 19.06 19.97 16.93 3.05 Khatima 11.71 5.86 47.00% 52.31% 6.52 6.35 4.50 1.85 Sub-Total 198.96 99.48 97.35 98.10 95.52 2.59 Maneri Bhali - II 223.87 111.94 57.89% 39.37% 76.12 85.07 60.66 24.41 Total 422.83 211.42 173.47 183.18 156.18 27.00

Therefore, as shown in the above, the net amount to be payable by UPCL with regard to

truing up of power purchase cost of UJVNL for FY 2013-14 works out to Rs. 29.71 Crore. After

taking into the carrying cost the net amount to be payable in FY 2015-16 works out to Rs. 36.56

Crore.

4.14 (Gap)/ Surplus of Previous Years

As discussed in detail in the Chapter 3 of Truing up of FY 2013-14, the Commission has

approved a revenue surplus of Rs. 77.30 Crore with carrying cost to be adjusted in the ARR of FY

2015-16.

4.15 Annual Revenue Requirement for 2015-16

The Petitioner has projected a ARR of Rs. 5057.52 Crore for FY 2015-16. However, based on

the various elements of the ARR, as discussed and approved in this Chapter, the Commission

approves the ARR for FY 2015-16 including adjustments for truing up as summarized in the Table

below:



Table 4.48: ARR for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Proposed Approved

Power purchase expenses 3483.76 3274.39 Transmission charges – PGCIL charges 226.55 226.72 Transmission charges – PTCUL charges 238.70 295.30 SLDC Charges - 7.45 Cost to meet RPO 98.78 -* O&M 537.05 491.52 Interest & Finance charges 184.07 139.44 Depreciation 151.94 94.54 Interest on working capital 21.03 8.38 Gross expenditure 4941.88 4537.74 Other expenses RoE 211.03 48.88 Prov for bad and doubtful debts 0.00 0.00 Net Expenditure 5152.91 4586.62 Less: Non-Tariff Income 95.38 73.54 Add: UJVNL gap for previous years - 155.10 Add: Gap/ (Surplus) of previous years including carrying cost 385.70 (77.30)

Net aggregate revenue requirement 5443.22 4590.88 *included in power purchase expenses

4.16 Revenue at Existing Tariff

The Petitioner has submitted a net ARR for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 5057.52 Crore (excluding past

year gap) and the projected revenue at the existing tariff as Rs. 4311.84.

By applying the existing tariff rates applicable for different categories of consumers, the

Commission has estimated the total revenue at existing tariffs for FY 2015-16. Further, the

Commission has considered additional revenue of Rs. 25.21 Crore on account of Revenue from

efficiency gains (commercial loss reduction at average tariff).

The summary of total revenue estimated by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is given in

following Table:



Table 4.49: Approved Revenue at Existing Tariffs for FY 2015-16

S No. Category Sale (MU)

Revenue (Rs. Crore)

Average Billing Rate (Rs./Unit)

1 RTS-1: Domestic 2477 753.57 3.04 2 RTS-2: Non Domestic 1214 582.22 4.80 3 RTS-3: Public Lamps 44 18.69 4.22 4 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 226 32.10 1.42 5 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 117 50.02 4.26 6 RTS-6: Public Water Works 317 133.12 4.20 7 RTS-7: Industry 5734 2598.29 4.53 LT Industry 324 148.32 4.58 HT Industry 5410 2449.96 4.53

8 RTS-8: Mixed Load 219 86.68 3.95 9 RTS-9: Railway Traction 12 5.56 4.61 Sub-Total 10361 4260.22 4.11 Efficiency Improvement 61 25.21 4.11 Total 10422 4285.43 4.11

4.17 Revenue Gap

4.17.1 Revenue Gap for FY 2015-16 at Existing Tariff The Petitioner submitted that the net ARR for FY 2015-16 works out as Rs. 5057.52 Crore and

the projected revenue at existing tariff works to Rs. 4311.84 Crore and, accordingly, the assessed

revenue gap for the year works out as Rs. 745.69 Crore. The details of revenue gap for FY 2015-16 as

submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.50: Revenue Gap for FY 2015-16 claimed by Petitioner(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount Net ARR 5057.52 Revenue at existing tariff 4311.84 (Gap)/Surplus (745.69)

The Petitioner submitted that the revenue at existing tariff for FY 2015-16 works out to Rs.

4311.84 Crore and the tariff rates are not sufficient to meet the projected expenditure for FY 2015-16

which implies that there is a need for revision of tariff.

The Petitioner has further proposed to recover the total gap of Rs. 1131.39 including

recovery of the gap of Rs. 292.86 Crore on account of true up of FY 2013-14 with carrying cost, by

way of tariff hike in FY 2015-16. The summary of the total gap to be recovered in FY 2015-16 as

submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.51: Summary of Gap to be recovered in FY 2015-16 submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount Gap on account of true-up of FY 2013-14 (292.86) Total Gap (A) (292.86) Carrying Cost on the total gap (B) (92.84) Gap for FY 2015-16 at existing tariff (C) (745.69) Total Gap to be recovered in FY 2015-16 (A+B+C) (1131.39)

Further, based on the discussions above and after considering the impact of truing up for

FY 2013-14 on the basis of audited accounts along with the carrying cost the total revenue gap

approved by the Commission works out to be Rs. 305.45 Crore. The summarized ARR, Revenue and

resultant (gap)/ surplus as projected by the Petitioner and approved by the Commission for FY

2015-16 is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.52: Summary of ARR and Revenue Surplus/(Gap) for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) S.

No. Particulars Projection Approved

1 Net Annual Revenue Requirement including (Gap)/ surplus of previous years 5443.22 4590.88

2 Revenue at Existing Tariff 4311.84 4285.43 3 Revenue (Gap) /Surplus for FY 2015-16 (1131.39) (305.45)


5. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

5.1 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-Determination of Tariff for FY 2010-11 Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity in its Judgment dated February 27, 2013 issued in

Appeal No. 152 of 2011 filed by Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the issue

of cross subsidy and re-determination of tariff for FY 2010-11 had directed the Commission to re-

determine the tariff for FY 2010-11 while truing up the expenses in accordance with the ratio

decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the Judgment dated 31.01.2011. The Commission had re-

determined the Tariff for FY 2010-11, in its Order dated May 06, 2013 alongwith the MYT and Tariff

Petition for FY 2013-14. The Commission in its Order dated May 06, 2013 re-determined the tariffs

for FY 2010-11 for the cross-subsidised categories, namely, Lifeline & Snowbound, Domestic,

Private Tube Wells, Government Irrigation System, Public Lamps and Public Water Works. The

Commission also determined a total amount of Rs. 18.06 Crore recoverable on the account of re-

determined tariffs from the above mentioned cross-subsidised categories for FY 2010-11. As regards

the recovery towards revised tariffs during FY 2010-11 from these consumer categories, the

Commission in its Order dated May 06, 2013 opined that the recovery of entire amount in one single

year would result into significant increase in retail tariffs of some of the category of consumers and

hence, the Commission allowed the deferred recovery of additional surcharge from these consumer

categories in three years in the proportion of 20%, 40% and 40% in year 1, 2 and 3 respectively,

beginning from FY 2013-14 instead of allowing recovery in a single year. Further, as the amount of

rebate to be allowed to subsidizing categories (LT-Industrial and HT-Industrial) as per re-

determined tariffs for FY 2010-11 should be met out of additional revenue for recovery of additional

surcharge from subsidized categories based on re-determined tariffs, the Commission allowed

rebate to subsidising categories in three years in the proportion of 20%, 40% and 40% beginning

from FY 2013-14.

In view of the above, the Commission has decided to allow the recovery of 40% of additional

surcharge from subsidized categories of consumers and to allow 40% of rebate to subsidizing

categories on account of re-determination of tariffs for FY 2010-11 as shown in the Table below:



Table 5.1: Additional Surcharge to be recovered from Subsidised Categories and Rebate to Subsidising Categories on account of re-determination of Tariff for FY 2010-11

Particulars Amount (Rs./ month)

Additional Surcharge from subsidised categories Lifeline & Snowbound Consumers Rs. 2 /connection

Domestic

Rs. 8 / connection for metered consumers upto 4 kW and unmetered consumers,

For others: Rs. 8 / connection & Rs. 4 /kW for single point bulk supply

Government Irrigation System Rs. 0.08 /kWh Public Lamps Rs. 0.08 /kWh Public Water Works Rs. 0.16 /kWh Rebate to be allowed to subsidising categories LT-Industrial Rebate of Rs. 2/kW or Rs. 2/kVA per month

HT- Industrial Rebate of Rs. 8/ kVA per month (based on billable demand)

The additional surcharge payable/rebate as shown above will be applicable from April 1,

2015, i.e. for FY 2015-16. Further, in the previous Orders, the Commission had directed UPCL to

maintain separate records of category-wise revenue billed towards additional surcharge and rebate

allowed during FY 2013-14 and also FY 2014-15 and submit the same alongwith the ensuing year’s

tariff Petition, which would be used by the Commission to adjust any excess/shortfall in recovery

from these categories alongwith the carrying cost of deferred recovery/rebate. Since, UPCL has not

submitted the desired information, the Commission redirects UPCL to submit the total recovery

made through additional surcharge on account of re-determination of tariff of FY 2010-11 for FY

2013-14 to FY 2015-16 along with the Annual Performance Review Petition for FY 2015-16.

5.2 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2015-16

5.2.1 General In Chapter 4 of the Order, it has been concluded that the revenue projected to be earned by

UPCL during FY 2015-16 at currently prevailing tariffs will be Rs. 4285.43 Crore. Against this, the

ARR approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 including gap and surplus on account of truing

up of previous years works out to Rs. 4590.88 Crore, leaving a total gap of Rs. 305.45 Crore. In view

of the objections received and the Petitioner’s submission, the Commission considers it appropriate

to first take a view in this section on the tariff rationalisation measures suggested by the Petitioner

and the concerns voiced by other stakeholders.



5.2.2 Petitioner’s Proposals

The Petitioner submitted that the tariff proposal has been formulated by the Petitioner with

an attempt to keep the impact on the consumers to the minimum possible and at the same time not

defer a large portion of recovery of the tariff in the coming years. The Petitioner also submitted that

Section 61(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003 states that the Appropriate Commission shall be guided by

the objective that the tariff progressively reflects the efficient and prudent cost of supply of

electricity.

Some of the key alterations proposed by the Petitioner in the retail tariffs for FY 2015-16 are

as follows:

5.2.2.1 Abolish the Snowbound Category (RTS-1A)

The Petitioner submitted that there are no existing consumers under this category over the

last 5 years. The Petitioner has proposed to abolish the snowbound category (RTS-1A).

5.2.2.2 New Sub-category under RTS-2 for Private Advertisement Boards

The Petitioner has proposed to introduce a new tariff sub-category under RTS-2 (Non

Domestic) for Private Advertisement Boards and Hoardings in similar lines of the neighbouring

states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi. The tariff proposed for this category and tariff in the

neighbouring states as submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 5.2: Tariff proposed for Private Advertisement Boards and Hoardings

State Category/ Sub Category Fixed Charge (Per Month)

Energy Charge (Per Unit)

Delhi Advertisements and Hoardings Rs. 500 /hoarding Rs. 11.20 /kVAh

Haryana Independent Hoardings /decorative lights Rs. 150/kW Rs. 7.45 /kWh

Uttar Pradesh Private Advertising / Sign Posts / Sign Boards / Glow Signs / Flex Rs. 1200/kW (MCG) Rs. 14.00/kWh

Uttarakhand (Proposed Rate) Advertisements and Hoardings Rs. 200/kW Rs. 8.00/kWh

5.2.2.3 RTS-4 (Private Tube Well)

The Petitioner has submitted that RTS-4 currently includes “Incidental agricultural processes

confined to chaff cutter, thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller”. The Petitioner in this regard has

proposed that thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller may be removed from this category as these

activities are of industrial nature and should be covered under Rate Schedule (RTS) 7. The Petitioner



further submitted that under the existing classification, it is difficult to identify the incidental

agricultural production of the connection which is sanctioned for irrigation purposes and thus, is

prone to be misused by availing subsidised tariff for the activities not covered under this rate

schedule.

5.2.2.4 kWh Tariff

The Petitioner submitted that for RTS-6 (Public water works) category of consumers, the

current tariff schedule has prescribed only kVA/kVAh tariff. The Petitioner submitted that for

PWW connections where connected load is lower than 25 kW, meters capable of recording kVAh

consumption have not been installed, therefore, the petitioner has proposed to introduce kWh tariff

for PWW connections with connected load upto 25 kW.

5.2.2.5 Load Factor Computation for Embedded Open Access Consumers

The Petitioner submitted that as the embedded Open Access Consumers receives power

supply from UPCL and through Open Access on same connection (through same meter) sanctioned

by UPCL and the wheeling charges for the Open Access Energy is adjusted from the demand

charges which are fixed for UPCL, the contracted/maximum demand of the connection should be

apportioned on both the energy, i.e. on UPCL Energy and on Open Access Energy. The Petitioner

further submitted that as the Commission, while defining the load factor formula, has reduced the

Open Access Energy from the total consumption but has not reduced the demand against the Open

Access Consumption from the total contracted/maximum demand, this formula needs to be revised

as follows:

100periodbilling thein hours of No. x less is whichever Demand Contracted or Demand Maximum

periodbilling theduring n Consumptio×

The Petitioner further submitted that it is assumed that the Maximum Demand / Contracted

Demand, whichever is less, will reduce in proportion to the energy consumed through open access

and total energy consumption.

5.2.2.6 Penalty for exceeding contracted demand

The Petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, drawing of

demand in excess of the contracted demand on any electricity connection is unauthorised use of

electricity and the tariff for such unauthorised use should be at a rate equal to twice the normal



tariff applicable. Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted that the demand charges and energy

charges corresponding to the excess demand should be charged at twice the normal rates.

5.2.2.7 Tariff Categorisation for Horticulture and Floriculture Consumers;

The Petitioner submitted a copy of GoU’s letter no. 167/I(2)/2015-05-14/2015 dated

February 04, 2015 wherein it had been directed by Cabinet of Ministers to not levy industrial tariff

to such consumers. The Petitioner has, accordingly, requested the Commission to take decision in

view of the above.

5.2.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures

Several respondents have appreciated the tariff rationalisation measures taken by the

Commission in the previous Tariff Orders. The Commission believes that tariff rationalisation is a

dynamic and ongoing process and is essential to accommodate the socio-economic and

technological changes taking place in the system over a period of time. The Commission on its own

initiative issued the In-house Papers on five tariff related issues and invited comments on the same.

The In-house Papers covered the existing provisions on the issues in the current applicable Tariff

Schedule, Commission’s views and changes made with respect to the issue in previous Tariff

Orders, practices adopted in Other States and the Commission’s proposals on the same. The five

issues deliberated by the Commission in the In-house Papers are as follows:






The Commission in addition to the tariff rationalisation proposed by the Petitioner has also

discussed the above issues on which the in-house papers were published. There were number of

suggestions given by the Respondents in this regard. The following Sections discusses the tariff

rationalisation measures suggested by the Petitioner, Respondents, tariff related issues in the in-

house paper and the Commission’s view on the same.



5.2.3.1 Levying Fixed Charges for Domestic Consumers based on Consumption

The Commission in its in-house Paper opined that the data related to Connected Load for

the domestic consumers was not an authenticated data as the actual connected load kept on

changing from time to time, while the same was not updated in utilities records and the most

authenticated data available with respect to domestic consumers was the consumption data which

is based on meter reading and is regularly updated. The Commission, in this regard in the in-house

Paper proposed as follows:

“The Commission therefore intends to introduce billing of fixed charges in case of domestic consumers

linked to consumption which is authenticated data and to ensure that the fixed charges are more

reflective of the costs incurred to supply electricity to the domestic category. It is also intended to

progressively reduce cross subsidy available to such domestic consumer who have higher consumption

as they are affluent consumers and should be paying the cost of supplying electricity to them. Under

this mechanism, it is proposed to specify the fixed charges per connection per month based on

consumption for each 100 units or part thereof per month.

Ø For Consumption upto first 100 units/month

Ø For Consumption between 101-200 units/month

Ø For Consumption 201-300 units/month

Ø For each incremental consumption of 100 units or part therof/month”

Several stakeholders during the public hearing and also some of the Members of the State

Advisory Committee in the meeting of the Committee appreciated the concept of levying fixed

charges linked to consumption.

UPCL in its response also welcomed the move and stated that the differential charges

should be based on the sanctioned load instead of actual consumption as in some cases the actual

consumption for consumers with higher sanctioned load may be even less than 100 kWh. UPCL

further submitted that the differential charges should be linked to sanctioned load as UPCL will

have to provide services on demand irrespective of actual consumption of energy, for which it shall

have to incur certain amount of expenditure which should be charged, accordingly, to the

consumers on the basis of actual sanctioned load. UPCL further submitted that domestic

consumers with higher consumption are affluent people and, therefore, they should not be cross-



subsidised and the tariff for them should be reflective of cost of supply. UPCL, accordingly,

requested to fix higher fixed charge for these consumers.

UPCL also proposed that the fixed charge should be linked to energy charges and should be

fixed at some percentage of energy charge and this percentage of energy charge should be higher

for higher consumption. UPCL also proposed that slabs of energy charges should also be kept

similar to slabs for fixed charges.

As discussed in previous Tariff Orders as well as in the in-house Paper, the connected load

data is not an authentic data as the same is not updated regularly, while the consumption data is

more reliable as the same is based on meter readings. The Commission is of the view that it will not

be appropriate to specify the fixed charges linked to both consumption and connected load as it will

defeat the purpose of specifying the fixed charges based on consumption which is more reliable

data.

As regards UPCL’s suggestion of specifying the fixed charges as some percentage of energy

charges, the Commission is of the view that if UPCL’s suggestion is accepted then the Fixed

Charges will not remain fixed charges and it will defeat the basic objective of recovering certain

proportion of the costs through fixed charges.

Considering the views of several stakeholders and UPCL, the Commission has decided to

specify the fixed charges for domestic consumers linked to the consumption. The Commission has

approved the differential fixed charges linked to the consumption as follows:

• For Consumption upto first 100 units/month

• For Consumption between 101-200 units/month



• For Consumption between 401 -500 units/month

• For Consumption above 500 units/month

5.2.3.2 Snowbound sub-category (RTS-1A)

As discussed earlier, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to abolish the RTS-1A

category stating that there have been no consumers under this category over the last five years.



The Commission in its in-house Paper invited the views/suggestions from the stakeholders,

i.e. consumers, State Government (including concerned District Magistrates) as to whether the

separate tariff category for Snowbound Consumers be abolished.

UPCL in its comments to the above proposal submitted that as there are no existing

consumers in this category for last five years, it has proposed to abolish the category. UPCL further

submitted that views of District Magistrates may be sought and considered in this matter.

State Union of working journalists made the following submissions in this regard:

• People were not aware that there is a separate category for Snow Bound Areas

• This category should not be abolished

• The Commission may also ask District Magistrates to notify the Snow Bound Areas

Further, some of the SAC members also suggested for not abolishing this sub-category.

In this regard, it is important to note that the Petitioner has been filing the Tariff Proposal for

this sub-category of consumers in its previous Petitions and, accordingly, the Commission has been

approving the Tariff for this category since FY 2005-06. The Commission is of the view that it is

unlikely that there are no consumers in the snow bound areas, however, it appears that the

Petitioner has not identified such consumers and placed them under such sub-category and the

consumers are also not aware of the same. Thus, considering the views expressed by various

stakeholders, the Commission has decided to continue with the sub-category of RTS-1A-

Snowbound.

The Commission also advises State Government to notify the Snow Bound Areas so that

both UPCL and the consumers are aware about the same and the consumers in Snow Bound sub-

category can be billed based on tariff applicable for this sub-category.

5.2.3.3 Continuous Supply Surcharge and Extension of Continuous Supply Option to Non

Continuous Industries

The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated October 23, 2009, had approved continuous

supply surcharge @ 10% of the Energy Charge for consumers opting for supply during restricted

hours (continuous). Further, all the consumers had this option to opt for continuous supply

irrespective of whether they were on dedicated independent feeder or on mixed feeder. In

accordance with the above provision, even if a single consumer in mixed feeder opted for



continuous supply, its benefit got extended to all the consumers on that mixed feeder. This was a

sort of discrimination amongst the consumers who had opted for continuous supply on mixed

feeder and those who had not opted for continuous supply on mixed feeder as both enjoyed the

benefit of continuous supply irrespective of the fact that they were paying any continuous supply

surcharge or not. On the other hand, if the supply of the mixed feeder was required to be cut during

rostering, the supply of continuous supply consumer was also required to be unintentionally cut.

The Commission in order to rectify this anomaly had taken a view in its Tariff Order dated

April 10, 2010 that the option of continuous supply should be made available only to consumers

who are connected on a dedicated independent feeder or industrial feeder provided that all the

industrial consumers on such feeder opt for continuous supply option. The Commission was also of

the view that considering the supply shortage position, this option was to be provided only to the

continuous process industries requiring continuous supply due to continuous nature of their

process. In this connection, the Commission would like to refer to Regulation 3(2) of UERC (Release

of new HT & EHT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulation, 2008, which

provides that loads for all HT consumers having continuous processes, irrespective of load applied

for, shall be released through independent feeder only. The Commission in its Tariff Order dated

April 10, 2010 had, therefore, decided that with effect from May 1, 2010, the option of continuous

supply shall remain available only to continuous process industries operating twenty four hours a

day and for seven days in a week without any weekly off. Further, this option was only to be

available to continuous process industries connected through an independent feeder or industrial

feeder provided that all the industrial consumers on such feeder opted for continuous supply

option and for availing such an option, they were required to pay 15% extra energy charges at

revised tariff with effect from May 1, 2010 or from the date of connection, whichever is later till 31st

March, 2011 irrespective of actual period of continuous supply option. Further, the Commission in

its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2010 also decided that the load shedding should be applicable for all

the consumer categories except continuous process industries availing continuous supply option

and, hence, the Commission abolished the mechanism of allowing utilisation of power upto 15% of

contracted load by industrial consumers who did not opt for continuous supply.

In its Tariff Order for FY 2011-12 dated May 24, 2011, Tariff Order for FY 2012-13 dated April

11, 2012, MYT Order dated May 06, 2012 and APR Order dated April 10, 2014 the Commission



decided to continue with the same provisions for Continuous Supply as approved in its Order

dated April 10, 2010.

The Commission considering the views expressed by various industrial consumers during

the previous tariff exercise in its in-house Paper proposed to extend the continuous supply

provision for non-continuous industries and invited comments from various stakeholders. The

Commission in this regard in its in-house Paper proposed as follows:

“In view of the above, the Commission intends to extend an option of continuous supply to non-

continuous process industries also and to remove the condition of continuous process industries

operating twenty four hours a day and for seven days in a week without any weekly off provided these

industries are connected through an:

(a.) independent feeder ; or

(b.) industrial feeder provided that all the industrial consumers on such feeder opt for continuous

supply option. “

UPCL in its response submitted that it was agreeable to the Commission’s proposal of

extending the continuous supply option to Non-Continuous Industries. However, it requested the

Commission to increase the continuous supply surcharge to 20% from existing 15% as it would have

to buy more costly power.

Several other stakeholders during the public hearing as well as in SAC meeting welcomed

the Commission’s proposal of extending the continuous supply provision for non-continuous

industries as well. M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the continuous supply

surcharge be reduced from 15% to 7.5%. Further, it also suggested that continuous supply surcharge

should not be imposed on power purchase through open access as it will help UPCL by not

procuring extra power to meet the requirement on higher rate.

Several other Industrial Consumers as well as members of State Advisory Committee have

objected to the increase in Continuous Supply Surcharge of 20% as proposed by the Petitioner.

Considering the views of stakeholders, the Commission has decided not to increase the

continuous supply surcharge and has retained the same as 15% of energy charges. However, as

proposed in the in-house Paper, the Commission has decided to extend the option of continuous

supply to non-continuous process industries in addition to the continuous process industries.



However, this option will only be available to continuous and non-continuous industries

connected on an independent feeder or industrial feeder provided that all the industrial consumers

on such feeder opt for continuous supply option. The existing non-continuous process industrial

consumers opting for continuous supply shall pay 15% extra energy charges with effect from May

01, 2015 or in case of new consumers from the date of connection, till March 31, 2016 irrespective of

actual period of continuous supply. However, in case of re-arrangement of supply through

independent feeder, the Continuous Supply Surcharge shall be applicable from the date of

energisation of aforesaid independent feeder till March 31, 2016, irrespective of actual period of

continuous supply option.

In this regard, the Commission would like to clarify certain key issues, pertaining to

applicability conditions for existing and new continuous and non-continuous supply consumers in

order to avoid any misinterpretation of the conditions, and the same are discussed as under:

• Consumers who have opted for Continuous supply shall continue to remain

Continuous Supply Consumers and they need not to apply again for seeking

continuous supply option. Such consumers shall pay 15% extra energy charges,

in addition to the energy charges approved, w.e.f. April 01, 2015 till March 31,

2016. However, in case of any pending dispute with UPCL in the matter of

continuous supply on certain feeders, those consumers will have to apply afresh,

for availing the facility of continuous supply, by April 30, 2015.

• The new applicants for continuous supply of power (including those who are

applying afresh as per above) can apply for seeking the continuous supply option

at any time during the year. However, continuous supply surcharge for such

existing consumers shall be applicable with effect from May 01, 2015 till March

31, 2016. UPCL shall provide the facility of continuous supply within 7 days from

the date of application, subject to fulfilment of Conditions of Supply as

mentioned in Clause 6 under Tariff Schedule of RTS-7. However, in case of re-

arrangement of supply through independent feeder, UPCL shall provide the

facility of continuous supply from the date of completion of work of independent

feeder subject to fulfilment of Conditions of Supply.



• The existing consumers availing continuous supply option, who wish to

discontinue the continuous supply option granted to them earlier, will have to

communicate, in writing, to UPCL latest by April 30, 2015 and they shall continue

to pay continuous supply surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order

till April 30, 2015. Further, in this regard, if due to withdrawal by one consumer

from availing continuous supply option on a particular feeder, the status of other

continuous supply consumers in that feeder is affected, then UPCL shall inform

all the affected consumers on writing, well in advance.

• UPCL shall not change the status of a continuous supply feeder to a non-

continuous supply feeder.

• UPCL/PTCUL shall take up augmentation, maintenance and overhauling works

on top priority, specially in the sub-stations where circuit breakers, other

equipments, etc. are in dilapidated condition and, thereby, shall ensure

minimisation of interruptions of the continuous supply feeders.

• UPCL/PTCUL shall carry out periodical preventive maintenance of the feeders

supplying to continuous supply consumers. The licensees shall prepare

preventive maintenance schedule, in consultation with continuous supply

consumers, well in advance, so that such consumers can plan their operations,

accordingly.

5.2.3.4 Load Factor Based Slabs for HT Industrial Consumers

During previous tariff determination exercise, some stakeholders suggested that some of the

industries operating in single shift also had to pay the higher tariffs as their load factor worked out

to marginally higher than 33% and this also resulted in mal-practices in certain instances. Some

stakeholders suggested to re-categorise the load factors slabs in two slabs.

Considering the views of some of the stakeholders whose consumption is marginally higher

than 33%, the Commission in the In-house Paper proposed to modify the load factor based slab

structure for HT Industry and specify the tariff for two slabs as under:

Ø Slab 1 : Load Factor upto 40%

Ø Slab 2 : Load Factor above 40%



The Commission in its in-house Paper also mentioned that this will address the issue faced

by some single shift industries whose consumption is marginally above 33% as their total period of

operation would normally be around 9-10 hours per day and even with this modification also, the

effective tariff of HT Industry consumers with the load factor in the range of 33% to 50% will not be

lower than the average cost of supply.

UPCL in response submitted that it was agreeable to the Commission’s proposal of

modifying the load factor based slab structure for HT Industry. However, it requested the

Commission to ensure that the same did not affect the revenue of UPCL adversely. Several other

stakeholders during the public hearing as well as in SAC meeting welcomed the Commission’s

proposal of modifying the load factor based slab structure for HT Industry.

Considering the views of the stakeholders, the Commission has decided to modify the load

factor based slab structure for HT Industry and specified the tariff for two slabs as under:

Ø Slab 1 : Load Factor upto 40%

Ø Slab 2 : Load Factor above 40%

5.2.3.5 Tariff Categorisation for Horticulture and Floriculture Consumers;

Various suggestion from stakeholders including Government of Uttarakhand were received

on not considering horticulture and floriculture consumers as industrial consumers. The

Commission in its in-house paper mentioned that as the activities involved in horticulture and

floriculture are in nature close to agricultural activities, the Commission intends to create a separate

category for the Agriculture Allied Activities which will apply to the consumers engaged in

Horticulture, Floriculture, etc. with an appropriate tariff.

UPCL in its response submitted a copy of GoU’s letter no. 167/I(2)/2015-05-14/2015 dated

February 04, 2015 wherein it had been directed by Cabinet of Ministers to not levy industrial tariff

to such consumers. UPCL, accordingly, requested the Commission to take decision in the matter.

Some other stakeholders during the public process as well as during SAC meeting suggested that in

line with the practice in other States, there should be a separate category for Horticulture and

Floriculture consumers. The Commission, accordingly, has created a new sub-category for such

consumers and has designed the tariffs for such sub-category at 50% of the Average Cost of Supply.

The Commission in order to avoid any ambiguity in identifying such consumers has defined this

sub-category “Agriculture Allied Activities” as follows:



“Agriculture Allied Activities: All Consumers involved in nurseries growing

plants/saplings, polyhouses growing flowers/vegetables and fruits which doesn’t involve any

kind of processing of product except for storing and preservation.”

Such consumers shall now be charged at separate tariff under rates as approved for

“Agricultural Allied Activities”.

5.2.3.6 RTS-4 (Private Tube Well)

The Petitioner has proposed to remove the thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller from this

category mentioning that as these activities are of industrial nature and should be covered by Rate

Schedule RTS-7. The Petitioner however, did not submit any data regarding the load and

consumption in such activities and, hence, it is difficult to assess the impact of the same. In this

regard, the Commission directs the Petitioner to conduct a study to identify and assess the load

and consumption of thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller consumers and submit its report to the

Commission within 6 months from the date of this Order. The Commission shall take a final view

on this after submission of data by the Petitioner in the next tariff exercise.

5.2.3.7 kWh Tariff for PWW

The Petitioner, in its Tariff proposal, has requested the Commission to introduce kWh tariff

for PWW connections with connected load upto 25 kW as the meters capable of recording kVAh

consumption have not been installed till now. The Commission in this regard in its APR Order for

FY 2014-15 stated as follows:

“It is observed that the kVAh tariff has been specified since FY 2009-10 based on the proposal of

Petitioner, raising of this issue after almost five years is amiss and reasons for not providing meters

compatible to tariff prescribed need to be explained by the Petitioner. Hence, the Commission has

decided to continue with existing tariff structure only. The Commission directs the Petitioner to

replace the old meters with new meters capable of recording kVAh consumption within three

months of this Order and also furnish basis of billing so far done to these consumers with

explanation for not providing appropriate meters so far by July 31, 2014.”

The Petitioner in compliance to the above direction vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10,

dated June 17, 2014 submitted that it had issued instructions to the field units to replace all the

meters in Public Water Works category not capable of recording kVAh unit of electricity by new



meters capable of recording kWh unit of electricity. The Petitioner submitted that the work is

expected to be completed by March 31, 2015.

The Commission vide its Order dated April 10, 2014 had already issued the direction to the

Petitioner to replace the old meters with new meters capable of recording kVAh consumption

within three months of the date of the Order. However, failing to ensure timely compliance as

required, the Petitioner vide its letter dated June 17, 2014 informed the Commission that the work of

meter replacement was expected to be completed by March 31, 2015. The Petitioner ignoring its own

submission in this regard the same, in its Petition, yet again requested the Commission to allow it

the kWh tariff for PWW connections with connected load upto 25 kW.

The Commission expresses its displeasure on the repeated non-compliance by UPCL of its

directions, and considering the submissions made by it that the meters shall be replaced by March

31, 2015, the Commission does not find it proper to re-introduce the kWh tariff and, therefore, the

Commission retains the present tariff structure with regard to PWW category.

5.2.3.8 Load Factor Computation for Embedded Open Access Consumers

The Petitioner in its Petition has proposed to modify the Load Factor Computation formula

for embedded open access consumers.

The Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 modified the load factor computation

formula for embedded open access consumers. The Petitioner filed the Review Petition before the

Commission for reviewing the Load Factor Computation Formula. The Commission in its Order

dated November 07, 2014 in Petition No. 24 of 2014 reviewed its Order and modified the formula as

follows:

100period billing in the hours of No. x less is whicheverDemand Contractedor Demand Maximum

period billing theduring Access)Open through receivedenergy the(excludngn Consumptio×

Provided that in cases where maximum demand during the month occurs in period when open access

is being availed by the consumer, then maximum demand for the purpose of computation of load factor

shall be that occurring during the period when no open access is being availed.

The Commission is of the view that this is a case of Review of Order passed by the

Commission on the Review Petition and it is not legally sustainable to consider review of the Order

that was passed on the review petition. The principle that no appeal shall lie from an order passed



in appeal is enshrined in Section 104 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. Hence, there can be no

review of an Order passed in the review.

The Commission has, therefore, decided to continue with the formula as approved by the

Commission in its Order dated November 07,.

5.2.3.9 Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings

The Petitioner has proposed a new sub-category to be introduced in FY 2015-16 as

“Independent Advertisement Hoardings” under Non-Domestic category to differentiate these

consumers as purely commercial in line with the practices adopted in other States. Considering the

power deficit situation in the State, the Commission agrees with the Petitioner’s suggestion to

introduce a separate category for “Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings” having tariffs

higher than the Non-Domestic Category.

However, in order to avoid any ambiguity in identifying such consumers, the Commission

defines such sub-category as follows:

1.2 “Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings: All commercial (road side / roof top or

on the side of the buildings etc.) standalone independent advertisement hoardings such

as private advertising sign posts/ sign boards/ sign glows/flex that are independently

metered through a separate meter.”

Such consumers shall now be charged at separate tariff under rates as approved for

“Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings”.

5.2.3.10 Penalty for exceeding contracted demand

The Petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, drawing of

demand in excess of the contracted demand on any electricity connection is unauthorised use of

electricity and the tariff for such unauthorised use should be at a rate equal to twice the normal

tariff applicable. Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted that the demand charges and energy

charges corresponding to the excess demand should be charged at twice the normal rates.

The Commission is of the view that drawing demand in excess of the contracted demand is

not an unauthorized use as the demand may vary some times for which the higher demand charges

have already been provided in the Tariff Schedule. The unauthorized use means the connection is

taken under one particular category and is being used for some other purpose for which there is a



separate category. Thus, the Commission does not find it appropriate to make any change in this

regard.

5.2.3.11 Fixed Charges, Minimum charges and Minimum Consumption Guarantee

It is a well-accepted economic principle that the fixed costs of the Utility should be

recovered to a certain extent through fixed charges to ensure revenue stability. At the same time, the

Commission recognises that if the entire fixed cost is recovered through fixed charges, then the

Utility shall have no incentive to bother about sales and, hence, quality of supply may suffer.

Historically, the fixed recovery has been done through a mix of minimum charges and fixed

charges. Levy of Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (MCG) is a way of ensuring minimum

revenue to the Utility from the consumers, however, if the consumption exceeds specified units,

then no MCG charges are levied on the consumers and entire charges recovered by the Utility are

through energy/fixed charges.

The fixed charge component reflecting the fixed cost of providing the service to the

consumer and the energy charge component reflecting the cost of energy actually consumed should

ideally be taken in the two-part tariff structure.

Section 45(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 also provides for levy of fixed charges. The relevant

Section is reproduced below:


(a) a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied;

...”

Further, the licensee is incurring fixed cost directly attributable to individual consumers

such as meter reading, bill preparation, bill distribution and collection, which should ideally be

allocated to and recovered from each consumer. One of the guiding factors mentioned in Section 61

of the Electricity Act, 2003 for specifying terms and conditions of tariffs is that the tariff has to be

gradually cost reflective. Considering that levy of higher fixed charges should not impact the

consumers adversely, the Commission, in its Tariff Order dated March 18, 2008, introduced a

nominal fixed charge for all the categories as a progression towards designing the tariff structure

linked to cost structure. Further, in its subsequent Tariff Orders for FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11, FY 2011-

12, FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 considering the level of proportion of fixed costs, as percentage of



total costs of UPCL and level of revenue recovery from fixed charges, the Commission marginally

increased the fixed charges for most of the categories to increase the revenue recovery from fixed

charges and at the same time avoiding tariff shock to any consumer category.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 18, 2008 mentioned that ideally, the fixed

charges should be levied on the basis of contracted/sanctioned load for all the categories. However,

for domestic category, considering the data on sanctioned load which had number of consumers

having fraction of load (<1 kW) and also considering the quality of metering and billing data, the

Commission introduced the fixed charges on per connection basis. The Commission in its Tariff

Order dated October 23, 2009, specified different fixed charges on per connection basis for domestic

consumers having contracted/sanctioned load upto 4 kW and consumers having contracted

/sanctioned load above 4 kW. Further, as discussed above, the Commission has for FY 2015-16

introduced consumption based fixed charges for domestic consumers.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 18, 2008 had re-introduced the Minimum

Consumption Guarantee (MCG) Charges for the industrial category and in its Tariff Order dated

October 23, 2009 re-introduced the Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) Charges for the Non-

Domestic Category. The Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2012 has introduced MCG for

metered PTW category also.

Some of the stakeholders submitted that the MCG burdens the consumers with additional

charges and results in wasteful consumption of electricity. They also represented that the MCG on

seasonal industry should be abolished as it encourages unnecessary wastage of electricity by

consumers during off season. Some of the stakeholders also represented that due to demand supply

shortage situation, load shedding is being carried out by UPCL and, hence, MCG should either be

abolished or reduced. Some of the stakeholders also submitted that due to MCG, they are either

forced to consume/waste electricity during off season or are penalized to pay the energy charges

for electricity not consumed by them during off season which is against the principles of energy

efficiency.

The Commission would like to clarify that the MCG is only applicable for the consumers

having very low load factor, in the range of 10-15% with 3-4 hours/day usage of electricity. The

MCG charges would actually be recovered from consumers having abnormally low consumption of

electricity with respect to their sanctioned/contracted load. While for other consumers having



reasonable level of consumption with respect to the load, the MCG charges gets subsumed in

energy charges.

Though the Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 18, 2008 had mentioned that it may

review the continuation of the MCG charges in subsequent Tariff Orders. However, as no

substantial improvement has been achieved by UPCL with respect to metering and billing issues,

the Commission has decided to continue with the levy of MCG charges for entire Industrial

category and for Non-Domestic consumers having contracted load of more than 25 kW and for

PTW Consumers.

Further, the Commission would like to clarify that the minimum consumption guarantee

charges are computed by considering the applicable base energy charges for the relevant category

of consumer alongwith the specified MCG and adjusted only towards the energy charges. Further,

as per the prevalent mechanism, in case cumulative actual consumption, from the beginning of

financial year, exceeds the units specified for annual minimum consumption guarantee (MCG), no

further billing of monthly MCG is done and in such cases, differential paid, in excess of actual

billing is adjusted in the bill for the month of March. This mechanism has been elaborated through

example in the Tariff Schedule. In case of HT Industry, the annual adjustment (refund) of the energy

charges for units billed to cover MCG, if any, shall be given at the energy charge during normal

hours for load factor upto 40%.

The Commission taking into cognisance various representations received for reduction in

MCG and also in line with its plan for gradual elimination of MCG has decided to reduce the MCG

from current level of 60 units/kWh/month to 50 units/kWh/month for all those sub-categories on

which MCG has been currently specified as 60 units/kWh/month. For HT industries the same has

now been fixed at 100 kVAh/kVA/month from the earlier level of 110 kVAh/kVA/month. For Atta

chakkis, the MCG is now revised to 30 units/kWh/month from the existing level of 40

units/kWh/month. This new MCG mechanism shall be applicable from April 01, 2015.

Further, it has come to the notice of the Commission that the consumers issued temporary

connections for non-domestic or industrial usage are also being charged the MCG. In this regard,

the Commission would like to clarify that RTS-10 (Temporary Supply) is applicable to temporary

supply of light & fan, public address system and illumination loads during functions, ceremonies

and festivities, temporary shops and also for power taken for construction purposes including civil



work by all consumers including Government Departments. The rate of charge for such consumers

is the corresponding rate of charge in appropriate Schedule Plus 25%. Hence, a consumer given a

temporary connection for non-domestic or industrial usage in addition to 25% higher charges than a

normal consumer is also subjected to MCG charges irrespective of the period of usage. Hence, if a

consumer has a temporary supply for industrial use for a period of 6 months, he might be subjected

to MCG but he doesn’t get the benefit of annual adjustment of MCG as he surrenders his connection

before the year gets over. Hence, the Commission has decided that MCG shall not be applicable on

consumers given temporary supply.

For PTW consumers, the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 had modified

the Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) mechanism on the basis of units/month and

units/annum. The Commission in this Order reduces MCG to 60 units/BHP/month or 720

units/BHP/annum.

It is observed that bills for these consumers are being issued twice a year as per provision in

the Tariff Order and that such bills are being issued in June and December of each year. The

Commission has also noted certain anomalies in accounting of the energy billed on normative/

minimum consumption guarantee basis. Further, this year, the MCG is being revised. For the sake

of clarity and with a view to ensure uniform basis of billing, the Commission hereunder lays down

the procedure to be followed:

1) For bills to be issued in June 2015:

The MCG per BHP for bills to be issued in June 2015 would be as under:

a) December 2014 to March 2015 – 70 X 4= 280 units

b) April 2015 to May 2015– 60 X 2= 120 units

c) Total – 400 units (280+120)

2) For bills to be issued in December 2015 the MCG shall be reckoned as 360 units/ BHP (60

units per BHP/ month X 6)

The MCG will be attracted only if the actual recorded consumption is lower than MCG

indicated above. In both cases, i.e. for bills based on MCG or based on actual meter

reading adjustment of units and amount included in CS-3 and CS-4 of months December

14 to April 15 and May 2015 to November 2015 shall be ensured. The Commission



directs that the licensee tenders a certificate under affidavit, that appropriate

modification based on the above have been incorporated in its billing software on or

before June 15, 2015.

5.2.3.12 Time of Day Tariff

The Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2010-11 dated April 10, 2010 approved the peak

hour rate as 50% higher than the normal hour rate for Industrial Category. Further, in case of HT

industries, the Commission has specified the peak hour rate as 50% higher than the normal hour

rate applicable for highest load factor slab, i.e. energy charge for load factor above 50% for all the

HT industrial consumers. The Commission kept the rebate during off peak hours to 10% to

incentivise the shift in consumption from peak hours to off peak hours.

The Commission, in each of its tariff determination exercise, has been analysing the shift

from the peak hours to normal and off-peak as well as the consumption pattern during the peak

and off-peak hours. The Commission has analysed the unrestricted load curves of summer as well

as winter month to assess the consumption during peak hour period during these months. The load

curves for the days having highest peak load in the months of summer and winter season, i.e. April

2014, May 2014, January, 2015 and February 2015 have been examined and the same are graphically

presented below:

Graph 1: Load Curve for April 26, 2014



Graph 2: Load Curve for May 22, 2014

Graph 3: Load Curve for January 10, 2015



Graph 4: Load Curve for February 06, 2015

It is observed from the above graphical presentations that during the winter season both

morning as well as evening peak demand exists in the State. Infact, in the months of January and

February, 2015, the morning peak demand has been found to be even higher than the evening peak

demand. The Commission feels the need for DSM and having ToD tariff as a measure for ensuring

curtailment of morning as well as evening peaks. Considering all these aspects, the Commission in

the present Order is continuing with the same Peak, Normal and Off Peak hour duration for ToD

metering slots including percentage of peak hour surcharge and peak hour rebate as approved in

the earlier Tariff Orders for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13, MYT Order for FY 2013-14 and

APR Order for FY 2014-15.

5.2.3.13 Differential Tariff for Rural and Urban for Public Lamp and PWW categories

The Commission observed that the supply hours to rural areas for Public Lamps and PWW

categories is considerably lower as compared to Urban areas and, accordingly, the load factor for

these categories in rural areas works out to be substantially lower than the urban areas. The

Commission has, therefore, decided to fix differential fixed charges for urban and rural consumers.

Hence, the Commission has kept fixed charges for these categories in rural areas lower than that in

urban areas.

5.2.3.14 Tariff for Unmetered Consumers

Section 55(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 stipulates as under:



“No licensee shall supply electricity, after the expiry of two years from the appointed date, except

through installation of a correct meter in accordance with regulations to be made in this behalf by the

Authority:”

The Commission in its previous Orders have been directing UPCL to meter all the

consumers. The Commission in its MYT Order dated May 6, 2013 directed the Petitioner as follows:

“The Commission hereby directs the Petitioner that no new connection should be released without

installation of proper meters. Further, the Petitioner is directed to submit the detailed Action Plan

giving timeframe in which it intends to meter the remaining unmetered consumers within 2 months

of the date of the Order.”

The Commission in its MYT Order dated May 6, 2013 also submitted that as the Petitioner

has sought time for metering the unmetered rural domestic consumers, the Commission is

permitting to retain this sub-category.

The Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 directed the Petitioner as follows:

“The Commission now accords final opportunity to ensure that all unmetered consumers are metered

by September 30, 2014. The Commission intends to discontinue prescribing norms of billing and

tariff for unmetered consumers from ensuing years.”

UPCL was required to meter all the unmetered consumers by September 30, 2014. However,

in compliance to the directions, UPCL submitted that there were 6373 unmetered connections as on

31-07-2014 and it had metered 169 unmetered connections from April to September, 2014. The

remaining unmetered connections would be metered by 30-06-2015.

Despite categorical directions in this regard & repeated non-compliance of the Act & Orders

of the Commission, UPCL has again proposed to meter all the remaining unmetered connections by

30th June 2015. The Commission has now decided to discontinue the unmetered tariff and has,

accordingly, not approved the tariff for unmetered consumers separately. Till the meter reading is

carried for such consumers, the billing for the converted unmetered connections into metered

connections will be done as detailed out in Rate Schedule enclosed at Annexure-1.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to meter all the remaining unmetered connections

immediately and submit compliance to the Commission latest by 31st May, 2015.



5.2.4 Treatment of Revenue Gap

As concluded in Chapter 4 of the Order, the revenue at existing tariffs leaves a revenue gap

of Rs. 305.45 Crore to meet the ARR for FY 2015-16, post adjustment of the revenue surplus and gap

determined after truing up of expenses and revenue based on the audited accounts for FY 2013-14.

The Commission in order to recover the gap has revised the tariffs for FY 2015-16. The

approved tariff will be applicable from April 1, 2015 and will be effective till revised by the

Commission.

5.2.5 Cross Subsidy

As per the provisions of Tariff Policy, the Regulatory Commission has to reduce the cross

subsidies with respect to cost of supply in a gradual manner. The Commission in its MYT Order for

FY 2013-14 dated May 06, 2013 had computed the cross subsidies for different category of

subsidising consumers which were in accordance with the Tariff Policy. Further, since the

Commission in its APR order for FY 2014-15 did not revise the tariff, the cross subsidy levels

remained the same as that approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013.

The Commission has now revised the tariff and ensured that the cross subsidy has reduced

with respect to previous levels and the same is in accordance with the Tariff Policy.

5.2.6 Category-wise Tariff Design

The Commission has designed the category-wise tariffs for full recovery of approved

Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2015-16. The category-wise tariffs approved by the

Commission are discussed below and are also shown in the Approved Rate Schedule placed at

Annexure-1. These rates shall be effective from April 1, 2015 and shall continue to be applicable till

further revised by the Commission.

5.2.6.1 RTS-1: Domestic Tariff

The Commission, recognising the fact that lifeline consumers were one of the most

economically weaker sections of the consumers, in its Tariff Order for FY 2003-04 had approved a

tariff of Rs. 1.50/kWh for such consumers when the average cost of supply was Rs. 2.28/kWh.

Considering the fact that the Tariff Policy permits that the tariffs for such lifeline consumers can be

determined at 50% of the average cost of supply, the Commission in order to gradually reduce the



cross subsidy and also to enable the licensee to recover some of its Fixed Cost, in its Tariff Order for

FY 2011-12 dated May 24, 2011 had introduced a Fixed Charges of Rs. 5/connection/month which

was further nominally increased to Rs. 6/connection /month and then to Rs. 7/connection/month

in the Tariff Order for FY 2012-13 dated April 11, 2012 and MYT Order dated May 06, 2013

respectively.

Since the average cost of supply has increased further, therefore, with a view to reduce the

cross-subsidy, the fixed charges of lifeline consumer have now been increased from Rs.

7/connection /month to Rs. 11/connection/month. However, the energy charges have not been

increased and are kept intact at Rs. 1.50/kWh.

For other domestic consumers, as discussed in the previous section the Commission had

taken a view to introduce fixed charges linked to consumption. As per the prevailing tariff structure

differential fixed charges have been determined for consumers with connected load upto 4 kW and

above 4 kW. The current fixed charges are Rs. 35/ connection/month for consumers with load upto

4 kW and Rs. 90/connection/month for consumers with load above 4 kW. The Commission as

discussed earlier has now decided to introduce slab wise differential fixed charges linked to the

consumption. Accordingly, the Commission has approved the fixed charges linked to consumption

as follows:

• For Consumption upto first 100 units/month - Rs. 35/connection/month

• For Consumption between 101-200 units/month – Rs. 50/connection/month

• For Consumption between 201-300 units/month - Rs. 70/connection/month

• For Consumption between 301-400 units/month – Rs. 95/connection/month

• For Consumption between 401 -500 units/month – Rs. 120/connection/month

• For Consumption above 500 units/month - Rs. 145 /connection/month

The energy charges for lowest slab, i.e. consumption upto 100 units/month have been

nominally increased from the existing level of Rs. 2.30/kWh to Rs. 2.40/kWh. The energy charges

for the second slab, i.e. for consumption between 101-200 units/month have been fixed as Rs.

2.90/kWh. The energy charges for the third slab, i.e. for consumption between 201-400 units/month

energy charges have been fixed as Rs. 3.80/kWh, for consumers having consumption above 400

units/month, the energy charges have been fixed at Rs. 4.00/kWh.



For single point bulk supply connections, the energy charges have been increased to Rs.

3.40/kWh from Rs. 3.15/kWh and fixed charges has been increased to Rs. 40/kW/month from Rs.

35/kW/month.

A comparison of the tariff, i.e. existing, proposed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission, is given in the Table below:

Table 5.3 : Tariff for Domestic Consumers

S. No Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved

Fixed Charge (Per Month)

Energy Charges


Energy Charges

Fixed Charge

(Per Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-1: Domestic 1.1 Life Line Consumers Rs. 7/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 10/

Connection Rs.

1.90/kWh Rs. 11/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh

1.2 Other Domestic Consumers

(i) 0-100 Units / Month

Rs. 35/ Connection upto 4 KW

and Rs. 90/connection

for above 4 kW

Rs. 2.30/kWh

Rs. 45/ Connection upto 4 KW

and Rs 120/connection for above 4 kW

Rs. 2.90/kWh

Rs.35/ Connection

Rs. 2.40/kWh

(ii) 101-200 Units / Month Rs. 2.70/kWh

Rs. 3.40/kWh

Rs.50/ Connection

Rs. 2.90/kWh

(iii) 201-300 Units /Month Rs. 3.35/kWh

Rs. 4.20/kWh

Rs.70/ Connection

Rs. 3.80/kWh

(iv) 301-400 Units /Month Rs. 3.35/kWh

Rs. 4.20/kWh

Rs.95/ Connection

Rs. 3.80/kWh

(v) 401-500 Units /Month Rs. 3.50/kWh

Rs. 4.40/kWh

Rs.120/ Connection

Rs. 4.00/kWh

(vi) Above 500 Units/Month Rs. 3.50/kWh

Rs. 4.40/kWh

Rs.145/ Connection

Rs. 4.00/kWh

2 Single point bulk supply Rs. 35/kW Rs. 3.15/kWh Rs. 45/kW Rs.

4.00/kWh Rs. 40/kW Rs. 3.40/kWh

5.2.6.2 RTS 1-A: Concessional Snowbound Area Tariff

As discussed above, the Commission has decided to continue with the RTS 1-A Concessional

Snowbound Area Category. The Commission has increased the tariffs for domestic and non-

domestic consumers in snow bound areas to gradually reduce the cross subsidy.

A comparison of the tariff, i.e. existing, proposed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission, is given in the Table below:



Table 5.4 : Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas

S. No Description



Energy Charges


Energy Charges


Energy Charges

RTS-1A: Snowbound 1 Domestic Rs. 7/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Not Proposed Rs. 11/ Connection

Rs. 1.50/kWh

2 Non-Domestic upto 1 kW

Rs. 7/ Connection

Rs. 1.50/kWh Not Proposed Rs. 11/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh

3 Non-Domestic above 1 kW & upto 4 kW

Rs. 7/ Connection


Connection Rs.

2.25/kWh

4 Non-Domestic above 4 kW

Rs. 14/ Connection


Connection Rs.

3.40/kWh

5.2.7 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff

For Non-domestic consumers, the Commission has increased the energy charges and fixed

charges to enable the licenses to recover its fixed cost and revenue gap. The Commission has

separately specified the tariff for concessional sub-category of educational institutions, hospitals

and charitable institutions, which shall include:

• Government/Municipal Hospitals;

• Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions; and

• Charitable Institutions registered under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and

whose income is exempted from tax under this Act.

Further, as discussed in preceding section, the Commission had decided to introduce a new

sub-category as “Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings” under RTS 2 and has fixed tariff

for the same separately.

Further, the Commission has reduced the MCG to 50 kVAh/kW/month and 600

kVAh/kW/ annum for non-domestic consumers having load above 25 kW. The existing tariff, tariff

proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in Table below:



Table 5.5: Tariff for Non-domestic consumers

Sl. No. Description


Fixed / Charges

(Per Month)

Energy Charges MCG

Fixed / Demand Charges

(Per Month)

Energy Charges MCG


(Per Month)

Energy Charges MCG

1 Government, Educational Institutions and Hospitals etc.

1.1 Upto 25 kW Rs. 35/ kW

Rs 3.85/ kWh

Rs. 45/ kW

Rs 4.90/ kWh

Rs. 40/ kW

Rs 4.05/ kWh

1.2 Above 25 kW Rs. 35/ kVA

Rs 3.45/ kVAh

60 kVAh /kVA

/month & 720 kVAh/

kVA/annum

Rs. 45/ kVA

Rs 4.50/ kVAh

60 kVAh /kVA

/month & 720 kVAh/

kVA/annum

Rs. 45/ kVA

Rs 3.65/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/annum 2 Other Non-Domestic Users

2.1

Upto 4 kW and

consumption upto 50 units

per month

Rs. 35 / kW

Rs 4.00/ kWh

Rs. 45 / kW

Rs 5.10/ kWh

Rs. 45 / kW

Rs 4.20/ kWh

2.2

Others upto 25 kW not

covered in 2.1 above

Rs. 35 / kW

Rs 4.55/ kWh

Rs. 45 / kW

Rs 5.75/ kWh

Rs. 45 / kW

Rs 4.85/ kWh

2.3 Above 25 kW Rs. 35 / kVA

Rs 4.55/ kVAh

60 kVAh /kVA

/month & 720 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs 5.75/ kVAh

60 kVAh /kVA

/month & 720 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs 4.75/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

3 Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW

Rs. 35 / kVA

Rs 4.45/ kVAh

60 kVAh /kVA

/month & 720 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 45/ kVA

Rs 5.65/ kVAh

60 kVAh /kVA

/month & 720 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs 4.65/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

4 Independent

Advertisement Hoardings

Rs. 200 / kW

Rs. 8.00/kWh Rs. 60/

kW Rs.

4.90/kWh

5.2.8 RTS-3: Public Lamps

As discussed above, the Commission has decided to approve differential tariff for urban and

rural consumers. However, the tariff for this category has been approved in such a manner so that

the average billing rate for category is close to average cost of supply. The existing tariff, tariff

proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in the Table below:



Table 5.6 : Tariff for Public Lamps

Description


Fixed / Demand Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-3: Public Lamps 3.1 Urban 1. Metered Rs. 30/kW Rs. 4.10/

kWh Rs. 40/kW Rs. 5.15/ kWh Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

3.2 Rural 1. Metered Rs. 30/kW Rs. 4.10/

kWh - - Rs. 35/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

5.2.9 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump sets and Agriculture Allied Activities

The Commission in order to gradually reduce the cross subsidy to this category has

increased the tariff for this category of consumers. The Petitioner has proposed a tariff of Rs.

230/BHP/Month from the existing rate of Rs. 180/BHP/Month for unmetered consumers and

energy charges of Rs. 1.40/kWh from Rs. 1.10/kWh for metered consumers.

As already discussed, the Commission has decided to do away with the unmetered tariff,

hence, the Commission has approved a energy charge of Rs. 1.40/kWh for all the Tubewell

consumers.

As dicsused earlier, the Commission has reduced the Minimum Consumption Guarantee

level to 60 units /BHP/month on monthly basis and 720 units /BHP/annum on annual basis. The

Commission would like to clarify that minimum consumption guarantee is strictly not a tariff and

will be levied on monthly basis only when monthly bill is less than the amount specified for

monthly minimum charges. In case, cumulative actual consumption from the beginning of financial

year exceeds the amount specified for annual minimum consumption charges, no further billing of

monthly minimum consumption shall be done and the same shall be adjusted as detailed in Tariff

Schedule.

Further, as discussed earlier, the Commission has created new sub-category for Agriculture

Allied Activities and the Commission has fixed the tariffs for such sub-category at 50% of Average

Cost of Supply. The minimum consumption charges as applicable for PTW category shall also be

applicable for this sub-category.



The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission are

given in the Table below:

Table 5.7: Tariff for Private tube Wells/ Pump Sets

Category

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved Fixed /

Demand Charges

(Per Month)

Energy Charges

Minimum Charges


(Per Month)

Energy Charges

Minimum Charges


(Per Month)

Energy Charges

Minimum Charges

RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets

Metered Nil Rs. 1.10/ kWh

70 units/ BHP/

month & 840

units/BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.40/ kWh

70 units/ BHP/

month &. 840 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.40/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month & 720 units /BHP/ annum

RTS-4A:

Metered Nil Rs. 2.25/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month & 720 units /BHP/ annum

5.2.10 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System

The tariff for this category has been approved in such a manner so that the average billing

rate for this category is close to the average cost of supply without any element of cross-subsidy.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in

the Table below:

Table 5.8: Tariff for Government Irrigation System

Description



Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-5: Government Irrigation System Upto 75 kW Rs. 30/kW Rs. 4.10/ kWh Rs. 40/kW Rs. 5.15/ kWh Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

Above 75 kW Rs. 30/kVA Rs. 3.95/ kVAh Rs. 40/kVA Rs. 5.00/

kVAh Rs. 40/kVA Rs. 4.20/ kVAh

5.2.11 RTS-6: Public Water Works

As discussed earlier the Commission has decided to allow separate tariff for urban and rural

consumers under PWW. The tariff for this category has been approved so that the average billing



rate for this category is close to average cost of supply. The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the

licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in the Table below:

Table 5.9 : Tariff for Public Water Works

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

Urban Rs. 30/kVA Rs. 4.00/ kVAh

Rs. 45/kW Rs. 5.10/ kWh Rs. 40/kVA Rs. 4.25/


Rural Rs. 30/kVA Rs. 4.00/

kVAh - - Rs. 35/kVA Rs. 4.25/ kVAh

5.2.12 RTS-7: Industry

The Commission while determining the tariff of HT and LT Industries have taken into

consideration average cost of supply and cross subsidy. The Commission has ensured that the cross

subsidy for this category has reduced from the existing levels.

Further, as discussed in the preceding section, the Commission with regard to HT industrial

consumers has decided to keep only two slabs, i.e. industries with load factor below 40% and with

load factor above 40%.

The Commission has decided to retain the peak hour rate as 50% higher than the normal

hour rate applicable for highest slab, i.e. with load factor above 50% for all the HT industrial

consumers. Further, consumers opting for continuous supply as per eligibility given in this Order

shall have to pay 15% additional energy charges as continuous supply surcharge.

Further, as discussed above in tariff rationalisation measures, the Commission has retained

MCG on monthly basis with adjustment as detailed out in Tariff Schedule. The existing tariff, tariff

proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission for LT Industry is given in the

Table below:



Table 5.10: Tariff for LT Industries

Category

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved Fixed

Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges MCG

Fixed Charges

(Per Month)

Energy Charges MCG

Fixed Charges

(Per Month)

Energy Charges MCG

RTS-7: Industry LT Industry 1. LT Industries (upto 25 kW)

Rs. 100/ kW

Rs. 3.75/ kWh

*60 kWh/ kW/month &

720 kWh /kW/annum

Rs. 130/ kW

Rs. 4.65/ kWh

*60 kWh/ kW/month &

720 kWh /kW/annum

Rs. 105/ kW

Rs. 3.95/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

2. LT Industries (above 25kW & upto 75 kW)

Rs. 100/ kVA

Rs. 3.40/ kVAh

60 kVAh/ kVA/month &

720 kVAh /kVA/ annum

Rs. 130/ kVA

Rs. 4.30/ kVAh



Rs. 105/ kVA

Rs. 3.60/ kVAh



*30 kWh/kW/month and 360 kWh/kW/annum for Atta Chakkis.

The existing tariff and tariff proposed by the licensee for HT Industry is given in the Table

below:

Table 5.10: Existing and Proposed Tariff for HT Industries

Sl. No. Category Load Factor

Existing Tariff Proposed Tariff

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)

Fixed /Demand Charges

(Rs./kVA)

MCG Charges

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)

Fixed /Demand Charges

(Rs./kVA)

MCG Charges

1 HT Industry having contracted load above 88kVA/75 kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA

Upto 33% 3.05 Rs. 210/kVA of

the billable demand

110 kVAh/kVA/month & 1320 kVAh

/kVA/ annum

3.85 Rs. 270/kVA of the billable

demand 110

kVAh/kVA/month &1320

kVAh /kVA/a

nnum

Above 33% and upto 50% 3.30 4.15

Above 50% 3.60 4.55

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA

Upto 33% 3.05 Rs. 270/kVA of

the billable demand

3.85 Rs. 345/kVA of the billable

demand

Above 33% and upto 50% 3.30 4.15

Above 50% 3.60 4.55



The approved tariff for HT Industry is given in Table below:

Table 5.11: Approved Tariff for HT Industry

S. No Category Load Factor

Energy Charges

Fixed Charges MCG

Rs./kVAh Rs./kVA/ month

kVAh/kVA of contracted load

1 HT Industry having contracted load above 88kVA/75 kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.40 Rs. 230/kVA of the billable

demand 100 kVAh/kVA/month & 1200 kVAh

/kVA/annum

Above 40% 3.75

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.40 Rs. 290/kVA of the billable

demand Above 40% 3.75

5.2.13 RTS-8: Mixed Load

The Commission has increased the tariff for this category to reduce the level of cross

subsidy. The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in the Table below:

Table 5.12: Tariff for Mixed Load

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Tariff Design Fixed /

Demand Charges

Per Month)

Energy Charges


Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-8: Mixed Load Mixed Load Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW including MES as deemed licensee

Rs. 40/ kW Rs. 3.80/ kWh Rs. 50/ kW Rs. 4.80/ kWh Rs. 50/ kW Rs. 4.15/

kWh

5.2.14 RTS-9: Railway Traction

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Tables below:

Table 5.13: Tariff for Railway Traction

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Tariff Design Fixed /

Demand Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-9: Railway Traction

Rs. 190/kVA Rs. 3.25/ kVAh Rs. 240/kVA Rs. 4.10/




5.3 Revenue for FY 2015-16

Considering the revised tariffs, the Commission has computed the projected revenue at the

approved tariffs from each category for FY 2015-16. The summary of category-wise projected

revenue for FY 2015-16 is given in the following Table:

Table 5.14: Revenue for FY 2015-16

S No Category Sales Revenue Average Billing Rate

MU Rs. Crore Rs./Unit 1 RTS-1: Domestic 2477 820.97 3.31 2 RTS-2: Non Domestic 1214 621.12 5.12 3 RTS-3: Public Lamps 44 19.97 4.50 4 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 226 36.63 1.62 5 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 117 53.50 4.56 6 RTS-6: Public Water Works 317 142.09 4.48 7 RTS-7: Industry 5734 2769.25 4.83 LT Industry 324 157.01 4.85 HT Industry 5410 2612.24 4.83

8 RTS-8: Mixed Load 219 95.18 4.34 9 RTS-9: Railway Traction 12 6.08 5.04

10 Sub-Total 10361 4564.78 4.41 11 Revenue on Account of Efficiency Improvement 61 27.01 4.41 12 Total 10422 4591.79 4.41

The estimated revenue for FY 2015-16 works out to Rs. 4591.79 Crore, as against the net ARR

of Rs. 4590.88 Crore worked out after adjusting trued-up surplus/gaps of previous years, leaving a

surplus of Rs. 0.91 Crore.

5.4 Cross Subsidy

As discussed above, the Commission has designed the tariffs for various categories with an

objective of gradually reducing the cross subsidy with respect to average cost of supply. The extent

of category-wise cross-subsidy at approved tariffs computed at average cost of supply is given in

the Table below:



Table 5.15 : Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply

Category Approved Average Billing

Rate (ABR) Average Cost of Supply (ACoS) ABR / ACoS Cross

Subsidy Rs./kWh Rs./kWh % %

Domestic 3.31 4.41 75.16% -24.84% Non Domestic 5.12 4.41 116.05% 16.05% Public Lamps 4.50 4.41 102.13% 2.13% PTW 1.62 4.41 36.76% -63.24% GIS 4.56 4.41 103.37% 3.37% PWW 4.48 4.41 101.66% 1.66% LT Industrial 4.85 4.41 109.92% 9.92% HT Industrial 4.83 4.41 109.49% 9.49% Mixed Load 4.34 4.41 98.34% -1.66% Railways 5.04 4.41 114.38% 14.38%

The comparison of Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs with respect to the Average Cost of

Supply in Tariff Order for FY 2013-14 and as approved in this Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 is given

below:

Table 5.16 : Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2013-14 and FY 2015-16

Category Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariff for FY 2013-14

Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariff for FY 2015-16

Domestic -26.86% -24.84% Non Domestic 16.05% 16.05% PTW -63.98% -63.24% GIS 0.04% 3.37% Public Lamps -0.59% 2.13% PWW -0.47% 1.66% LT Industrial 10.09% 9.92% HT Industrial 9.53% 9.49% Mixed Load 14.70% -1.66% Railways -5.94% 14.38%

The Commission while designing the tariffs for FY 2015-16 has either reduced or retained

the cross subsidies for most of the categories with respect to approved tariffs for FY 2013-14 and has

ensured to bring the cross-subsidy levels within the range specified in the National Tariff Policy. It

can be seen from the Table above, cross-subsidies of all the subsidising consumers is within the

range of 120% as required in the Tariff Policy.

The Commission going forward in future years would attempt to reduce the cross-subsidy

for subsidised categories with respect to the average cost of supply and would reduce the cross

subsidies in next 2-3 years to adhere to the provisions of Tariff Policy.



Further, once the cross-subsidy level has been reduced to be within +20%, there is no

mandate under the Act or Tariff Policy to reduce it further. The criteria of ± 20 % of the average cost

of supply for all the categories including subsidised categories depends upon the consumption mix

of the Licensee. However, in case of the Petitioner, the consumption mix is skewed towards

subsidising categories with subsidising categories constituting almost two third of total sales, while

the consumption by subsidised categories is around one third of the total consumption. Therefore,

in case of Petitioner, though the tariff for all the subsidising categories have been within 120% of the

overall average cost of supply of the Petitioner, the average tariff for some of the subsidised

categories is less than 80% of the overall average cost of supply of the Petitioner.

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity, in its Judgment dated February 28, 2012, in

Appeal No. 159 of 2011 has expressed similar views. The relevant extract given in Para 16 of the

Judgment is reproduced as under:

“.... Provision of restricting cross subsidy to +/- 20% in Tariff Policy is applicable to areas where

proportion of both the categories, subsidizing and subsidized, are comparable. The same yard stick

cannot be applied in areas where consumer mix is highly biased in favour on one category.”

5.5 Open Access Charges

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra State Open

Access) Regulations, 2015 inter-alia specify wheeling charges applicable on the customers seeking

open access through distribution system, based on the category/nature of open access these

customers come under in accordance with the regulations.

In accordance with the methodology provided in the regulations, the rate of these charges

for FY 2015-16 (applicable upto 31st March 2016) are based on the Tariff approved by the

Commission for the financial year 2015-16.

Wheeling Charges applicable for FY 2015-16 shall be:

Table 5.17: Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2015-16 Description Rs. /MW/day

Wheeling Charges 10067.71

*“Embedded open access consumers” shall not pay the wheeling charge as above who shall

otherwise pay net wheeling charges calculated in accordance with the methodology



specified in the regulations and the same works out to Rs. 1963.60/MW/day for HT

industry consumers and Rs. 8810.18/MW/day for Non-Domestic consumers.

However, where a dedicated distribution system for open access has been constructed for

exclusive use of an open access customer, the wheeling charges for such dedicated system shall be

worked out by the distribution licnesee for its respective system and shall get it approved by the

Commission and will be borne entirely by such open access customer till such time the surplus

capacity is allotted and used by other open access customers, where after, the cost of the above

sytem will be shared on pro-rata basis depending upon open access capacity allotted to them.

Provided that wheeling charges shall not be levied on the open access customers connected

to the transmission system at 132 kV and above voltage levels.

The distribution losses applicable to open access customers for FY 2015-16 shall be the

pooled average system distribution losses, i.e. 15.00% considered in this Order.

Cross subsidy surcharge applicable, in accordance with the regulations, to open access

customers for FY 2015-16 have been determined as Rs. 0.42/kWh.


6. Review of Commercial Performance of the Petitioner

6.1 General Uttarakhand, the 27th State of India was created on 9th November 2000 as the 10th

Himalayan State of the country blessed with the natural resources in abundance with an approx.

53,483 sq. km area and presently having a population of approximately 101.17 lakh. The Electricity

Distribution Network in the State of Uttarakhand is managed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation

Ltd (UPCL) the sole distribution licensee in the State. UPCL, had been entrusted to cater to the

Transmission & Distribution Sectors inherited after the de-merger from UPPCL (erstwhile UPSEB)

since 1st April 2001. The Electricity Act, 2003 mandated the separation of Transmission functions

under Power Sector Reforms. Consequently, on 1st June 2004, the Power Transmission Corporation

Limited (PTCUL) was formed to maintain & operate 132 KV & above Transmission Lines &

substations in the State.

Today UPCL, the sole Power Distribution Utility of the State of Uttarakhand caters to the

Sub –Transmission & Distribution, owns & operates Substations & Distribution Lines of 66 KV &

below voltages in 13 Districts of Uttarakhand namely Dehradun, Pauri, Tehri, Uttarkashi,

Rudraprayag, Chamoli, Haridwar, Pithoragarh, Bageshwar, Almora, Nainital, Champawat, &

Udhamsingh Nagar details of which are given below in Table 6.1 & 6.2.

Table 6.1: Detail of Sub-stations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2014

S. No. Name of District

66/11 kV S/s 33/11 kV S/s 11/0.415/11 kV S/s

Nos. No. of Transformers

Total MVA capacity Nos. No. of

Transformers Total MVA

capacity Nos. Total MVA capacity

Garhwal Zone 1 Dehradun 51 99 619 5766 666 2 Uttarkashi 8 13 44 1720 57 3 Pauri 31 50 211 5223 227 4 Tehri 14 23 101 3466 127 5 Chamoli 4 6 48 10 15 55 1914 68 6 Rudraprayag 5 6 28 1647 48 7 Haridwar 51 106 884 13295 847

Total Garhwal Zone 4 6 48 170 312 1942 33031 2041 Kumaon Zone

1 Nainital 28 50 281 4328 380 2 U.S. Nagar 45 94 691 10432 654 3 Almora 20 35 107 3939 136 4 Bageshwar 6 10 32 1697 55 5 Pithoragarh 15 23 106 3238 106 6 Champawat 7 11 45 1275 46

Total Kumaon Zone 0 0 0 121 223 1261 24909 1377 Total UPCL 4 6 48 291 535 3203 57940 3419

6.Review of Commercial Performance of the Petitioner


Table 6.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2014 S. No. Name of District 66 kV Line (In Km.) 33 kV Line (in Km) 11 kV Line (in Km) LT Line (in Km)

Garhwal Zone 1 Dehradun 834 5247 10471 2 Uttarkashi 248 1525 2127 3 Pauri 603 5046 7168 4 Tehri 364 3786 3953 5 Chamoli 121 173 1957 2775 6 Rudraprayag 134 1217 1720 7 Haridwar 416 3248 4186

Total Garhwal Zone 121 2772 22026 32400 Kumaon Zone

1 Nainital 20 328 2679 4315 2 U.S. Nagar 503 3544 4251 3 Almora 354 3025 4575 4 Bageshwar 136 1562 2190 5 Pithoragarh 229 2796 3336 6 Champawat 166 1647 2136

Total Kumaon Zone 20 1716 15252 20803 Total UPCL 141 4488 37278 53203

The State has distinct advantage over other comparable State as a small number of

consumers consume major share of power and hence a large portion of revenue of the Petitioner

comes from a very small number of consumers. There were 17.03 Lakh consumers as on March 2013

and 17.83 Lakh consumers as on March 2014. This increase of total 79,993 consumers during the

year was primarily in Domestic category. The Consumer Mix, Consumption pattern & Revenue for

FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14 are elaborated below:

6.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14

As at the end of FY 2012-13, out of the total approximately 17.03 Lakh consumers in the

State, the composition of the consumer mix for Domestic, Non-Domestic & Industrial category of

consumers was 87.51%, 10.18% & 0.65% respectively. It was also observed that during the FY 2012-

13, industrial (HT+LT Industries) consumers which were only about 0.65% of total consumers in

number, contributed about 63.92% of Petitioner’s revenue. The following Chart depicts the

consumers mix in the State during FY 2012-13.



CHART 1: Consumer Mix (FY 2012-13)

In FY 2013-14, out of the total approximately 17.83 Lakh consumers in the State, there were

87.52%-Domestic consumers, 10.18%-Non-Domestic consumers and only 0.62% consumers of the

Industrial category. It is seen that these industrial (HT+LT Industries) consumers contributed about

63% of Petitioner’s revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumers mix in the State during FY

2013-14.

CHART 2: Consumer Mix (FY 2013-14)



6.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14

In FY 2012-13, it was observed that with respect to the %age of total consumption of the

State, the consumption of Industrial consumers (HT+LT Industries) was 56.95% and for Domestic &

Non-Domestic consumers the consumption was 20.98% & 11.12% respectively. The following Chart

shows the consumption pattern in the State during FY 2012-13.

CHART 3: Consumption Pattern during FY 2012-13

In FY 2013-14, it was observed that with respect to the %age of total consumption of the

State, the consumption of Industrial consumers (HT+LT Industries) was 56.17% and for Domestic &

Non-Domestic consumers the consumption was 23.23% & 10.96% respectively. The following Chart

shows the consumption pattern in the State during FY 2013-14.



CHART 4: Consumption Pattern during FY 2013-14

Comparison of consumption pattern in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 depicts that %age share

of Industrial consumption has decreased by 0.78%, whereas, %age share of domestic consumption

has increased by 2.25% and the %age share of non-domestic consumption has decreased by 0.16%. It

has also been noticed that besides other reasons for decrease in industrial consumption, one of the

primary reasons for this decrease is due to implementation of Open Access Mechanism which gives

liberty to the consumer to arrange power from sources located outside the State via short term Open

Access agreements through power exchanges. Considering this fact, in case the Petitioner does not

improve its performance and ensure the availability, quality and reliability of power for these

consumers, the volume of power being sold by the Petitioner to this category of consumers may get

reduced progressively. The following table gives the quantum of power traded through Exchanges

(Open Access) by the Embedded Open Access Consumers.

Table 6.3: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access

Year Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access (MU) FY 2011-12 10.34 FY 2012-13 100.93 FY 2013-14 281.03



6.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-14

With regard to the revenue from sale of energy during FY 2012-13, the contribution of

Industrial consumers was 63.92% [HT Industrial consumers was 60.14%, LT industrial consumers

was 3.79%] and of Domestic consumers were contributing around 14.54%. The following Chart

shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer categories in the State.

CHART 5: Revenue Pattern in FY 2012-13

With regard to the revenue from sale of energy during FY 2013-14, the contribution of

Industrial consumers was 63.00% [HT Industrial consumers was 59.37%, LT industrial consumers

was 3.63%] and of Domestic consumers were contributing around 15.92%. The following Chart

shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer categories in the State.

CHART 6: Revenue Mix in FY 2013-14



On comparing the revenues of FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14, it is noticed that the %age

revenue share of Industrial Consumers & non-domestic consumers with respect to the total revenue

had decreased by 0.93% & 0.35%, whereas the %age revenue share of domestic consumers had

increased by 1.37%.

6.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance

The Commission has been monitoring & reviewing the performance of the Petitioner based

on the information/reports submitted by it, further, by conducting study of various performance

parameters and also through field visits of various sub-divisions/divisions of the Petitioner. Being

of the view that higher distribution losses in distribution system are detrimental to financial and

commercial viability of the Petitioner, this analysis of Petitioner’s performance especially in respect

of metering, billing and revenue collection is vital with focus on reducing the Aggregate Technical

and Commercial (AT&C) losses of the Petitioner. With the performance analysis of the Petitioner

with respect to metering, billing and collection activities and other factors affecting Commercial &

financial performance of the Petitioner, the Commission from its very first Tariff Order has been

issuing various directions/Orders in this regard from time to time. However, the Petitioner has

always been non-compliant. The Commission had, therefore, decided to monitor the commercial

performance of the Petitioner in a more structured way on a monthly basis and, accordingly,

prescribed formats were issued to the Petitioner vide Commission’s letter UERC/7/CL/152/2008-

09/284 dated 17.05.2012. Details of the formats prescribed by the Commission are as follows:

Table 6.4: Formats prescribed vide Commission’s letter dated 17.05.2012 Particular Information required on Format

Metering

a) Status of NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF Annexure 1 b) Circle-wise Status report of Defective meters Replacement Annexure 1(A)

c) Ghost/Fictitious Consumers Annexure 2 d) Replacement of Mechanical meters Annexure 5 e) Un-metered Connections Annexure 6

Billing

a) SB cases Annexure 3 b) NB cases Annexure 3(2) c) Outstanding Arrears Annexure 4 d) Load Factor of KCC Consumers Annexure 7 e) Rate of Energy Input Annexure 8

AT&C Losses of UPCL AT&C losses Annexure 9 Audit Report of 11 kV Feeders Audit Report of 11 kV Feeders Annexure 10



The Petitioner was directed to submit the above information in these Formats regularly for

each month by 15th day of the next month.

Despite, the specific directions issued by the Commission in its previous Tariff Order for FY

2014-15, the Petitioner has neither been submitting the periodical reports timely nor in accordance

with the prescribed formats. Notwithstanding the aforesaid anomalies, the Commission examined

the reports submitted by the Petitioner and observed that the Petitioner has been submitting the

erroneous reports lacking consistency in information rendering any trend analysis of its

performance parameters/indices month on month basis.

Going by the past experience of performance monitoring of the petitioner, the Commission

felt that monitoring should be on Division basis. In order to quantify the improvement on month on

month basis on any of the performance indicators, it is necessary that Division wise targets on each

parameter be provided by the licensee which would make the whole monitoring process more

meaningful. Hence, the Commission vide its letter no. UERC/5/Tech/112/2014-15/1622 dated

27.11.2014 issued following revised Commercial Performance Monitoring formats directing UPCL

to submit information on these formats in hard as well as in soft copy (MS-excel file in CD) on

regular basis latest by 25th day of the next month from January, 2015 onwards:

Table 6.5: Revised Formats prescribed by the Commission vide letter dated 27.11.2014 S. No. Description Format

1 No. of Consumers 1 2 Quarterly Targets of NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF 2 3 Status of Not Accessible (NA) Consumers (in Percentage) 2(A) 4 Status of Not Read (NR) Consumers (in Percentage) 2(B) 5 Status of Identified Defective Meters (IDF) (in Percentage) 2(C) 6 Status of Appeared Defective Meters (ADF) (in Percentage) 2(D) 7 Status of Reading Defective Meters (RDF) (in Percentage) 2(E)

8 Quarterly Targets of IDF Meters/Mechanical Meters/Un-metered Consumers/Ghost Consumers 3

9 Status of Identified Defective Meters (IDF) 3(A) 10 Status of Un-metered Consumers 3(B) 11 Status of Mechanical Meters 3(C) 12 Status of Ghost Consumers 3(D) 13 Status of NB/SB Cases 4 14 Status of Outstanding Arrears 5 15 MRI Status of KCC Consumers 6 16 Status of Revenue realisation per unit of Energy Sold 7 17 Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL 8



The Commission’s analysis on the information submitted by the Petitioner for the period

April 2014 to November 2014 is being discussed in the following paragraphs:

6.2.1 Metering

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been repeatedly giving directions to the

Petitioner to energise new connections as well as unmetered connections only with the

static/electronic meters and to replace all old electromechanical meters with new electronic meters

in accordance with CEA Regulations.

Despite, Commission’s specific directions in the Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014, the Petitioner

failed to furnish timely and correct report to the Commission. Also the reports submitted in the

prescribed formats namely Annexure-1, 2, 5 & 6 pertaining to Status of NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF,

Ghost/Fictitious Consumers, Replacement of Mechanical meters & Un-metered Connections

respectively during FY 2014-15 were full of infirmities and deficiencies. The Commission however,

communicated these short comings and subsequently the Petitioner again submitted the reports for

the said period. These reports pertaining to various performance parameters on metering and other

issues have been analysed and findings thereof are being presented below:

6.2.1.1 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission has observed that total NA/NR, RDF/ADF/IDF cases are still at

alarmingly high percentages vis-a-vis total number of consumers as shown in the Table given

below:

Table 6.6: Status of NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF

Status As on 31st March 2012

As on 31st March 2013

As on 31st March 2014

As on 30th November 2014

NA (%) 2.68 2.5 3.3 3.9 NR (%) 6.47 6.6 5.7 5.9 IDF (%) 12.63 11.9 8.6 8.2 ADF (%) 0.81 0.7 0.5 0.5 RDF (%) 0.82 0.8 1.0 1.6 Total (%) 23.41 22.5 19.2 20.2 Total Billed Consumers (Nos.) 1501961 1647224 1664159 1720034



From the above table, it can be observed that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any

reduction in NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF cases rather it have increasing trend in FY 2014-15 (upto 30th

November 2014).

The Commission vide its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014, had issued directions that the

Petitioner to bring the defective meters to 3% as required by the Regulation and submit action plan

for the same. Further, the Commission also directed petitioner to ascertain the reasons for high

meter failure rate.

The Petitioner vide its letter no. 865/UPCL/Comm/IDF/D (P) dated 19.02.2015 had

submitted an action plan under affidavit for replacement of defective meters and bring it down to

4.21% as on 31.03.2015.However, as per the progress made till November, 2014, it appears that

Petitioner would not be in a position to achieve its committed target of 4.21% defective meters as on

31.03.2015.

Taking cognizance of the same, the Commission directs Petitioner to take effective steps

to reduce the percentage of provisional billing cases namely under NA/NR, IDF/RDF/ADF below

3% and submit an Action Plan in this regard within 2 months of this Order.

6.2.1.2 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF

Meters

Circle-wise number of defective meters as reported by the Petitioner is shown in the table

given below:

Table 6.7: Status of Defective Meters S.

No. Name of Circle No. of Defective

Meters as on 31.03.2012

No. of Defective Meters as on

31.03.2013


31.03.2014


30.11.2014 1 EDC Dehradun (R) 27086 23166 19278 18872 2 EDC Roorkee 16832 12127 13182 11589 3 EDC Haridwar 14724 16715 9705 8691 4 EDC Srinagar 29035 36515 40586 44805 5 EDC Dehradun 13148 9162 4250 2660 6 EDC Kashipur 8013 9984 4017 3726 7 EDC Rudrapur 22549 27221 16950 13947 8 EDC Ranikhet 33069 36056 24320 26324 9 EDC Haldwani 21396 25260 10430 9263

Total 185852 196206 142718 139877



From the above Table, it can be seen that the Petitioner, in FY 2013-14, had managed to

reduce number of defective meters by 27.26% while in FY 2014-15 (upto November, 2014) the

reduction in defective meters is only 2%. This shows that pace of defective meter replacement, could

not be sustained and has got derailed.

It is an admitted fact that by expeditious replacement of defective meters on the basis of well

laid down defective meter replacement programme, the Petitioner will not only be able to contain

this menace but will also comply with the provisions of SoP Regulations in this regard and achieve

below 3% target of overall defective meter as mandated by the Regulation. The Commission is of

the view that unless the Petitioner undertakes diligent efforts for minimizing the IDF cases, this will

remain a perennial problem for the Petitioner affecting adversely its commercial viability.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to incorporate logic in its billing

software for such bill basis namely NA/NR, IDF /ADF/RDF in accordance with The Electricity

Supply Code & Standard of Performance Regulations of the Commission. The Commission also

directs the Petitioner to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to 3% in accordance with the

Regulations by 30th September, 2015.

6.2.1.3 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

Table 6.8: Status of Mechanical Meters Description As on

30.11.2010 As on

30.11.2011 As on

30.11.2012 As on

30.11.2013 As on

30.11.2014 Balance Electro-mechanical Meters required to be replaced by Electronic Meters

257764 228493 199479 178681 164838

From the above Table, it can be seen that the rate of replacement of electro-mechanical

meters by electronic meters is extremely low. The Commission vide its Order dated April 10, 2014

had directed Petitioner to replace all the existing electro-mechanical meters by static/electronic

meters by 30th September, 2014.

The petitioner in its submission vide letter no. 2445/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated 22.11.2014 had

stated that it had issued instructions to all its field officers to replace all electro mechanical meters

by Static/electronic meters by 15.09.2014. However, still as on 30.11.2014 a staggering figure of

164838 numbers of electromechanical meters exist in petitioner’s network.



A meeting was held on 29.09.2014 between officers of the Commission and representatives

of UPCL, in which it was submitted by UPCL that priority is given for replacement of defective

meters due to which rate of replacement of Mechanical meters is not encouraging and had also

submitted that R-APDRP scheme is being implemented in 31 towns of the State and therefore the

report of replacement of mechanical meters of towns covered under this scheme are not available.

It is an established fact that by replacing the electro-mechanical meters with

static/electronic meters, the Petitioner will not only comply with the prevailing SoP Regulation but

also will have more precise recording of its billed energy. Therefore, the Petitioner will have

incentive in terms of augmentation of its revenue if it takes all necessary steps for replacing all

remaining electro-mechanical meters including those not covered under R-APDRP funded schemes

in a planned time bound program.

Therefore, the Commission directs Petitioner to replace all the existing electro-mechanical

meters by static/electronic meters by 31st December, 2015 and consolidate its complete database

for electro-mechanical meters including R-APDRP covered towns and submit correct reports to

the Commission latest by 30th June, 2015.

6.2.1.4 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

Table 6.9: Status of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

Status As on

31st March 2012

As on 31st March

2013

As on 31st March

2014

As on 31st November

2014 Nos. of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers 2610 1368 1135 1003

The Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, had directed the Petitioner for identifying and

writing off ghost/fictitious consumers from its billing database. However, from the above table, it

can be seen that the Petitioner has not made any concerted efforts in identifying and writing off

such consumers from its billing database. The Commission is of the view that there is an urgent

need for identifying and writing off such consumers from its billing database as existence of such

consumers in the database prevents proper energy accounting resulting in erroneous figures of both

Technical & Commercial losses (AT&C losses).

The Petitioner vide its letter No. 865/UPCL/Comm/IDF/D(P) dated 19.02.2015 had

submitted that “...Divisions are directed to transfer the duplicate/ghost consumers and non-traceable



connection to Not billed/Stop billed category in the first instance and later to permanently disconnect such

connections.”

The Commission is of the view that the petitioner should proactively identify and write off

ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its billing database under a transparent policy.

Hence, the Petitioner is directed to write off ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from

its billing database under a transparent policy framed by the Petitioner latest by 30th September,

2015.

6.2.1.5 Un-metered Consumers

The Commission vide its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014, had directed the Petitioner to

achieve 100% metering by 30th September, 2014 and submit its compliance report to the

Commission by 30th October, 2014. Further, the Commission had categorically stated that no tariff

for unmetered connection from FY 2015-16 shall be prescribed and failure to ensure 100% metering

would entail no billing to unmetered consumers.

However, Petitioner has failed to achieve the same which is evident from the Commercial

Performance Monitoring Report of un-metered connections shown in the Table given below:

Table 6.10: Status of Unmetered Consumers

Status As on 3/13

As on 3/14

As on 4/14

As on 5/14

As on 6/14

As on 7/14

As on 8/14

As on 9/14

As on 10/14

As on 11/14

Nos. of Un-metered Consumers

13947 6542 6722 6569 6440 6373 6279 9566 9359 8999

From the above table, it is established that the Petitioner has not made serious efforts for

metering the un-metered connections and on the contrary new un-metered connections were

identified in September, 2014 resulting in increase in total no. of unmetered consumers, which

proves that the Petitioner was wrongly submitting the data to the Commission. Under these

circumstances the Commission is of the view that the Petitioner’s Commercial wing in its Head

Quarter should thoroughly check and authenticate all the reports/information before submitting

the same to the Commission so as to ensure their consistency. The Commission is of the view that

providing meters to unmetered consumers has turned out to be an unending exercise and Petitioner

has neither made serious efforts for eliminating of un-metered connections nor has correctly

quantified the number of un-metered connections.



6.2.2 Billing

The Commission, vide its earlier Tariff Orders, and various directions issued from time to

time has been directing the Petitioner to improve its billing, bill distribution and revenue collection

system. It is noted that the Petitioner has made a beginning in this direction and created an online

billing platform for its Key Consumers thus enabling Petitioner to monitor such consumers

centrally from its Head Quarter. Further, the Petitioner has also started reaping the benefits of spot

billing which has resulted in improved billing & collection efficiency. Besides this, in order to

increase billing efficiency, the Petitioner has already initiated implementation of GSM based

Integrated Automatic Meter Reading system (IAMR) covering 7100 Key Consumers (with load 16

kW & above). Despite these IT interventions in its billing/metering system, the Petitioner still

remains inconsistent and erratic in submission of information/periodical reports to the

Commission. The Commission feels that probably this may be due to lacunas in Petitioner’s

operations lacking timely flow of correct information between its field offices and Head

Quarter/Corporate office.

Analysis of the Petitioner’s Commercial Performance Report in respect of Not Billed (NB)

and Stop Billed (SB) is being presented in the Table given below:

6.2.2.1 NB & SB Cases

Table 6.11: Status of NB & SB Cases Status As on 3/12 As on 3/13 As on 3/14 As on 11/14

No. of NB/SB Cases NB 49149 62800 139614 144136 SB 82576 74660

The Commission, in its earlier Tariff Orders, had been directing the Petitioner to frame-out

electricity distribution division-wise time bound programme for liquidating and finalisation of

NB/SB cases on priority and recover outstanding arrears. Further, the Commission has been

directing the Petitioner to conduct regular drive for finalizing of NB/SB consumers. However, the

Petitioner failed to liquidate and finalise these cases.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is hereby again directed to liquidate and finalise NB/SB cases

and set a target of realisation from at least 25% of these cases within 6 months from the date of

issuance of this Order.



6.2.2.2 Outstanding Arrears

The Commission, through its earlier Tariff Orders and various other Orders issued from

time to time, had given directions to expedite recovery of arrears, considering that this parameter

directly inflicts Petitioner’s financial and commercial viability. Despite these directives, the

Commission has observed that Petitioner have been lackadaisical towards collection of arrears and

lacks seriousness in laying down a planned programme/roadmap. This is mammoth problem faced

by the Petitioner and may weed away the Petitioner’s financial viability since 1.73 Lakh cases of

arrears have been pending as on November, 2014 with an staggering amount of Rs 92373 Lakh

pending recovery by the Petitioner and the same from FY 2011-12 to FY 2014-15 (upto November

2014) has been shown in Table given below:

Table 6.12: Status of Outstanding Arreas. Description As on 03/12 As on 03/13 As on 03/14 As on 11/14

Arrear No. Amount (Rs. Lac) No. Amount

(Rs. Lac) No. Amount (Rs. Lac) No. Amount

(Rs. Lac) Arrear>=5 Lac 1060 34954 774 19563 714 25794 1237 52215 1=<Arrear<5 Lac 6225 11726 4260 7989 4306 7747 4199 7705 0.5 Lac=<Arrear<1 Lac 14214 9252 13237 8179 15401 10056 15305 10214 0.1 Lac=<Arrear<0.5 Lac 83486 20246 59115 13673 75696 16140 81940 17180 0.05 Lac=<Arrear<0.1 Lac 59269 4196 46703 3318 60664 4308 71154 5059 Total 164254 80374 124089 52722 156781 64044 173835 92373

From the above table it is evident that the Petitioner has been able to reduce number of

arrear cases during FY 2012-13 , however, number of arrear cases during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15

(upto November) has increased to all time high.

With respect to amount of arrears, the petitioner did reduce the amount of arrear in FY 2012-

13 in comparison to FY 2011-12, whereas, the amount of arrear increased in FY 2013-14 and the

same has considerably increased in FY 2014-15 (upto November).This depicts nothing but

Petitioner’s lack of efforts in recovery of arrears during the first, second & third quarter of the

Financial year and the progress appears only during the last quarter or probably in the month of

March.

This by all standards in any commercial organization is not a healthy practice conducive

and reflects fire fighting approach by the Petitioner on year on year basis.

Therefore, the Commission hereby directs Petitioner to make sincere efforts in

mobilizing its resources to continuously make efforts throughout the year for collection of



Arrears under a structured programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual

defaulters.

6.2.2.3 Load Factor of KCC Consumers

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been directing the Petitioner to analyse MRI

reports including Tamper reports, Phasor diagrams etc. of each KCC consumers on a monthly basis

so as to enable proper check on tampering of meters resulting in theft/pilferage of electricity.

Presently, the Petitioner has a consumer base of about 18 Lakh consumers in the state. Out of

which around 19574 consumers (Industrial category consumers having load 5 kW & above and

Commercial category consumers having load 10 kW & above) have been identified as Key

Consumers (KCC). These key consumers which are only about 1% of the total consumer base of the

Petitioner contribute nearly 70% of its total annual revenues. Before delving on this parameter with

regard to load factors of these KCC consumers, as submitted in Petitioner’s Commercial

Performance Report has been shown in Table given below:

Table 6.13: Status of KCC Consumers Description As on 03/12 As on 03/13 As on 03/14 As on 11/14

Total KCC Consumers 10332 16939 18668 19574 *Abnormal cases 1384 2257 2554 2748 L.F<10% 3945 6884 7513 8218 L.F>10% 6387 10055 11155 11356

*Abnormal cases- Consumers exceeding sanctioned demand, Consumers having CT, PT by-pass, Tamper Report, unbalanced Tamper Report & any other Tamper Report.

From the above chart, it can be seen that as on November, 2014, number of consumers

having load factor less that 10% were 8218, which is around 41.98% of the total number of KCC

consumers. This by all standards, the Commission feels is an alarmingly high number of cases.

Besides this, there are around 13.92% of these KCC consumers who mainly exceeded their

sanctioned/contracted demand.

Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the Petitioner that KCC consumers having less

load factor should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern and abnormality in

consumption pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission also directs

Petitioner to check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted

demand and take corrective action in such cases.



6.2.2.4 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

Table 6.14: Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

Year Sold

Energy (MU)

Collection (Rs. Lac)

Average Realization Rate

(Rs./unit)

Average Power Purchase Cost per

Unit sold (Rs./unit)

Approved /Trued-up Average Cost of

Supply (Rs/Unit) FY 2011-12 8252.72 292757.00 3.55 3.81* 4.17 FY 2012-13 8577.01 346873.32 4.04 3.78 4.23 FY 2013-14 9065.02 387651.15 4.28 3.58 4.32 FY 2014-15 #6429.92 #246731.69 3.84 - -

#Upto November 2014

*This was mainly on account of other charges and adjustments of NTPC/NHPC power stations bills.

From the above Table it has been observed that the average realization [collection/unit] is

marginally above the average Power purchase cost per unit sold (except in FY 2011-12) and is below

the overall average cost of supply of the Petitioner for respective financial years which reveals that

the Petitioner is not even realizing its power purchase cost comfortably and therefore for

compensating its other expenses, Petitioner is either withholding Govt. Duty/cess etc or bills of the

Generating Companies. The Commission feels that for any Commercial organization this cannot

continue for a longer period as by and by it will threaten financial viability of the Petitioner’s

organization.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to take immediate steps to frame a time

bound programme along with laying down standard procedure for realising pending arrears and

accordingly a report on the action taken, arrears realised, arrears remaining outstanding and

reasons for the same should be submitted to the Commission within three months of the

issuance of this Order.

6.2.3 Collection System

Taking cognizance of various complaints received from the consumers to the Commission in

writing and also during hearing, it has been observed that generally the consumers are either not

getting their bills on time or getting wrong bills. This reflects that Petitioner’s billing

system/software needs strengthening with proper checks & balances. The Commission had earlier

specially directed the Petitioner to explore alternative bill collection means and modes such as

Cheque drop boxes at Banks, on-line payment facility including use of credit/debit cards through

IT applications in consumer services. From the submission of the Petitioner, it has been observed

that the Petitioner has entered into an agreement with Punjab National Bank on 01.10.2011 for



collecting the payment of electricity bills through all its branches across the state of Uttarakhand

and also the Petitioner has launched online bill payment facility on 15.07.2013 at its web portal

www.upcl.org. The Commission nominated an Expert Committee to check the Bill collection

arrangements with respect to the directives issued by the Commission in its Order dated 01.09.2005.

The Expert Committee submitted in its report that despite Commission imposing heavy

consolidated penalty of Rs 1,00,000 and additional penalty of Rs 2,500 per day on UPCL vide its

Order dated 01.09.2005 for non-compliance of its directions with respect to bill collection system,

not much has improved except for new Bill Collection Centres constructed under R-APDRP

schemes which are relatively clean and have all the basic facilities for the consumer. The Committee

also submitted that all other Bill Collection Centres were lacking in basic conveniences, be it

cleanliness, be it proper drinking water facility, proper sitting arrangement or clean and hygienic

toilets. The Petitioner cannot run away from its responsibility of keeping the Bill Collection Centres

consumer friendly and attractive so that the consumers do not avoid them.

The Commission in its Order dated 21.01.2015 had categorically directed MD, UPCL to

submit, within one and a half months, a comprehensive action plan alongwith time lines, for

compliance of the directions of the Commission in the matter of Bill Collection System issued in its

Order dated 01.09.2005 distinctly for Rural and Urban areas across the State. However, no action

plan has been received from the Petitioner.

The Petitioner vide its letter No. 1010/UPCL/Comm/CSC dated 19.03.2015 had submitted

to the Commission details of proposal of Common Service Center E-Governance Services India

Limited for enabling collection of electricity bills through approximately 2056 numbers Common

Service Center (CSCs) as front end points both in rural and urban areas and requested the

Commission to give the post facto approval regarding agreement with Common Service Center E-

Governance Services India Limited for providing online electricity bill payment collection through

CSCs in Uttarakhand so that cost incurred for same, may be incorporated in ARR by the Petitioner.

In this regard the Commission directed the Petitioner to submit a proposal including the number of

consumers estimated by the Petitioner who would avail this facility, charges which would be

payable to CSC on such estimation, for the ensuing FY 2015-16 and ascertaining the impact of such

agreement on A&G expenses of Petitioner by 15.04.2015.

http://www.upcl.org/



The Commission is of the view that the consumer services viz. online payment, payment

through debit/credit card etc. can be easily availed by the urban consumers and would be very

handy, however, for the consumers residing in the rural areas the Petitioner will have to provide

other options like bill collection facilities at rural branches of the Banks, payment facility at CSCs,

sub-post offices in rural areas etc. in addition to the above bill collection & payment facilities.

Therefore, the Petitioner should make concerted efforts to put in place such systems which are

friendly as well as conducive for the consumers residing in rural areas of the State.

Therefore, Commission directs the Petitioner to comply with the directions issued in the

Commission’s Order dated 21.01.2015 and furnish an Action Plan in the matter of Bill Collection

System distinctly for Rural and Urban areas across the State latest by 01.05.2015.

6.3 Energy Audit

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been reiterating its direction for conducting

the energy audit of 11 kV feeders and submit the audit report before the Commission. In

compliance to the directions, the Petitioner made submission and on examination of the same, it has

been found that the methodology adopted by the auditing agency was based on the theoretical

calculations and assumptions and therefore, cannot be relied upon. Actually energy auditing should

be done with proper metering at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs & consumers in the entire network to

ensure proper energy accounting & auditing of the network of a particular area without which this

audit exercise is futile. The present exercise fails to achieve the objective of energy auditing.

Further it is to point out that the Petitioner in past has stated before the Commission that the

sample energy audit report of 11 kV feeders in five distribution Circles would be furnished ,

however, no such report has been received till date. Further, the Petitioner till date has failed to

submit information on the prescribed formats (Annexure-10) pertaining to progress of energy audit

of 11 kV feeders and has been continuously requesting the Commission to waive off the said format

citing some frivolous reasons. The Commission has taken cognizance of this act of the Petitioner

and is of the view that it cannot accept or subscribe to this inaction of the Petitioner on this vital

management tool. Proper energy accounting can throw-up several actionable issues which, when

addressed, will result in marked improvement in distribution losses.

Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to provide meters at each feeder,

‘T’ points, DTs & consumers in the entire network for efficient energy auditing of the whole



network or part of the network area and thereafter, start conducting energy audit on periodical

basis and submit action taken report to the Commission on quarterly basis.

6.4 AT&C Losses

From the above comprehensive analysis of metering, billing & collection activities of the

Petitioner, it is evident that these functions of the Petitioner still need lot of improvement. The

AT&C losses of the Petitioner are around 27.88% as on November, 2014. The reason for such high

AT&C loss is primarily high distribution losses and low collection efficiency of the Petitioner. The

Commission vide its Order dated 19.12.2014 had given investment approval for the project

covering the works covered under Part-‘B’ of Restructured-Accelerated Power Development &

Reform Program of Ministry of Power, Government of India for reduction of AT&C losses to the

extent of 15%. Further, the Commission in its aforesaid Order had categorically directed the

petitioner to ensure completion of the R-APDRP works within the specified time lines and also to

achieve the specified target for reduction of AT&C losses to the extent of 15% in the selected towns

within the stipulated timeframe for availing the benefits of conversion of loan into grant. In case the

petitioner fails to do so, the servicing cost/cost of the loan in whole or part may not be allowed as

pass through in the ARR.

Therefore, the Commission is of the view that with the above linkage of cost of funding with

the AT&C loss achievement, this program can be construed as a double edged sword, which might

cause adverse financial impact in case the Petitioner fails to obtain required reduction in AT&C

losses of the target area.

The status of AT&C losses of UPCL for the various financial years have been shown in the

Table given below:



Table 6.15: Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL

Year

Inpu

t Ene

rgy

(MU

)

Ener

gy S

old

(MU

)

Ass

essm

ent (

Rs

Lac)

Col

lect

ion

(Rs

Lac)

Dis

trib

utio

n Lo

ss (%

)

App

rove

d D

istr

ibut

ion

loss

es

(%)

Col

lect

ion

Effi

cien

cy

(%)

Act

ual A

T&C

Los

s (%

)

Com

pute

d A

T&C

lo

sses

(Tar

iff O

rder

) (%

)

FY 2011-12 10310.64 8252.72 315899.00 292757.00 19.96 18.00 92.67 25.82 20.46 FY 2012-13 10789.11 8577.01 356995.26 346873.32 20.50 17.00 97.16 22.76 19.49 FY 2013-14 11216.31 9065.02 393412.4 387651.2 19.18 16.00 98.54 20.36 18.52 FY 2014-15 (upto Nov, 14) 8080.2 6429.92 272223.1 246731.7 20.42 15.50 90.64 27.88 18.04

It is evident that in the above table, the Petitioner’s distribution loss levels are higher than

approved levels. Further, the actual AT&C losses for above period are higher than AT&C losses

computed on the basis of approved level of distribution losses & collection efficiency of respective

Tariff Orders. Had the Petitioner achieved the targets as approved by the Commission, it would

have resulted in additional revenue, which not only would have reduced or even wiped out the

accumulated losses of the Petitioner but also would have led the Petitioner towards achieving

sound financial position resulting in better quality of service for the consumers.

It is also apparent that Petitioner, in order to substantially reduce its AT&C losses, needs to

concentrate on the domestic and non-domestic consumers and reduce the distribution losses at LT

level. The Commission would also like to point out that reduction in distribution losses by the

Petitioner, is on account of the share of HT consumption in the State. The trend of HT consumption

in the State is depicted below:

Chart 7: HT Consumer Sales as % of Total Sales



From the above chart, it can be seen that there is a reduction in HT sales in FY 2013-14. This

is primarily due to some power being taken through open access which was around 281.03 MU.

Also this could be due to slow down in economy and load shedding in furnace feeders owing to

transmission constraints as submitted by the Petitioner. On long term basis, this might have an

adverse impact on tariff of subsidized consumers viz. PTW, Domestic etc. since the amount of cross

subsidy cannot be increased beyond a limit as per National Tariff Policy.

The trend of losses in other category of consumers (excluding HT consumers) is shown in

the table given below:

Chart 8: Losses in other category of consumers (excluding HT consumers)

It is observed that for past 5 years virtually there has been no reduction in losses of other

category of consumers. It is evident that Petitioner has not put in serious efforts in reducing AT&C

losses for other categories thereby failing to bring these losses within acceptable limits. Further, to

reduce the distribution losses at LT level and to achieve losses level in acceptable limits, the

Petitioner should take up the following works at the earliest:

1. The Petitioner must replace all mechanical / electro-mechanical meters in a time bound

manner in all the divisions on a war footing. It is a known fact that the cost incurred in

purchasing the electronic meter shall be recovered within no time as there shall be

substantial increase in the revenue of the Petitioner.



2. The Petitioner must remove all ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its billing

database.

3. The Petitioner must conduct planned regular actions for early recovery of outstanding

arrears.

4. The Petitioner must analyse KCC consumers having load factor less that 10% on a regular

basis and lay down mechanism for checking inspection/tamper analysis/condition

monitoring of MRI reports and metering equipments.

5. The Petitioner must ensure that all the meters of the consumers are read and their bills

prepared and distributed within time. The Petitioner shall also ensure that no provisional

bills namely NA/NR are issued for more than two billing cycles in accordance with the

provision of Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2007. Divisional head must be held

accountable for not controlling provisional billings. The Petitioner should make efforts to

always issue computerized bills to its consumers requiring no human intervention.

6. The Petitioner should prepare a time bound plan/programme to replace all the bare

overhead conductors with insulated aerial bunched conductors (AB conductor) in theft

prone areas alongwith effective monitoring mechanism for its implementation.

7. The Petitioner should also prepare a time bound plan/programme for segregation of rural

feeders this would be an effective measure for reduction of theft/pilferage of electricity.

8. The Commission has observed that the collection efficiency with respect to realization of

arrears/dues from the Government Departments has been very low and it is showing no

signs of improvement. The Petitioner should make extra efforts to get the arrears realised

from the defaulting Government departments. The Commission is of the view that the

Petitioner should implement the pre-paid metering as per the direction of the

Commission in Tariff Order dated April 11, 2012 for Government consumers which

would not only ensure recovery of old dues/arrears but also prevent accumulation of

electricity dues in future.

9. The Petitioner have to ensure that meters are installed at each point of energy accounting

and are kept in proper working condition.



10. The Petitioner should also develop GIS based consumer indexing database in areas other

then the areas covered under R-APDRP, which shall be helpful in providing prompt services

to consumer and shall be helpful in planning the new connections, transformer

augmentation, phase change, localising fault, supply restoration and other services to

consumers necessarily provided by any distribution utility having consumer services

orientation as its Vision & mission.

6.5 Anomalies Observed in Commercial Diary (SG-IV)

During the ongoing tariff proceedings, UPCL submitted the division wise Commercial diary

(SG-IV) for FY 2013-14 before the Commission. Examination of the same revealed certain glaring

abnormalities which needs examination by the Petitioner and also corrective actions. In some cases,

the average billing rate herein referred as average revenue which is nothing but revenue per unit

billed has been found to be even lower than the energy charges approved for that category. Further,

in some cases, the energy consumption per kW per month was observed to be abnormally high and

in few cases exceeded, even the total number of hours in the month. Category wise analysis is dealt

hereunder.

6.5.1 RTS-3 (Public Lamps)

Public Lamps is one such category which is reported as metered, however, interaction with

the field officers of UPCL has suggested that most of the street lights points are still unmetered and

are being billed at unmetered tariffs. Going by UPCL’s submission that consumption is derived

from revenue generated at flat un-metered, the per/kW/month consumption would translate into

430 units/kW/month. However, there are many divisions of UPCL which have booked

consumption in excess of 500 units/kW/month. EDD Kashipur and EDD Almora have infact

booked the consumption even in excess of 1500 units/kW/month which is beyond imagination.

Consumption of more than 360 units/kW/month equivalent to 12 hours per day lighting of public

lamp either reflects towards the wastage of electricity or a means of camouflaging losses by the field

officers. UPCL is directed to examine the same and report to the Commission the reasons for such

high consumption in public lamps within 2 months of the date of the Order.

Further, it also came to the notice of the Commission during one of its visit in EDD

Kashipur, that public lamps load is not known and each point is billed on the consumption being



recorded in the meter installed on the pilot basis irrespective of wattage of the lamps and no fixed

charges were being billed to this category due to the aforesaid reasons that their load couldn’t be

ascertained. This clearly indicates the casual approach of UPCL towards the distribution business as

a result of which it is losing revenue and the load factor (unit/kW/month) for this category in such

division following such approach is abnormally high. UPCL is directed to examine the same

alongwith the status of billing of fixed charges to public lamps in other divisions and report to

the Commission the reasons for such negligence within 2 months of the date of the Order.

The divisions showing excessive consumption in Public Lamps during FY 2013-14 are given

in the Table hereunder.

Table 6.16: Divisions having excessive consumption under Public Lamps during FY 2013-14

Name of Division/Circles

No. of Consumers

Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Sales/KW/ month

Revenue/kWh

EDD, Rishikesh 2 614 3.247 440.69 4.12 EDD (C), Dehradun 103 427 3.087 602.46 4.27 EDD, Srinagar 3 128 1.188 773.44 2.59 EDD, Pauri 3 175 0.787 374.76 4.78 EDD, Tehri 8 205 1.361 553.25 4.13 EDD, Gopeshwar 7 92 0.688 623.19 4.96 EDD, Kotdwar 8 100 0.478 398.33 4.80 EDD (R), Roorkee 3 108 0.773 596.45 8.68 EDD, Kashipur 6 340 4.224 1035.29 4.79 EDD, Bajpur 4 98 0.504 428.57 4.92 EDD, Almora 7 70 0.981 1167.86 4.35 EDD, Bageshwar 1 39 0.180 384.62 3.06 EDD, Ranikhet 10 79 0.396 417.72 4.20 EDD, Champawat 5 73 0.388 442.92 4.19

6.5.2 RTS-4 (Private Tube Well)

EDD (R), Haldwani has shown 8 PTW consumers having total load of 169 BHP and an

annual consumption of 0.612 MU for FY 2013-14. The aforesaid data was same for FY 2012-13 as

well with no change in the number of consumers and their consumption. It appears that all such

consumers are either unmetered or do not exist. UPCL is directed to examine the same and report

to the Commission the status of such consumers within 2 months of the date of the Order.



6.5.3 RTS-6 (Public Water Works (PWW))

Public Water works is a category which is reported as metered, however, it appears that

once they had been released connection UPCL has not carried out any survey regarding the loads

and meters of such consumers. Infact, UPCL in its last Tariff Order had also requested the

Commission to allow it to bill the PWW consumers below 25 kW on kWh basis instead of kVAH

basis. The Commission vide its Order dated April 10, 2014 had directed the Petitioner to replace the

old meters with new meters capable of recording kVAh consumption within three months of the

date of the Order. However, UPCL has still not replaced the meters of such consumers.

Even if a 12 hours running of a public water works connection on an average basis is

assumed, the consumption in a month should not be greater than 360 units/kW/month. However,

there are many divisions of UPCL which have booked consumption in excess of 360

units/kW/month. EDD Kashipur and EDD Roorkee (U) have infact booked the consumption even

in excess of 1000 units/kW/month and 2700 units/kW/month which is beyond imagination.

Consumption more than 12 hours per day either reflects towards the means of camouflaging losses

by the field officers or improper loads issued as a result of which not only specific consumption is

working on a higher side but UPCL may also be losing revenue by billing fixed charges on a lower

load. UPCL is directed to examine the same and report to the Commission the reasons for such

high consumption in public water works and also the action plan for rectifying the anomaly

within 2 months of the date of the Order.

Further, Jal Nigam connections of EDD (U) Roorkee has a average billing rate of less than Rs.

1 per unit, Jal Sansthan connection of EDD Rudrapur has a average billing rate of less than Rs. 2.50

per unit. UPCL is also directed to give reasons for such low average billing rate within two

months of the date of the Order.

The divisions showing excessive consumption in Public Water Works during FY 2013-14 are

given in the Table hereunder.



Table 6.17: Divisions having excessive consumption under Public Water Works during FY 2013-14


No. of Consumers

Load (kW)

Energy Sold (MU) Sales/kW/month Revenue/kWh

Jal Nigam EDD (U), Roorkee 4 99 0.928 781.14 0.97 Jal Sansthan EDD (R), Dehradun 88 2723 17.548 537.03 4.24 EDD, Rishikesh 50 1363 6.480 396.18 4.54 EDD (N), Dehradun 38 3170 20.241 532.10 4.12 EDD (S), Dehradun 68 2859 19.647 572.67 4.09 EDD (C), Dehradun 62 2838 20.988 616.28 4.11 EDD, Srinagar 25 3633 18.543 425.34 4.34 EDD, Pauri 15 1583 10.512 553.38 4.25 EDD, Tehri 20 4704 22.476 398.17 3.96 EDD (U), Roorkee 25 562 6.546 970.64 5.74 EDD (U), Hardwar 91 3720 21.817 488.73 4.24 EDD, Kashipur 42 803 11.000 1141.55 4.64 EDD, Bajpur 16 217 1.707 655.53 3.82 EDD, Rudrapur 41 491 2.766 469.45 2.43 EDD, Sitarganj 30 421 4.858 961.60 5.52 EDD, Almora 9 1653 12.936 652.15 4.07 EDD, Pithoragarh 13 2281 14.653 535.33 4.09 EDD, Champawat 15 247 1.744 588.39 4.06 Other Water Works & Plastic Recycling Plant EDD (U), Roorkee 16 231 7.543 2721.14 3.85


Commission has also decided to review the monthly performance of UPCL in this regard and,

accordingly, UPCL is also directed to submit the monthly commercial report (SG-IV).

6.5.4 RTS-7 (LT & HT Industries):

6.5.4.1 LT Industry

The energy charges approved for LT Industrial consumers for FY 2013-14 was Rs. 3.75/kWh

with the approved average revenue of Rs. 4.61 per unit, however, the revenue per unit in case of

EDD Tehri, EDD Almora and EDD Haldwani (R) for FY 2013-14 is Rs. 3.87 per unit, Rs. 3.82 per unit

and Rs. 4.02 per unit which is below the approved average revenue for this category and even

below the approved average cost of supply of Rs. 4.19 per unit for FY 2013-14. This is also beyond

imagination as the LT Industries is cross-subsidising category and hence, the revenue below the



average cost of supply is unacceptable. The Petitioner is directed to examine the same and report

the reasons for such low revenue alongwith the corrective action taken in this regard, within 2

months of the date of the Order. The divisions having lower average revenue during FY 2013-14 in

LT Industrial category is given in the Table hereunder.

Table 6.18: Divisions having lower average revenue in LT Industrial category during FY 2013-14


No. of Consumers

Load (kW)

Energy Sold (MU) Sales/kW/month Average Revenue

(Revenue/kWh) EDD, Tehri 169 1888 2.638 116.44 3.87 EDD, Almora 97 931 0.763 68.30 3.82 EDD (R), Haldwani 710 6812 9.080 111.08 4.02

6.5.4.2 HT Industries upto 1000 kVA

The approved average revenue for HT Industries for FY 2013-14 was Rs. 4.58 per unit,

however, the average revenue in case of EDD Tehri, EDD Haldwani (R) and EDD Almora for FY

2013-14 is Rs. 3.38 per unit, Rs. 3.78 per unit and Rs. 3.61 per unit respectively which is even below

the approved average cost of supply of Rs. 4.19 per unit for FY 2013-14. This is also beyond

imagination as the HT Industries is cross-subsidising category and hence, the revenue below the

average cost of supply is unacceptable. The Petitioner is directed to examine the same and report

the reasons for such low revenue alongwith the corrective action taken in this regard, within 2

months of the date of the Order. The divisions having lower revenue during FY 2013-14 in HT

Industrial category is given in the Table hereunder.

Table 6.19: Divisions having lower revenue in HT Industrial category (upto 1000 kVA) during FY 2013-14


No. of Consumers

Load (kW)

Energy Sold (MU) Sales/kW/month Average Revenue

(Revenue/kWh) EDD, Tehri 8 1470 2.266 128.46 3.38 EDD (R), Haldwani 54 16879 45.210 223.21 3.78 EDD, Almora 1 552 0.778 117.45 3.61

6.5.5 RTS-8 (Mixed Load):

The energy charges approved for Mixed Load category for FY 2013-14 was Rs. 3.80/kWh,

however, the average revenue in case of EDD Rishikesh and EDD Gopeshwar for FY 2013-14 is

almost Rs. 3.00 per unit against the average revenue of Rs. 3.94 per unit approved by the

Commission. The Petitioner is directed to examine the same and report the reasons for such low

revenue alongwith the corrective action taken in this regard, within 2 months of the date of the



Order. The divisions having lower revenue during FY 2013-14 in Mixed Load category is given in

the Table hereunder.

Table 6.20: Divisions having lower revenue in Mixed Load category during FY 2013-14 Name of

Division/Circles No. of

Consumers Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Sales/kW/ month

Revenue/kWh

EDD Rishikesh 1 1020 5.623 459.40 3.08 EDD, Gopeshwar 5 1360 3.590 219.98 2.98

6.6 Conclusion

After analyzing the data related to the Petitioner’s Commercial Performance, it is concluded

that the Petitioner has to take immediate action in reducing the

unmetered/ghost/electromechanical meters/NA/NR/IDF cases which are adversely inflicting

upon the Petitioner’s commercial & financial viability.

The performance improvement can be done by judiciously allocating the responsibilities in

field as well as at Corporate level. Moreover, the Petitioner should understand the significance of

Commercial Performance Monitoring Reporting mechanism and should bring sincerity in its

approach towards it. Further, a sense of belongingness/ownership has to be inculcated in every

employee of the Petitioner’s Organisation to bring prosperity to the organization.

Further, it is imperative to highlight that the Commercial Performance Reporting

mechanism not only brings transparency in the system but also is an eye-opener for the Petitioner

for taking timely corrective actions. Therefore, authenticity of reports is of paramount importance.

Petitioner is required to strengthen its Commercial Wing so that timely authentic reports are

furnished to the Commission and it shall also help in prompt percolation of information within the

organization which shall be beneficial for the Petitioner as well as for consumers in general.

Going by the past experience of monitoring performance of the petitioner, the Commission

opines that monitoring should be Division wise and in order to quantify the improvement on

month on month basis on any of the performance indicators, it is necessary that Division wise

targets on each parameter should be provided by the petitioner so that the whole monitoring

process is meaningful. Therefore, the Commission vide its letter no. UERC/5/Tech/112/2014-

15/1622 dated 27.11.2014 issued revised Commercial Performance Monitoring formats and directed

the petitioner to submit information on the revised formats in hard as well as soft copy (i.e. MS-



excel file in CD) on regular basis from January’ 2015 onwards, so as to reach to the Commission

latest by 25th day of the following month.

Therefore, the Commission directs Petitioner to submit monthly Commercial

Performance Monitoring reports strictly in the prescribed formats on regular basis from January,

2015 onwards, so as to reach to the Commission latest by 25th day of the following month.


7. Commission’s Directives

The Commission in its previous Orders had issued a number of specific directions to the

Petitioner with an objective of attaining operational efficiency, efficient manpower deployment and

streamlining the flow of information. These objectives would be beneficial not only for the Sector

but also for the Petitioner’s company, both in terms of short and long term perspective. These

directions aim at creating a conducive, competitive and healthy environment for the Petitioner to

provide good quality of electricity supply and service to the consumers of Uttarakhand at optimum

and affordable costs. This Chapter deals with the compliance status and the Commission’s views

thereon on the directives issued vide MYT Order dated May 06, 2013, APR Order dated April 10,

2014 as well as the summary of new directions (given in preceding Chapters of this Order) for

compliance and implementation by the Petitioner.

7.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in MYT Order dated May 06, 2013

7.1.1 Past Adjustments

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to expedite its efforts for getting the Transfer

Scheme finalised within six months from the date of this Order.

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner submitted that GoU vide order dated 27-04-2012 approved the Transfer

Scheme of Assets & Liabilities. However, the Commission refused to consider the transfer scheme

finalized on the basis of the above Order of the GoU. The Petitioner submitted that vide its letter

dated June 22, 2013 it had informed the view of the Commission to the GoU and requested the GoU

to issue proper notification in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000. The

Petitioner had further opined that no notification is required under Re-organisation Act, 2000. The

Act specifically provides for notification, wherever required, such as section 22(5), 23(1) and (2),

71(2), 80(1)(v), 80(3)(c), 89 etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin and Ors Vs.

Sita Ram Agarwal has also given such ruling. The Petitioner also added that UPERC in its Order

dated May 21, 2013 while truing up the expenses and revenue of UPPCL considered the GFA of

UPCL as Rs. 1058.18 Crore (as given in the Transfer Scheme).

7.Commission’s Directions


Further, the Petitioner submitted that it has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ATE in the

matter.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s reply in this regard. However, the

Petitioner has filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble ATE against the Commission’s MYT Order dated

May 06, 2013. As the matter is sub-judice the Commission feels it would be inappropriate to express

its views further on the matter.

7.1.2 Functioning of UPCL

The Petitioner was directed to submit detailed plan for creating and operating one or two

sub-stations as Profit Centres. The Petitioner was also directed to submit a time bound Action Plan

indicating their proposals for reduction in AT&C Losses, Energy Audit, Realisation of Arrears,

Improvement in Collection System, Installation of ABC Conductors in High Loss prone areas and

replacement of Meters.

The Commission further directed the Petitioner to comply with the above mentioned

measures/action plan and submit status report on the development to the Commission on quarterly

basis.


As regards the detailed plan for creating and operating one or two sub-stations as Profit

Centres, the Petitioner submitted that it had awarded the work for carrying out Energy Audit to

M/s Enzen Global Solution Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore on September 04, 2013. The Energy Audit Report

submitted by the Consultant has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no.

182/CE(Coml.)/Enzen Global dated April 30, 2014.

The Petitioner further submitted that 72,804 defective meters have been replaced during FY

2014-15(upto September). 19,159 meters have been shifted outside the premises of the consumers

from April, 2014 to September, 2014. Further, 11,072 Mechanical Meters have been replaced by

Electronic Meters from April, 2014 to September, 2014.

The Petitioner further submitted that it had conducted checking of consumers’ premises for

the period from April to September, 2014. During this checking, it had observed commercial use in

1,214 connections released for domestic purposes. In this regard, amount assessed to Rs. 26.83 lakh

has been raised on these connections.



Further, there is a provision for laying of LT AB Cable of 548 km under State Plan, 1871 km

under R-APDRP and 2115 km additional . Out of this, 904 km AB Cable has been laid upto

September 30, 2014. Further, online billing and collection system has been introduced in the

Company.

The Commission has taken note of the steps taken by the Petitioner and further directs

the Petitioner to comply with the above mentioned measures/action plan and submit the status

report on the development to the Commission on quarterly basis.

7.1.3 Performance Report

The Commission had decided to monitor the commercial performance of the Petitioner on

monthly basis and, accordingly, formats were prescribed and issued to the Petitioner vide

Commission’s letter UERC/7/CL/152/2008-09/284 dated 17.05.2012. In its MYT Order dated May

06, 2013 the Petitioner was directed to submit the above information in the prescribed Formats

regularly on monthly basis by 15th day of the following month.

Despite, the specific directions issued by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders for FY

2013-14, the Petitioner was neither submitting the periodical reports timely nor in accordance with

the prescribed formats. Notwithstanding the aforesaid anomalies, the Commission examined the

reports submitted by the Petitioner and observed that the Petitioner had been submitting the

erroneous reports lacking consistency in information hampering the trend analysis of its

performance parameters/indices on month on month basis. Hence, to quantify the improvement

and to make whole monitoring process more meaningful, the Commission further decided to issue

revised commercial performance monitoring formats vide its letter no. UERC/5/Tech/112/2014-

15/1622 dated 27.11.2014 directing the Petitioner to submit monthly Commercial Performance

Monitoring reports strictly in the prescribed formats on regular basis from January, 2015 onwards,

so as to reach to the Commission latest by 25th day of the following month.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commercial Performance Report for the month of July,

2014 was submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 2173/UPCL/RM/J-10, dated 09-10-

2014 and for the month of August, 2014 in the month of November, 2014.



The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner in this regard.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to thoroughly check the correctness and

validity of the reports/information being submitted to the Commission and to submit monthly

Commercial Performance Monitoring reports strictly in the prescribed formats on regular basis,

so as to reach to the Commission latest by 25th day of the following month.

7.1.4 Sales

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to analyse the average consumption of the

departmental employees including the reasons for such high consumption based on actual meter

readings and submit the report to the Commission on quarterly basis.

The Petitioner was directed to submit the mechanism for reimbursement of expenses against

electricity consumed by the departmental employees of UPCL within 1 month of the date of the

MYT Order. The Petitioner was also directed to issue instructions to the field offices to record the

sales of the departmental employees based on meter reading and submit compliance of the same

within 1 month of the date of the MYT Order.

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to issue instructions to its field offices to either

record the BPL/Kutir Jyoti consumers under domestic category or book them as a separate BPL

category having consumption in excess of the ceiling specified by the Commission, in the month in

which their consumption exceeds the ceiling fixed by the Commission and report compliance

within 1 month of the date of the MYT Order.

The Petitioner was also directed to submit the detailed Action Plan giving timeframe in

which it intends to meter the remaining unmetered consumers within 2 months of the date of the

MYT Order.

The Petitioner was directed to correct the practices creeping in the metering and billing

system in these categories which were primarily Government categories except for single point bulk

supply (non-domestic). The Commission had also directed the Petitioner to submit the audited sales

and revenue figures after scrutiny of information received from field offices and correct the

discrepancies observed by the Commission during the proceedings of the MYT Order along with

the Petition for Final Truing Up for FY 2011-12 failing which the Commission may consider

working out the revenue of the Petitioner on the basis of approved ABR for FY 2011-12.



Further, the Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 again directed the Petitioner

to comply with all the above directives and submit the compliance to the Commission on regular

basis failing which the Commission shall be forced to take stringent action against the Petitioner.


As regards the consumption of departmental employees, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL

vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated 17-06-2014 (Annexure –A) directed its field officers

to record the consumption of Departmental Employees and Pensioners on the basis of actual meter

reading.

As regards the recording of consumption of BPL category consumers, UPCL vide its letter

no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10, dated 17-06-2014 (Annexure –A) directed its field officers to record the

consumption of BPL Category separately billed at the (i) Tariff for the BPL category and (ii) Tariff

for the General Domestic category. The Petitioner has directed these field officers to show such

consumption records in the monthly Commercial Diary on a separate sheet.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that in accordance with the report submitted to the

Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 1465/UPCL/RM/J-10, dated 09-07-2014, there were 6542

unmetered connections as on March 31, 2014. UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated

17-06-2014 (Annexure–A) issued instructions to its field officers to meter all the unmetered

connections within the time allowed by the Commission. As per report submitted to the

Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 2173/UPCL/RM/J-10 dated 09-10-2014, there were 6373

unmetered connections as on July 31, 2014. The remaining unmetered connections shall be metered

by March 31, 2015.

The Commission has taken note of the replies submitted by the Petitioner. However, the

Commission is not satisfied with the replies of the Petitioner while complying with the

directives of the Commission in this regard. As discussed in detail in previous Sections of this

Order, the Commission has found huge abnormalities in the metering and billing system of the

Petitioner. Thus, in this regard the Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to comply with all

the above directives covered under Para 7.1.4 above and submit the compliance to the

Commission on regular basis.



7.1.5 Load Shedding

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to obtain the prior approval for load shedding

to be carried out continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days.


The Petitioner submitted that it shall comply with the above directive.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s reply. With regard to concerns raised

by the stakeholders on frequent load shedding done by the Petitioner without intimating the

consumers, the Commission observed that the Petitioner is resorting to regular load shedding

under the garb of unscheduled/emergency outages. The Commission, hereby, once again directs

the Petitioner to obtain the prior approval of the Commission for load shedding to be carried out

continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days.

7.1.6 AT&C Losses / Energy Audit

The Commission directed the Petitioner to regularly incorporate monthly target level of

distribution losses alongside actual level of Distribution losses, as directed by the Commission vide

its Order dated 04.03.2013, in the Petitioner’s future submissions.

The Commission further directed the Petitioner to provide meters at each feeder, ‘T’ points,

DTs & consumers in the entire network for efficient energy auditing of the whole network or part of

the network area and, thereafter, start conducting energy audit on periodical basis and start

submitting audit report in the prescribed format on monthly basis.

Further, the Commission also directed the Petitioner to submit the sample energy audit

report of the exercises conducted by it during recent past as has been started by it at many occasions

earlier. Such report was to be submitted within 1 month of the APR Order dated April 10, 2014.

Petitioner’s Submissions

With regard to the sample energy audit report, the Petitioner submitted that as per

Commission’s directive it had awarded the work for carrying out Energy Audit to M/s EnZen

Global Solution Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore on September 04, 2013. The Energy Audit Report submitted by

the Consultant was provided to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 182/CE(Coml.)/Enzen

Global, dated 30.04.2014.



The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner. However, the

Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to regularly incorporate monthly target level alongside

actual level of Distribution losses as directed by the Commission vide its Order dated 04.03.2013

in the Petitioner’s future submissions.

7.1.7 Power Purchase Expenses

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to submit the details of energy overdrawn and

UI charges imposed on UPCL at system frequency below 49.2 Hz and 49.7 Hz for FY 2010-11 and

FY 2011-12 respectively within two month from the date of issue of the MYT Order dated May 06,

2013.

Further, the Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 observed that UI

Overdrawal and UI underdrawal details submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2012-13 did not match

with the data available on NRPC website. In this regard, the Petitioner was required to submit

reconciliation of the same. With the lack of information, the Commission did not consider the

impact of the same in the Power Purchase Cost. Thus, the Petitioner was required to submit details

of energy overdrawn and UI charges imposed on UPCL at system frequency below 49.2 Hz and 49.7

Hz for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 along with the Annual Performance

Review Petition for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that the required data is not available in the bills received from

NRLDC for UI overdrawal. Further, the required data could not be derived from information

posted at the website of NRLDC. In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that it is determined to

overdraw from grid within the limits as prescribed by the Commission. There may be any little

amount of energy overdrawn beyond the permissible limit and this is unintentional. Accordingly,

the Petitioner requested the Commission to exempt it from submission of this information.

The Commission has noted the reply of the Petitioner in this regard.

7.1.8 Power Procurement Plan for the Control Period

The Commission directed the Petitioner that in case the rates for medium term PPA received

by the Petitioner is in excess of Rs. 3.75/kWh, then it shall seek prior approval of the Commission

before executing the PPA with the suppliers.



Petitioner’s Submission:

The Petitioner submitted that this shall be complied with, when the time situation arise.

The Commission has taken note of the reply to the compliance made by the Petitioner.

Despite several directions in the past, the Petitioner has not complied with the Commissions

directive of entering into a long term or medium term agreement for procurement of power. The

Commission as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order has given direction to the Petitioner in this

regard, which is summarised in subsequent section on New Directives issued in this Order.

7.1.9 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost

The Commission directed the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal from the grid within its

drawal schedules whenever the system frequency is below 49.90 Hz.

The Commission, further, directed the Petitioner to seek prior approval of the Commission,

in case the variation in power purchase quantum or total power purchase cost in any quarter

exceeds by more than 5% of the approved power purchase quantum and cost for the respective

quarter worked out on pro-rata basis from the total approved quantity and cost for FY 2014-15 as

indicated in Table 4.17 of the APR Order dated April 10, 2014, failing which, the Commission may

disallow such additional power purchase cost while truing up the ARR for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that it is drawing power from the grid within permissible limits.

Further, it has applied for approval of the Commission for higher power purchase cost incurred

during first quarter and second quarter of FY 2014-15.

The Commission hereby once again directs the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal from

the grid within its drawal schedules whenever the system frequency is below 49.90 Hz in order

to ensure grid discipline. (Refer Para 4.4.9.7)

The Commission, further, directs the Petitioner to seek prior approval of the Commission,

in case the variation in power purchase quantum or power purchase cost in any quarter exceeds

by more than 5% of the approved power purchase quantum and cost for the respective quarter

worked out on pro-rata basis from the total approved quantity and cost for FY 2015-16 as

indicated in the Table 4.16 of this Order, failing which, the Commission may disallow such

additional power purchase cost while truing up the ARR for FY 2015-16. (Refer Para 4.4.9.8)



7.1.10 Capitalization of Assets added till FY 2011-12

The Commission had directed UPCL to submit the details of its LT/HT works capitalised

since 2007-08 within 6 months of the date of the Order, so that they may be considered during the

APR, failing which the Commission would be forced to consider the issued closed once for all.


The Petitioner submitted that the audited details of LT & HT works Capitalized from FY

2007-08 to FY 2011-12 have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter dated 07-10-2013.

As regards shortcomings pointed out by the Commission in the report, the Petitioner requested the

Commission to consider the figures of either accounts or audit report and allow eligible return/

expenses to UPCL in the matter. Delay in allowing the eligible return is adversely affecting the

financial position of UPCL.

The Commission has discussed this issue in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order and issued

the directions which are summarised in subsequent section.

7.1.11 Fixed Assets Register

The Commission directed the Petitioner to expedite and submit the updated Fixed Assets

Register within 3 months of the date of the APR Order for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that Fixed Assets Register for the period upto March, 2010 has

already been submitted to the Commission. Further, the Fixed Assets Register for FY 2010-11, 2011-

12 and 2012-13 have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 1889/UPCL/RM/

C-10, dated 29-08-2014.

The Commission hereby once again directs the Petitioner to expedite the process and

submit the updated Fixed Assets Register within 3 months of the date of the Order.

7.1.12 Electrical Inspector Certificate

While approving the capitalization for truing up of FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 the

Commission had considered capitalization of only those HT works for which the Electrical

Inspector Certificate was given. Thus, considering the importance of the Electrical Inspector

Certificate for approval of capitalisation for HT works, the Petitioner was directed to expedite the



matter and obtain the Electrical Inspector Certificates for the balance assets along with

reconciliation of capitalization amount as per accounts.


The Petitioner submitted that it had approached GoU in the matter and Secretary (Energy),

GoU directed the Electricity Inspector to inspect all the HT / EHT works of UPCL. The Petitioner

submitted that Electrical Inspector has issued clearance certificate in respect of various assets. These

certificates have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no.-342/UPCL/RM /B-13,

dated 13-02-2013 for Rs. 142.13 Crore and letter no. 03/UPCL/RM/B-14, dated 07-01-2014 for Rs.

46.76 Crore. The Petitioner added that the major part of remaining HT works pertains to APDRP

and RGGVY schemes and it is facing difficulty in obtaining certificate in respect of these assets.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to consider all assets created upto March

31, 2014 for the purpose of tariff determination.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner. The

Commission has discussed this matter in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order and has issued the

direction, which is summarised in subsequent section.

7.1.13 Cost of Assets and Financing

The Commission directed the Petitioner to get the audit of the assets capitalized since FY

2009-10 till FY 2012-13 and submit the complete Audit Report to the Commission within 6 months

of the issue of the MYT Order.

The Commission in its APR Order dated April 10, 2014 observed that there were certain

mismatches between the additional capitalisations appearing in the audited Report submitted by

UPCL and in the accounts which were submitted during TVS. Further, the Petitioner had not

submitted the basis of categorization of assets in LT and HT and reconciliation of differences as

shown in the Accounts, Auditors Report and Electrical Inspector Certificate etc. Accordingly, the

Petitioner was directed to submit the complete audit report reconciling with the accounts and

electrical inspectors certificates. Further, the Commission clarified that without proper segregation

of LT and HT/ EHT works along with financing of the same the Commission would not approve

the capitalization for LT and HT works submitted by the Petitioner.




The Petitioner submitted that the Audited details of LT/HT works capitalized has been

submitted to the Commission vide letter dated 7-10-2013. As regards shortcomings pointed out by

the Commission in the report, the Petitioner requested the Commission to consider the figures of

either accounts or audit report and allow eligible return/expenses to UPCL in the matter. Delay in

allowing the eligible return is adversely affecting the financial position of UPCL.

The Commission has discussed this matter in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order and has

issued the direction in this regard, which is summarised in subsequent section.

7.1.14 Interest on Security Deposit

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the actual interest paid on the security

deposit to the consumers during FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12, FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14

against the provisions made in the Audited/Provisional Accounts within 2 months from the date of

the APR Order for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted the year wise details of interest provided/actually paid on

Consumer Security Deposit for FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 as per audited/provisional Accounts of

UPCL as follows:

Table 7.1: Detail of Interest on Security Deposit Year Provision Paid

2009-10 12,83,89,883.37 4,18,99,747.17 2010-11 16,57,95,990.43 4,88,27,952.36 2011-12 20,35,91,393.99 6,92,23,782.44 2012-13 8,49,40,468.78 9,69,74,978.13 2013-14 56,34,55,506.25 56,24,99,353.3 Total 1,14,61,73,242.82 81,94,25,813.38

In the above table, the Petitioner further submitted that the provisions/actual payment of

Interest for FY 2013-14 includes interest of Rs. 15,96,05,438.55 pertaining to previous years, i.e. FY

2008-09 to 2012-13.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner and has,

accordingly, allowed the Interest on Security Deposit while carrying out the truing up of FY

2013-14 as discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order.



7.1.15 Depreciation

The Petitioner was required to formulate a proper capitalization policy including all the

matters related to capital expenditure, capitalization and other indirect expenses like insurance

charges, O&M expenses etc. In this regard, the Petitioner should understand that for validation of

the assets the above requirement are a pre-requisite and the Commission cannot allow the pro-rata

depreciation on assets capitalized during the year in case the asset is capitalized at the year end.

Thus, the Commission directed the Petitioner to submit capitalisation policy as well as the fixed

asset register showing the date of additions made in the assets during the year along with the next

filing and also claim depreciation based on the rates specified in the Regulations for each class of

asset.


The Petitioner submitted that the capitalization policy has already been submitted to the

Commission during tariff determination exercise for FY 2014-15. As regards inclusion of interest

during construction, the Petitioner submitted that the same is included in the cost of assets

completed. Further, Fixed Assets Register for the period upto March, 2010 had already been

submitted to the Commission. Also, the Fixed Assets Register for FY 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13

have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 1889/UPCL/RM/ C-10, dated 29-

08-2014. However, the same has not been maintained up to date.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to maintain proper Fixed Asset Register showing

amongst others the date of capitalisation of each asset, their location, alongwith the accumulated

depreciation on the same and submit the same along with the next filing and also claim

depreciation based on the rates as specified in the Regulations for each class of asset.


The Commission directed the Petitioner to look into the issue of creating long term assets

from current liability and take appropriate remedial action for correcting this practice. Further, the

Petitioner was directed to expedite the matter and submit the details of assets created by mode

other than loan/grants/subsidies/deposit works/consumer contributions from FY 2001-02

onwards and submit the source of such finances duly validating the same from their cash flow and

fund flow statements from FY 2001-02 within 3 months of issue of APR Order for FY 2014-15.




The Petitioner submitted that it is very difficult task to prepare the details of assets created

by mode other than loan grants/subsidies/deposit works/consumer contributions from FY 2001-02

onwards. Therefore, the Commission has been requested to exempt UPCL to submit the said

information. In this regard, the Petitioner further submitted that some capital assets are created out

of payables to GoU towards State Royalty Power / Electricity Duty / Cess and Royalty.

The Commission does not agree with the submissions of the Petitioner that it is

appropriate to use the current liabilities as internal resources to create long term assets. Thus, the

Commission once again directs the Petitioner to look into the issue of creating long term assets

from current liability and take appropriate remedial action for correcting this practice. Further,

the Petitioner is directed to expedite the matter and submit the details of assets created by mode

other than loan/grants/subsidies/ deposit works/consumer contributions from FY 2001-02

onwards and submit the source of such finances duly validating the same from their cash flow

and fund flow statements from FY 2001-02 within 3 months of issue of this Order.

7.1.17 Employee Expenses

As compared to the required manpower as approved by the Commission in the MYT Order,

the actual recruitment done by the Petitioner is on lower side. Thus, the Commission had directed

the Petitioner to expedite its recruitment drive in accordance with approved plan.

Petitioner’s Submission:

The Petitioner submitted that direct recruitment is in process for the following positions:



Table 7.2: Summary of Direct Recruitment Position No. Updated Status

Deputy Chief Personnel Officer 03 Interviews are to be conducted.

Accounts Officer 11 Advt. released. Finalization of Recruitment Agency is under process. Open tender invited, Part –1 of tender opened on 30-10-2014. Law Officer 02

Assistant Engineer 14 Finalization of Recruitment Agency is under process. Open tender invited, Part-1 of tender opened on 30-10-2014.

Junior Engineer (E&M) 13

Advt. Released on 9-02-2014 by Board of Technical Education, Uttarakhand. As per BOTE scrutiny / shortlisting of received applications is under process.

Junior Engineer (Civil) 20

Office Assistant – III 77

TGT-2 496 Advertisement has been released on 8-12-2013 by Board of Technical Education, Uttarakhand. Rectt. process withheld as per directions of GoU till further orders.

Assistant Accountant 57 Advertisement has been released on 8-12-2013 by Board of Technical Education,

Uttarakhand. Written exam for the post of AA held on 07-09-2014 & for the post of ASK held on 28-09-2014. Assistant Store

Keeper 20

Total 713

Note : The recruitment is less, since only Interim Staff Structure has been sanctioned and the remaining

structure is still in process of approval.

The Petitioner further added that on UPCL’s request of 574 posts, GoU sanctioned only 61

posts on June 28, 2014. These posts includes 15 posts of Executive Engineers sanctioned in earlier

structure. All these 61 posts are promotion posts and promotion process is in progress on the basis

of availability in various cadres.

As already discussed in Chapter 3 of this Order, the Commission expresses its displeasure

on the slow or negligible pace of recruitment. In FY 2013-14, as per the submissions made by UPCL,

only 2 employees were recruited on the post of Senior Law Officers. However, 235 employees have

retired during the year which suggests that number of employees retired have outpaced the number

of employees recruited. This in turn is not only hampering the quality of supply to the consumers

but is also adversely affecting the revenues of UPCL as the core meter reading, billing and bill

distribution function of UPCL has been outsourced. UPCL is directed to expedite the recruitment

process and also submit a quarterly status report to the Commission detailing the steps taken by

it in this regard and also the status of the recruitments planned. (Refer Para 3.2.4.1)

Further, the Commission once again cautions UPCL that any saving in the employee

expenses on this account would not be shared with UPCL. Also, UPCL is advised to exercise



caution in incurring the expenditure as the Commission would allow the expenses during truing

up after examining the prudence of the same. (Refer Para 4.9.1)

7.1.18 A&G Expenses

The Commission directed the Petitioner to separately maintain account for the provisions

allowed by the Commission in the MYT Order.

The Commission further directed the Petitioner to submit the details of the aforesaid account

along with the Truing up for FY 2013-14.


The Petitioner has submitted the details and the Commission has considered the same while

carrying out the truing up for FY 2013-14.

7.1.19 Bad & Doubtful Debts

The Petitioner was directed to submit an Action Plan as to how it intends to move forward

upon receipt of the Audit Report within one month of the APR Order for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that Audit of receivables of UPCL as on March 31, 2012 is

completed with the following findings of Auditors:-

(i) Arrears as per ledger – Rs. 2117.20 Crore

(ii) Arrears identified as fictitious as per ledger – Rs. 153.56 Crore

(iii) Arrears in Commercial Diary – Rs. 1952.47 Crore

(iv) Arrears as per Accounts – Rs. 2026.35 Crore

Further, the Petitioner has submitted the division wise summary of the Audit Report.

As regards write off of fictitious and irrecoverable arrears, the Petitioner further submitted

that it has prepared a policy for writing off of Bad Debts. The said policy is under finalization and

on finalization of the same, exercise for writing off of fictitious and irrecoverable arrears shall be

taken up.



The Commission has taken note of the reply submitted by the Petitioner in this regard.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to finalise the policy and submit the same for

Commission’s perusal within three months from the date of this Order. (Refer Para 3.2.9)

7.1.20 Reliability Indices

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to comply with provisions of the Regulations

and submit the target indices along with the next tariff filing. The Commission further directed the

Petitioner to submit monthly report on Reliability Indices in the format prescribed by the

Commission vide letter no. 1200/UERC/Tech/9/2010 dated 28.09.2010. These reports should also

be submitted in MS-Excel soft form.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The Petitioner submitted that division wise report on reliability indices for the month of

April 2014 & May 2014 has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter dated 17-07-2014.

This report shall regularly be provided to the Commission on monthly basis. .

The Commission has noted Petitioner’s reply in this regard. However, the Commission

would like to clarify that as per the Regulations and for tariff determination process, scrutiny of

Performance Indices of any distribution utility is mandatory. The Commission hereby directs the

Petitioner to comply with the above provision of the Regulations and submit the target indices

along with the next tariff filing. The Commission, therefore, directs the Petitioner to submit

monthly report on Reliability Indices in the format prescribed by the Commission vide letter no.

1200/UERC/Tech/9/2010 dated 28.09.2010. These reports should also be submitted in MS-Excel

soft form.

7.1.21 Voltage wise Cost of Supply

The Commission had directed the Petitioner to submit status of metering at various voltage

levels, Distribution Transformers and at consumer level within one month from the date of APR

Order for FY 2014-15 along with the action plan for completion of the metering at various points

necessary for assessment of voltage wise losses namely sub-station, DTs, and at consumer level

along with the present status of metering at various voltage levels within one month of the APR

Order for FY 2014-15. The Petitioner was also directed to submit the detailed progress report



indicating the status of the work of energy audit and key findings on quarterly basis within 15 days

of the end of each quarter.


The Petitioner submitted that it had awarded the work of Energy Audit to M/s Enzen

Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Energy Audit Report submitted by the Consultant was provided to

the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 182/CE(Coml.)/Enzen Global, dated 30-04-2014. This report

also includes the details of metering at various voltage levels and distribution transformers. The

Petitioner further submitted that it is in process to compile such metering status and thereafter the

action plan for metering shall be prepared and submitted to the Commission.


Commission once again directs the Petitioner to submit the action plan along with the timelines

by which the Petitioner will be completing the above work as per the action plan, within one

month of issue of this Order.

7.1.22 Demand Side Management Measures

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the complete details of Bachat Lamp

Yojana Scheme alongwith DPR for the Commission’s approval by June 2014. The Commission also

directed the Petitioner to submit initiatives planned for energy efficiency and demand side

management measures for the Control Period along with the APR Petition in terms of approved

cost of the schemes and savings expected on implementation of the above schemes.

Petitioner’s submission

The Petitioner submitted that Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) has launched a programme

for capacity building of DISCOMS with the objective of strengthening the capacity for load

management, energy conservation, load analysis, development of DSM action plan and

implementation of DSM activities. As per the provision of the programme, an MoU has been

executed between BEE and UPCL on 04-08-2014 and UPCL has established a DSM Cell. Energy

Efficiency Service Limited (EESL) is an implementation agency for DSM plan and they have

selected two DSM consultants namely Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma (Financial Analyst) and Mr.

Utkarsh Arora (Technical Analyst) for UPCL. EESL has also selected agency – M/s Idam

Infrastructure Advisory Pvt. Ltd. for load research of UPCL.



Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted that it shall continue with Bachat Lamp Yojna as per

recommendation of consultants / EESL.


Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the report on various Demand Side Management

measures at regular quarterly intervals to the Commission.

7.1.23 Electrical Accidents

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the reasons for increase in fatal accidents

and indicate measures taken or planned to reduce the occurrence of such accidents within 3 months

of the date of issue of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that field officers have been directed to comply with the safety

rules and to ensure that no electrical accident occur in their areas.


Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the data on year wise fatal accidents for last 4 years,

i.e. from FY 2011-12 to FY 2014-15 within 3 months from the date of this Order.

7.1.24 Filing of APR and Truing up Petitions

The Commission directed the Petitioner to carry out this exercise regularly and file the APR

and truing up Petitions within the timeframe specified in the Regulations.

Petitioner’s submission

The Petitioner submitted that filing of APR and truing up petitions shall be done as per the

provisions of Law.

7.1.25 Issues raised by the Petitioner again despite Commission’s ruling in previous Tariff

Orders

The Commission directed the Petitioner to not raise such issues again in the subsequent

ARR and Tariff Petitions on which the Commission have already taken the decision and given its

ruling in the previous Tariff Orders, failing which, the Commission may reject the Petition upfront.




The Petitioner submitted that the same shall be done as per the provisions of law.

The Commission has noted the Petitioner’s reply in this regard. The Commission would

like to clarify that the directives issued by the Commission are also in accordance with the

provisions of law. Further, the Commission agrees with the views of State Advisory Committee

members that UPCL is raising same issues again in its subsequent ARR and Tariff Petitions.

Hence, the Commission hereby once again directs the Petitioner to not raise such issues again in

the subsequent ARR and Tariff Petitions on which the Commission have already taken the

decision and given its ruling in the previous Tariff Orders, failing which, the Commission may

reject the Petition upfront.

7.1.26 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-determination of Tariff for FY 2009-10

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the total recovery made through

additional surcharge on account of re-determination of tariff of FY 2009-10 in FY 2011-12 to FY 2013-

14 separately along with the Annual Performance Review for FY 2014-15.

The Petitioner was required to submit the desired details during the present tariff

determination exercise. The Petitioner is now directed to submit these details alongwith the

APR Petition for FY 2015-16.

7.1.27 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-determination of Tariff for FY 2010-11

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the total recovery made through

additional surcharge on account of re-determination of tariff of FY 2010-11 in FY 2013-14 as well as

during FY 2014-15 along with the Annual Performance Review Petition for FY 2014-15.

The Petitioner was required to submit the desired details during the present tariff

determination exercise. The Commission redirects UPCL to submit the total recovery made

through additional surcharge on account of re-determination of tariff of FY 2010-11 for FY 2013-

14 to FY 2015-16 along with the Annual Performance Review Petition for FY 2015-16.

7.2 Compliance to the Directives issued in APR Order dated April 10, 2014

7.2.1 Fictitious Sales



Anomalies were observed in sales data for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. Accordingly, the

Commission directed the Petitioner to come up with an action plan within 3 months of the APR

Order for FY 2014-15 to weed out fictitious sales and also as to how it proposes to furnish correct

and verifiable sales data for these and domestic consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10, dated 17-06-

2014 directed its field officers to record the consumption of Departmental Employees and

Pensioners on the basis of actual meter reading. Further, it also directed them to record the

unmetered consumption in domestic and PTW categories on the basis of average load factor of

metered consumers in these categories.

The Commission has taken note of the replies submitted by the Petitioner. However, the

Commission is not satisfied with the replies of the Petitioner while complying with the

directives of the Commission in this regard. The Commission has discussed this issue in detail

in Chapter 3 of the Order.

7.2.2 Open Access Sale

As regards the recording of Open Access Sales in the Commercial Diary the Petitioner was

directed to frame a mechanism to correct the previous sales in this regard and to ensure that sales

recorded in the Commercial Diary should exclude the energy received by a consumer through open

access. UPCL was required to submit the compliance within three months of the date of this Order.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10, dated 17-06-

2014 issued instructions to all its field officers that (i) all information in commercial statements, i.e.

CS-3, CS-4 and SG- IV shall be shown only in respect of energy supplied by the respective

distribution division to its consumers (ii) no information in respect of energy drawn by open access

consumers through open access from other sources shall be included in CS-3, CS-4, SG – IV

statements and energy account (iii) the commercial information in respect of energy received by the

consumers through open access shall regularly be shown in a separate format in the monthly

Commercial Diary.

The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner.



7.2.3 Load Shedding

Some of the consumers submitted that a 32 km Power Control Plan Rural Feeder named

Fulsunga Feeder at village Fulsunga, Rudrapur originates from Bhadai Pura Power House and

supplies power to five villages, viz. Gangpur, Fulsunga, Fulsungi, Shimlabahadur and Ganeshpur.

There are frequent breakdowns of 4-5 hrs daily in this line due to overloading. In addition, this line

is 40-50 years old. Thus, in this regard the Commission had directed the Petitioner to inspect the

line, take timely action, and submit the report to the Commission within 60 days from the date of

this Order.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL’s 11 kV Bagwara Feeder which feeds the nearby area of

Fulsunga village at Rudrapur, originates from 33/11 kV s/s Bhadaipura Power House and supplies

power to five villages, viz. Gangpur, Fulsunga, Fulsungi, Shimlabahadur and Ganeshpur. This

feeder is about 40 years old and the length of the same is 35 km. With a view to solve the problem

and to provide continuous supply to the consumers of the area, the Petitioner decided to construct a

new 11 kV feeder having length of 2.5 km. The work has been awarded and a line of 27 poles is

completed so far and the work is in progress.

The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner. The Commission

directs the Petitioner to expedite this work and submit the report to the Commission within 3

months from the date of this Order.

7.2.4 Metering of unmetered connections

The Commission in its previous Tariff Orders had been repeatedly directing the Petitioner to

get its unmetered connections converted into metered connections. However, UPCL has not been

taking the directives of the Commission seriously. Accordingly, the Commission accorded final

opportunity to ensure that all unmetered consumers were metered by September 30, 2014. The

Commission intended to discontinue prescribing norms of billing and tariff for unmetered

consumers from ensuing years. Failure to provide meters to unmetered consumers within the time

frame mentioned above may result in licensee having no avenue to raise bills to such consumers.




The Petitioner submitted that a report has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s

letter no. 1465/UPCL/RM/J-10 dated 09-07-2014 and as per report there were 6542 unmetered

connections as on March 31, 2014. Further, UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10, dated

17-06-2014 issued instructions to its field officers to meter all the unmetered connections within the

time allowed by the Commission. In accordance with the report submitted to the Commission vide

UPCL’s letter no. 2173/UPCL/RM/J-10 dated 09-10-2014, there were 6373 unmetered connections

as on July 31, 2014. Thus, UPCL has metered 169 unmetered connections from April to September,

2014. The Petitioner further added that remaining unmetered connections shall be metered by June

30, 2015.

The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner. The Commission has

discussed this issue in para 5.2.3.14 of Chapter 5 of the Order and directs the Petitioner to meter

all the remaining unmetered connections immediately and submit the compliance to the

Commission latest by 31.05.2015.

7.2.5 Interest on GPF Trust

The Petitioner’s management is directed to look into this issue and get the accounts

prepared and audit conducted of the Trust in a timely manner to avoid any misappropriation of

funds and submit the report on the same along with the next filing.


The Petitioner submitted that the appointment of Auditor to conduct the Audit of Accounts

of trust is in process. The completion of Audit is targeted by June 30, 2015.

The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner. The Commission

directs the Petitioner to expedite the matter to ensure that audit is completed by June 30, 2015

and to submit the audit report to the Commission by July 31, 2015.

7.2.6 Treatment of Assets sent for repairs

a) UPCL was directed to get this examined through an external agency, preferably a CA

firm and submit an audited report on the additions made by it since FY 2001-02 and

classify them into new additions and additions made after repairs of existing assets and

the financing of the new assets along with the tariff petition for FY 2015-16 failing which



the Commission would be constraint not to allow any capitalization thereafter. Similarly,

UPCL was also required to submit the breakup of deduction in GFA into assets sent for

repairs and assets written off since FY 2001-02. UPCL was also directed to submit

quarterly status in this regard.

b) The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit its response/comment on the

approach discussed in Chapter 3 of Truing up of FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 regarding

the treatment of assets sent to repair to the Commission within 3 months of the APR

Order for FY 2014-15. The Commission based on UPCL’s response would finalise this

approach to be incorporated by UPCL in its accounts from FY 2014-15 onwards.


The Petitioner submitted that accounts of UPCL are audited by statutory auditor under the

provisions of the Companies Act and by Comptroller & Auditor General of India. The audit for the

period upto FY 2012-13 has been completed and for FY 2013-14 is in process. Accordingly, the

Petitioner has requested the Commission for no further Audit of Assets.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Central Government, in consultation with

Comptroller & Auditor of India and State Governments, had issued the Electricity ( Supply) Annual

Accounts Rules, 1985. The Accounts of UPCL are being maintained as per the provisions of said

accounting rules and, therefore, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to not change the

accounting for assets sent to repair.

As already discussed in Para 3.2.6 of this Order, the Commission in the current proceedings

is provisionally considering the financing of the assets as submitted by UPCL.

Further, UPCL in its statement of accounts for FY 2011-12 has carried out an adjustment of

grants to the tune of Rs. 1296.24 Crore in its GFA in line with the AS-12 issued by ICAI. However, as

per the submissions made by UPCL before the Commission total assets financed out of grants till FY

2011-12 works out to Rs. 1243.02 Crore. UPCL is directed to submit the year wise reconciliation of

the financing of the assets submitted to the Commission within 6 months of the date of the

Order.

The Commission also directs the Petitioner to analyse the capitalisation amount from FY

2001-02 onwards and segregate the same under the following heads:

1. Asset class wise actual capitalisation incurred on creation of new assets;



2. Asset class wise capitalisation on account of receipt of repaired assets,

3. Asset class wise actual asset deletion/written off;

4. Asset class wise asset deletion on account of an asset being sent for repairs.

Further, the Petitioner should also segregate the associated financing with regard to S.No

1 to 4, i.e. financing of the asset capitalised and financing of the asset written off. Further, the

Petitioner is required to submit the above information within six months from the date of issue

of this Order and the Petitioner should also submit quarterly status report in this regard.

7.2.7 Segregation of LT and HT/ EHT Works

The delay on the account of segregation of LT/HT works on the part of the Petitioner clearly

shows inefficiency of the Petitioner for which it should be penalized. Accordingly, the Commission

had directed the Petitioner to provide the desired information at the earliest to carry out the truing

up in this regard. As the delay in providing information is on account of the Petitioner, no carrying

cost will be allowed to the Petitioner on the delayed approval of the capitalization in this regard.


The Petitioner submitted that the audited details of LT and HT works capitalized from FY

2007-08 to FY 2011-12 have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter dated 07-10-2013.

As regards shortcomings pointed out by the Commission in the report, the Petitioner requested the

Commission consider the figures of either accounts or audit report and allow eligible return/

expenses to UPCL in the matter.

The Commission has discussed this matter in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order.

7.2.8 Provision for bad and doubtful debts

Regarding the audit of receivables, the Petitioner had submitted that the works of audit of

receivables had already been awarded and the audit report is expected to be received in March

2014. The Petitioner was directed to submit an Action Plan as to how it intends to move forward

upon receipt of the Audit Report within one month of the date of APR Order for FY 2014-15 along

with the Audit Report.


The Petitioner submitted that the Audit of receivables of UPCL as on March 31, 2012 has

been completed with the following findings:-



(i) Arrears as per ledger – Rs. 2117.20 Crore

(ii) Arrears identified as fictitious as per ledger – Rs. 153.56 Crore

(iii) Arrears in Commercial Diary – Rs. 1952.47 Crore

(iv) Arrears as per Accounts – Rs. 2026.35 Crore

As regards writing off fictitious and irrecoverable arrears, the Petitioner submitted that it

has prepared a policy for writing off of Bad Debts. The said policy is under finalization and on

finalization of the same exercise, for writing off of fictitious and irrecoverable arrears shall be taken

up.

Accordingly, the Commission directs the Petitioner to finalise the policy and submit the

same for Commission’s perusal within three months from the date of this Order. (Refer Para

3.2.9)

7.2.9 Billing of Departmental Employees

The Petitioner was directed to ensure appropriate modification in its billing software so that

revenue for sale to the departmental employees is recognised at the slab wise rate prescribed for

domestic consumers. The difference between revenue so recognised and actual amount recovered

from its employees be shown as subsidy in its annual accounts.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated 17-06-

2014 (Annexure –A) directed its field officers to record the consumption of Departmental

Employees and Pensioners on the basis of actual meter reading. Further, the Petitioner has

incorporated the logic in its billing software for billing of the departmental employees and

pensioners. The basic information required for start of billing is being collected in respect of

departmental employees and pensioners, thereafter, billing shall be started as per the direction of

the Commission.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by Petitioner in this regard. The

Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite the process for collection of information and start

the billing as per Commission’s directive in this regard.



7.2.10 Power Purchase

The Petitioner was directed that from FY 2013-14 onwards it should record fixed charges

and variable charges for a given period separately and the past adjustments to be recorded

separately further segregating it under fixed charges, variable charges and other costs. The

Petitioner should revise its COMDATA for FY 2013-14 as per above methodology and submit the

same to the Commission within 4 months from the date of APR Order for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that it is maintaining the power purchase (com) data from April,

2014 onwards as per methodology suggested by the Commission, however, it is facing difficulty to

convert the already prepared data for FY 2013-14. In this regard, the Petitioner has requested the

Commission to exempt UPCL from this direction.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that annual accounts for FY 2013-14 have been prepared

and in these accounts, power purchase cost is shown in the old format. From FY 2014-15 onwards

power purchase costs will be shown in the accounts as per methodology directed by the

Commission.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by Petitioner in this regard.

7.2.11 UI Overdrawal and Underdrawal

UPCL was directed to reconcile the UI data submitted by it with the UI data available on the

Northern Region Power Committee (NRPC) and submit the same along with the Tariff Petition for

FY 2015-16 failing which the Commission would be forced to carry out the necessary corrections in

this regard based on the data available on NRPC’s website.


The Petitioner submitted that such data is not available in the bills received from NRLDC for

UI overdrawal and UPCL also could not derive such data from the information posted at website of

NRLDC. In this regard, the Petitioner further submitted that UPCL is determined to overdraw from

grid within limits prescribed by the Commission. There may be any little amount of energy

overdrawn beyond the permissible limit and this is unintentional. Accordingly, the Petitioner

requested the Commission to exempt it for submission of this information.



7.2.12 Subsidy from GoU for disaster affected areas

The Petitioner was required to maintain a separate account for the sales and revenue data

with respect to subsidy applicable for such consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that it has issued instructions to the field officers to maintain the

billing data of disaster affected areas exempted from paying electricity bills. The Petitioner also

directed them to maintain the said details in regular monthly commercial diary.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner and directs the

Petitioner to submit this information to the Commission alongwith APR Petition for FY 2015-16.

7.2.13 Capitalization of Assets

The Petitioner was directed to seek approval of the Commission before starting any capital

works in accordance with the Regulations, failing which the works not approved by the

Commission would not be considered during truing up.


The Petitioner submitted that filing of petition seeking approval of the Commission for

capital works shall be ensured as per the provisions of Regulations.

In this regard, the Commission re-iterates its direction and directs the Petitioner to seek

approval of the Commission before starting any capital works in accordance with the

Regulations, failing which the works not approved by the Commission would not be considered

during truing up.

7.2.14 Capitalization Policy and Fixed Asset Registers

The Commission had observed that the Petitioner was not complying with the directives of

the Commission in this regard. Accordingly, the Petitioner was again directed to frame a

capitalization policy and maintain fixed asset registers and submit the submit the same along with

the next filing and also claim depreciation based on the rates specified in the Regulations for each

class of asset, however, the Commission would like to point out that in case the Petitioner fails to

comply with the directions of the Commission, the Commission would be compelled to take strict

actions against the Petitioner.




The Petitioner submitted that Fixed Assets Register for the period upto March, 2010 had

already been submitted to the Commission. Further, the Fixed Assets Register for FY 2010-11, FY

2011-12 and FY 2012-13 have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no.

1889/UPCL/RM/C-10, dated 29-08-2014. As per Commission’s directive, depreciation shall be

claimed on the rates specified in the regulations for each class of asset shown in the FAR.

7.2.15 Installation of Meter

As regards the Objection raised by the Railways, the Petitioner was required to ensure

installation of appropriate meters at the consumer’s premises, i.e. railway traction sub-station

within three months from the date of issue of APR Order for FY 2014-15 for billing purpose.


The Petitioner submitted that Regulation 2(2)(a) of the Central Electricity Authority

(Installation and Operation of Meters) Amendment Regulations, 2010 provides that the consumer

meter shall be installed by the distribution licensee either at the consumer premises or outside the

consumer premises. Hence, it is the discretion of distribution licensee to provide the meter either at

consumer premises or outside the consumer premises. UPCL has installed the consumer meter at

Grid substation, i.e. outside the consumer premises.

The Commission expresses its displeasure on the compliance made by UPCL in this

regard. UPCL is decided to ensure proper compliances as directed by the Commission.

7.2.16 Consumers under Snow Bound (RTS-1 Category)

The Commission directed the Petitioner to check this aspect about existence or non existence

of consumers in Snowbound Area and submit the same with evidence duly validating its claim in

this regard in the Annual Performance Review Petition for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated 17-06-

2014 (Annexure–A) issued instructions to all the executive engineers of distribution divisions

covering any hilly areas to contact the concerned District Magistrate and to seek the copies of orders

by which any area has been notified as snow bound/snow line. During discussion in the meetings,



field officers informed that no snow bound / snow line areas have been notified in the supply area

of their distribution divisions / circles / zones and, therefore, no consumer / consumption details

are being shown in the commercial statements. Accordingly, the Petitioner requested the

Commission to abolish the rate schedule RTS –IA (Snow bound).

The Commission has discussed this issue in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order.

7.2.17 kWh Tariff

The Commission directed the Petitioner to replace the old meters with new meters capable

of recording sales in kVAh for all PWW consumers within three months of the APR Order for FY

2014-15 and also furnish basis of billing so far done to these consumers with explanation for not

providing appropriate meters by July 31, 2014.


The Petitioner vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated 17-06-2014 issued instructions

to the field units to replace all meters in public water works category not capable of recording kVAh

unit of electricity by new meters capable of recording kWh unit of electricity. This work is expected

to be completed by March 31, 2015.

The Commission has discussed this issue in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order and has

issued fresh directive in this regard, which is summarised in subsequent section on New

Directives issued in this Order.

7.2.18 MCG Charges

The Commission directed that the licensee tenders a certificate under affidavit, that

appropriate modification based on the above have been incorporated in its billing software on or

before June 15, 2014.


The Petitioner submitted that necessary modification has been made in the billing software

of UPCL to charge the MCG from PTW Consumers. This has been reported to the Commission vide

UPCL’s letter no. 1602/UPCL/RM/B-14 dated 24-07-2014.


Further, the Commission has revised MCG in this Order. The Commission directs that the



licensee tenders a certificate under affidavit, that appropriate modification based on the above

have been incorporated in its billing software on or before June 15, 2015.

7.2.19 Adjustment of Revenue Surplus

The Petitioner was directed to adjust the estimated revenue surplus for FY 2014-15 in FCA if

it becomes due as applicable for FY 2014-15 and shall continue to adjust the surplus of Rs. 20.92

Crore till it is exhausted, from the Fuel Cost Adjustment becoming due for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission vide its Order dated 11-09-2014 approved the

claim of UPCL of FCA amounting to Rs. 19.80 Crore and ordered to adjust the same from the

revenue surplus of Rs. 20.92 Crore. Accordingly, after the adjustment of FCA for the first quarter of

FY 2014-15, UPCL had a surplus of Rs. 1.12 Crore. The Petitioner has taken action as per the Orders

of Commission.


7.3 Fresh Directives

7.3.1 Issue of Voltage wise Loss

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the basis for working out voltage wise

losses alongwith approach & methodology adopted by it within two months from the date of this

Order. (Refer para 2.27.8)

7.3.2 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the year wise details of the excess

liabilities written off under the head of power purchase as also the complete details and

documentary evidence of unpaid liabilities mentioned in the accounts of FY 2013-14 to the

Commission in the format already sent to it within one month from the date of issue of this

Order. The Commission will take appropriate view in the matter in the Tariff Order for FY 2016-

17. (Refer Para 3.2.3)

7.3.3 Cost of Deficit Power

The Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite the process of medium term

procurement of power through competitive bidding from FY 2015-16 onwards and submit the



details of steps taken towards same within 3 months from the date of this Order. (Refer Para

4.4.9.6)

7.3.4 RTS-4 (Private Tubewells)

The Commission directs the Petitioner to conduct a study to identify and assess the load

and consumption of thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller consumers and submit its report to the

Commission within 6 months from the date of this Order. (Refer Para 5.2.3.6)

7.3.5 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission directs the Petitioner to take effective steps to reduce the percentage of

provisional billing cases namely under NA/NR, IDF/RDF/ADF below 3% and submit an Action

Plan in this regard within 2 months of this Order. (Refer para 6.2.1.1)

7.3.6 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters

The Commission directs the Petitioner to incorporate logic in its billing software for such

bill basis namely NA/NR, IDF /ADF/RDF in accordance with the Electricity Supply Code &

Standard of Performance Regulations of the Commission. The Commission also directs the

Petitioner to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to 3% in accordance with the Regulations

by 30th September, 2015. (Refer para 6.2.1.2)

7.3.7 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission directs the Petitioner to replace all the existing electro-mechanical

meters by static/electronic meters by 31st December, 2015 and consolidate its complete database

for electro-mechanical meters including R-APDRP covered towns and submit correct reports to

the Commission latest by 30th June, 2015. (Refer para 6.2.1.3)

7.3.8 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

The Commission directs the Petitioner to write off ghost/fictitious/non-existent

consumers from its billing database under a transparent policy framed by the Petitioner latest by

30th September, 2015. (Refer para 6.2.1.4)



7.3.9 NB & SB Cases

The Commission directs the Petitioner to liquidate and finalise NB/SB cases and set a

target of realisation from at least 25% of these cases within 6 months from the date of issuance of

this Order. (Refer para 6.2.2.1)

7.3.10 Outstanding Arrears

The Commission directs the Petitioner to make sincere efforts in mobilizing its resources

to continuously make efforts throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a structured

programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual defaulters. (Refer para 6.2.2.2)

7.3.11 Status of KCC Consumers

The Commission directs the Petitioner that the KCC consumers having low load factor

should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern and abnormality in consumption

pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission also directs the Petitioner to

check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted demand and

take corrective action in such cases. (Refer para 6.2.2.3)

7.3.12 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission directs the Petitioner to take immediate steps to frame a time bound

programme along with laying down standard procedure for realising pending arrears and,

accordingly, a report on the action taken, arrears realised, arrears remaining outstanding and

reasons for the same should be submitted to the Commission within three months of the

issuance of this Order. (Refer para 6.2.2.4)

7.3.13 Billing and Collection System

The Commission directs the Petitioner to comply with the directions issued in the

Commission’s Order dated 21.01.2015 and furnish an Action Plan in the matter of Bill Collection

System distinctly for Rural and Urban areas across the State latest by 01.05.2015. (Refer Para 6.2.3)

7.3.14 Energy Audit

The Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to provide meters at each feeder, ‘T’ points,

DTs & consumers in the entire network for efficient energy auditing of the whole network or



part of the network area and thereafter, start conducting energy audit on periodical basis and

submit action taken report to the Commission on quarterly basis. (Refer Para 6.3)

7.3.15 Abnormal Sales in Public Lamps Category

The Commission directs the Petitioner to examine the same and report to the Commission

the reasons for such high consumption in public lamps within 2 months of the date of the Order.

UPCL is directed to examine the same alongwith the status of billing of fixed charges to public

lamps in other divisions and report to the Commission the reasons for such negligence within 2

months of the date of the Order. (Refer Para 6.5.1)

7.3.16 Abnormal Sales in Private Tubewell Category


the status of such consumers within 2 months of the date of the Order. (Refer Para 6.5.2)

7.3.17 Abnormal Sales in Public Water Works Category


the reasons for such high consumption in public water works and also the action plan for

rectifying the anomaly within 2 months of the date of the Order. UPCL is also directed to give

reasons for such low average billing rate within two months of the date of the Order.


Commission has also decided to review the monthly performance of UPCL in this regard and,

accordingly, UPCL is also directed to submit the monthly commercial report (SG-IV). (Refer Para

6.5.3)

7.3.18 Abnormal Sales in LT Industries

The Commission directs the Petitioner to examine the same and report the reasons for

such low revenue alongwith the corrective action taken in this regard, within 2 months of the

date of the Order. (Refer Para 6.5.4.1)

7.3.19 Abnormal Sales in HT industries (Upto 1000 kVA)



date of the Order. (Refer Para 6.5.4.2)



7.3.20 Abnormal Sales in Mixed Load Category



date of the Order. (Refer Para 6.5.5)

7.4 Conclusion

Having considered the submissions made by the Petitioner, the responses of various

stakeholders and the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations of the

Commission, the Commission hereby approves that:

(i) Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., the distribution and retail supply licensee

in the State will be entitled to charge the tariffs from consumers in its licensed

area of supply as given in the Rate Schedule for FY 2015-16 annexed hereto as

Annexure-1. These Tariffs will be effective from April 01, 2015.

(ii) Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., the distribution and retail supply licensee

in the State will realize from consumers of Electricity in the State, miscellaneous

charges as listed out in Annexure- 2 of this Order and shall not recover any other

charge, fee, deposit etc., unless approved by the Commission.

(iii) The above tariffs shall continue to be applicable till revised by the Commission.

(iv) The Petitioner shall forward a report on compliance of the directions given in this

Order within one month of time stipulated for compliance.

(K.P. Singh) Member

(C.S. Sharma) Member

(Subhash Kumar) Chairman


8. Annexures

8.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2015

A. General Conditions of Supply

1. Character of Service

i) Alternating Current 50 Hz., single phase, 230 Volts (with permissible variations) up to a

load of 4 kW.

ii) Alternating Current 50 Hz, three phase, 4 wire, 400 Volts or above (with permissible

variations) for loads above 4 kW depending upon the availability of voltage of supply.

2. Conditions for New Connections

i) Supply to new connections of more than 75 kW (88 kVA) and up to 2550 kW (3000 kVA)

shall be released at 11 kV or above, loads above 2550 kW (3000 kVA) and upto 8500 kW

(10000 kVA) shall be released at 33 kV or above and loads above 8500 kW (10000 kVA)

shall be released at 132 kV or above.

ii) All new connections shall be given with meter conforming to CEA Regulations on

Installation and Operation of Meters.

iii) All new 3 phase connections above 4 kW shall be released with Electronic Tri-vector

Meter having Maximum Demand Indicator.

iv) All new Single Point Bulk Connection shall be given only for Load of more than 75 kW.

v) Consumers having motive loads of more than 5 BHP shall install Shunt Capacitor of

appropriate rating and conforming to BIS specification.

vi) All new connections at HT/EHT should be released only with 3 phase 4 wire meters.

3. Point of Supply

Energy will be supplied to a consumer at a single point.

4. Billing in Defective Meter (ADF/IDF), Meter Not Read/Not Accessible (NA/NR)

and Defective Reading (RDF) Cases

8. Annexures


In NA/NR cases, the energy consumption shall be assessed and billed as per average

consumption of last one year average consumption (as per Regulations 3.1.2 (3) of the Electricity

Supply Code) which shall be subject to adjustment when actual reading is taken. Such provisional

billing shall not continue for more than two billing cycles at a stretch. Thereafter, the licensee shall

not be entitled to raise any bill on provisional basis. In case of defective meter (ADF/IDF) and

defective reading (RDF) cases, the consumers shall be billed on the basis of the average

consumption of the past three billing cycles immediately preceding the date of the meter being

found or being reported defective (as per Regulations 3.2(1) of the Electricity Supply Code). These

charges shall be leviable for a maximum period of three months or two billing cycle in case of bi-

monthly billing only during which time the licensee is required to replace the defective meter.

Thereafter, the licensee shall not be entitled to raise any bill without correct meters.

The checking and replacement of defective meter cases namely IDF and ADF and defective

reading cases namely RDF shall be done by the licensee in accordance with Regulation 3.1.4 of the

Electricity Supply Code.

5. Billing in case of domestic metered consumers in rural/hilly areas whose meters

are not being read

For cases relating to domestic metered consumers in rural/hilly areas, where meter reading

is either not being taken regularly or taken randomly over delayed interval of time, the provisional

billing under these circumstances for such consumers shall be done at the normative levels of

consumption as given below, which shall be subject to annual adjustment based on actual meter

reading.

Category Normative Consumption Domestic (Rural-Hilly Areas) 30 kWh/kW/month Domestic (Rural-Other Areas) 50 kWh/kW/month

For this purpose, the contracted load shall be rounded off to next whole number. Billing on

this basis is subject to annual adjustment and the licensee is to ensure meter reading of such

consumers at least once a year.

6. Billing in New Connection or conversion from unmetered to metered Cases

For cases such as new connections or conversion of unmetered to metered connection, where

past reading is not available, the provisional billing shall be done at the normative levels of



consumption as given below, which shall be subject to adjustment when actual reading is taken.

Category Normative Consumption Domestic (Urban) 100 kWh/kW/month Domestic (Rural-Hilly Areas) 30 kWh/kW/month Domestic (Rural-Other Areas) 50 kWh/kW/month Non-domestic (Urban) 150 kWh/kW/month Non-domestic (Rural) 100 kWh/kW/month Private Tube Wells 60 kWh/BHP/month Industry LT Industry 150 kWh/kW/month HT Industry 150 kVAh /kVA /month

For this purpose, the contracted load shall be rounded off to next whole number. Billing on

this basis shall continue only for a maximum period of 2 billing cycles, during which the licensee

should ensure actual reading. Thereafter, the licensee shall not be entitled to raise any bill without

correct meter reading. In all other categories 1st bill shall be raised only on actual reading.

7. Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) (for all categories except PTW)

In the event of electricity bill rendered by licensee, not being paid in full within 15 days’

grace period after due date, a surcharge of 1.25% on the principal amount of bill which has not been

paid shall be levied from the original due date for each successive month or part thereof until the

payment is made in full without prejudice to the right of the licensee to disconnect the supply in

accordance with Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The licensee shall clearly indicate in the bill

itself the total amount, including DPS, payable for different dates after the due date, after allowing

for the grace period of 15 days, taking month as the unit as shown exemplified below:

EXAMPLE:

Amount payable by Due date Due Date

Rs. 100/-

1st May 2015

AAmmoouunntt PPaayyaabbllee

On or Before 16th May 2015

Rs. 100/-

After 16th May 2015

Rs. 101.25

After 1st June 2015

Rs. 102.50

8. Annexures


8. Solar Water Heater rebate

If consumer installs and uses solar water heating system, rebate of Rs. 100/- p.m. for each

100 litre capacity of the system or actual bill for that month whichever is lower shall be given

subject to the condition that consumer gives an affidavit to the licensee to the effect that he has

installed such system, which the licensee shall be free to verify from time to time. If any such claim

is found to be false, in addition to punitive legal action that may be taken against such consumer,

the licensee will recover the total rebate allowed to the consumer with 100% penalty and debar him

from availing such rebate for the next 12 months.

9. Rebate for Prepaid Metering

Prepaid metering scheme approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated 11.04.2012

for FY 2012-13 shall continue to be in force. A rebate of 4% of energy charges for Domestic category

(RTS-1 and RTS-1A) and 3% of energy charges for Other LT consumers shall be allowed to the

consumers under the Prepaid Metering Scheme from the date of installation and operationalisation

of Prepaid Meters. However, no rebate shall be applicable on Part (A) of RTS-10, i.e. Temporary

Supply for Illumination & Public Address Needs.

10. Rebate/surcharge for availing supply at voltage higher/lower than base voltage

(i) For consumers having contracted load upto 75 kW/88 kVA - If the supply is given at

voltage above 400 Volts and upto 11 kV, a rebate of 5% would be admissible on the

Energy Charge.

(ii) For consumers having contracted load above 75 kW/88 kVA – In case the supply is

given at 400 Volts, the consumer shall be required to pay an extra charge of 10% on the

bill amount calculated at the Energy Charge.

(iii) For consumers having contracted load above 75kW/88 kVA – In case of supply at 33

kV the consumer shall receive a rebate of 2.5% on the Energy Charge.

(iv) For consumers having contracted load above 75 kW/88 kVA and receiving supply at

132 kV and above, the consumer shall receive a rebate of 7.5% on the Energy Charge.

(v) All voltages mentioned above are nominal rated voltages.



11. Low Power Factor Surcharge (not applicable to Domestic, PTW categories and

also to other categories having kVAh based Tariff)

(i) On the consumers without Electronic Tri Vector Meters who have not installed shunt

capacitors of appropriate ratings and specifications, a surcharge of 5% on the current

energy charges shall be levied.

(ii) On consumers with Electronic Tri Vector Meters, a surcharge of 5% on current energy

charges will be levied for having power factor below 0.85 and upto 0.80 & a surcharge

of 10% of current energy charges will be levied for having power factor below 0.80.

12. Excess Load/Demand Penalty (Not applicable to Domestic, Snow bound and PTW

categories)

In case of consumers where electronic meters with MDI have been installed, if the maximum

demand recorded in any month exceeds the contracted load/demand, charges for such excess

load/demand shall be levied equal to twice the normal rate of fixed/demand charge as applicable.

Such excess load penalty shall be levied only for the month in which maximum demands exceeds

contracted load.

Example:

(i) For consumers where fixed charges on the basis of contracted load/demand have been

specified:

Contracted load 30 kW, Maximum Demand 43 kW,

Excess Demand 43-30=13 kW, Rate of Fixed Charges= Rs. 40/kW

Fixed Charges for contracted load = 30 x 40=Rs. 1200

Fixed Charges for excess load = 13x (2 x40) =Rs. 1040

Total Fixed Charges = 1200+1040= Rs. 2240

(ii) For industrial consumers billed on billable demand:

Contracted demand 2500 kVA, Maximum Demand 2800 kVA, Billable Demand =2800

kVA

Excess Demand =2800-2500=300 kVA, Rate of Demand Charges= Rs. 290/kVA

8. Annexures


Demand Charges for contracted demand =2500 x 290=Rs. 725000

Demand Charges for excess demand = 300x (2 x 290) =Rs. 174000

Total Demand Charges = 725000+174000= Rs. 899000

13. Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG)

The minimum consumption guarantee (MCG) charges shall be applicable to all non-

domestic consumers having load above 25 kW, metered PTW consumers and all industrial

consumers for their consumption in kWh (where kWh tariff is applicable) and kVAh (where kVAh

tariff is applicable). The Commission has specified the minimum consumption guarantee on

monthly basis as well as on annual basis. The minimum consumption guarantee charges will be

levied on monthly basis when monthly consumption is less than the units specified for monthly

minimum consumption guarantee (MCG). In case Cumulative actual consumption from the

beginning of financial year exceeds the units specified for annual minimum consumption guarantee

(MCG) no further billing of monthly MCG shall be done. In such cases differential paid in excess of

actual billing shall be adjusted in the bill for month of March 2016.

Example:

Illustrative case for LT Industry-Connected load of 10 kW

Month Actual

consumption (kWh)

Cumulative Actual

Consumption (kWh)

Billed Consumption

(kWh)

Cumulative Billed

Consumption (kWh)

Apr 450 450 500 500 May 550 1000 550 1050 Jun 540 1540 540 1590 Jul 600 2140 600 2190 Aug 350 2490 500 2690 Sep 300 2790 500 3190 Oct 400 3190 500 3690 Nov 700 3890 700 4390 Dec 800 4690 800 5190 Jan 550 5240 550 5740 Feb 650 5890 650 6390 Mar 550 6440 50 6440

Further in accordance with the Tariff Orders the bills for PTW consumers will be raised

twice in a financial year, i.e. June and December of each year. For the uniform basis of billing, the

following procedure shall be adopted for billing the PTW consumers:



1) For bills to be issued in June 2015:

The MCG per BHP for bills to be issued in June 2015 would be as under:

a) December 2014 to March 2015 – 70 X 4= 280 units

b) April 2015 and May 2015 – 60 X 2= 120 units

c) Total – 400 units (280+120)

2) For bills to be issued in December 2015 the MCG shall be reckoned as 360 units/ BHP (60

units per BHP/ month X 6)

The MCG will be attracted only if the actual recorded consumption is lower than MCG

indicated above.

14. Single Point Bulk Supply for Domestic, Non Domestic and Mixed Load

Categories

(i) Single Point Bulk Supply connection shall only be allowed for Sanctioned/Contracted

Load above 75 kW with single point metering for further distribution to the end users.

However, this shall not restrict the individual owner/occupier from applying for

individual connection.

(ii) The person who has taken the single point supply shall be responsible for all payments

of electricity charges to the Licensee and collection from the end consumer as per tariff

prescribed for such consumer. The Licensee shall ensure that tariff being charged from

end consumer does not exceed the prescribed tariff for the concerned category of the

consumer.

(iii) The person who has taken the single point supply shall also be deemed to be an agent

of Licensee to undertake distribution of electricity for the premises for which single

point supply is given under seventh proviso to section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003

and distribution licensee shall be responsible for compliance of all provisions of the

Act and Rules & Regulations thereunder within such area.

(iv) Single Point Bulk Supply under “Domestic” shall only be applicable for Residential

Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings including common facilities (such as

Lifts, Common Lighting and Water Pumping system) of such Residential

8. Annexures


Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings. In case these Residential

Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings also have some shops or other

commercial establishments, the tariff of Mixed Load shall be applicable for such

premises.

(v) Single Point Bulk Supply Under “Non-Domestic” shall only be applicable for Shopping

Complexes/Multiplex/Malls.

15. Rounding off

(i) The contracted load/demand shall be expressed in whole number only and fractional

load/demand shall be rounded up to next whole number.

Example:

Contracted/Sanctioned Load of 0.15 kW shall be reckoned as 1 kW for tariff purposes.

Similarly, contracted/sanctioned load of 15.25 kW/kVA shall be taken as 16 kW/kVA.

(ii) All bills will be rounded off to the nearest rupee.

16. Other Charges

Apart from the charges provided in the Rate of Charge and those included in the Schedule of

Miscellaneous Charges, no other charge shall be recovered from the consumer unless approved by

the Commission.



B. Tariffs RTS-1: Domestic

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power to:

(i) Residential premises for light, fan, power and other domestic purposes including common facilities (such as Lifts, Common Lighting and Water Pumping system)

(ii) Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW for Residential Colonies, Residential Multi-storeyed buildings where energy is exclusively used for domestic purpose including common facilities (such as Lifts, Common Lighting and Water Pumping system) of such Residential Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings

(iii) Places of worship, i.e. Mandir, Masjid, Gurudwara, Church, etc. (only for standalone places of worship and not for the places of worship which have other facilities such as Dharamshala, Community Hall, Dormatories, etc. attached with it)

(This rate schedule shall also be applicable to consumers having contracted load upto 2 kW

as also consumption upto 200 kWh/month and who are using some portion of the premises

mentioned above for non-domestic purposes. However, if either contracted load for such premises

is above 2 kW or consumption is more than 200 kWh/month, then the entire energy consumed shall

be charged under the appropriate Rate Schedule unless such load is segregated and separately

metered.)

2. Rate of Charge

Description Fixed Charges Energy Charges

1) Domestic

1.1) Life line consumers

Below Poverty Line and Kutir Jyoti having load upto 1 kW and consumption upto 30 units per month

Rs. 11/connection/month Rs. 1.50/kWh

1.2) Other Domestic Consumers

Upto 100 units per month Rs. 35 /month Rs. 2.40/kWh

101-200 units per month Rs. 50 /month Rs. 2.90/kWh




Above 500 units per month Rs. 145 /month Rs. 4.00/kWh

2) Single Point Bulk Supply Rs. 40/kW/month Rs. 3.40/kWh

8. Annexures


RTS-1A: Snowbound

1. Applicability


(i) Domestic and non-domestic consumers in snowbound areas.

(ii) This Schedule applies to areas notified as snowbound/snowline areas by the

concerned District Magistrate.

2. Rate of Charge

Description Fixed Charges Energy charges 1) Domestic

Rs.11/connection/month Rs. 1.50/kWh

2) Non-domestic upto 1 kW Rs. 1.50/kWh 3) Non-domestic more than 1kW & upto 4 kW Rs. 2.25/kWh 4) Non-Domestic more than 4 kW Rs. 20/connection/month Rs. 3.40/kWh

3. All other conditions of this Schedule shall be same as those in RTS-1.



RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1. Applicability

This schedule should apply to supply of power to:

1.1 (i) Government/Municipal Hospitals (ii) Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions

(iii) Charitable Institutions registered under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whose income is exempted from tax under this Act 1.2 Small Non Domestic Consumers with connected load upto 4 kW and consumption upto 50

units per month

1.3 Other Non-Domestic Users including single point bulk supply above 75 kW for shopping

complexes/multiplex/malls including common facilities (such as lifts, common lighting and

water pumping system).

1.4 Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings - All commercial (road side / roof top or on

the side of the buildings etc.) standalone independent advertisement hoardings such as

private advertising sign posts/ sign boards/ sign glows/flex that are independently

metered through a separate meter.

2. Rate of Charge S.

No. Description Fixed Charges

Energy charges

MCG (kVAh/kW of contracted load)*

1.1

(i) Government/Municipal Hospitals (ii) Government/Government Aided Educational

Institutions (iii) Charitable Institutions registered under the Income

Tax Act, 1961 and whose income is exempted from tax under this Act

(a) Upto 25 kW Rs. 40/ kW Rs. 4.05/ kWh

(b) Above 25 kW Rs. 45/ kVA

Rs. 3.65/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA /month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/annum

1.2.

Other Non Domestic Users (a) Small Non Domestic Consumers with connected load

upto 4 kW and consumption upto 50 units per month Rs. 45 /

kW Rs. 4.20/

kWh

(b) Others upto 25 kW not covered in 1.2(a) above Rs. 45 / kW

Rs. 4.85/ kWh

(c) Above 25 kW Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs. 4.75/ kVAh


kVA/ annum

1.3 Single Point Bulk Supply** Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs. 4.65/ kVAh


kVA/ annum 1.4 Independent Advertisement Hoardings Rs. 60/kW Rs. 4.90/kWh

* For consumers having contracted load in kW, the contracted load for MCG purposes shall be calculated by considering a power factor of 0.85.

8. Annexures


The Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charge shall be in addition to fixed/demand charge and shall be levied if Consumption during a month

is less than MCG and will be subject to adjustment

** For loads above 75 kW for shopping complexes/multiplex/malls

(i) ToD Meters shall be read by Meter Reading Instrument (MRI) only with complete

dump with phasor diagram, Tamper Reports, full load survey reports etc. shall be

downloaded for the purpose of complete analysis.

(ii) All consumers above 25 kW shall necessarily have ToD Meters.

(iii) No meter shall be read at zero load or very low load. Licensee shall carry appropriate

external load and shall apply the same, wherever, necessary to take MRI at load.

(iv) Copy of MRI Summary Report shall be provided alongwith the Bill. Full MRI Report

including load survey report shall be provided on demand and on payment of Rs. 15/

Bill.



RTS-3: Public Lamps

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power to public lamps including street lighting

system, traffic control signals, lighting of public parks, etc. The street lighting of Harijan Bastis and

villages are also covered by this Rate Schedule.

2. Rate of Charge

Category Fixed Charges Energy Charge

Urban (Metered) Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

Rural (Metered) Rs. 35/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

3. Maintenance Charge

In addition to the “Rate of Charge” mentioned above, a sum of Rs. 10/- per light point per

month shall be charged for operation and maintenance of street lights covering only labour charges

where all material required will be supplied by the local bodies. However, the local bodies will have

the option to operate and maintain the public lamps themselves and in such case no maintenance

charge will be charged.

4. Provisions of Street Light Systems

In case, the maintenance charge, as mentioned above, is being charged then the labour

involved in the subsequent replacement or renewals of lamps shall be provided by the licensee but

all the material shall be provided by the local bodies. If licensee provides material at the request of

local body, cost of the same shall be chargeable from the local body.

The cost involved in extension of street light mains (including cost of sub-stations if any) in

areas where distribution mains of the licensee have not been laid, will be paid for by the local

bodies.

8. Annexures


RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/ Pumping Sets

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power to private tube-wells / pumping sets for

irrigation purposes and for incidental agricultural processes confined to chaff cutter, thrasher, cane

crusher and rice huller only. However, the tariff applicable for RTS-4 shall only be applicable if such

incidental agricultural processes are being carried out for agricultural produce of the connection

sanctioned for irrigation purposes.

2. Rate of charge

Category Fixed Charges Rs./BHP/Month

Energy Charges Rs./kWh

Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG)

RTS 4: PTW (Metered) Nil 1.40 60 units /BHP/Month & 720 units /BHP/Annum

3. Payments of bills and Surcharge for Late Payment

The bill shall be raised for this category twice a year only, i.e. by end of December (for

period June to November) and end of June (for period December to May). The bill raised in

December may be paid by the consumer either in lump-sum or in parts (not more than four times)

till 30th April next year for which no DPS shall be levied. Similarly, bill raised in June may be paid

by 31st October without any DPS. In case consumer fails to make payment within the specified

dates, a surcharge @ 1.25% per month for the period (months or part thereof) shall be payable on the

outstanding amount.



RTS-4A: Agriculture Allied Activities

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power for use in nurseries growing plants/saplings,

polyhouses growing flowers/vegetables and fruits which doesn’t involve any kind of processing of

product except for storing and preservation.

2. Rate of charge

Category Fixed Charges Rs./BHP/Month

Energy Charges Rs./kWh

Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG)

RTS 4(A): Agricultural Allied Services Nil 2.25

60 units/ BHP/ month & 720 units /BHP/ annum

8. Annexures


RTS-5: Government Irrigation System

1. Applicability


(i) State Tubewells, World Bank Tubewells, Pumped Canals and Lift irrigation schemes,

Laghu Dal Nahar etc.,

(ii) Irrigation system owned and operated by any Government department.

2. Rate of charge

Description Fixed Charges Energy Charges 1. Upto 75 kW Rs. 40/kW/month Rs. 4.35/kWh

2. More than 75 kW Rs. 40/kVA/month Rs. 4.20/kVAh



RTS-6: Public Water Works

1. Applicability

This Schedule shall apply to supply of power to Public Water Works, Sewage Treatment

Plants and Sewage Pumping Stations functioning under Jal Sansthan, Jal Nigam or other local

bodies and Plastic Recycling Plants.

2. Rate of charge

Particulars Fixed Charges Energy Charges

Urban Rs. 40/kVA/month Rs. 4.25/kVAh Rural Rs. 35/kVA/month Rs. 4.25/kVAh

8. Annexures


RTS-7: LT and HT Industry

1. Applicability


(i) Industries and /or processing or agro- industrial purposes, power loom as well as to

Arc/Induction Furnaces, Rolling/Re-rolling Mills, Mini Steel Plants and to other

power consumers not covered under any other Rate Schedule

(ii) The vegetable, fruits, floriculture & Mushroom integrated units engaged in processing,

storing and packaging in addition to farming and those not covered under RTS-4A

shall also be covered under this Rate Schedule.

2. Specific Conditions of Supply

(i) All connections shall be connected with MCB (Miniature Circuit Breaker) or Circuit

Breaker / Switch Gear of appropriate rating and BIS Specification.

(ii) The supply to Induction and Arc Furnaces shall be made available only after ensuring

that the loads sanctioned are corresponding to the load requirements of tonnage of

furnaces. The minimum load of 1 Tonne furnace shall in no case be less than 400 kVA

and all loads will be determined on this basis. No supply will be given for loads below

this norm.

(iii) Supply to Steel Units shall be made available at a voltage of 33 kV or above through a

dedicated individual feeder only with check meter at sub-station end. Difference of

more than 3%, between readings of check meter and consumer meter(s), shall be

immediately investigated by the licensee and corrective action shall be taken.

(iv) Supply to all new connections with load above 1000 kVA should be released on

independent feeders only with provisions as at (iii) above.



Description Energy Charge Fixed /Demand

Charge per month

Minimum Consumption

Guarantee (MCG) ** 1. LT Industry having contracted load upto 75kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted load up to 25 kW Rs. 3.95/kWh Rs. 105/ kW of contracted load

$50 kWh/kW of contracted load /

month &

600 kWh/kW of contracted load /

annum

1.2 Contracted load more than 25 kW Rs. 3.60/kVAh Rs. 105/ kVA of contracted load

50 kVAh/kVA *** of contracted load /

month &

600 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

annum 2. HT Industry having contracted load above 88kVA/75 kW (100 BHP) Load Factor# Rs./ kVAh

2.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA upto 40% 3.40 Rs. 230/kVA of the

billable demand* 100 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

month &

1200 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

annum

Above 40% 3.75

2.2 Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.40 Rs. 290/kVA of the billable demand* Above 40% 3.75

$ 30 kWh/kW/month and 360 kWh/kW/annum for Atta Chakkis. * Billable demand shall be the actual maximum demand or 80 % of the contracted load whichever is higher.

** The Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charge shall be in addition to fixed/demand charge and shall be levied if Consumption during a month is less than MCG and will be subject to adjustment on annual basis. The energy charges for units billed to cover MCG during any month shall be charged at the rates specified for load factor upto 40% during normal hours and the annual adjustment (refund) of such excess energy charges, if any, shall also be given at the rates

specified for load factor upto 40% during normal hours. *** For consumers having contracted load in kW, the contracted load for MCG purposes shall be calculated by

considering a power factor of 0.85.

#For tariff purposes Load Factor (%) would be deemed to be =

100period billing in the hours of No. x less is whicheverDemand Contractedor Demand Maximum

period billing theduring access)open through receivedenergy the(excludingn Consumptio×

Provided that in cases where maximum demand during the month occurs in a period when open access is being availed by the consumer, then maximum demand for the purpose of computation of load factor shall be that occurring during the period when no open access is being availed.

3. Time of Day Tariff

(i) The rates of energy charge given above for LT industry with load more than 25 kW

and HT industry shall be subject to ToD rebate/surcharge.

8. Annexures


(ii) ToD Meters shall be read by Meter Reading Instrument (MRI) only with complete

dump with phasor diagram, Tamper Reports, full load survey reports etc. shall be

downloaded for the purpose of complete analysis and bills shall be raised as per ToD

rate of charge.

(iii) No meter shall be read at zero load or very low load. Licensee shall carry appropriate

external load and shall apply the same wherever necessary to take MRI at load

(iv) Copy of MRI Summary Report shall be provided along with the Bill. Full MRI Report

including load survey report shall be provided on demand and on payment of Rs. 15/

Bill

(v) ToD Load shall be as under:

Season/Time of day

Morning Peak hours

Normal hours

Evening Peak Hours

Off-peak Hours

Winters 01.10 to 31.03 0600-0930 hrs 0930-1730 hrs 1730-2200 hrs 2200-0600 hrs

Summers 01.04 to 30.09 -- 0700-1800 hrs 1800-2300 hrs 2300-0700 hrs

The, ToD Rate of Energy Charges shall be as under:

For LT Industry Energy Charge during

Normal Hours Peak Hours Off-peak Hours Rs. 3.60/kVAh Rs. 5.40/kVAh Rs. 3.24/kVAh

For HT Industry

Load Factor* Energy Charge during Normal Hours Peak Hours Off-peak Hours

Upto 40% Rs. 3.40/kVAh Rs. 5.63/kVAh Rs. 3.06/kVAh Above 40% Rs. 3.75/kVAh Rs. 5.63/kVAh Rs. 3.38/kVAh

* Load Factor shall be as defined in Clause 2 above

4. Seasonal Industries

Where a consumer having load in excess of 18 kW (25 BHP) and ToD meter and avails

supply of energy for declared Seasonal industries during certain seasons or limited period in the

year, and his plant is regularly closed down during certain months of the financial year, he may be

levied for the months during which the plant is shut down (which period shall be referred to as off-

season period) as follows.



(i) The tariff for ‘Season’ period shall be same as “Rate of Charge” as given in this

schedule.

(ii) Where actual demand in ‘Off Season’ Period is not more than 30% of contracted load,

the energy charges for “Off-Season” period shall be same as energy charges for

“Season” period given in Rate of Schedule above. However, the contracted demand in

the “Off Season” period shall be reduced to 30%.

(iii) During ‘Off-season’ period, the maximum allowable demand will be 30% of the

contracted demand and the consumers whose actual demand exceeds 30% of the

contracted demand in any month of the ‘Off Season’ will be denied the above benefit of

reduced contracted demand during that season. In addition, a surcharge at the rate of

10% of the demand charge shall be payable for the entire ‘Off Season’ period.

Terms and Conditions for Seasonal Industries

(i) The period of operation should not be more than 9 months in a financial year.

(ii) Where period of operation is more than 4 months in a financial year, such industry

should operate for at least consecutive 4 months.

(iii) The seasonal period once notified cannot be reduced during the year. The off-season

tariff is not applicable to composite units having seasonal and other categories of

loads.

(iv) Industries in addition to sugar, ice, rice mill, frozen foods and tea shall be notified by

Licensee only after prior approval of the Commission.

5. Factory Lighting

The electrical energy supplied under this schedule shall also be utilised in the factory

premises for lights, fans, coolers, etc. which shall mean and include all energy consumed for factory

lighting in the offices, the main factory building, stores, time keeper’s office, canteen, staff club,

library, creche, dispensary, staff welfare centres, compound lighting, etc.

6. Continuous and Non-continuous supply

(i) Continuous Process Industry as well as non continuous process industrial consumers

connected on either independent feeders or industrial feeder can opt for continuous

supply. For industrial feeder, all connected industries will have to opt for continuous

supply and in case any one consumer on industrial feeder does not wish to opt for

8. Annexures


continuous supply, all the consumers on such feeder will not be able to avail

continuous supply. Such Industrial consumers who opt for continuous supply shall be

exempted from load shedding during scheduled/unscheduled power cuts and during

restricted hours of the period of restriction in usage approved by the Commission from

time to time, except load shedding required due to emergency breakdown/shutdown.

The existing non-continuous process industrial consumers opting for continuous

supply shall pay 15% extra energy charges, in addition to the energy charges given

above, with effect from May 01, 2015 or in case of new consumers, from the date of

connection, till 31st March 2016, irrespective of actual period of continuous supply

option. However, in case of re-arrangement of supply through independent feeder, the

Continuous Supply Surcharge shall be applicable from the date of energisation of

aforesaid independent feeder till 31st March 2016, irrespective of actual period of

continuous supply option. Demand charge and other charges remain same as per rate

of charge given above.

(ii) Consumers who are existing Continuous Supply Consumers shall continue to remain

Continuous Supply Consumers and they need not apply again for seeking continuous

supply. Such consumers shall pay 15% extra energy charges, in addition to the energy

charges given above, w.e.f. April 01, 2015 till March 31, 2016. However, in case of any

pending dispute with UPCL in the matter of continuous supply on certain feeders,

those consumers will have to apply afresh, for availing the facility of continuous

supply, by April 30, 2015;

(iii) The new applicants for continuous supply of power (including those who are applying

afresh as per above) can apply for seeking the continuous supply option at any time

during the year. However, continuous supply surcharge for such consumers shall be

applicable with effect from May 1, 2015 till March 31, 2016. UPCL shall provide the

facility of continuous supply within 7 days from the date of application, subject to

fulfilment of Conditions of Supply. However, in case of re-arrangement of supply

through independent feeder, UPCL shall provide the facility of continuous supply

from the date of completion of work of independent feeder subject to fulfilment of

Conditions of Supply.



(iv) The existing consumers availing continuous supply option, who wish to discontinue

the continuous supply option granted to them earlier, will have to communicate, in

writing, to UPCL latest by April 30, 2015 and they shall continue to pay continuous

supply surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order till April 30, 2015.

Further, in this regard, if due to withdrawal by one consumer from availing

continuous supply option on a particular feeder, supplying to other continuous supply

consumers as well, the status of other continuous supply consumers on that feeder is

affected, then UPCL shall inform all the affected consumers in writing, well in

advance.

(v) UPCL shall not change the status of a continuous supply feeder to a non-continuous

supply feeder.

(vi) UPCL/PTCUL shall take up augmentation, maintenance and overhauling works on

top priority, specially in the sub-stations where circuit breakers, other equipment, etc.

are in dilapidated condition and, thereby, shall ensure minimisation of interruptions of

the continuous supply feeders.

(vii) UPCL/PTCUL shall carry out periodical preventive maintenance of the feeders

supplying to continuous supply consumers. The licensees shall prepare preventive

maintenance schedule, in consultation with continuous supply consumers, well in

advance, so that such consumers can plan their operations accordingly.

(viii) The Licensee should show the energy charges and continuous supply surcharge

thereon separately in the bills.

7. Demand Charges for HT Industry

If the minimum average supply to any HT Industry Consumers is less than 18 hours per day

during the month, the Demand Charges applicable for such HT Industry Consumer shall be 80% of

approved Demand Charges for HT Industry.

8. Annexures


RTS 8: Mixed Load

1. Applicability

This schedule applies to single point bulk supply connection of more than 75 kW where the

supply is used predominantly for domestic purposes (with more than 60% domestic load) and also

for other non-domestic purposes. This schedule also applies to supply to MES.

2. Rate of Charge

The following rates shall apply to consumers of this category

Fixed Charges Energy Charges Rs. 50/kW/month Rs. 4.15/kWh

3. Other conditions

Apart from the above, other conditions of tariff shall be same as those for RTS-1 consumers.

However, excess load penalty shall be applicable as per clause 12 of General Conditions of Supply.



RTS 9: Railway Traction

1. Applicability

This schedule applies to Railways utilizing power for traction purposes.

2. Rate of Charge

The following rates of energy and demand charge shall apply to this category:

Demand Charges Energy Charges Rs./kVA/month Rs./ kVAh

200/- Rs. 3.60

3. Other conditions

Apart from the above, other conditions of tariff shall be same as those for General HT

Industries under RTS-7 consumers except applicability of ToD tariff and surcharge for continuous

supply.

8. Annexures


RTS-10: Temporary Supply

(A) Temporary Supply for Illumination & Public Address Needs 1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to temporary supply of light & fan up to 10 kW, public address

system and illumination loads during functions, ceremonies and festivities, temporary shops not

exceeding three months.

2. Rate of Charge

Description Fixed Charges (1) For Illumination / public address/ ceremonies for load up to 15 kW Rs. 1200 per day (2) Temporary shops set up during festivals / melas and having load upto 2 kW Rs. 80 per day

(3) Other Temporary shops/ Jhuggi /Jhopris for load upto 1 kW 3.1) Rural Rs. 110/month/connection 3.2) Urban Rs. 220/month/connection

The amount of Fixed Service Charge as specified in 2 above shall be taken in advance.

(B) Temporary Supply for Other Purposes

1. Applicability (i) This schedule shall apply to temporary supplies of light, fan and power loads for the

purposes other than mentioned at (A) including illumination/public address/ceremonies

for load above 15 kW.

(ii) This schedule shall also apply for power taken for construction purposes including civil

work by all consumers including Government Departments. Power for construction

purposes for any work / project shall be considered from the date of taking first connection

for the construction work till completion of the work / project.

However, use of electricity through a permanent connection sanctioned for premises

owned by the consumer for construction, repair or renovation of exsisting building, shall

not be considered as unauthorised use of electricity as long as the intended purpose/use of

the building/appurtenants being constructed is same/permissible in the sanctioned

category of the connection.

2. Rate of Charge The rate of charge will be corresponding rate of charge in appropriate Schedule Plus 25%.

The appropriate rate schedule for the temporary supplies for cane crusher upto 15 BHP given for

maximum period of four (4) months will be RTS-7. However, the minimum consumption guarantee

charges shall not be applicable for temporary supply.



8.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges

Sl. No

Nature of Charges Unit Approved

(Rs.)

1

Checking and Testing of Meters a. Single Phase Meters Per Meter 50.00 b. Three Phase Meters Per Meter 75.00 c. Recording Type Watt-hour Meters Per Meter 170.00 d. Maximum Demand Indicator/ LT CT operated Meters Per Meter 350.00 e. Tri-vector Meters/ HT Meters with CT/PT Per Meter 1000.00 f. Ammeters and Volt Meters Per Meter 65.00 g. Special Meters Per Meter 335.00 h. Initial Testing of Meters Per Meter NIL

2 Subsequent testing and installation other than initial testing Per Meter 80.00

3

Disconnection and Reconnection of supply on consumers request or non-payment of bill (for any disconnection or reconnection the charge will be 50%)

a. Consumer having load above 100 BHP/75 kW Per Job 600.00 b. Industrial and Non Domestic consumers upto 100 BHP/75 kW Per Job 400.00 c. All other categories of consumers Per Job 200.00

4

Replacement of Meters a. Installation of Meter and its subsequent removal in case of Temporary Connections

Per Job 75.00

b. Changing of position of Meter Board at the consumer's request

Per Job 100.00

5

Checking of Capacitors (other than initial checking) on consumer's request:

a. At 400 V/ 230 V Per Job 150.00 b. At 11 kV and above Per Job 300.00

8. Annexures


8.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice

8. Annexures




8.4

8. Annexures


Annexure 4: List of Respondents

Sl.No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. P.K. Rajput Executive Director M/s Vista Alps Industries Ltd.

B-2, Loni Road, Industrial Area (Opp. Mohan Nagar),

Sahibabad- 201007, Ghaziabad

2. Dr. Kirit Somaiya Chairman Parliamentary

Committee on Energy 203, South Avenue, New Delhi-110001

3. Sh. G.S. Bedi General Manager M/s Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Virbhadra, Rishikesh-249202, Uttarakhand

4. Sh. Munish Talwar - M/s Asahi India Glass

Ltd.

Integrated Glass Plant, Village-Latherdeva Hoon, Manglaur-Jhabrera Road,

P.O. Jhabrera, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand

5. Shri S.A. Siddiqui DGM (Commercial) M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Textile Mill Ltd. 5th Km. Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Uttarakhand

6. Sh. Ram Kumar Sr. Vice President Hotels Association Mussoorie

C/o Hotel Vishnu Palace, Gandhi Chowk, Mussoorie

7. Sh. Raj Singh Chairman

Devbhoomi Dharmshala

Prabhandak Sabha (Regd.)

Narsingh Bhawan, Upper Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

8. Ms. Manu Kochhar Chairman M/s Confederation of

Indian Industry

Uttarakhand State Council, Northern Region, 30/1, Rajpur Road,

Dehradun-248001

9. Shri Bheem Sen Rawat Convener

Dagadia Jan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.)-Uttarakhand

Village-Chamriya, Post-Laldhang, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

10. Shri Rajeev Gupta - M/s Kashi Enterprises B-25-29, Industrial Estate, Nainital Road,

Kashipur–244713, Udham Singh Nagar

11. Sh. Jai Bhagwan Agrawal Director M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur–244713,

Udham Singh Nagar

12. Shri Vijay Kumar Chairman Aata Chakki Union Bheemgauda, Haridwar

13. Sh. Pankaj Gupta President

M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

Mohabewala Industrial Area, Dehradun-248110.

14. Sh. P.S. Tomar Director M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Nainital Road, Kashipur-244713,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

15. Sh. Mukesh Chauhan - - S/o Sh. Digambar Singh, Peliyo,

P.O.-Naya Gaon, Dehradun

16. Smt. Rashmi Agrawal - -

A-12, Prakash Residency, Stadium Road, P.O. Kashipur-244713,


17. Sh. Anil Kansal President M/s Uttarakhand Steel

Manufacturers Association

C/o Shree Sidhbali Industries Ltd., Kandi Road, Kotdwar, Uttarakhand




18. Sh. Pramod Singh Tomar - - Prabhu Sadan, Girital Road,

Kashipur, Uttarakhand

19. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal

Director & General Secretary

Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.)

Sanjay Bhawan, Malla Joshi Khola, Almora, Uttarakhand-263601

20. Sh. M.S. Negi - - 48, Subhash Nagar, Clement Town, Dehradun

21. Col. S.K. Bhattacharyya - - 8/8, Nashville Road, Dehradun

22. Sh. Dhirendra Maithani - - E-mail ([email protected])

23. Sh. S.S. Negi - - E-mail ([email protected])

24. Sh. K.G. Behl President All India Consumer Council-Uttarakhand 8-A Nemi Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun

25. Sh. Suresh Kumar President (Works) M/s LA OPALA RG

LTD.

B-108, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitargunj, Udham Singh Nagar,

Uttarakhand-262405

26. Sh. Kumar Gupta, Factory Manager, M/s Khatema Fibres

Ltd. UPSIDC Industrial Area,

Khatima-262308, Uttarakhand

27. Sh. Raj Kr. Sharma,

Manager-HR & Admn.,

M/s Packaging India Pvt. Ltd.

C-60 B, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitargunj, Udham Singh Nagar,

Uttarakhand-262405

28. Sh. Achal Sharma, President, M/s East West

Products Ltd., Lohia Head Road, Khatima-262308,

Udham Singh Nagar

29. Sh. Sagar Suman, - M/s BST Textile Mills

Pvt. Ltd.

Plot 9, Sector 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Rudrapur-263153,

Udham Singh Nagar

30. Sh. V.K. Virdi, - - 1/13, Gita Bhawan Marg, Vikasnagar, Dehradun-248198

31. Sh. Jaan Ali - - S/o Rasid Ahmed, Village-Bahadarpur Khadar, Laksar, Haridwar

32. Sh. B.P. Khanduri - - E-mail ([email protected]).

33. Sh. Ajay Bhargava Secretary, Mussoorie Hotels

Association C/o Hotel Vishnu Palace,

Gandhi Chowk, Mussoorie

34. Sh. Ashok Bansal President

M/s Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce

& Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur,

Udhamsingh Nagar

35. - - Media Prabhari Dehradun

36. Sh. Kuldeep Singh Cheema - -

Village-Dakiya Kalan, Post Off.-Dakiya No.-I,

Udhamsingh Nagar

37. - President Mohalla Swachhata Samiti

Doctors Colony, Civil Lines, Rudrapur, Udhamsingh Nagar

38. Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui DGM (Commercial), M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Textile Mill Ltd. Works : 5th Km. Stone, Ramnagar Road,

Kashipur-244713, Uttarakhand

39. - - Bhartiya Kisan Union Ganna Samiti, Kashipur, Udhamsingh Nagar.

8. Annexures



40. Sh. R.P. Joshi Secretary Retd. Central

Employees Welfare Committee

Baans Gali, Jauhar Market, Almora, Uttarakhand

41. Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Singh - M/s Perfect Dynamics

Auto Pvt. Ltd.

Near Bala Ji Dharam Kata, Village-Fulsunga, Transit Camp, Rudrapur,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153

42. Sh. Harpal Singh Sethi Land Lord Lilliput World 21, Rajpur Road, Dehradun

43. Sh. Rakesh Bhatia -

M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

Off. G-31, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

44. Sh. Abhinav Singh - M/s Bhilangana Hydro

Power Ltd. B-37, Sector-1, Noida-201301,

Uttar Pradesh

45. Sh. Vijay Singh Verma Member Bhartiya Kisan Club Village-Delna, P.O.-Ghabreda,

Haridwar

46. Sh. M.S. Nayal - - Near Tarai Petrol Pump, Bazpur-Haldwani Road,

Bazpur, Udhamsingnagar

47. Sh. Rudramurthy - M/s P.E.S. Engineers

Pvt. Ltd.

Heavy Engineering Workshop, Plot No. A-10, Phase-I, Eldeco-Sidcul Industrial Park Ltd., Sitarganj-262405,

Udhamsingh Nagar

48. - - M/s Arjan Auto Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

D-81, ESIP Sitarganj-262405, Udhamsingh Nagar

49. Sh. N.D. Dobriyal General Secretary Government

Pensioners’ Association 40/3, Bhandari Bagh,

Dehradun-248001

50. Sh. S.S. Chopra Manager M/s Hindustan

National Glass & Industries Ltd.

Village & Post Veerbhadra, Rishikesh - 240922, Dehradun

51. Sh. R.K. Atoliya Chief Electrical

Distribution Engineer

Northern Railway Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001

52. Sh. Rajendra Singh Negi State Secretary Communist Party of

India Lal Jhanda Office: Nai Basti, Gandhi Gram,

Kanwali Road, Dehradun-248001

List of Respondents for In-House Paper on tariff related issues Sl. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. S.S. Yadav Managing Director

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

Victoria Cross Vijeta Gabar Singh Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun.

2. Sh. Jai Bhagwan Agrawal Director M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur–244713,

Udham Singh Nagar

3. Sh. Manoj Rawat Secretary General

State Union of Working Journalists

1, Man Singh Wala, DBS Road, Dehradun

4. - District Magistrate - Bageshwar, Uttarakhand



8.5 Annexure 5: Public Notice on Inhouse Paper

8. Annexures


8.6 Annexure 6: List of Participants in Public Hearings

List of Participants in Hearing at Almora on 18.02.2015

Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. N.C. Joshi Ex. Warrant Officer -

S/o Late Sh. T.D. Joshi, Buxi Khola,

PO & Distt Almora-263601

2. Sh. Vinod Chandra Pant - - 117, Kunjpur,

Distt. Almora-263601

3. Sh. P.G. Goswami - - East Pokharkhali, Near Home Guard office, Distt. Almora-263601

4. Sh. R.P. Joshi - - Mohalla-Malla Joshi Khola, P.O. & Distt. Almora-263601

5. Sh. Shyam Lal Sah District President

Prantiya Udyog Vyapaar Pratinidhi

Mandal Kachhari Bazaar, Distt. Almora

6. Sh. N.L. Verma - - Narsingh Bari, Near Niran Kari Bhawan, Distt. Almora

7. Sh. Prakash Chandra Joshi Chairman Nagar Palika Distt. Almora

8. Sh. H.C. Joshi - - Summer House Cantt, Distt. Almora-263601

9. Sh. Y.K. Joshi - - Purnachal Niwas, Near MES, Distt. Almora

10. Sh. M.B. Sah - - Khazanchi Mohalla, Distt. Almora-263601

11. Sh. D.C. Tiwari - - Joshi Khola, Distt. Almora 12. Sh. Rinku Bisht SDM (Sadar) - Distt. Almora-263601

13. Sh. Shiv Raj Sah - - Khazanchi Mohalla, Distt. Almora-263601

14. Sh. Rajendra Singh Sati - - Chowdhury Khola,

Distt. Almora-263601

15. Sh. Puran Singh Airi - - Near Indira Colony, Khatiyadi, Distt. Almora

16. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal

Director/ General

Secretary

Shri Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti

Sanjay Bhawan, Malla Joshi Khola, Distt. Almora



List of Participants in Hearing at Rudrapur on 19.02.2015 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. S.K. Garg - M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Works : Plot No. 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

2. Sh. Suresh Kumar

President (Works) M/s La Opala RG Ltd.

B-108, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitarganj,


3. Sh. A.K. Singh - M/s Perfect Dynamics Auto Pvt. Ltd.

Fulsunga, Transit Camp, Rudrapur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

4. Sh. A.K. Jaiswal - M/s Perfect Dynamics Auto Pvt. Ltd.

Village – Fulsunga, Post – Transit Camp, Tehsil – Kichha, Rudrapur,


5. Sh. Manish Tanwar - M/s HCL Infosystems

Ltd.

Plot No. 1,2, 27 & 28, Sector-5, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand

6. Sh. Jai Bhagwal Agrawal Director M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Steels Ltd.



7. Sh. Sushil Kumar Tulsyan Director M/s Umashakti Steels

Pvt. Ltd. Village-Vikrampur, PO-Bazpur,

Udhamsingh Nagar

8. Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui

DGM (Commercial)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Ltd.

Works : 5th Km. Stone, Ramnagar Road,

Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

9. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Adlakha

Manager (Elect.)

M/s Pioneer Polyleather Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No.-74, Sector-4, SIDCUL, Pantnagar,


10. Sh. Rajeev Gupta - M/s Galwalia Ispat

Udyog Ltd.



11. Mohd.

Ishteyaque Ahmed

- M/s Right Tight Fasteners Ltd.

Plot No. 70, Sector-6, IIE, Pantnagar,


12. Sh. Darbara Sinjh -

M/s Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce &

Industry

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur, Distt.-

Udhamsingh Nagar

13. Sh. Umesh Sharma - M/s Voltas Ltd.

Plot No. 2-5, Sector-8, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar,


14. Sh. Nitin Kaushik - AICA Laminates Sector-5, Pantnagar,


15. Sh. Vijay Pal Yadav - M/s Yadav Food Ltd. Rudrapur Road, Kichha,


16. Sh. Vinod Vyas - M/s Varroc Engg. Sector-9, Plot No. 20, SIDCUL, Patnagar,


17. Sh. Hem Chandra Tiwari - M/s Videocon Industry

Ltd. 5 Km. Stone, Moradabad Road,

Kashipur,

8. Annexures




18. Sh. S.K. Mittal - M/s Shivalik Industries Malsa Road, Shimla Pistaur, Lalpur,

Rudrapur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

19. Sh. Ashok Bansal Director M/s. Rudrapur Solvents

Pvt. Ltd. Lalpur, Kichha, Rudrapur, Distt.- Udhamsingh Nagar

20. Sh. Balkar Singh Fozi - - Village-Raipur Khurd, Kashipur,


21. Sh. Harlok

Singh Naamdhari

- - Village-Gadarpur, Rudrapur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

22. Sh. H.D. Arora - - D1, D2, 27/1, Civil Lines, Rudrapur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

23. Sh. Kuldeep Singh - Bhartiya Kisan Union

Village-Dhakia Kalan, PO-Dhakia No. 1, Tehsil-Kashipur,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar-244713

24. Sh. Jeet Singh - -

Village-Dhakia Kalan, PO-Dhakia No. 2, Tehsil-Kashipur,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar-244713

25. Sh. Puran Singh - -

Baanskheda Kalan, Fauzio Ka Dera, Raipur, Civil Lines, Rudrapur,


26. Sh. Kulwant Singh - -

Baanskheda Kalan, Fauzio Ka Dera, Raipur, Civil Lines, Rudrapur,


27. Sh. Thakur Jagjeet Singh - -

Village-Dharampur, PO-Chatarpur, Tehsil-Rudrapur,


28. Sh. Yashwant Mishra - -

Village & PO-Pratappur, Tehsil-Rudrapur,




List of Participants in Hearing at Pauri on 24.02.2015 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. Vipin Chandra Maithani Chairman Nagar Palika

Parishad Srinagar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal,

Uttarakhand

2. Sh. Devanand Nautiyal - - Dipty Dhara, Thana Mohalla, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

3. Sh. Maneesh Rawat - -

S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh, Village-Lasera, PO- Seelsu,

Patti-Banailsyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal-249301

4. Sh. D.N. Shaha - - Village-Bhattegaon, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

5. Sh. Rambhagti Lal - - Uppar Bazaar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

6. Sh. R.P. Bhatt - M/s Himalaya Bakers

Agency Chowk, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

7. Sh. Shiv Prasad Raturi - - Near Krishi Bhawan, Srinagar Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

8. Sh. Padvendra Bisht - - Bisht Niwas, 16-Vikas Marg, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

9. Sh. Harish Chandra - - Maithana Village, Post-Choura, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

10. Sh. Virendra Singh Rawat Chairman Vyapaar Sangh

Rawat Taint & Bartan Bhandar, Chowdhury Bhawan,

Uppar Bazaar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand

11. Sh. Brijendra Singh Rawat Ex. Chairman Vyapaar Sangh Brij Vastra Bhandar, Uppar Bazaar,

Distt. Pauri Garhwal 12. Sh. Anil Bahuguna - - Dobhal Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

13. Sh. Omprakash Jugran - - Uma Niwas,

Power House Mohalla, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

14. Sh. Sanjay Baluni - - Village-Kanda, PO-Buransi, Block-Kot, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

15. Sh. Rajendra Singh Rawat - - Near Prathana Bhawan,

Kotdwar Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

16. Sh. Rajendra Prasad Tamta Ex. Chairman Nagar Palika

New Vikas Colony, Srinagar Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand,

Uttarakhand

17. Sh. Khushal Singh Negi - - Near Petrol Pump, Kodtwar Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

18. Sh. Priyank Dobhal - M/s Dobhal Electricals

Uma Niwas, Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Kotdwar Road,

Distt. Pauri Garhwal

19. Smt. Neelam Rawat Ward

Member-5 & DPC Member

- Village-Pauri, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

20. Sh. Manoj Negi Ward Member-9 - Village-Pauri,


8. Annexures



21. Sh. Jagdesh Rawat - - Vikas Marg, Near Bus Station, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

22. Sh. Kameshwar Rana - - Rana Bhawan, Vikas Marg,

Near Bus Station, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

23. Sh. Govind Singh Rawat - - Vikas Marg, Near Bus Station, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

24. Sh. Sitab Singh Bisht - - Village-Marora, Paabau, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

25. Ms. Kamla Rawat - - Ward No. 07,

Near Power House, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

26. Ms. Sangeeta Dobhal - - Srinagar Road,

Near Krishi Vibhag, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

27. Sh. Vijendra Pokhriyal - - Buwakhal, Post Off.-Pauri,

Near Power House, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

28. Sh. Raghuveer Singh - - Thana Mohalla, Dobhal Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

29. Sh. Uma Charan - - Power House Mohalla, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

30. Sh. Jagdish Singh Bisht - - Bisht Kuteer, Uppar Chopra, Kotdwar Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

31. Sh. Jagmohan Singh Negi - -

House No. 61, Uppar Petrol Pump, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

32. Sh. Sukhdev - - Laxmi Narayan Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

33. Sh. Jaspal Singh Negi - - Village-Dungri,

Patti - Paidul Syun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

34. Sh. Sunil Mamgain - - Village-Baingwari,

Post Off.-Chandola Rainn, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

35. Sh. Kesar Singh Negi - - Village-Srikot, PO-Gadwagad, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

36. Sh. Mukesh Joshi - -

Village-Joshiyana, PO-Persundakhal, Patti Paidul Syun,


37. Sh. Ghanshyam Singh - - Village-Thaili,

PO-Chandola Rainn, Distt. Pauri Garhwal



List of Participants in Hearing at Dehradun on 27.02.2015 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1 Sh. D.K. Shukla - - 29, Inder Road, Dehradun

2 Sh. Rajiv Agarwal Sr. Vice-President

M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

3 Sh. Pankaj Gupta President M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand


Dehradun

4 Sh. R.N. Mathur President M/s Mussoorie Hotel Association

Price Hotel, Mussoorie, Dehradun

5 Sh. Ram Kumar - M/s Mussoorie Hotel Association

Price Hotel, Mussoorie, Dehradun

6 Sh. G.S. Manchanda Proprietor M/s Hotel India Gandhi Chowk, Mussoorie, Dehradun

7 Sh. Dalip Dua Vice

President (Publications)

M/s Himalaya Power Producers

Association

Dehradun Chapter, 12-D, Race Course, Dehradun.

8 Sh. Dinesh Mugdal - M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand


Dehradun

9 Sh. Shivam Rohila - M/s Bhilangana

Hydro Power Ltd.

B-37, Sector-1, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh.

10 Sh. Harpal Singh Sethi - - 21, Rajpur Road, Dehradun

11 Sh. Rakesh Bhatia President

M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

Off. G-31, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand

12 Sh. P.K. Rajput Executive Director

M/s Alps Industries Ltd.

1-A, Sector-10, SIDCUL, Haridwar

13 Sh. Man Singh General Manager (Engg.)

M/s Alps Industries Ltd.

1-A, Sector-10, SIDCUL, Haridwar

14 Sh. Vijay Singh Verma - - Village-Delna, Post-Jhabreda, Roorkee, Haridwar-247665

15 Sh. K.L. Sundriyal - - 4(4/3), New Road (Amrit Kauri

Road), Near Hotel Relax, Dehradun

16 Sh. Vishwamitra - - 36-Panchsheel Park, Chakrata Road, P.O.-New Forest, Dehradun

17 Sh. Biru Bisht - Mohanpur, Post Off.-Premnagar, Dehradun

18 Sh. Deepak Thapliyal - - Pattiyon wala, PO-Mohabbewala, Chanderbani, Dehradun-248110

19 Sh. V.S. Bhatnagar - - 98/3, Bell Road, Clementown, Dehradun

8. Annexures


8.7 layXud ¼nj vuqlwph dk fgUnh :ikUrj.k½

layXud 1% 01-04-2015 ls izHkkoh nj vuqlwph &

,- vkiwfrZ gsrq lkekU; “krsZ&

1- lsok dh izd`fr i) 4 kW ds Hkkj rd vkWYVjusfVax djsaV 50 Hz flaxy Qst 230 oksYV ¼vuqeU; ifjorZuksa ds lkFk½A ii) oksYVst vkiwfrZ dh miyC/krk ij fuHkZj djrs gq, 4 kW ls Åij Hkkjksa ds fy, vYVjusfVax djsaV 50 Hz. 3 Qst] 4 ok;j] 400 oksYV~l ;k blls Åij ¼vuqeU; ifjorZuksa ds lkFk½A

2- u;s la;kstuksa ds fy, “krsZa& i) 75 kW (88 kVA) ls vf/kd rFkk 2550 kW (3000 kVA) rd ds u;s la;kstuksa dks vkiwfrZ 11 dsoh

;k blls Åij ij fuxZr dh tk;sxh] 2550 kW (3000 kVA) ls Åij 8500 KW (10000 kVA) rd

Hkkj 33 kV ;k blls Åij ij fuxZr fd;s tk;saxs rFkk 8500 kW (10000 kVA) ls Åij 132 kV Hkkj ij fuxZr fd;s tk;saxsA ii) lHkh u;s la;kstu] laLFkkiu rFkk ehVjksa ds ifjpkyu ij lh-bZ-,- ds fofu;eksa dh iqf’V djus okys

ehVj ds lkFk fn;s tk;saxsA iii) 4 kW ls Åij ds lHkh u;s 3 Qst la;kstu] vf/kdre ekax ladsrd okys bySDVªkWfud VªkbZ&osDVj

ehVj ds lkFk tkjh fd;s tk;ssaxsA iv) LkHkh u;s flaxy IokbaV cYd la;kstu] 75 kW ls vf/kd Hkkj ij tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA v) 5 BHP ls vf/kd ds eksfVo Hkkj j[kus okys miHkksDrk mi;qDr jsfVax ds rFkk BIS fof”kf’V dh iqf’V

djus okys “kaV dSisflVj laLFkkfir djsaxsA vi) HT/EHT ij lHkh u;s la;kstu dsoy 3 Qst 4 ok;j ehVlZ ds lkFk tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA

3- vkiwfrZ dk fcUnq&

miHkksDrk dks ÅtkZ dh vkiwfrZ ,d ,dy fcUnq ij dh tk;sxhA

4- =qfViw.kZ ehVj ¼ADF/IDF½] ehVj ugha i<+k@igWqp ugha ¼NA/NR½ rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ¼RDF½ ds ekeys

esa fcfyax%& NA/NR ekeyksa esa ÅtkZ miHkksx dk fu/kkZj.k rFkk fcfyax fiNys ,d o’kZ ds vkSlr miHkksx ds

vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxk ¼fo|+qr vkiwfrZ lafgrk ds fofu;e 3-1-2 ¼3½ ds vuqlkj½ tks fd okLrfod jhfMax fy;s

tkus ij lek;kstu ds v/khu gksxkA ,slh vaufre jhfMax ,d ckj esa nks fcfyax pdzksa ls vf/kd ds fy, tkjh



ugha jgsxhA blds i”pkr~ vuqKkih dks vuafre vk/kkj ij dksbZ fcy tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA

=qfViw.kZ ehVj ¼IDF/RDF½ rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ¼RDF½ ds ekeys esa miHkksDrkvksa dh fcfyax] ehVj ds =qfViw.kZZ

ik;s tkus ;k =qfViw.kZ fjiksVZ fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls Bhd igys ds rhu fcfYkax pdzksa ds vkSlr miHkksx ds

vk/kkj ij dh tk;sxh ¼fo|qr vkiwfrZ lafgrk ds fofu;e 3-2]¼1½ ds vuqlkj½A ;s izHkkj dsoy ml vf/kdre

rhu eghus dh vof/k vFkok f}ekfld fcfyax dh n'kk esa nks fcfyax lkbZfdy gsrq mn~xzg.kh; gksaxs] ftlesa

vuqKkih }kjk =qfViw.kZ ehVj cnyk tkuk vko”;d gksxkA blds i”pkr~ vuqKkih dks lgh fd;s x;s ehVj ds

fcuk fcy tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

=qfViw.kZ ehVj ds ekeys] ;Fkk IDF/ADF rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ekeys ;Fkk RDF dh tkap o cnyus dk

dk;Z] fo|qr vkiwfrZ lafgrk ds fofu;e 3-1-4 ds vuqlkj vuqKkih }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA

5- Xkzkeh.k@ioZrh; {ks= ds ?kjsyw ehVMZ miHkksDrkvksa dh fcfyax] ftuds ehVj ugha i<s+ tkrs gSa&

Xkzkeh.k@ioZrh; {ks= ds ?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa ftudh ehVj jhfMax fu;fer :i ls ugha yh tk jgh gS

vFkok le; esa nsjh vUrjky ls vfu;fer :i ls yh tk jgh gS] ,slh nksuksa fLFkfr;ksa esa miHkksDrkvksa dh

vufUre fcfyax ukWjesfVo miHkksx ds vk/kkj ij fuEuor~ dh tk;sxh] ftldk okLrfod ehVj jhfMax ds

vk/kkj ij okf’kZd lek;kstu fd;k tk;sxk%&

Js.kh ukWjesfVo miHkksx

?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&ioZrh; {ks=½ 30 kWh/kW/ ekg ?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&vU; {ks=½ 50 kWh/kW/ ekg

bl mn~ns”; gsrq lafonkd`r Hkkj vxys iw.kkZad rd iw.kkZfdar fd;k tk;sxkA vuqKkih }kjk ,sls

miHkksDrkvksa dh ehVj jhfMax o’kZ esa de ls de ,d ckj fy;k tkuk lqfuf”pr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa bl vk/kkj

ij fcfyax okf’kZd lek;kstu gsrq izkalfxd gksxhA

6- Uk;s la;kstuksa esa fcfyax ;k vuehVMZ ds ehVMZ ekeyksa esa laifjoZru

Uk;s la;kstu ;k vuehVMZ ls ehVMZ esa laifjorZu tSls ekeyksa esa tgk¡ fiNyh jhfMax miyC/k ugha gS]

ogka vuafre fcfyax] uhps fn;s vuqlkj miHkksx ds ekudh; Lrjksa ij dh tk;sxh] tks okLrfod jhfMax fy;s

tkus ij lek;kstu ds v/khu gksxhA

Js.kh Ekkudh; miHkksx

?kjsyw&¼”kgjh½ 100 kWh/kW/ ekg ?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&ioZrh; {ks=½ 30 kWh/kW/ ekg ?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&vU; {ks=½ 50 kWh/kW/ ekg v?kjsyw ¼”kgjh½ 150 kWh/kW/ ekg v?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k½ 100 kWh/kW/ ekg futh V;wo oSYl 60 kWh/BHP/ ekg m|ksx

8. Annexures


,y-Vh- m|ksx 150 kWh/kW/ ekg ,p-Vh- m|ksx 150 kVAh/kVA/ ekg

bl mn~ns”; ds fy,] lafonkdr Hkkj vxys iw.kkZad rd iw.kkZafdr fd;k tk;sxkA bl vk/kkj ij dh

xbZ fcfyax dsoy vf/kdre 2 fcfyax pØksa dh vof/k ds fy;s tkjh jgsxh ftl nkSjku vuqKkIkh }kjk

okLrfod jhfMax yh tk pqdh gksA mlds Ik”pkr~ fcuk lgh ehVj jhfMax fy;s vuqKkIkh dks fcy tkjh djus

dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA vU; lHkh oxksZa esa igyk fcy dsoy okLrfod jhfMax ij gh tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA

7- foyafcr Hkqxrku vf/kHkkj ¼DPS½ ¼PTW dks NksM+dj lHkh oxksZa ds fy;s½

;fn vuqKkih }kjk fn;s x;s fcy dk Hkqxrku fu;r frfFk ds Ik”pkr~ 15 fnu dh fj;k;r vof/k ds

Hkhrj iw.kZ :Ik ls ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 dh /kkjk 56 ds vuqlkj vkiwfrZ vla;ksftr

djus dk vuqKkih ds vf/kdkj ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkys fcuk iwoZ Hkqxrku fd;s tkus rd izR;sd mRrjksÙkj ekg

;k mlds Hkkx ds fy;s ewy ns; frfFk ls] Hkqxrku u fd;s x;s fcy dh ewy jkf”k ij 1-25 izfr”kr vf/kHkkj

yxk;k tk;sxkA vuqKkih] uhps n”kkZ;s vuqlkj] ekg dks ;wfuV ds :Ik esa] 15 fnu fj;k;r vof/k gsrq iznku

dj] fu;r frfFk ds Ik”pkr~ fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ds fy;s ns; Mh-ih-,l- lfgr] fcy esa gh dqy jkf”k Li’V :Ik ls

n”kkZ;sxkA

mnkgj.k

fu;r frfFk rd ns; jkf”k :0 100@&

fu;r frfFk 1 ebZ] 2015

ns; jkf”k

ij ;k iwoZ Ik”pkr~ Ik”pkr~

16 ebZ] 2015 16 ebZ] 2015 1 twu] 2015

:0 100@& :0 101-25 :0 102-50

8- lksyj okVj ghVj NwV

;fn miHkksDrk lksyj okVj ghfVax iz.kkyh laLFkkfir djrk gS rFkk mldk mi;ksx djrk gS rks iz.kkyh

dh izR;sd 100 yhVj {kerk ds fy, :0 100@& ;k ml ekg dk fcy] nksuksa esa ls tks de gks] dh NwV

bl “krZ ds v/khu nh tk;sxh fd miHkksDrk vuqKkih dks ;g “kiFki= nsxk fd mlus og iz.kkyh

laLFkkfir dh gS] ftls vuqKkih le;≤ ij lR;kfir djus ds fy;s Lora= gksxkA ;fn ,slk dksbZ

nkok >wBk ik;k tkrk gS rks ,sls miHkksDrk ds fo:} dh tk ldus okyh n.MkRed fof/kd dk;Zokgh ds

vfrfjDr vuqKkih] 100 izfr”kr tqekZus ds lkFk miHkksDrk dks vuqeU; dqy NwV dh olwyh djsxk rFkk

vxys 12 ekg rd ds fy;s ,slh NwV izkIr djus ls fooftZr djsxkA



9- izhisM ehVfjax gsrq NwV

vk;ksx }kjk izhisM ehVfjax ;kstuk foÙkh; o’kZ 2012&13 ds VSfjQ vkns”k fnukafdr 11-04-2012 }kjk

vuqeksfnr dh x;h tksfd orZeku esa Hkh ykxw jgsxhA izhisM ehVfjax ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ?kjsyw Js.kh

¼vkjVh,l&1 ,oa vkjVh,l&1,½ gsrq fo|qr izHkkj ij 4 izfr”kr rFkk vU; ,yVh miHkksDrkvksa dks fo|qr

izHkkj ij 3 izfr”kr dh NwV] izhisM ehVj ds laLFkkiu rFkk dk;Z djus dh frfFk ls iznkfur gksxhA

fdUrq vkjVh,l&10 ds Hkkx ¼,½ esa mYysf[kr iznhiu o lkoZtfud lacks/ku vko”;drkvksa gsrq vLFkk;h

vkiwfrZ ds fy, NwV vuqeU; ugha gksxhA

10- csl oksYVst ls mPp@fuEu oksYVst ij vkiwfrZ dk mi;ksx djus ds fy;s NwV@vf/kHkkjA i) 75 kW@88 kVA rd lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrk ;fn vkiwfrZ 400 oksYV~l ds Åij o 11 kV rd nh tkrh gS rks fctyh izHkkj dh nj ij 5% NwV Lohdk;Z gksxhA ii) 75 kW@88 kVA ls Åij lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s & ;fn vkiwfrZ 400 oksYV~l ij

nh tkrh gS rks miHkksDrk dks fctyh izHkkj dh nj ij ifjdfyr fcy jkf”k ij 10% dk vfrfjDr

izHkkj nsuk gksxkA iii) 75 kW@88 kVA ls Åij lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrk & 33 kV ij vkiwfrZ ds ekeys esa] fctyh

izHkkj dh nj ij 2-5% dh NwV izkIr djsxsaA iv) 75 kW@88 kVA ls Åij lafonkdr Hkkj okys miHkksDrk tks 132 kV ;k vf/kd ij vkiwfrZ izkIr dj

jgs gksa] fctyh izHkkj dh nj ij 7-5% dh NwV izkIr djsaxsA v) mijksDr lHkh oksYVst ukWfeuy jsVsM oksYVstst gSaA

11- fuEu ikoj QSDVj vf/kHkkj ¼?kjsyw] PTW rFkk kVAh vk/kkfjr “kqYd okys vU; Jsf.k;ksa ij ykxw ugha½A i) fcuk bySDVªkWfud VªkbZosDVj ehsVlZ okys miHkksDrkvksa] ftUgksaus mi;qDr jsfVaXl rFkk fofunsZ”ku ds “kaV

dSisflVlZ laLFkkfir ugha fd;s gSa a] muls orZeku fo|qr izHkkjksa ij 5% dk vf/kHkkj mn~xzghr fd;k

tk;sxkA ii) bySDVªkWfud VªkbosDVj ehVlZ okys miHkksDrkvksa ds fy, 0-85 ls uhps rFkk 0-80 rd ds ikoj QSDVj

gksus ij orZeku fo|qr izHkkjksa ij 5% dk vf/kHkkj rFkk 0-80 ls fuEu ikoj QSDVj gksus ij orZeku

fo|qr izHkkjksa dk 10% dk vf/kHkkj mn~xzghr gksxkA 12- vfrHkkj@ekax naM ¼?kjsyw] fgekPNkfnr o PTW Jsf.k;ksa ij ykxw ugha½

8. Annexures


,sls miHkksDrkvksa ds ekeys esa tgakW MDI ds lkFk bySDVªkWfud ehVlZ laLFkkfir gS] ;fn fdlh ekg esa

vfHkfyf[kr vf/kdre~ ekax lafonkdr Hkkj@ekax ls vf/kd gks tkrh gS rks ,sls vfrfjDr Hkkj@ekax ij izHkkj

ykxw fLFkj@ekax izHkkj dh lkekU; nj ls nksxquk ds cjkcj &mn~xzghr fd;k tk;sxkA ,slk vf/kd Hkkj naM

dsoy ml ekg ds fy;s yxk;k tk;sxk] ftlesa vf/kdre~ ekax] lafonkd`r Hkkj ls vf/kd gksxhA

mnkgj.k %& i) mu miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s] tgk¡ lafonkdr Hkkj@ekax ds vk/kkj ij fLFkj izHkkj fofufnZ’V fd;s x;s gSa% lafonkdr Hkkj 30 kW, vf/kdre~ ekax 43 kW vfr ekax 43&30= 13 kW, fLFkj izHkkjksa dh nj = :0 40@kW

lafonkdr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =30x40= :0 1200/- vfr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =13 (2x40) = :0 1040/- dqy fLFkj izHkkj =1200+1040= :0 2240/- ii) fcy;ksX; ekax ij fcy fy;s tkus okys vkS|kSfxd miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;sss% lafonkdr ekax 2500 kVA] vf/kdre ekax 2800 kVA] fcy ;ksX; ekax=2800 kVA vfr ekax 2800&2500=300 kVA ekax izHkkjksa dh nj =:0 290/kVA lafonkdr ekax gssrq ekax izHkkj = 2500 x 290 = :0 725000/- vfr ekax gsrq ekax izHkkj = 300 x (2x290) = :0 174000/- dqy ekax izHkkj = 725000 + 174000 = :0 899000/-

13- U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh ¼MCG½

25 kW ls Åij Hkkj okys lHkh v?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa] ehVMZ ihVhMCY;w miHkksDrkvksa rFkk lHkh

vkS|kSfxd miHkksDrkvksa dks kWh ¼tgkaW kWh “kqYd ykxw gS½ rFkk kVAh ¼tgkaW kVAh “kqYd ykxw gSa½] esa

muds miHkksx gsrq U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj ykxw gksaxsA vk;ksx us ekfld vk/kkj ij rFkk okf’kZd vk/kkj

ij U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh fofufnZ’V dh gSA U;wure~ miHkksx xkajVh izHkkj ekfld vk/kkj ij yxk;k tk;sxk

tc ekfld miHkksx ekfld U;wure~ miHkksx xkajVh ¼ MCG½ gsrq fofufnZ’V ;wfuVksa ls de gksxkA ;fn foRrh;

o’kZ ds izkjaHk ls lap;h okLrfod miHkksx okf’kZd U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh ¼MCG½ gsrq fofufnZ’V ;wfuVksa ls

vf/kd gksrk gS rks ekfld ,e0lh0th0 gsrq vkxs dksbZ fcfyax ugha dh tk;sxhA ,sls ekeyksa esa okLrfod

fcfyax ls vf/kd ds fy;s fd;k x;k Hkqxrku ekpZ] 2016 ds ekg gsrq fcy esa lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA



mnkgj.k %

VSfjQ vkns”k ds vuqlkj foRrh; o’kZ esas nks ckj ih0Vh0MCY;w0 miHkksDrkvksa lss fcy fy;s tk;saxs] tSls

izR;sd o’kZ twu ,oa fnlEcj ekg esaA fcfyax esa ,d:irk yk;s tkus ds mn~ns”; ls ih0Vh0MCY;w0

miHkksDrkvksa gsrq fcfyax ds fy;s fuEu izfØ;k,¡ vey esa yk;h tk;saxh%&

i) Twku] 2015 esa fcy tkjh djus ds fy;s% Twku] 2015 esa fcyksa dks tkjh djus ds fy;s ,e0lh0th0 izfr ch-,p-ih- fuEukuqlkj jgsxh%

a) fnlEcj] 2014 ls ekpZ] 2015 & 70 X 4 = 280 ;wfuV~l b) vizSy] 2015 ,oa ebZ] 2015 & 60 X 2 = 120 ;wfuV~l c) dqy & 400 ;wfuV~l ¼280+120½

ii) fnlEcj] 2015 esa fcy tkjh djus ds fy;s ,e0lh0th0 dh x.kuk 360 ;wfuV~l@ch-,p-ih- ¼60

;wfuV~l izfr ch-,p-ih-@ekg X 6½ ij dh tk;sxhA OkkLrfod vfHkfyf[kr miHkksx ds mifjfyf[kr ,e0lh0th0 ls de jgus dh fLFkfr esa gh ,e0lh0th0

fy;k tk;sxkA 14- ?kjsyw] v?kjsyw rFkk fefJr Hkkj Jsf.k;ksa ds fy;s ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZA i) 75 kW ls Åij dqy Hkkj okys ?kjsyw@v?kjsyw&Hkou@ekWYl@lgdkjh lkewfgd vkokl

mnkgj.k Lo:Ik ,yVh0 la;kstd ds fy,& lafonkd`r Hkkj 10 kW

Ekkg okLrfod miHkksx

kWh

Lkap;h okLrfod miHkksx

kWh

fcy fd;k miHkksx

kWh

Lkap;h fcy fd;k

miHkksx

kWh

viSzy] 450 450 500 500

ebZ 550 1000 550 1050

Tkwu] 540 1540 540 1590

tqykbZ] 600 2140 600 2190

vxLr] 350 2490 500 2690

flrEcj] 300 2790 500 3190

vDVwcj] 400 3190 500 3690

uoEcj] 700 3890 700 4390

fnlEcj] 800 4690 800 5190

Tkuojh] 550 5240 550 5740

Qjojh] 650 5890 650 6390

ekpZ] 550 6440 50 6440

8. Annexures


lfefr;ka@dkWyksfu;ksa esa vkxs forj.k gsrq ,dy fcanq ehVfjax ds lkFk ,dy fcanq ij la;kstu izkIr

dj ldrs gSaA rFkkfi O;fDrxr la;kstu gsrq vkosnu djus esa oS/kkfud Lokeh@dCtk/kkjh ds fy;s

dksbZ jksd ugha gksxhA ii) ,dy fcUnq vkiwfrZ ysus okyk O;fDr] vuqKkih dks fo|qr izHkkjksa ds lHkh Hkqxrku djus rFkk ,sls

miHkksDrkvksa gsrq fu/kkZfjr VSfjQ ds laxzg djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA vuqKkih ;g Hkh lqfuf”pr

djsxk fd miHkksDrk dh lEcfU/kr Js.kh ls fy;k tk jgk VSfjQ fu/kkZfjr VSfjQ ls vf/kd u gksA iii) ,slk O;fDr ftlus ,dy fcanq vkiwfrZ yh gS] og fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 dh /kkjk 14 ds lkrosa

ijUrqd ds v/khu nh xbZ ,dy fcanq vkiwfrZ okys ifjlj ds fy, fo|qr ds forj.k dh ftEesnkjh gsrq

vuqKkih] vfHkdrkZ Hkh le>k tk;sxk rFkk forj.k vuqKkih] ,sls {ks= ds Hkhrj mlds v/khu vf/kfu;e

rFkk fu;eksa o fofu;eksa ds lHkh micU/kksa ds vuqikyu gsrq mRrjnk;h gksxkA iv) ^?kjsyw^ ds vUrxZr flaxy ikabZaV cYd lIykbZ dsoy ,slh vkoklh; dkyksfu;ksa@vkoklh; cgqeaftyk

bekjrksa dh vke lqfo/kkvksa ¼tSls fy¶Vksa] lkoZtfud izdk”k vkSj ty ifEiax iz.kkyh ds :Ik esa½ lfgr

vkoklh; dkyksfu;ksa@cgqeaftyk bekjrksa ij ykxw gksxhA ;fn bl izdkj ds vkoklh;

dkyksfu;ksa@vkoklh; cgqeaftyk bekjrksa esa dqN vU; nqdkusa vFkok vU; dksbZ O;kolkf;d izfr’Bku

gksa] blh fLFkfr esa mu ij fefJr yksM dk VSfjQ ykxw gksxkA v) v?kjsyw ds vUrxZr flaxy ikabZV cYd lIykbZ dsoy 'kkWfiax dkWEiySDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl~ ds fy,

ykxw gksxhA 15- Ikw.kkZadu %

i) Lkafonkd`r Hkkj@ekax dsoy iw.kZ la[;k esa vfHkO;Dr dh tk;sxh rFkk [k.M Hkkj@ekax dh vxyh iw.kZ

la[;k rd iw.kkZafdr fd;k tk;sxkA mnkgj.k%

0-15 kW dk lafonkdr@Lohd`r Hkkj] “kqYd mn~ns”; gsrq 1 kW ekuk tk;sxkA blh izdkj

15-25 kW/kVA dk lafonkdr@Lohd`r Hkkj 16 kW/kVA fy;k tk;sxkA ii) lHkh fcy fudVre~ :Ik;s rd iw.kkZafdr fd;s tk;saxsA

16- vU; izHkkj %

izHkkj dh nj esa fn;s x;s izHkkjksa rFkk fofo/k izHkkjksas dh vuqlwph esa lfEefyr izHkkjksa ds flok; vU;

dksbZ izHkkj vk;ksx dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk miHkksDrkvksa ls olwy ugha fd;s tk;saxsA



Ckh- “kqYd njsa

vkj-Vh-,l-&1 % ?kjsyw

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk %

fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq ;g vuqlwph fuEu ij ykxw gksxh %

i) jks”kuh] ia[kk] ikoj o vU; ?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds fy, vkoklh; ifjlj lkewfgd lqfo/kkvksa lfgr ¼tSls

fy¶V] lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk okVj ifEiax lsV½A

ii) 75 kW ds Åij ds ,dy fcUnq Fkksd vkiwfrZ ds fy, vkoklh; dkWyksfu;kaW] cgqeaftys Hkou tgk¡ ÅtkZ

dk iz;ksx dsoy ,sls mn~ns”; ¼tSls fy¶V] lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk okVj ifEaix lsV½ ds fy;s gksrk

gks] lfEefyr gSA

iii) /kkfeZd LFkyksa tSls efUnj] efLtn] xq:}kjk] ppZ bR;kfn ¼tgkWa ij ek= iwtk@bcknr dh txg

vdsys esa@vyx ls gks] mu iwtk LFkykas@bcknrxkgksa ds fy, tgkWa /keZ”kkyk] lkeqnkf;d dsUnz]

“k;ux`g bR;kfn lEc) gks] ogkWa ;g vuqlwph ykxw ugha gksxhA½

¼;g nj lwph mu miHkksDrkvksa ij Hkh ykxw gksxh] ftuds ikl 2 kW rd dk lafonkd`r Hkkj gS lkFk

gh 200 kWh@ekg rd dk miHkksx gS rFkk tks mijksDr ifjlj dk dqN Hkkx mijksDr v?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds

fy;s dj jgs gSaA rFkkfi ;fn ,sls ifjljksa ds fy, lafonkdr Hkkj 2 kW ls vf/kd o miHkksx 200 kWh@ekg ls vf/kd gS rks tc rd fd Hkkj dks vyx&vyx ugha fd;k tkrk rFkk iFkd :Ik ls ehVj

ugha fy;k tkrk] nksuksa esa ls dksbZ ,d] miHkksx dh xbZ leLr ÅtkZ mi;qDr nj vuqlwph ds v/khu izHkkfjr

dh tk;sxhA½

2- izHkkj dh nj %

fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

1- ?kjsyw

1-1½ ykbZQ ykbu miHkksDrk

xjhch js[kk ls uhps o dqVhj T;ksfr ftudk 1 kW rd

Hkkj rFkk 30 ;wfuV izfr ekg miHkksx gks

:0 11@la;kstu@ ekg :0 1-50@ kWh 1-2½ vU; ?kjsyw miHkksDrk 100 ;wfuV~l@ekg rd miHkksx gsrq :0 35@ekg :0 2-40@kWh 101&200 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 50@ekg :0 2-90@kWh 201&300 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 70@ekg :0 3-80@kWh 301&400 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 95@ekg :0 3-80@kWh 401&500 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 120@ekg :0 4-00@kWh 500 ;wfuV~l@ekg ls Åij :0 145@ekg :0 4-00@kWh 2½ ,dy fcUnq Fkksd vkiwfrZ :0 40@kW@ekg :0 3-40@kWh

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 1¼,½ % fgekPNkfnr

1- Ikz;ksT;rk

fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq ;g vuqlwph fuEu ij ykxw gksxh % (i) fgekPNkfnr {ks=ksa ds ?kjsyw o v?kjsyw miHkksDrkA (ii) ;g vuqlwph] lacaf/kr ftykf/kdkjh }kjk fgekPNkfnr@fge js[kk ds :Ik esa vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa ij

ykxw gksrh gSA 2- vkiwfrZ izHkkj dh nj


1½ ?kjsyw

:0 11@la;kstu@ekg

:0 1-50@ kWh 2½ v?kjsyw 1 kW rd :0 1-50@ kWh 3½ v?kjsyw 1 kW ls 4 kW rd :0 2-25@ kWh 4½ v?kjsyw 4 kW ls Åij :0 20@la;kstu@ekg :0 3-40@ kWh

3- bl vuqlwph dh vU; lHkh “krsZ ogh gksaxh tks fd vkjVh,l&1 esa gSA



vkj-Vh-,l-&2 % v?kjsyw

1- iz;ksT;rk %


1-1 (i) ljdkjh@uxj ikfydk fpfdRlky;

(ii) ljdkjh@ljdkjh lgk;rk izkIr “kSf{kd laLFkku

(iii) vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ds v/khu iathd`r ,slh /kekZFk laLFkk,a ftudh vk; dks bl

vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dj dh NwV izkIr gksA

1-2 NksVs v?kjsyw miHkksDrk ftudk vuqcfU/kr Hkkj 4 kW rd rFkk miHkksx 50 ;wfuV@ekg rd gksA

1-3 75 kW ds Åij ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ ds vU; [email protected];d mi;ksxdrkZ ftlesa “kkWfiax

dkWEiysDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl ftlesa lkewfgd lqfo/kkvksa lfgr ¼tSls fy¶V] lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk

okVj ifEaix lsV½ lfEefyr gks gsrq lfEefyr gSaA

1-4 LorU= foKkiu cksMksZa@gksfMZaXl& lHkh O;olkf;d ¼lM+d fdukjs@Nr ij ;k bekjrksa ds fdukjs

bR;kfn½ ij vdsys [kM+s LorU= foKkiu gksfMZaXl tks fd futh foKkiu lkbZu iksLV@lkbZu

cksMZ~l@lkbZu Xykst~@¶ySDl gS] ftudks iFkd ehVj ls LorU= ehVfjax dh tk jgh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj

dze la0 fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY; MCG ¼lafonkdr Hkkj dk

KVAh/KW½* 1-1 (i) ljdkjh@uxj ikfydk fpfdRlky; (ii) ljdkjh@ljdkj lgk;rk izkIr

“kSf{kd laLFkku (iii) vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 ds v/khu

iathdr ,slh /kekFkZ laLFkk,a ftudh

vk; ij bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

dj dh NwV izkIr gSA

¼,½ 25 kW rd :0 40@kW :0 4-05@ kWh

¼ch½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 45@kVA :0 3-65@kVAh 50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o

600 kVAh/ kVA/ okf"kZd

1-2

vU; v?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa

¼,½ NksVs v?kjsyw miHkksDrk ftudk

vuqcfU/kr Hkkj 4 kW rFkk miHkksx

50 ;wfuV izfrekg gksA

:0 45@ kW :0 4-20@kWh

¼ch½ 25 kW rd mijksDr 1-2 ¼,½ esa

“kkfey ugha :0 45@ kW :0 4-85@kWh

¼lh½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 45@ kVA :0 4-75@kVAh 50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o 600 kVAh/ kVA / okf"kZd

1-3 ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ** :0 45@ kVA :0 4-65@kVAh 50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o

600 kVAh/ kVA / okf"kZd

1-4 LorU= foKkiu gksfMZaXl~~ :0 60@ kW :0 4-90@kWh

*kW esa lafonkdr Hkkj okys miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s ,e lh th mn~ns”;ksa gsrq lafonkdr Hkkj 0-85 ds ikWoj QSDVj ij

fopkj djrs gq, ifjHkkf’kr fd;k tk;sxkA

8. Annexures


U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj] fLFkj ekax izHkkj ds vfrfjDr gksxk rFkk rc mn~xzghr fd;k tk;sxk tc miHkksx ,d ekg

esa ,e lh th ls de gksxk ,oa ;g okf’kZd vk/kkj ij lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA

** “kkfiax dkWEIysDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl ds fy;s 75 kW ls Åij

(i) Vh vks Mh ehVlZ] dsoy ehVj jhfMax midj.k ¼,e vkj vkbZ½ }kjk i<s tk;saxsA iw.kZ fo”ys’k.k

ds iz;kstu gsrq Qstj Mk;xzke] Vsaij fjiksVZ] iw.kZ Hkkj losZ{k.k fjiksVZ bR;kfn iw.kZ MaIk ds lkFk

Mkmu yksM fd;k tk;saxsA (ii) 25 kW Lks Åij ds lHkh miHkksDrkvksa gsrq vko”;d :Ik ls Vh vks Mh ehVj gksaxsA (iii) “kwU; Hkkj ;k vR;Ur de Hkkj ij dksbZ ehVj ugha i<+k tk;sxkA vuqKkih mi;qDr okg~; Hkkj

j[ksxk rFkk mDr Hkkj ij ,e vkj vkbZ ysus ds fy, tgk¡ vko”;d gks mls mi;ksx djsxkA (iv) ,e vkj vkbZ lkjka’k fjiksVZ dh izfr fcy ds lkFk miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA Hkkj losZ{k.k fjiksVZ

lfgr iw.kZ ,e vkj vkbZ fjiksVZ] ekax djus ij o 15 :0 ds fcy dk Hkqxrku djus ij iznku

dh tk;sxhA



vkj Vh ,l&3% ifCyd ySaIl

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq ifCyd ySaIl ij ykxw gksxh] ftlesa LVªhV ykbfVax flLVe] VSªfQd

flXuy] lkoZtfud m|kuksa dh ykbZfVax bR;kfn lfEefyr gSA gfjtu cfLr;ksa rFkk xkaoksa dk iFk izdk”k Hkh

bl vuqlwph esa lfEefyr gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

'kgjh ¼ehVMZ½ :0 40@kW :0 4-35@ kWh xzkeh.k ¼ehVMZ½ :0 35@kW :0 4-35@ kWh

3- vuqj{k.k izHkkj

mijksDr **izHkkj dh nj** ds vfrfjDr :0 10@&izfr ykbZV IokbaV izfr ekg dsoy etnwjh “kkfey

djrs gq, LVªhV ykbZV ds ifjpkyu ,oa vuqj{k.k gsrq izHkkfjr fd;k tk;sxkA lHkh visf{kr lkexzh dh vkiwfrZ

LFkkuh; fudk;ksa }kjk dh tk;sxhA rFkkfi LFkkuh; fudk;ksa ds ikl ifCyd ySEil dk ifjpkyu o vuqj{k.k

Lo;a djus dk fodYi gksxk rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa dksbZ vuqj{k.k izHkkj ugha fy;k tk;sxkA

4- LVªhV ykbZV flLVe ds fy, mica/k

;fn] mijksDrkuqlkj vuqj{k.k izHkkj izHkkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS rks ySaIl ds cnyus ;k blds

uohuhdj.k esa yxus okys Jfed vuqKkih }kjk miyC/k djk;s tk;saxs fdarq lHkh lkexzh LFkkuh; fudk;ksa }kjk

miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA ;fn LFkkuh; fudk; ds vuqjks/k ij vuqKkih lkexzh miyC/k djokrk gS rks bldh

ykxr LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk izHkk;Z gksxhA

,sls {ks=ksa esa tgk¡ vuqKkih ds forj.k esUl ugha fcNk;s x;s gSa ogk¡ LVªhV ykbZV esUl ¼mi LVs”kuksa dh

ykxr] ;fn dksbZ gS] lfgr½ ds foLrkj dh ykxr dk Hkqxrku LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l & 4% futh uydwi @iafiax lsV~l

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq mu lHkh miHkksDrkvksa ij ykxw gksrh gS tks flapkbZ ds mn~ns”; ls

rFkk pkjk dkVus dh e”khu] /kku dh Hkwlh fudkyus dh e”khu] xUUkk fijkbZ dh e”khu o vukt ds nkus

vyx djus dh e”khu rd lhfer izklafxd d`f’k dk;ksZ ds fy, futh uy dwiksa@iafiax lsV~l gsrq vkiwfrZ

izkIr dj jgs gSaA gkykafd izklafxd d`f’k ds mn~ns”; gsrq flapkbZ gsrq fy;s x;s la;kstu ij vkjVh,l&4 ds

vUrxZr VSfjQ ykxw gksxkA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj :0@ch,pih@ekg fo|qr ewY;

:0@KWh U;wure [kir xkjsUVh

¼,elhth½

vkjVh,l& 4 %

PTW ¼ehVMZ½ “kwU; 1-40

60 ;wfuV~l /BHP/ ekg rFkk 720 ;wfuV~l /BHP/

okf"kZd

3- fcyksa dk Hkqxrku rFkk foyafcr Hkqxrku gsrq vf/kHkkj%

bl Js.kh ds fy;s fcy o’kZ esa nks ckj vFkkZr fnlacj var ¼twu ls uoEcj dh vof/k ds fy;s½ rFkk

twu var ¼fnlEcj ls ebZ dh vof/k ds fy;s½ tkjh fd;s tk;sxsaA fnlEcj esa tkjh fd;s x;s fcyksa dk Hkqxrku

miHkksDrk }kjk ,d lkFk ;k vxys o’kZ 30 viSzy rd ¼vf/kdre pkj Hkkxksa esa fd;k tk;½ fd;k tk ldrk gS

ftlds fy;s dksbZ Mh ih ,l mn~xzghr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA blh izdkj twu esa tkjh fd;s x;s fcyksa dk

Hkqxrku fcuk Mh ih ,l ds 31 vDVwcj rd fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn miHkksDrk fofufnZ’V frfFk;ksa rd

Hkqxrku djus esa vlQy jgrk gS rks cdk;k jkf”k ij ml vof/k ¼ekg ;k mlds Hkkx½ ds fy, 1-25% izfrekg dh nj ls vf/kHkkj yxsxkA



vkj Vh ,l & 4 ¼,½ % d`f"k lEc) lsok;sa

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq mu ij ykxw gksrh gS tks ikS/kk ulZjh] ikWyhgkÅl esa mxk;s

Qwyksa@lfCt;ksa rFkk Qyksa] tgka Hk.Mkj.k ,oa laj{k.k ds vfrfjDr fdlh izdkj ds mRiknu dh izkslsflax

u dh tkrh gksA

2- izHkkj dh nj

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj

:0@ch,pih@ekg

fo|qr ewY;

:0@KWh U;wure [kir xkjsUVh

¼,elhth½

vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ %

df"k lac) lsok;sa

'kwU; 2-25

60;wfuV~l@ch,pih@ekg ,oa

720 ;wfuV~l@ch,pih@okf"kZd

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l & 5% xouZesaV bfjxs”ku flLVe

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%


(i) jkT; uy dwiksa] fo”o cSad uydwiksa] iai dh xbZ ugjksa] fy¶V flapkbZ ;kstukvksa] y?kq ny ugj

bR;kfnA

(ii) fdlh ljdkjh foHkkx ds LokfeRo o mlds }kjk ifjpkfyr flapkbZ iz.kkyhA

2- izHkkj dh nj%


1- 75 kW rd :0 40@ kW/ekg :0 4-35@ kWh 2- 75 kW ls vf/kd :0 40@ kVA/ekg :0 4-20@ kVAh



vkj Vh ,l & 6% ifCyd okVj oDlZ

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq lkoZtfud ty dk;ksZa] lhost VªhVesaV IykaV~l rFkk ty laLFkku]

ty fuxe ;k vU; LFkkuh; fudk;ksa ds v/khu dk;Zjr lhost iafiax LVs”kuksa vkSj IykfLVd fjlkbZfdfyax

IykUV~l ij ykxw gksxhA

2- izHkkj dh nj


'kgjh :0 40@ kVA /ekg :0 4-25@kVAh xzkeh.k :0 35@ kVA /ekg :0 4-25@kVAh

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 7% ,y Vh rFkk ,p Vh m|ksx

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk


(i) vkS|kSfxd rFkk@;k izlaLdj.k ;k d`f’k vkS|kSfxd mn~ns”;ksa] fctyh dj?kk o lkFk gh

vkdZ@bUMD”ku QusZlst] jksfyax@fj&jksfyax feYl] y?kq LVhy la;a=ksa ds fy;s rFkk fdlh vU;

nj vuqlwph ds v/khu lfEefyr u fd;s x;s miHkksDrkA

(ii) lCth] Qy] Qwyksa o e”k:e dh [ksrh] izlaLdj.k] HkaMkj.k o iSdsftax ds lkFk d`f"k rFkk tks

vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ esa vkPNkfnr u gksrs gkas] bl izdkj dh bdkb;k¡ Hkh bl nj vuqlwph esa

lfEefyr gksxhA

2- vkiwfrZ dh fof”k’V “krsZa

(i) lHkh la;kstu] mi;qDr jsfVax rFkk ch vkbZ ,l fofunsZ”kuksa ds ,e lh ch ¼fefu;spj lfdZV cszdj½

;k lfdZV cszdj@fLop fx;j ds lkFk la;ksftr fd;s tk;sxsaA

(ii) baMD”ku o vkdZ QusZlst dks vkiwfrZ ;g lqfuf”pr dj ysus ds Ik”pkr gh miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxh

fd Lohdr Hkkj QusZlst ds Vust dh Hkkj vko”;drkvksa ds rn~uqlkj gSA 1 Vu dk U;wure~ Hkkj

fdlh Hkh n”kk esa 400 kVA ls de ugha gksxk rFkk lHkh Hkkj blh vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr fd;s

tk;saxsA bl ekud ls uhps ds fdlh Hkkj ds fy;s dksbZ vkiwfrZ ugha dh tk;sxhA

(iii) LVhy ;wfuV~l dks vkiwfrZ] mi&LVs”ku ds Nksj ij psd ehVj ds lkFk dsoy ,d MsfMdsVsM

bafMfotqoy QhMj ds ek/;e 33 kV ;k blls Åij dh oksYVst ij miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA psd

ehVj rFkk miHkksDrk ehVj ¼jksa½ dh jhfMaXl ds e/; 3 izfr”kr ls vf/kd ds vaarj dh vuqKkih

}kjk rqjar tk¡p djokbZ tk;sxh rFkk lq/kkjkRed dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA

(iv) 1000 kVA ls vf/kd ds Hkkj ds lkFk lHkh u;s la;kstuksa dks vkiwfrZ] mijksDr ds (iii) mica/kksa ds

lkFk dsoy Lora= iks’kdksa ij fuxZr dh tkuh pkfg;sA



fooj.k fo|qr ewY; fLFkj@ekax

izHkkj izfrekg

U;wure miHkksx xkWj.Vh

¼MCG)** 1- 75 kW ¼100BHP½ rd

lafonkd`r Hkkj okys ,yVh m|ksx

1-1 lafonkd`r Hkkj 25 kW rd :0 3-95@kWh lafonkd`r Hkkj

dk :0 105@ kW

$ Lakfonkdr Hkkj@ekg

dk 50 kWh/ kW rFkk

lafonkdr Hkkj/ okf"kZd

dk 600 kWh/kW

1-2 lafonkd`r Hkkj 25 kW ls

vf/kd

:0 3-60@ kVAh lafonkd`r Hkkj

dk :0 105@ kVA Lakfonkd`r Hkkj@ekg

dk 50 kVAh/ kVA*** rFkk lafonkdr Hkkj/

okf"kZd dk 600 kVAh/kVA 2- 88 kVA /75 kW ¼100 BHP½ ls

Åij lafonkdr Hkkj okys ,pVh

m|ksx

yksM QSDVj#

:0@ kVAh

2-1 lafonkd`r Hkkj 1000 kVA rd 40% rd 3-40

* fcy ;ksX;

ekax dk :0

230@ kVA Lakfonkd`r Hkkj/ ekg dk 100 kVAh/ kVA

rFkk

Lakfonkdr Hkkj/ okf"kZd

dk 1200 kVAh/KVA 40% ls Åij 3-75

2-2 lafonkd`r Hkkj 1000 kVA ls

Åij

40% rd 3-40 * fcy ;ksX;

ekax dk :0

290@ kVA 40% ls Åij 3-75

$vkVk pDdh ds fy, 30 kWh/ kW@ekg rFkk 360 kWh/kW/okf"kZd

*fcy ;ksX; ekax] okLrfod vf/kdre ekax ;k lafonkd`r Hkkj dk 80%] tks vf/kd gks] gksxhA

**U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj] fLFkj@ekax izHkkj ds vfrfjDr gksxk rFkk rc mn~xzghr fd;k tk;sxk tc ,d ekg dh

vof/k esa miHkksx ,e lh th ls de gks rFkk ;g okf’kZd vk/kkj ij lek;kstu ds v/khu gksxkA ekg esa

U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj ds vkPNknu gsrq fcYM ;wfuV~l ij fctyh izHkkj dh x.kuk lkekU; vof/k esa 40% rd ds

yksM QSDVj ds fy;s mfYyf[kr izHkkj ij dh tk;sxh rFkk ,sls vfr fctyh izHkkj ds fy;s okf’kZd lek;kstu dh x.kuk]

vxj gksa rks] lkekU; vof/k esa 40% rd ds yksM QSDVj ds fy;s mfYyf[kr izHkkj ij dh tk;sxhA

*** ftu miHkksDrkvksa dk lafonkdr Hkkj kW esa gks] mudk lafonkd`r Hkkj ,elhth ds mn~ns”; gsrq ikoj QSDVj 0-85 ls

x.kuk dh tk,xhA #“kqYd mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s yksM QSDVj ¼%½ fuEu :Ik esa le>k tk;sxk%&

= fcfyax vof/k esa miHkksx ¼mUeqDr vfHkxeu ls izkIr fo|qr jfgr½ x 100 vf/kdre~ ekax ;k lafonkdr ekax] nksuksa esa ls tks de gks x fcfyax vof/k esa ?kaVksa dh la[;k

;|fi tgk¡ miHkksDrk }kjk mUeqDr vfHkxeu vof/k ds nkSjku fy, tkus ij vf/kdre ekax ml ekg esa c<+ tkus dh

n'kk esa] yksM QSDVj ds vkadyu ds mn~~ns'; gsrq vf/kdre ekax ogh gksxk ftl vof/k esa mUeqDr vfHkxeu u fd;k

x;k gksA

3- le;kuqlkj “kqYd ¼ ToD½ ¼VSfjQ½

(i) 25 KW ls vf/kd Hkkj ds ,y Vh m|ksx rFkk ,p Vh m|ksx ds fy;s Åij fn;s x;s ÅtkZ izHkkj

dh njsa ToD NwV@vf/kHkkj ds v/khu gksaxhA

8. Annexures


(ii) ToD ehVlZ] dsoy ehVj jhfMax bULVwesaV (MRI) }kjk i<s+ tk;saxsA iw.kZ fo”ys’k.k gsrq Qstj

Mk;xzke] Vsaij fjiksZV~lZ] iw.kZ Hkkj losZ fjiksV~lZ bR;kfn ds iw.kZ Mai Mkmu&yksM fd;s tk;saxs rFkk

fcy] izHkkj ToD nj ds vuqlkj tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA (iii) dksbZ Hkh ehVj “kwU; Hkkj ij ;k vR;Ur fuEu Hkkj ij ugha i<+s tk;saxsA vuqKkih mi;qDr okg~;

Hkkj j[ksxk rFkk mDr Hkkj ij MRI ysus ds fy;s tgka vko”;d gks ogk¡ bls ykxw djsxkA (iv) MRI lkjka”k dh izfr] fcy ds lkFk miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA Hkkj loZs fjiksVZ lfgr iw.kZ ,e vkj

vkbZ fjiksVZ ekax ij rFkk :0 15@& ds Hkqxrku ij miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA (v) ToD Hkkj fuEukuqlkj gksxk %

lhtu@fnu dk

le;

lqcg ihd

vkolZ lkekU; ?k.Vs Lkak; ihd vkolZ

vkWQ ihd

vkolZ

“khrdky

01-10 ls 31-03 0600&0930 cts 0930&1730 cts 1730&2200 cts 2200&0600 cts

Xkzh’edky

01-04 ls 30-09 & 0700&1800 cts 1800&2300 cts 2300&0700 cts

fo|qr ewY; dh ToD nj fuEukuqlkj gksaxh %

,y Vh m|ksx ds fy;s vof/k esa izHkkj dh nj

lkekU; ?k.Vs ihd vkolZ vkWQ ihd vkolZ

:0 3-60@KVAh :0 5-40@KVAh :0 3-24@KVAh

,p Vh m|ksx ds fy;s

yksM QSDVj* vof/k esa izHkkj dh nj

lkekU; ?k.Vs ihd vkolZ vkWQ ihd vkolZ

40% rd :0 3-40@kVAh :0 5-63@kVAh :0 3-06@kVAh 40% ls Åij :0 3-75@kVAh :0 5-63@kVAh :0 3-38@kVAh

*yksM QSDVj Åij [k.M 2 esa ifjHkkf’kr fd;k x;k gSA

4- lhtuy m|ksx

tgk¡ fdlh miHkksDrk ds ikl 18 kW (25 BHP) ls vf/kd dk Hkkj gks rFkk Vh vks Mh ehVj gks rFkk og

o’kZ esa dqN fuf”pr ekSleksa esa ;k lhfer vof/k ds nkSjku] ?kksf’kr ekSleh m|ksx ds fy;s ÅtkZ dh vkiwfrZ dk

mi;ksx djrk gS rks ftl vof/k esa la;a= can jgrk gS mu eghuksa ¼ftls vkWQ lhtu dgk tk;sxk½ ds fy,

mn~xzg.k fuEukuqlkj fd;k tk;sxk %

(i) *lhtu* vof/k ds fy;s “kqYd ogh gksxk tks bl vuqlwph esa fn;s vuqlkj **izHkkj dh nj** gSaA (ii) tgk¡ **vkWQ lhtu** vof/k esa okLrfod ekax lafonkdr Hkkj ds 30% ls vf/kd ugha gS] ogk¡ **vkWQ

lhtu** vof/k gsrq fo|qr ewY; ogha gksxsa tks Åij vuqlwph dh nj esa nh xbZ **lhtu** vof/k ds



fy;s gSaA rFkkfi **vkWQ lhtu** lafonkdr ekax ?kVkdj 30% dj nh tk;sxhA (iii) vkWQ lhtu vof/k esa vf/kdre vuqKs; ekax] lafonkd`r ekax dk 30% gksxh rFkk ,d miHkksDrk

ftudh okLrfod ekax vkWQ lhtu ds fdlh ekg esa lafonkd`r ekax ds 30% ls vf/kd gksrh gS rks

mUgsa ml lhtu dh vof/k esa ?kVh gqbZ lafonkd`r ekax dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr

ekax izHkkj ds 10% dh nj ls iw.kZ **vkWQ lhtu** vof/k gsrq vf/kHkkj ns; gksxkA lhtuy m|ksxksa ds fy;s fuca/ku ,oa “krsZa&

(i) ifjpkyu dh vof/k ,d foRr o’kZ esa 9 ekg ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg;sA (ii) tgk¡ foÙk o’kZ esa ifjpkyu dh vof/k 4 ekg ls vf/kd gS ogk¡ ,sls m|ksx dks de ls de pkj

dzfed ekg rd ifjpkfyr gksuk pkfg;sA (iii) ,d ckj vf/klwfpr lhtuy vof/k dks o’kZ dh vof/k rd ?kVk;k ugha tk ldrkA lhtuy yksM

ds lkFk vU; yksM /kkfjr dEiksftV bZdkbZ;ksa ij ^vkWQ lhtu^ “kqYd ykxw ugha gksxkA (iv) Pkhuh] cQZ] jkbZl fey] tM+hd`r vkgkj ¼Qzkstu QwM½ rFkk pk; ds vfrfjDr m|ksx vk;ksx ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds Ik”pkr~ gh vuqKkih }kjk vf/klwfpr fd;s tk;saxsA 5- QSDVjh ykbZfVax

bl vuqlwph ds v/khu vkiwfrZ dh xbZ fo|qrh; ÅtkZ dk mi;ksx QSDVªh ifjlj esa ykbZV~l] ia[ks] dwylZ]

bR;kfn ds fy;s Hkh fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa dk;kZy;ksa] eq[; QSDVªh Hkou] LVkslZ] VkbZe dhij ds dk;kZy;]

dSUVhu] LVkQ Dyc] iqLrdky;] f”k”kq lnu] vkS’k/kky; LVkQ dY;k.k dsUnzksa] vgkrksa esa QSDVªh ykbfVax ds

fy;s miHkksx dh xbZ lHkh ÅtkZ lfEefyr gksxhA

6- fujarj o vfujarj vkiwfrZ %

(i) fujUrj izfdz;k m|ksx ds lkFk vfujUrj izfØ;k m|ksx ds miHkksDrk tks fd Loa=r QhMj ;k

vkS|kSfxd QhMj ls tqMs+ gkas] fujUrj vkiwfrZ gsrq fodYi pqu ldrs gSA ,d vkS|kSfxd QhMj ls tqMs+

gq, lHkh m|ksxksa ds fujUrj vkiwfrZ fodYi pquus ds mijkUr gh fujUrj vkiwfrZ iznku dh tk;sxh

rFkk ;fn muesa ls dksbZ vkS|kSfxd miHkksDrk fujUrj vkiwfrZ ugha pkgrk gks rks ,sls QhMj ij lHkh

miHkksDrk fujUrj vkiwfrZ dk ykHk mBkus ds fy, vgZ ugha gksaxsA bl rjg dh fujUrj izfdz;k okys

vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrk tks fujUrj vkiwfrZ pqurs gS] os iwoZ esa lwfpr@vuwlwfpr fctyh dVkSrh ls rFkk

le;≤ ij vk;ksx }kjk vuqeksfnr fctyh miHkksx esa izfrca/k dh vof/k dh lhfer ?kaVs ds

nkSjku ÅtkZ ds vkikrdkyhu :Ik ls BIi gksus ;k can dh fLFkfr dks NksM+dj vU; le; yksM “kSfMax

ls NwV izkIr gksxhA orZeku ds vfujUrj izfØ;k m|ksx ds miHkksDrk fujUrj vkiwfrZ gsrq Åij

mYysf[kr fo|qr ewY; ds vykok 15 izfr”kr vfrfjDr fo|qr ewY; pqdk;saxsA 1 ebZ 2015 ls vFkok

fnuakd 31 ekpZ] 2016 rd ds u;s la;kstu dh n”kk esa] fcuk okLrfod vof/k ds fujUrj vkiwfrZ

8. Annexures


fodYi gsrq Åij fn;s x;s izHkkj dh nj ds vuqlkj ekax izHkkj rFkk vU; izHkkj ogha jgsaxsA ;|fi Lora= QhMj ds ek/;e ls vkiwfrZ dh iquO;ZoLFkk dh n'kk esa fujUrj vkiwfrZ izHkkj] fujUrj

vkiwfrZ ds fodYi dh okLrfod vof/k ds LFkku ij mDr LorU= QhMj ds Åthdj.k dh frfFk ls

31 ekpZ 2016 rd ykxw gksxkA ekax izHkkj vkSj vU; izHkkj mijksDr izHkkj dh nj ds vuqlkj leku

jgsxhA (ii) os miHkksDrk tks fd iwoZ esa fujUrj vkiwfrZ fodYi pqus gq, gS] dks fujUrj vkiwfrZ pquus gsrq iqu%

fodYi nsus dh vko”;drk ugha gSA ,sls miHkksDrkvksa dks fnukad 01-04-2015 ls 31-03-2016 rd

Åij mYysf[kr fo|qr ewY; dk 15 izfr'kr vfrfjDr fo|qr ewY; ns; gksxkA ;wihlh,y ls ;fn dksbZ

fookn fdlh QhMj esa gks rksml QhMj ds miHkksDrkvksa dks 30 vizSy] 2015 rd u;s rkSj ls fujUrj

vkiwfrZ gsrq vkosnu djuk gksxkA (iii) fo|qr fujUrj vkiwfrZ ¼tks mijksDrkuqlkj u;s rkSj ij vkosnu dj jgs gksa lfgr½ ds fy, u;s

vkosnd o’kZ esa dHkh Hkh vkosnu ns ldrs gSaA gkykafd] ,sls vkosndksa ds fy;s fujUrj vkiwfrZ ljpktZ

1 ebZ] 2015 ls 31 ekpZ] 2016 rd ds fy;s ykxw jgsxkA ;wihlh,y] vkosnu dh frfFk ls 7 fnuksa ds

nkSjku] fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh “krkZsa dh iwfrZ ds fy, lqfo/kk iznku djsxkA gkykafd] Lora= QhMj ls

vkiwfrZ dk izcU/ku dj fy;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa ;wihlh,y }kjk fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh lqfo/kk] Lora=

QhMj }kjk dk;Z iw.kZ dj fy;s tkus dh frfFk ls] fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh “krkZsa dh iwfrZ ds lkFk] iznku

djsxkA (iv) orZeku esa fujUrj vkiwfrZ dk ykHk mBkus okys miHkksDrk] tks iwoZ esa nh x;h fujUrj vkiwfrZ dks can

djuk pkgrs gks] dks fnuakd 30 vizSy 2015 ls iwoZ fyf[kr esa lwfpr djuk gksxk vkSj mUgsa fujUrj

vkiwfrZ vf/kHkkj ds lkFk bl vkns”k esa mYysf[kr VSfjQ njksa ds vk/kkj ij 30 vizSy] 2015 rd dh

vof/k dk Hkqxrku djuk gksxkA blds vykok] bl lEcU/k esa ;fn dksbZ miHkksDrk }kjk ,d fo”ks"k

QhMj ij fujUrj vkiwfrZ dk ykHk mBkus ds fodYi NksM+ fn, tkus ij] vU; miHkksDrkvksa dks nh tk

jgh fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds lkFk] mDr QhMj ls tqMs vU; fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds miHkksDrk izHkkfor gksrs gS

rks ;wihlh,y lHkh izHkkfor miHkksDrkvksa dks iwoZ esa fyf[kr :i ls lwfpr djsxkA (v) ;wihlh,y xSj fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj ds fy, ,d fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj dh fLFkfr dks ifjofrZr ugha

djsxkA (vi) ;wihlh,y@fiVdqy 'kh"kZ izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij ;g lqfuf”pr djsaxs fd of+)] j[k&j[kko vkSj

ejEer dk;Z fo”ks’kr;k lc&LVs’kuksa esa tgk¡ lfdZV czsdlZ] vU; midj.kksa bR;kfn tksfd th.kZ&”kh.kZ

gkyr esa gS] mulss fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj esa :dkoV u gksA



(vii) ;wihlh,y@fiVdqy fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds miHkksDrkvksa dks fn;s tk jgs QhMj dh vkof/kd fuokj.k

vuqj{k.k djsxkA ykbZlsalh fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds miHkksDrkvksa dks iwoZ esa vkof/kd fuokj.k vuqj{k.k

dk;Zdze ds ckjs esa lykg mijkUr ;kstuk cukdj lwfpr djsxk] ftlls ,sls miHkksDrk vius dk;Z

dj ldsaA (viii) vuqKkih dks fo|qr ewY; rFkk ml ij fujarj ÅtkZ vf/kHkkj fcy iFkd :Ik ls fn[kkuk pkfg;sA

7- ,pVh m|ksxksa gsrq ekax izHkkj

;fn fdlh ,pVh m|ksx miHkksDrk] tks ekg esa ,d fnu ds 18 ?k.Vs dh U;wure vkSlru vkiwfrZ izkIr

ugha djrs gSa] muds fy, ekax izHkkj Lohd`r ekWax izHkkj dk 80 izfr”kr vuqiz;ksT; gksxkA

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 8% fefJr Hkkj

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph 75 kW ls vf/kd ds ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ la;kstu ij ykxw gksrh gS tgk¡ vkiwfrZ

izeq[kr% ?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ¼60% ls vf/kd ?kjsyw Hkkj½ ds fy;s rFkk lkFk gh vU; v?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s

iz/kku :Ik ls mi;ksx esa ykbZ tkrh gSaA ;g vuqlwph MES dks vkiwfrZ ij Hkh ykxw gksrh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

bl Js.kh ds miHkksDrkvksa ij fuEufyf[kr njsa ykxw gksxh %

fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

:0 50@kW@ekg :0 4-15@kWh

3- vU; “krsZa %

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr “kqYd dh vU; “krsZ ogh gksaxh] tks vkj Vh ,l&1 miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s gSaA

rFkkfi] vfrHkkj naM] vkiwfrZ dh lkekU; “krksZa ds [k.M 12 ds vuqlkj ykxw gksxkA



vkj Vh ,l 9% jsyos VªSD”ku

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

;g vuqlwph VSªD”ku mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s ÅtkZ mi;ksx djus okyh jsyos ij ykxw gksrh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

bl Js.kh ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr fo|qr ewY;] ekax izHkkj ykxw gksaxsA

ekax izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

:0@kVA@ekg :0@kVAh 200@& :0 3-60

3- vU; “krsZ %

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr] “kqYd dh vU; “krsZ ogh jgsaxh tks fujarj vkiwfrZ gsrq ToD VSfjQ ,oa vf/kHkkj

dh iz;ksT;rk dks NksM+ dj vkjVh,l&7 ds v/khu lkekU; ,p Vh m|ksxksa ds fy;s gSaA

8. Annexures


vkjVh,l 10 % vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

¼,½ iznhiu o lkoZtfud lacks/ku vko”;drkvksa gsrq vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

;g vuqlwph 10 kW rd ds ykbZV vkSj ia[ks] lkoZtfud lacks/ku iz.kkyh] mRloksa] vuq’Bkuksa] eaxy

dk;ksZ ds nkSjku iznhiu Hkkjksa] vf/kdre rhu ekg rd dh vLFkk;h nqdkuksa dh vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ ij ykxw

gksxhA

2- izHkkj dh nj

fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj

¼1½ 15 kW rd ds Hkkj ds iznhiu] lkoZtfud lacks/ku] mRloksa ds fy;s :0 1200 izfrfnu

¼2½ 2 kW rd ds Hkkj okyh] mRloksa ds nkSjku LFkkfir vLFkk;h nqdkusaA :0 80 izfrfnu

¼3½ 1 kW rd ds Hkkj ds fy;s vU; vLFkk;h nqdkuas@>qXxh@>ksiM+h

3-1½ xzkeh.k :0 110@ekg@la;kstu

3-2½ “kgjh :0 220@ekg@la;kstu

mijksDr 2 esa fofufnZ’V fLFkj lsok izHkkj dh jkf”k vfxze :Ik esa yh tk;sxhA

¼ch½ vU; mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

(i) ;g vuqlwph 15 kW ls Åij ds Hkkj ds fy;s ¼,½ ij mfYyf[kr ls vU; mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s

ykbZV] QSu o ÅtkZ Hkkjksa dh vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ ij ykxw gksxh ftlesa iznhiu@lkoZtfud

lacks/ku@mRlo lfEefyr gSaA (ii) ;g vuqlwph] ljdkjh foHkkxksa lfgr lHkh miHkksDrkvksa }kjk flfoy dk;ksZa lfgr fuekZ.k

iz;kstuksa ds fy;s yh xbZ ÅtkZ ds fy;s Hkh ykxw gksxhA fdlh dk;Z@ifj;kstuk ds fy;s

fuekZ.k iz;kstu gsrq ÅtkZ dk;Z@ifj;kstuk ds iw.kZ gksus rd fuekZ.k dk;Z ds fy, izFke

la;kstu ysus dh frfFk ls ekuh tk;sxhA rFkkfi Hkou ds fuekZ.k] ejEer ;k uohuhdj.k ds

fy;s miHkksDrk ds Lo;a ds ifjlj gsrq Lohd`r ,d LFkk;h la;kstu }kjk fo|qr ds iz;ksx dks

fo|qr dk vukf/kdr mi;ksx ugha ekuk tk;sxk] tc rd fd fuekZ.k fd;s tk jgs orZeku

Hkou@vuqyXud dk vk”kf;r iz;kstu@mi;ksx] la;kstd dh Lohdr Js.kh esa ogh vuqKs;

gSA 2- izHkkj dh nj

izHkkj dh nj] mi;qDr vuqlwph esa izHkkj dh rn~uq:Ik nj /ku (+) 25% gksxhA pkj ¼4½ ekg dh

vf/kdre~ vof/k ds fy;s fn;s x;s 15 BHP rd ds bZ[k nyu ;a= gsrq vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ ds fy;s mi;qDr nj



vuqlwph vkjVh,l&7 gksxhA ;|fi vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ gsrq U;wure miHkksx xkWj.Vh ¼MCG½ izHkkj ykxw ugha

gksaxsA

8-2 layXud 2% fofo/k izHkkjksa dh vuqlwph

dz0

la0 izHkkjksa dk LoHkko ;wfuV

nj

¼:0½

1- ehVjksa dh tkWp o ijh{k.k

,- flaxy Qst ehVlZ izfrehVj 50-00

Ckh- rhu Qst ehVlZ izfrehVj 75-00

Lkh- fjdkfMZax VkbZi okWV&vkoj ehVlZ izfrehVj 170-00

Mh- vf/kdre ekax ladsrd@,yVh lhVh lapkfyr eksVlZ izfrehVj 350-00

bZ- VªkbZ osDVj ehVlZ@,pVh ehVlZ lhVh@ihVh ds lkFk izfrehVj 1000-00

,Q- ,ehVlZ ,aM oksYV ehVlZ izfrehVj 65-00

Tkh- Lis”ky ehVlZ izfrehVj 335-00

,p- ehVjksa dk izkFkfed ijh{k.k izfrehVj “kwU;

2- izkFkfed ijh{k.k ls vU; ckn dk ijh{k.k rFkk laLFkkiu izfrehVj 80-00

3- fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls ¼fdlh la;kstu ds dkVus ;k iquZla;kstu ds fy;s½

vkiwfrZ dk la;kstu dkVuk ;k iqula;kstu dk izHkkj 50 izfr”kr gksxkA

,- 100 BHP@75 kW ls Åij Hkkj okys miHkksDrk Ikzfr tkWc 600-00

Ckh- 100 BHP@75 kW rd ds v?kjsyw rFkk vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrk Ikzfr tkWc 400-00

Lkh- miHkksDrkvksa dh vU; lHkh Jsf.k;ka Ikzfr tkWc 200-00

4- ehVjksa dk cnyuk

,- ehVj dk laLFkkiu rFkk vLFkk;h la;kstu dh voLFkk esa bldk gVk;k

tkukA Ikzfr tkWc 75-00

ch- miHkksDrk ds fuosnu ij ehVj cksMZ dh fLFkfr esa ifjorZu Ikzfr tkWc 100-00

5- miHkksDRkk ds fuosnu ij dSisflVlZ dh tkWp ¼izkjafHkd tkWp ds vfrfjDr½%

,- 400V@230 V ij Ikzfr tkWc 150-00

ch- 11 kV rFkk blls Åij ij Ikzfr tkWc 300-00

final tariff order of upcl for fy 2015-16 11.04 -...

Documents