Final Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2016-17 Final Hindiuerc.gov.in/ordersPetitions/orders/Tariff/Tariff Order/2016-17... · Order on Approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff

Order on

Approval of Business Plan and Multi

Year Tariff Petition

For

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. for

Second Control Period

(FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19)

April 5, 2016

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 ............................................................................................. 5

2. Summary of Stakeholders’Objections/Suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses and

Commission’s Views ....................................................................................................................... 9

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

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

2.2 Overall Tariff Increase ........................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Domestic Tariff ....................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 12

2.3.2 Fixed Charges based on Load ................................................................................................. 13

2.4 Non-Domestic Tariff .............................................................................................................. 14

2.4.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 14

2.4.2 Tariff for Dharamshala/Trust/Ashram ................................................................................. 15

2.4.3 Tariff for Telecom Tower......................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Independent Advertising Hoardings ..................................................................................... 17

2.6 Agricultural Tariff .................................................................................................................. 17

2.6.1 Tariff Increase .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.6.2 Floriculture ............................................................................................................................... 18

2.7 Mixed Load (RTS-8) Tariff ..................................................................................................... 19

2.8 Industrial Tariff ...................................................................................................................... 20

2.8.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 20

2.8.2 Rebate in Demand Charges for non-supply of power........................................................... 21

2.8.3 Textile Industry ........................................................................................................................ 21

2.8.4 Fixed/Demand Charge and Energy Charge .......................................................................... 22

2.8.5 Time of Day Tariff.................................................................................................................... 24

2.8.6 Rostering and Load Shedding ................................................................................................ 26

2.8.7 Load Factor based Tariff.......................................................................................................... 28

2.9 Railway Traction ................................................................................................................... 31

2.10 Fixed Charges .......................................................................................................................... 34

2.11 Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) .......................................................................... 35

2.12 Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) ....................................................................................... 37

2.13 Rebate and Incentives ............................................................................................................ 38

ii

2.14 Energy Sale Forecast ...............................................................................................................42

2.15 Cost of Supply and Cross Subsidy.........................................................................................43

2.16 Continuous Supply .................................................................................................................45

2.17 Components on ARR and Revenue ........................................................................................46

2.17.1 Power Purchase Cost ................................................................................................................ 46

2.17.2 PGCIL Charges ......................................................................................................................... 48

2.17.3 Return on Equity ...................................................................................................................... 49

2.17.4 Operation & Maintenance Expenses ....................................................................................... 50

2.17.5 Depreciation .............................................................................................................................. 51

2.17.6 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts .................................................................................... 52

2.17.7 Other Costs ............................................................................................................................... 53

2.17.8 Consumer Security Deposit ..................................................................................................... 54

2.18 Capital Expenditure ................................................................................................................56

2.19 Truing-up for Past Years ........................................................................................................58

2.20 Departmental Employees .......................................................................................................59

2.21 Collection Efficiency ...............................................................................................................60

2.22 Fuel Charge Adjustment .........................................................................................................61

2.23 Metering and Billing ...............................................................................................................62

2.24 Load Reduction .......................................................................................................................65

2.25 Distribution Line/ Line Losses...............................................................................................65

2.26 Distribution Infrastructure ....................................................................................................69

2.27 KCC Data ................................................................................................................................70

2.28 Quality of Power ....................................................................................................................71

2.29 Open Access .............................................................................................................................71

2.30 Green Cess and Electricity Duty for Open Access Consumers ............................................74

2.31 Renewable Energy Promotion ...............................................................................................75

2.32 Miscellaneous Comments .......................................................................................................76

2.32.1 LED Lamps ............................................................................................................................... 76

2.32.2 Payment of Public Lamp connections ..................................................................................... 76

2.32.3 Temporary Connections ........................................................................................................... 77

2.32.4 Location of Installation of meters ............................................................................................ 77

2.32.5 Load Shedding .......................................................................................................................... 78

2.32.6 Transfer of Petitioner’s personnel............................................................................................ 78

iii

2.32.7 Departmental employees ........................................................................................................ 79

2.32.8 Safety Requirements ................................................................................................................ 79

2.33 Views of Advisory Committee Meeting ................................................................................ 80

3. Petitioners’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Business

Plan for the second Control Period ............................................................................................. 82

3.1 Statutory Requirement ........................................................................................................... 82

3.2 Multi Year Tariff Framework ................................................................................................ 82

3.3 Business Plan for the second Control Period ....................................................................... 83

3.4 Sales Forecast ......................................................................................................................... 90

3.4.1 Domestic (RTS-1) ..................................................................................................................... 97

3.4.2 Non-Domestic (RTS-2) ............................................................................................................. 97

3.4.3 Public Lamps (RTS-3) .............................................................................................................. 97

3.4.4 Private Tube-Wells (RTS-4) ..................................................................................................... 98

3.4.5 Government Irrigation Systems (RTS-5) ................................................................................ 98

3.4.6 Public Water Works (RTS-6) ................................................................................................... 98

3.4.7 Industry (RTS-7)....................................................................................................................... 99

3.4.8 Mixed Load (RTS-8) ................................................................................................................. 99

3.4.9 Railway Traction (RTS-9) ....................................................................................................... 100

3.5 Efficiency Parameters........................................................................................................... 101

3.5.1 Distribution Losses ................................................................................................................. 101

3.5.2 Collection Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 107

3.6 Power Procurement Plan ..................................................................................................... 109

3.6.1 Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd. ........................................................................................... 112

3.6.2 Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. ......................................................................................... 114

3.6.3 Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. ................................................................................ 115

3.6.4 Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. .......................................................................................... 115

3.6.5 Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd............................................................................................. 117

3.6.6 Power Purchase from existing Renewable Energy Sources ................................................. 117

3.6.7 Power Purchase from Vishnu Prayag HEP (State Royalty Power) ..................................... 118

3.6.8 Power Purchase from Sasan UMPP ....................................................................................... 118

3.6.9 Power purchase from Kashipur CCPP .................................................................................. 118

3.6.10 Power purchase from Greenko Budhil Hyrdo ...................................................................... 119

3.6.11 Power purchase from upcoming generating stations........................................................... 119

3.6.12 Energy available from Firm Sources...................................................................................... 120

iv

3.6.13 Power Purchase for fulfilling RPO ........................................................................................ 120

3.6.14 Return of banked power during FY 2016-17 ......................................................................... 121

3.6.15 Deficit/ (Surplus) energy ....................................................................................................... 121

3.7 Capital Expenditure Plan and Capitalisation Plan .......................................................... 122

3.8 Financing Plan ...................................................................................................................... 126

3.9 Human Resources Plan......................................................................................................... 127

4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing Up

for FY 2014-15 ............................................................................................................................... 130

4.1 Truing-up for FY 2014-15 ...................................................................................................... 130

4.1.1 Sales ......................................................................................................................................... 131

4.1.2 Distribution Losses ................................................................................................................. 140

4.1.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) ............................................ 142

4.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses ..................................................................... 147

4.2 Cost of Assets & Financing .................................................................................................. 152

4.2.1 Capital cost of Original Assets ............................................................................................... 152

4.2.2 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 159

4.2.3 Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts ..................................................................................... 160

4.2.4 Interest on Working Capital (IoWC) ..................................................................................... 164

4.2.5 Return on Equity .................................................................................................................... 164

4.2.6 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 166

4.3 Tariff Revenue ....................................................................................................................... 167

4.4 Sharing of gains and losses .................................................................................................. 171

4.5 ARR & Revenue for FY 2014-15 ........................................................................................... 173

5. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on MYT

Period for second Control Period............................................................................................... 175

5.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 175

5.2 Sales ....................................................................................................................................... 175

5.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory ............................................................................................... 176

5.4 Aggregate Revenue Requirement ......................................................................................... 177

5.5 Power Purchase Cost ............................................................................................................ 178

5.5.1 Merit Order ............................................................................................................................. 179

5.5.2 Cost of power purchase.......................................................................................................... 179

5.6 Transmission Charges .......................................................................................................... 185

v

5.6.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL ........................................................... 185

5.6.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL .......................................................... 186

5.6.3 Transmission Charges ............................................................................................................ 186

5.7 SLDC Charges ....................................................................................................................... 186

5.8 Water Tax .............................................................................................................................. 186

5.9 GFA and Additional Capitalisation ................................................................................... 187

5.9.1 GFA base for FY 2015-16 ........................................................................................................ 187

5.9.2 Capitalisation during the second Control Period ................................................................. 188

5.10 Means of Finance .................................................................................................................. 188

5.11 Interest and Finance Charges ............................................................................................... 189

5.11.1 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 191

5.11.2 Operation and Maintenance expenses................................................................................... 193

5.11.3 Employee expenses ................................................................................................................. 195

5.11.4 R&M expenses ........................................................................................................................ 197

5.11.5 A&G expenses ......................................................................................................................... 198

5.11.6 O&M expenses ........................................................................................................................ 200

5.11.7 Interest on Working Capital ................................................................................................... 200

5.11.8 One Month O&M Expenses ................................................................................................... 201

5.11.9 Maintenance Spares ................................................................................................................ 201

5.11.10 Receivables .............................................................................................................................. 201

5.11.11 Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues ...................................... 201

5.11.12 Adjustment for security deposits and credit by power suppliers ....................................... 202

5.11.13 Return on Equity ..................................................................................................................... 203

5.11.14 Income Tax .............................................................................................................................. 204

5.11.15 Provision for Bad and doubtful debts ................................................................................... 205

5.11.16 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 206

5.11.17 Past year adjustments ............................................................................................................. 206

5.11.18 Treatment of past year adjustments ...................................................................................... 209

5.11.19 Revenue Requirement for FY 2016-17 ................................................................................... 210

5.11.20 Revenue at Existing Tariff ...................................................................................................... 211

5.11.21 Revenue Gap for FY 2016-17 at existing Tariff...................................................................... 211

6. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues....................................................... 213

6.1 Discontinuation of Additional Surcharge on account of Re-Determination of Tariff for

FY 2010-11 from FY 2016-17 onwards .......................................................................................... 213

vi

6.2 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2016-17 .................................................. 214

6.2.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 214

6.2.2 Petitioner’s Proposals ............................................................................................................. 214

6.2.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures ................................................... 218

6.2.4 kVAh Tariffs ........................................................................................................................... 236

6.2.5 Treatment of Revenue Gap .................................................................................................... 237

6.2.6 Cross Subsidy ......................................................................................................................... 238

6.2.7 Category-wise Tariff Design .................................................................................................. 238

6.2.8 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff ................................................................................................... 240

6.2.9 RTS-3: Public Lamps............................................................................................................... 242

6.2.10 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump Sets and Agriculture Allied Activities.......................... 242

6.2.11 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System .................................................................................. 243

6.2.12 RTS-6: Public Water Works .................................................................................................... 243

6.2.13 RTS-7: Industry ....................................................................................................................... 243

6.2.14 RTS-8: Mixed Load ................................................................................................................. 245

6.2.15 RTS-9: Railway Traction ......................................................................................................... 245

6.3 Revenue for FY 2016-17 ......................................................................................................... 246

6.4 Cross Subsidy ........................................................................................................................ 247

6.5 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................ 249

7. Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL ......................................................................... 251

7.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 251

7.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15 .................................................................. 252

7.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15....................................................... 254

7.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15 ............................................................... 255

7.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance ............................. 256

7.2.1 Metering .................................................................................................................................. 258

7.2.2 Billing ...................................................................................................................................... 265

7.2.3 Billing and Bill Collection System ......................................................................................... 270

7.3 Energy Audit .......................................................................................................................... 273

7.4 AT&C Losses ......................................................................................................................... 273

7.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 277

8. Commission’s Directives ............................................................................................................ 279

8.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 dated April 11, 2015279

8.1.1 Performance Report ................................................................................................................ 279

vii

8.1.2 Sales ......................................................................................................................................... 280

8.1.3 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 282

8.1.4 AT&C Losses ........................................................................................................................... 283

8.1.5 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost ..................................................................................... 284

8.1.6 Fixed Assets Register .............................................................................................................. 285

8.1.7 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 285

8.1.8 Return on Equity ..................................................................................................................... 286

8.1.9 Employee Expenses ................................................................................................................ 286

8.1.10 Bad & Doubtful Debts ............................................................................................................ 287

8.1.11 Reliability Indices ................................................................................................................... 288

8.1.12 Voltage wise Cost of Supply .................................................................................................. 288

8.1.13 Demand Side Management Measures ................................................................................... 289

8.1.14 Electrical Accidents ................................................................................................................. 290

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

Orders ...................................................................................................................................... 290

8.1.16 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-determination of Tariff for FY 2009-10 and FY

2010-11 ..................................................................................................................................... 291

8.1.17 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 291

8.1.18 Metering of unmetered connections ...................................................................................... 291

8.1.19 Interest on GPF Trust.............................................................................................................. 292

8.1.20 Treatment of Assets sent for repairs ...................................................................................... 292

8.1.21 Billing of Departmental Employees ....................................................................................... 293

8.1.22 Subsidy from GoU for disaster affected areas ...................................................................... 294

8.1.23 Capitalization of Assets .......................................................................................................... 294

8.1.24 Installation of Meter ............................................................................................................... 294

8.1.25 MCG Charges .......................................................................................................................... 295

8.1.26 Issue of Voltage wise Loss ...................................................................................................... 295

8.1.27 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) ............................................ 296

8.1.28 Cost of Deficit Power .............................................................................................................. 296

8.1.29 RTS-4 (Private Tubewells) ...................................................................................................... 297

8.1.30 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF ........................................................................................ 298

8.1.31 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters ....... 298

8.1.32 Replacement of Mechanical Meters ....................................................................................... 299

8.1.33 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers .................................................................................................. 299

8.1.34 NB & SB Cases ........................................................................................................................ 300

viii

8.1.35 Outstanding Arrears............................................................................................................... 300

8.1.36 Status of KCC Consumers ...................................................................................................... 301

8.1.37 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold .......................................................................... 302

8.1.38 Billing and Collection System ................................................................................................ 302

8.1.39 Energy Audit .......................................................................................................................... 303

8.1.40 Abnormal Sales in Public Lamps Category .......................................................................... 304

8.1.41 Abnormal Sales in Private Tubewell Category ..................................................................... 304

8.1.42 Abnormal Sales in Public Water Works Category................................................................ 304

8.1.43 Abnormal Sales in LT Industries ........................................................................................... 305

8.1.44 Abnormal Sales in HT industries (Upto 1000 kVA) ............................................................. 305

8.1.45 Abnormal Sales in Mixed Load Category ............................................................................. 306

8.1.46 Transfer of Distribution Business from UJVN Ltd. to UPCL (Reference Para 7.2.22 of Tariff

Order dated 10.04.2014) ......................................................................................................... 306

8.2 Fresh Directives..................................................................................................................... 307

8.2.1 Departmental Employees ....................................................................................................... 307

8.2.2 Metering & Billing .................................................................................................................. 307

8.2.3 Distribution Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 307

8.2.4 Quality of Power ..................................................................................................................... 308

8.2.5 Temporary Connections ......................................................................................................... 308

8.2.6 Location of Installation of meters .......................................................................................... 308

8.2.7 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 308

8.2.8 Transfer of Petitioner’s personnel.......................................................................................... 308

8.2.9 Water Tax ................................................................................................................................ 309

8.2.10 Prepaid Metering .................................................................................................................... 309

8.2.11 kVAh Tariffs ........................................................................................................................... 309

8.2.12 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................. 309

8.2.13 Power procurement plan ....................................................................................................... 309

8.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 310

9. Annexures ..................................................................................................................................... 311

9.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2016......................................................... 311

9.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges ................................................................ 337

9.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice .................................................................................................... 338

Annexure 4: List of Respondents .................................................................................................. 341

9.4 Annexure 5: List of Participants in Public Hearings ......................................................... 343

ix

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Publication of Notice ................................................................................................................. 6

Table 1.2: Schedule of Hearing .................................................................................................................. 6

Table 2.1: Summary of Total Gap as submitted by the Petitioner ........................................................ 11

Table 2.2: Cost of Power as submitted by the Petitioner ....................................................................... 11

Table 2.3: Load Shedding Priority decided by UPCL ............................................................................ 27

Table 2.4: Delayed Payment Surcharge applicable in Other States ...................................................... 38

Table 2.5: Existing and Proposed Levels of Cross-subsidy submitted by UPCL ................................. 44

Table 3.1: Actual consumer category wise sales for FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 (MU) .......................... 90

Table 3.2: Projected sales as per 18th EPS forecast (MU) ........................................................................ 90

Table 3.3: Computed CAGR of sales as submitted by the Petitioner.................................................... 91

Table 3.4: Consumer Category wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................... 92

Table 3.5: Month wise and Consumer Category wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................... 93


(MU) ................................................................................................................................................... 94


(MU) ................................................................................................................................................... 94

Table 3.8: Consumer Category wise connected load projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 (kW) ...................................................................................................................................... 95

Table 3.9: Consumer Category wise number of consumers projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19 (No.)............................................................................................................................ 96

Table 3.10: Category Wise Sales Projections for second Control Period (MU) .................................. 100

Table 3.11: Year wise distribution losses as submitted by the Petitioner ........................................... 101

Table 3.12: Distribution Loss trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 .. 102

Table 3.13: Distribution Losses for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 ............................................................. 102

Table 3.14: Distribution Losses for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ............................................................. 106

Table 3.15: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ....................................................................................................... 107

x

Table 3.16: Collection efficiency trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

.......................................................................................................................................................... 108

Table 3.17: Collection efficiency for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 ........................................................... 108

Table 3.18: Collection efficiency for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ........................................................... 108

Table 3.19: Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd......................................................................................... 113

Table 3.20: Energy Availability from UJVN Ltd. For FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19(MU) ....................... 113

Table 3.21: Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. ...................................................................................... 114

Table 3.22: Energy Availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU) ...................... 114

Table 3.23: Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. ............................................................................. 115

Table 3.24: Energy Availability at State periphery from THDC Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 115

Table 3.25: Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. ....................................................................................... 116

Table 3.26: Energy Availability from NTPC Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 116

Table 3.27: Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd.......................................................................................... 117

Table 3.28: Energy Availability from SJVN Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 117

Table 3.29: Energy Availability from existing Renewable Energy Sources for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-

19 (MU) ............................................................................................................................................ 117

Table 3.30: Energy Availability from Vishnu Prayag HEP at State Periphery (State Royalty Power)

for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU) ................................................................................................ 118

Table 3.31: Energy Availability from Sasan UMPP at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-

19(MU) ............................................................................................................................................. 118

Table 3.32: Energy Availability from Kashipur CCPP at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 119

Table 3.33: Energy Availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 (MU) ................................................................................................................................... 119

Table 3.34: Energy Availability from upcoming generating stations at State periphery for FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19(MU) .......................................................................................................................... 120

Table 3.35: Energy available from Long Term Sources (MU) .............................................................. 120

Table 3.36: Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO .............................................................................. 121

xi

Table 3.37: Energy deficit/surplus Scenario for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU) .............................. 122

Table 3.38: Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................................................ 122

Table 3.39: Capitalisation Plan for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs.

Crore) ............................................................................................................................................... 124

Table 3.40: Actual GFA addition of UPCL (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................ 124

Table 3.41: Capitalisation as % of sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure ......................... 125

Table 3.42: Capital expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ....... 126

Table 3.43: Financing Plan proposed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) .................................................... 127

Table 3.44: Actual funding of capitalisation for FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 ................. 127

Table 3.45: Financing Plan approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............................................... 127

Table 3.46: Additional man power requirement as submitted by the Petitioner............................... 128

Table 3.47: HR Plan approved by the Commission ............................................................................. 129

Table 4.1: Break up of Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 (MU) ................................. 131

Table 4.2: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per unit of Mixed Load

as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15 ............................................................................. 132

Table 4.3: Division wise anomalies in Average Revenue per unit of LT Industries as per Commercial

Statements for FY 2014-15 .............................................................................................................. 133

Table 4.4: Division wise anomalies in Average Revenue per unit of HT Industries as per

Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15......................................................................................... 133

Table 4.5: Division wise anomalies in Average Revenue per unit of PTW consumers as per

Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15......................................................................................... 134

Table 4.6: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per Unit of Public Lamps

as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15 ............................................................................. 134

Table 4.7: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per unit of Public Water

Works as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15 ................................................................. 135

Table 4.8: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per unit of Government

Irrigation System as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15 ............................................... 136

Table 4.9: Re-casted Sales for Domestic Category for FY 2014-15 (MU) ............................................ 138

Table 4.10: Re-casted sales for PTW Category for FY 2014-15 (MU) .................................................. 139

Table 4.11: Re-casted sales for Other Categories for FY 2014-15 (MU) ............................................... 140

xii

Table 4.12: Category-wise Sales for FY 2014-15 (MU) .......................................................................... 140

Table 4.13: Assessed Distribution losses for FY 2014-15 (MU) ............................................................ 141

Table 4.14: Power Purchase Cost approved in the Tariff Order Vs Actual Power Purchase Cost for

FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)..................................................................................................................... 142

Table 4.15: Power Purchase Cost claimed by UPCL and approved by the Commission for FY 2014-

15 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................................................... 147

Table 4.16: Revised Employee Expenses Trajectory for MYT Control Period as submitted by the

Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ...................................................................................................................... 150

Table 4.17: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)............................................... 151

Table 4.18: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ...................................................... 151

Table 4.19: Approved A&G expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 152

Table 4.20: Approved O&M expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ...................................................... 152

Table 4.21: Year wise GFA addition as submitted by UPCL (Rs. Crore) ............................................ 154

Table 4.22: Net Fixed Assets addition approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............................. 155

Table 4.23: Assets base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ..................................................... 155

Table 4.24: Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ........................................... 155

Table 4.25: Impact of final true up of capital related expenses for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 approved

by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ...................................................................................................... 156

Table 4.26: Approved Means of Finance for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)................................................... 156

Table 4.27: Means of Finance for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore).................. 157

Table 4.28: GFA & Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) .............................. 157

Table 4.29: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)................................................. 159

Table 4.30: Depreciation approved for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................... 160

Table 4.31: Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Actual Write off ........................................... 162

Table 4.32: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ................................................... 164

Table 4.33: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) .................. 166

Table 4.34: Non-tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ................. 167

Table 4.35: Revenue loss due to higher distribution loss for FY 2014-15 claimed by the Petitioner 168

Table 4.36: Revenue for FY 2014-15 Corresponding to Assessed Sales .............................................. 169

Table 4.37: Revenue from Sale of Power for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ................................................... 170

Table 4.38: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ............... 170

xiii

Table 4.39: Sharing of Gains and Losses for FY 2014-15 claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)........ 171

Table 4.40: Sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY

2014-15 (Rs. Crore) .......................................................................................................................... 173

Table 4.41: Summary of true up for FY 2014-15 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............. 174

Table 5.1: Consumer Category wise sales approved by the Commission for the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)................................................................................. 176

Table 5.2: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ....................................................................................................... 176

Table 5.3: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ....................................................................................................... 177

Table 5.4: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase ........................ 180

Table 5.5: Summary of power purchase cost for FY 2016-17 ............................................................... 182

Table 5.6: Quarterly Power Purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17 ........................ 183

Table 5.7: Energy Charges of thermal generating stations for FY 2016-17 ......................................... 185

Table 5.8: Transmission Charges for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................... 186

Table 5.9: GFA base approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ................................. 188

Table 5.10: GFA base approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................................ 188

Table 5.11: Details of financing for capitalisation for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .................................... 188




Table 5.15: Interest on Loan approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................. 191

Table 5.16: Depreciation approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-

17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................... 193

Table 5.17: Gn approved by the Commission ...................................................................................... 196

Table 5.18: Employee expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................................. 197

Table 5.19: R&M expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................. 198

xiv

Table 5.20: A&G expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................... 199

Table 5.21: O&M expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................... 200

Table 5.22: Capital required to finance the shortfall in collection of current dues as claimed by the

Petitioner .......................................................................................................................................... 201

Table 5.23: Capital required to finance the shortfall in collection of current dues approved by the

Commission ..................................................................................................................................... 202

Table 5.24: Interest on working capital approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore) .. 203

Table 5.25: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................... 204

Table 5.26: Material Cost Variance considered as Non-Tariff Income (Rs. Crore) ............................ 207

Table 5.27: Prior Period Income (Rs. Crore) .......................................................................................... 209

Table 5.28: Past year adjustments approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) .................................... 209

Table 5.29: Treatment of past year adjustments approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............. 210

Table 5.30: Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore) .......... 210

Table 5.31: Revenue for FY 2016-17 at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 211

Table 5.32: Revenue Gap for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................ 212

Table 6.1 : Tariff for Domestic Consumers............................................................................................ 240

Table 6.2 : Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas ......................................................................... 240

Table 6.3: Tariff for Non-domestic consumers ..................................................................................... 241

Table 6.4: Tariff for Public Lamps.......................................................................................................... 242

Table 6.5: Tariff for Private tube Wells/ Pump Sets............................................................................. 242

Table 6.6: Tariff for Government Irrigation System ............................................................................. 243

Table 6.7 : Tariff for Public Water Works .............................................................................................. 243

Table 6.8: Tariff for LT Industries .......................................................................................................... 244

Table 6.9: Existing and Proposed Tariff for HT Industries .................................................................. 244

Table 6.10: Approved Tariff for HT Industry ....................................................................................... 245

Table 6.11: Tariff for Mixed Load .......................................................................................................... 245

Table 6.12: Tariff for Railway Traction .................................................................................................. 245

Table 6.13: Revenue at approved Tariffs for FY 2016-17 ...................................................................... 246

xv

Table 6.14 : Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply ........................................................................ 247

Table 6.15 : Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 ................................. 247

Table 6.16 : Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2016-17 .................................................................... 250

Table 7.1: Detail of Sub-stations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2015 .................................. 251

Table 7.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2015....................................................... 252

Table 7.3: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access............................................................. 255

Table 7.4: Revised Formats prescribed by the Commission vide letter dated 27.11.2014 ................ 257

Table 7.5: Status of Provisional Billing Viz. NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF ............................................. 259

Table 7.6: Status of Defective Meters.................................................................................................... 261

Table 7.7: Status of Mechanical Meters ................................................................................................ 262

Table 7.8: Status of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers ................................................................................ 263

Table 7.9: Status of Unmetered Consumers ......................................................................................... 264

Table 7.10: Status of NB & SB Cases ..................................................................................................... 265

Table 7.11: Status of Outstanding Arrears. .......................................................................................... 266

Table 7.12: Comparison of Outstanding Arrears. ............................................................................... 267

Table 7.13: Status of KCC Consumers .................................................................................................. 268

Table 7.14: Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold ...................................................................... 269

Table 8.1: Rostering Policy as submitted by the Petitioner ................................................................. 282

Table 8.2: Summary of Direct Recruitment........................................................................................... 287

Table 8.3: Details of collection of Revenue Arrears during FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................................................ 300

Table 8.4: Details of collection as submitted by the Petitioner ............................................................ 303

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission 1

Before

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Petition No. 48 of 2015 And

Petition No. 49 of 2015

In the Matter of: Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited for approval of Business Plan for second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to 2018-19.

AND

In the Matter of: Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited for determination of ARR of second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to 2018-19 and Tariff for FY 2016-17.

AND

In the Matter of:

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited ……… Petitioner

Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun

Coram

Shri Subhash Kumar Chairman Shri K. P. Singh Member

Date of Order: April 5, 2016

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

as “the Act”) requires the Generating Companies and the Licensees to file an application for

Order on approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff of UPCL for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

2 Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission

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 relevant provisions of the Act, the Commission had notified

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011 hereinafter referred as UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 for the first Control Period

from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 specifying therein terms, conditions and norms of operation for

licensees, generating companies and SLDC. The Commission had issued the Multi Year Tariff

(MYT) Order dated May 6, 2013 for the Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. In

accordance with the provisions of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011, the Commission had carried

out the Annual Performance Review for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 vide its Orders dated April 10,

2014 and April 11, 2015 respectively.

Further, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commission had notified

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Multi

Year Tariff) Regulations, 2015 hereinafter referred as UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 for the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 specifying therein terms, conditions and norms of

operation for licensees, generating companies and SLDC. In compliance with the provisions of the

Act and Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 10(1) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, Uttarakhand Power

Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “UPCL” or “Licensee” or “Petitioner”) filed separate

Petitions for approval of its Business Plan for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 (Petition No. 48 of 2015, hereinafter referred to as the “Business Plan Petition”) and Multi

Year Tariff Petition (Petition No. 49 of 2015, hereinafter referred to as the “MYT Petition”) on

November 30, 2015. UPCL, in its Business Plan Petition, has submitted the Capital Investment Plan,

Financing Plan, Human Resources Plan and trajectory of performance parameters for the second

Control Period. Further, through the MYT Petition, UPCL has submitted the detailed calculations of

its projected Aggregate Revenue Requirement for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 in accordance with teh UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Through the MYT Petition, the

Petitioner also requested for true up of FY 2014-15 based on the audited accounts in accordance

with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 (UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011).

The Business Plan Petition filed by UPCL had certain infirmities/deficiencies which were

informed to UPCL vide Commission’s letter no. UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2015/1359 dated


December 8, 2015 and UPCL was directed to rectify the said infirmities in the Petition and submit

certain additional information necessary for admission of the Business Plan Petition. UPCL vide its

letter no. 5327/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated December 16, 2015 submitted most of the information sought

by the Commission. Based on the submission dated December 16, 2015 made by UPCL, the

Commission vide its Order dated December 22, 2015 provisionally admitted the Petition for further

processing subject to the condition that UPCL shall furnish any further information/clarifications as

deemed necessary by the Commission during the processing of the Petition within the time frame,

as may be stipulated by the Commission, failing which the Commission may proceed to dispose of

the matter as deemed fit by it based on the information available with it.

Further, the MYT Petition filed by UPCL also had certain infirmities/deficiencies. The

Commission, accordingly, vide its letter no. UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2015/1357 dated December 8,

2015 directed UPCL to rectify these infirmities/deficiencies and to submit certain additional

information necessary for admission of the MYT Petition. UPCL vide its letter no.

5326/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated December 16, 2015 submitted most of the information sought by the

Commission. Based on the submission dated December 16, 2015 by UPCL, the Commission vide its

Order dated December 22, 2015 provisionally admitted the MYT Petition, with the condition that

UPCL shall furnish any further information/clarifications as deemed necessary by the Commission

during the processing of the Petition within the time frame, as may be stipulated by the

Commission, failing which the Commission may proceed to dispose of the matter as deemed fit by

it based on the information available with it.

This Order, accordingly, relates to the Business Plan Petition and the MYT Petition filed by

UPCL for approval of the Business Plan and determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement

(ARR) for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and Tariff for FY 2016-17 as well

as true up for FY 2014-15 and Annual Performance Review for FY 2015-16, and is based on the

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

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 to explain the underlying

principles in determination of tariffs. Accordingly, in the present Order also, in line with past

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

determining the ARR of the licensee. Accordingly, in the present Order also, in line with the past



practices, the Commission has tried to detail the procedure and principles followed in determining

the ARR 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 - Summary of Stakeholders’ Objections/Suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses and

Commission’s Views

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

Business Plan for second Control Period


Truing up for FY 2014-15


MYT Period for second Control Period

Chapter 6 - Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

Chapter 7 - Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL

Chapter 8 - Commission’s Directives


1. Background and Procedural History

In accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 (Act 29 of

2000), enacted by the Parliament of India on August 25, 2000, the State of Uttaranchal came into

existence on November 9, 2000. Section 63(4) of the above Reorganization Act allowed the

Government of Uttaranchal (hereinafter referred to as “GoU” or “State Government”) to constitute

a State Power Corporation at any time after the creation of the State. GoU, accordingly, established

the Uttaranchal Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) under the Companies Act, 1956, on February

12, 2001 and entrusted it with the business of transmission and distribution in the State.

Subsequently, from April 1, 2001, all works pertaining to the transmission, distribution and retail

supply of electricity in the area of Uttaranchal were transferred from UPPCL to UPCL, in

accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated March 13, 2001, signed between the

Governments of Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh. On May 31, 2004, GoU first vested all the interests,

rights and liabilities related to Power Transmission and Load Despatch of “Uttaranchal Power

Corporation Limited” into itself and, thereafter, re-vested them into a new company, i.e. “Power

Transmission Corporation of Uttaranchal Limited”, now renamed as “Power Transmission

Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited” after change of name of the State. Since then Uttarakhand

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

bacame the sole distribution licensee engaged in the business of distribution and retail supply of

power in the State of Uttarakhand.

The Commission vide its Order dated May 6, 2013 issued the Order on approval of Business

Plan for UPCL for the first Control Period FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 and Tariff for FY 2013-14.

Further the Commission had issued the Tariff Orders for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 vide its Orders

dated April 10, 2014 and April 11, 2015 respectively.

As mentioned earlier also, in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and

Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 10(1) of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, UPCL is required to

submit Business Plan Petition and MYT Petition for determination of its ARR by November 30,

2015. UPCL in compliance to the Regulations submitted the Business Plan Petition and MYT

Petition for determination of ARR for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and

Tariff for FY 2016-17 along with the True up for FY 2014-15 on November 30, 2015.



The Business Plan Petition and MYT Petition were provisionally admitted by the

Commission vide two separate Orders dated December 22, 2015. The Commission, through its

above Admittance Orders dated December 22, 2015, to provide transparency in the process of tariff

determination and give all the stakeholders an opportunity to submit their objections/suggestions

/comments on the proposals of the Distribution Licensee, also directed UPCL to publish the salient

points of its Petitions in the leading newspapers. The salient points of the Petitions were published

by the Petitioner in the following newspapers:

Table 1.1: Publication of Notice S.No. Newspaper Name Date Of Publication

1 Amar Ujala 25.12.2015 2 Dainik Jagran 25.12.2015 3 Hindustan 25.12.2015 4 Rashtriya Sahara 25.12.2015 5 Times of India 25.12.2015 6 Hindustan Times 25.12.2015

Through above notice, the stakeholders were requested to submit their

objections/suggestions/comments latest by February 10, 2016 (copy of the notice is enclosed as

Annexure 3). The Commission received in all thirty eight objections/suggestions/comments in

writing on the Petitions filed by UPCL. The list of stakeholders who have submitted their

objections/suggestions/comments in writing is enclosed as Annexure-4.

Further, for direct interaction with all the stakeholders and public at large, the Commission

also held public hearings on the Petitions filed by the Petitioner at the following places in the State

of Uttarakhand.

Table 1.2: Schedule of Hearing S. No Place Date

1 Pithoragarh February 16, 2016 2 Sitarganj February 18, 2016 3 Pauri Garhwal February 23, 2016 4 Dehradun March 1, 2016

The list of participants who attended the Public Hearing is enclosed at Annexure-5.

The Commission also sent the copies of the salient features of the tariff Petitions to Members

of the State Advisory Committee and the State Government. The salient features of the tariff

Petitions submitted by UPCL were also made available on the website of the Commission, i.e.

www.uerc.gov.in. The Commission also held a meeting with the Members of the Advisory

1. Background and Procedural History


Committee on March 4, 2016, wherein, detailed deliberations were held with the Members of the

Advisory Committee on the various issues linked with the Petitions filed by UPCL.

The objections/suggestions/comments, as received from the stakeholders through

mail/post as well as during the course of public hearings were sent to the Petitioner for its

response. All the issues raised by the stakeholders, Petitioner’s responses and Commission’s views

thereon are detailed in Chapter 2 of this Order. In this context, it is also to underline that while

finalizing this Order, the Commission has, as far as possible, tried to address the issues raised by the

stakeholders.

Meanwhile, based on the scrutiny of the Petitions submitted by UPCL, the Commission vide

its letter no. UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2015/1360 dated December 8, 2015, letter no. UERC/6/TF-

285/15-16/2016/1568 dated January 15, 2016, letter no. UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2015/1358 dated

December 8, 2015 and letter no. UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2016/1467 dated January 5, 2016 pointed

out certain data gaps in the Petitions and sought following additional information/clarifications

from the Petitioner:

Business Plan Petition

• Actual category wise sales for April, 2015 to December, 2015.

• Actual source wise monthly generation for each source of power purchase for FY

2012-13 to FY 2014-15 considered for projecting the power purchase for the second

Control Period.

• Actual Inter-State transmission losses for past 52 weeks (1 year).

• Basis of the escalation rate considered for projecting the fixed cost of power purchase

for FY 2016-17.

• Details of expected COD considered for each of the upcoming stations.

• Basis for considering power purchase cost from new generating stations (thermal

andlarge hydro) developed by the Central Sector at Rs. 5/kWh for the Control

period.

• Preparedness to execute the capital works proposed during the second Control

Period.

MYT Petition

• Submission of duly filled in excel formats.



• Electrical Inspector’s Clearance Certificates for the assets capitalised in FY 2014-15.

• Actual number of employees recruited in FY 2014-15.

• Existing and proposed consumer category wise cross subsidy.

• Details of month wise energy banked during FY 2014-15.

• Source wise power purchase quantum, cost in Rs. Crore and rate in Rs./kWh for FY

2014-15.

• Actual interest on consumer security deposit paid to consumers/adjusted in

consumers’ bills in FY 2014-15.

• Progress made in writing off bad debts.

• Justification for higher consumption per kW and lower revenue per unit than that

approved by the Commission as observed in the Commercial Statement submitted

for FY 2014-15.

So as to have better clarity on the data filed by the Petitioner and to remove inconsistency in

the data, a Technical Validation Session (TVS) was also held with the Petitioner’s officers on January

13, 2016, for further deliberations on certain issues related to the Petition filed by UPCL. Minutes of

the above Technical Validation Session were sent to the Petitioner vide Commission’s letter no.

UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2016/1567 dated January 15, 2016, letter no. UERC/6/TF-285/15-

16/2016/1568 dated January 15, 2016 for its response.

The Petitioner submitted the replies to the data gaps vide its letter no. 5327/UPCL/RM/B-

17 dated December 16, 2015, letter no. 5421/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated December29, 2015, letter no.

5422/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated December 29, 2015, letter no. 116/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated January 11,

2016 and replies to Minutes of TVS vide letter no. 206/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated January 24, 2016 and

letter no. 205/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated January 25, 2016. Further data gaps were forwarded by the

Commission vide letter no. UERC/6/TF-284/15-16/2016/1676 dated February 8, 2016 and the

Petitioner submitted its replies vide letter no. 394/UPC/RM/B-17 dated February 11, 2016. The

submissions made by UPCL in the Petitions as well as additional submissions have been discussed

by the Commission at appropriate places in the Order along with the Commission’s views on the

same.


2. Summary of Stakeholders’Objections/Suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses and Commission’s Views

The Commission has received suggestions and objections on UPCL’s Petition for True-up of

Expenses & Revenues for FY 2014-15, Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff Petiton for the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The Commission also obtained responses from

UPCL on the comments received from the stakeholders.

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

comments have been clubbed issue-wise and summarized below.

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 & Shri Ashok Bansal,

KGCCI submitted that Tariff/ARR fixation exercise is not only about approving the expenses and

revenues, 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. The variance

in projections of the Commission and that of UPCL is on account of non-compliance by UPCL on

the directives of the Commission in letter and spirit. It is requested to take up seriously with UPCL

for the proper follow up on these directives.

Some other stakeholders suggested that UPCL should provide the compliance of the

directions issued by the Commission in Tariff Order for FY 2015-16.

2.1.1.2 Petitioner’s Reply

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

Commission has been submitted. The progress reports in respect of various works are submitted by

UPCL as and when required by the Commission.

2.1.1.3 Commission’s Views

The Commission is regularly monitoring the compliances of the directives issued to UPCL

on regular basis. Further, the Commission obtained the detailed report of the compliance on the

directions from UPCL during the Technical Validation Session held during theTariff proceedings.



The submissions of the Petitioner on the action taken by it with regard to various directives and the

Commission’s views on the same are discussed in Chapter 8 (Commission’s Directives) of the

Order.

2.2 Overall Tariff Increase


Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti and some other stakeholders submitted that the tariff

should not be increased and if required the same should be limited to 5%.

Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association (USMA) requested the Commission to not

increase the tariff as at this juncture any tariff increase would put the industry into further hardship.

They suggested that the tariffs should be reduced due to reduction in coal prices which might have

reduced the power purchase costs from NTPC and other thermal power plants.

Shri R.K. Singh from Tata Motors Ltd., M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd., M/s East West Products

Ltd., M/s Vista Alps Industries Ltd. and Shri G S Bedi, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals submitted

that an increase proposed by UPCL in categories like PWW, LT & HT Industry and Mixed load

along with the hikes proposed by UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL are exorbitant unjustified and will break

the backbone of industry and other consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that it 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 FY 2016-17 including the deficit of FY 2014-15 has been estimated at

Rs. 1220.26 Crore, which necessitates a tariff hike of 24.96%. Summary of gap to be recovered in FY

2016-17 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 [from Table 2.2] 4688.45 4.32 84.24% 2. Cost of Service 876.99 0.81 15.76% 3. ARR (1+2) 5565.44 5.12 100.00% 4. Gap for FY 15 544.39 0.50 9.78% 5. Net ARR (3+4) 6109.83 5.62 109.78% 6. Existing Tariff 4889.57 4.50 87.86% 7. Increase in Tariff Required (5-6) 1220.26 1.12 24.96%

The Petitioner further submitted the details of the above referred Cost of Power as follows:

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

1. Power Purchase 2.99 69.24% 2. Transmission Charges 0.52 12.00% 3. Transmission Loss 0.06 1.47% 4. Cost of Power at Distribution Periphery (1+2+3) 3.57 82.71% 5. Distribution Loss 0.75 17.29% 6. Cost of Power (4+5) 4.32 100.00%

The Petitioner submitted that on the basis of estimates of expenses and revenue, tariff hike

of 24.96% is required in the existing tariff.


The Commission is of the view that the overall tariff increase is a function of projected

Annual Revenue Requirement for the ensuing year (including impact of truing up of expenses and

revenue for previous year) and projected revenue at existing tariffs. The Commission has carried

out the detailed scrutiny of ARR for FY 2016-17 and truing up for FY 2014-15 in accordance with the

provisions of relevant Regulations as discussed in Chapter 4 and 5 of the Order. Based on the

approved ARR for FY 2016-17 including impact of truing up for FY 2014-15, the Commission has

marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6

of the Order.



2.3 Domestic Tariff

2.3.1 Tariff Hike


Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti and some other stakeholders submitted that the tariff

increase proposed for domestic category is very high and the tariff increase should be limited to 5%.

They further suggested for not increasing the tariff for first two slabs of domestic category (upto 100

unit per month and 101-200 units per month).

Shri Mukesh Chandra Joshi, Village Joshiyana, PO Parsundakhal Patti Paidulsyun, Distt.

Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand submitted that the consumers residing in the hilly areas of

Uttarakhand and those who are consuming less than 50 units should be given full rebate on

electricity charges or minimum of 80 % rebate and consumers whose consumption is less than 100

units should be provided with a rebate of minimum of 50%.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Bhartiya Kisan Club submitted that the rates of energy consumed

for all BPL connections should be increased. Further, if the BPL consumer is consuming more than

30 units than what should be the rate of energy charge for those consumer should be decided.


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 FY 2016-17 including the deficit of FY 2014-15 has been estimated at Rs. 1220.26 Crore,

which necessitates a tariff hike of 24.96%.

Thus, on the basis of estimates of expenses and revenue, tariff hike of 24.96% is required in

the existing tariff.

The Petitioner further submitted that the tariff of electricity is determined in accordance

with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. The tariff of BPL consumers has been proposed close to

50% of the Average Cost of Supply. The tariff for other domestic consumers has been proposed at

about 67% of Average Cost of Supply. The rates of electricity cannot be kept below these rates

keeping in view the cost estimates of UPCL and the provisions of law.



The Petitioner further clarified that in case any BPL Consumer consumes more than 30 units

in a month, the tariff applicable to other domestic consumers is also applicable to such consumer.


The Commission appreciates the views expressed by some of stakeholders that the tariff

increase should be reasonable in the range of around 5%. As discussed earlier, based on approved

ARR for FY 2016-17 including impact of truing up for FY 2014-15, the Commission has marginally

increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the

Order.

Further, continuing with the approach adopted in the previous years, the Commission has

attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while desiging the tariffs for various categories as elaborated

in Chapter 6 of the Order. As regards the special tariff to be provided for consumers in hilly areas

and consumers having lower consumption, the Commission would like to clarify that as per the

existing tariff structure also, the tariff structure for domestic category includes BPL customers with

consumption upto 30 units/month as a sub-category with a much lower tariff and also within

domestic category, the consumers having consumption upto 100 units per month fall in the 1st slab

with lowest tariff and hence, there arises no need to provide any separate rebate. For better

understanding, the Rate Schedule (RTS-1) annexed to the Tariff Order can be referred.

On the issue of consumption of BPL consumers exceeding 30 units per month, the

Commission would like to clarify that in case consumption of any BPL Consumer exceeds more

than 30 units in a month, the tariff applicable to other domestic consumers becomes applicable to

such BPL consumers on the entire monthly consumption.

2.3.2 Fixed Charges based on Load


Bhartiya Kisan Club and some other stakeholders suggested that the fixed charges should be

specified on the basis of load and not the consumption.


The Petitioner submitted that the existing tariff of the Domestic Category has been

determined at about 67% of Cost of Supply. The Domestic Consumers who have higher

consumption are affluent consumers and should not be subsidized and they should pay the cost of



supply of electricity. With a view to reduce cross subsidy in this category, the tariff (Energy Charge

as well as Fixed Charge) for higher consumption should be high and, therefore, it is logical that the

fixed charge for higher consumption should be more and this is possible only when fixed charges

are based on consumption.


The Commission appreciates the views expressed by some of the stakeholders. The

Commission during the last tariff proceedings floated a concept paper on this issue and after due

consultation with the stakeholders specified the fixed charges based on consumption as

consumption data is the most authentic data available.

2.4 Non-Domestic Tariff

2.4.1 Tariff Hike


Shri Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti, M/s Devbhoomi Dharamshall Prabhandhak Sabha & some

of the non-domestic consumers opposed the tariff increase proposed by UPCL, while some

stakeholders submitted that the tariff increase should be reasonable.


The Petitioner submitted that on the basis of estimates of expenses and revenues, tariff hike

of 24.96% is required in the existing tariff.


The Commission appreciates the views expressed by some of the stakeholders that the tariff

increase should be reasonable. As discussed earlier, based on the approved ARR for FY 2016-17

including impact of truing up for FY 2014-15, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to

meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order.


attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while desiging the tariffs for various categories as

eleaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order.



2.4.2 Tariff for Dharamshala/Trust/Ashram


M/s Dev Bhoomi Dharamshala Prabhandhak Sabha, Haridwar submitted that all types of

Dharamshalas, Trusts should be kept under Institutional/Domestic category as earlier. These

Dharamshalas/trusts/Ashrams are not involved in any kind of business and only the arrangement

fees is charged to the people going for pilgrimage. They further submitted that the fixed charges per

kW levied in the electricity bill should be abolished as there is no relevant justification for the same.

They also submitted there should not be any increase in the tariff rates for these organizations in FY

2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, as these organizations are engaged in works of public interest.


The Petitioner submitted that as per the existing categorization of consumers,

Dharamshalas/Trusts/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 a subsidized category. In accordance with

the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and National Tariff Policy, the cross subsidy is to be

maintained at a level of ±20% of the average cost of supply.

In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, consumers covered under the subsidising

category cannot be transferred into the subsidized category. Thus, the Dharamshalas

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

As regards levy of Fixed Charges, 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) a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied ;

(b) 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. Hence, levy of fix charge is necessary and in accordance with the provisions of

law.


The Commission agrees with the views of the Petitioner that as per the existing

categorization of consumers, Dharamshalas/Trusts/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 domestic purpose.

Hence it will not be appropriate to categorise Dharamshalas/Trusts/Ashrams under RTS-1

(Domestic) category. Moreover, the Commission has deliberated in detail on the issue of levy of

Fixed Charges in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.4.3 Tariff for Telecom Tower


M/s Indus Tower Ltd. submitted that the tariff for consumers with flat load profile and high

power factor requiring electricity on continuous basis should be considered separately while

determining the tariff for the current year. They further submitted that the Hon’ble APTEL

judgement (MERC vs. Mumbai Airport and Tata Steel vs. OERC) should be considered for the tariff

rationalization and should be taken as a guiding factor in tariff determination process and tariff for

the commercial category be considered to reduce with immediate effect.

They also submitted that the Commission should consider classifying telecom towers under

a separate sub-category within the existing commercial category under Section 62(3) of the

Electricity Act 2003, with a suitable relaxation in the applicable tariff.


The Petitioner submitted that the telecom towers are for commercial purposes and,

therefore, these are rightly categorized under Rate Schedule RTS – 2 (Non-Domestic). In Rate

Schedule RTS – 2, tariff for consumers having load above 25 KW is kVAh based wherein a

consumer is automatically benefited by having healthy/high power factor. For consumers having

load upto 25 kW, there is kWh based tariff and consumer having low power factor are liable to pay

low power factor surcharge.




The Commission is of the view that creation of separate sub-category for telecom towers will

be against the overall principle of tariff rationalization. However, tariffs categorization of

consumers has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act/Regulations while keeping

the cross-subsidy levels within the norms laid down in the National Tariff Policy.

2.5 Independent Advertising Hoardings


Shri Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti requested the Commission that the tariff for category

Independent Advertising Hoardings should not be increased.


The Petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Tariff

Policy, the tariff of each category should be designed in a manner that the level of cross subsidy

should be within ± 20% of the average cost of supply. In case the tariff of this category is not

increased, this subsidizing category may convert into subsidized category. Thus, the proposed

increase in tariff for this category is justified and required.


As discussed earlier, based on the approved ARR for FY 2016-17 including the impact of

truing up for FY 2014-15, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected

revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order.


attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while desiging the tariffs for various categories as elaborated

in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.6 Agricultural Tariff

2.6.1 Tariff Increase


Bhartiya Kisan Union submitted that the suggestion of Uttarakhand Power Corporation

Limited to increase the charge on Energy charge should not be accepted as the farmers are already

debt trapped and in poor financial condition. Therefore, if the tariff is further increased it would



impose extra financial burden on the farmers. They requested the Commission not to increase PTW

Tariffs.

Shri Mukesh Chandra Joshi, Village Joshiyana, PO Parsundakhal Patti Paidulsyun, Distt.

Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand submitted that the electricity tariff for irrigation and PTW connections

should not be increased. The consumers residing in the hilly areas can be released pump connection

of 1 kW or 2 kW and the same should be considered under domestic category.


As regards the tariff increase, the Petitioner submitted that it 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 Petitioner further submitted that on the basis of estimates

of expenses and revenues, tariff increase of 24.96% is required in the existing tariff.


As discussed earlier, based on approved ARR for FY 2016-17 including impact of truing up

for FY 2014-15, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue

gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order. Further, continuing with the approach adopted

in previous years, the Commission has attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while desiging the

tariffs for various categories as elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order. Further, the tariff categories

have been designed based on the usage & hence, the suggestion to consider pump connections

under domestic category is not proper. Besides the tariffs of PTW is lowest in the State.

2.6.2 Floriculture


Smt. Poonam Uniyal, 236, Nehru Gram Road, Ring Road, Dehradun suggested that the

commercial tariff should not be charged for floriculture.


The Petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Tariff Orders issued by the

Commission from time to time electricity consumption for floriculture purpose is required to be

charged under Rate Schedule RTS-7 (Industry) for the period upto 31-03-2015 and under Rate

Schedule RTS – 4A (Agriculture Allied Activity) for the period from 01-04-2015.




The Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2015 for FY 2015-16 had created a

separate category Agriculture Allied Activities after due consultation processs and hence, the tariff

applicable for floriculture is not a commercial tariff. However, in this Tariff Order, the tariff of

Agriculture Allied Activities which does not have further processing plant have been kept same as

that of PTW category.

2.7 Mixed Load (RTS-8) Tariff


Shri G.S. Bedi of Indian Drugs and Pharmacueticals Ltd. (IDPL, Rishikesh), requested that

the rate for RTS-8 (Mixed load) be brought at par with the single point bulk supply connections

under RTS-1(Domestic) because such consumers like IDPL colony connection has no commercial

activity except for some shops/khokhas to cater to the urgent needs of the residents of the IDPL

Colony. It also pointed out that domestic consumers having contracted load up to 2 kW &

consumption up to 200 kWh per month are allowed to use some portion of the premises for

business/other purposes without any additional charges at the domestic rates. These two cases are

quite similar. Alternatively RTS-8 be merged with RTS-1 (Domestic-Single point bulk supply).


The Petitioner submitted that Single Point Bulk Supply under Domestic (RTS -1) category is

allowed where the consumption of electricity is only for domestic residential purposes. Whereas,

Single Point Bulk Supply under Mixed Load (RTS – 8) category is applicable where there is at least

60% domestic load and rest load is used for other non–domestic purposes. In case some portion of

the supply is used for non-domestic purpose, the supply of electricity cannot be given under rate

schedule RTS -1. Further, single point bulk supply under Mixed Load category cannot be compared

with the consumers covered under domestic category having load upto 2 kW and consumption

upto 200 kWh per month using some portion of their premises for non-domestic purposes.


The Commission agrees with the reply given by the Petitioner that the Single Point Bulk

Supply under Domestic (RTS -1) category is allowed where the consumption of electricity is for

domestic residential purposes whereas Single Point Bulk Supply under Mixed Load (RTS – 8)



category is applicable where there is a mixed load with minimum 60% of domestic load while the

balance load is used for other non–domestic purposes. As in Mixed load category, part of the load is

utilised for other than domestic purposes, it will not be appropriate to merge the Mixed Load

category with the domestic category.

2.8 Industrial Tariff

2.8.1 Tariff Hike


Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shakeel A.

Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that the proposed tariff revision

and hike proposed in case of HT consumer category of 24.87% is not linked to input cost of UPCL

which is not in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Tariff Policy,

2006. The power purchase cost per unit has increased only by 8% from FY 2015-16 to FY 2016-17

while the increase in tariff proposed for HT consumers is 24.87%. This establishes that the proposed

increase in tariff has no direct correlation with the input cost.

M/s KVS Infratech LLP submitted that the current tariffs for LT Industrial category are

sufficient and there is no need to increase the tariff further.

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the proposed tariff hike is not

justified as growth in industries is merely 2-3%, however, tariff hike sought is 24.96%.


The Petitioner submitted the basis of tariff increase as follows:

(i) Increase in total cost in FY 17 over revenue of FY 16 (4.24/3.70) – 14.59%

(ii) Gap of FY 2014-15 to be recovered in FY 17 - 11.13%

(iii) Total increase required - 25.72%

The Petitioner submitted that it is clear that out of required increase of 25.72%, UPCL has

proposed a tariff increase of 24.96% and balance recovery is through performance improvement.




As discussed earlier, based on the approved ARR for FY 2016-17 including impact of truing

up for FY 2014-15, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff in order to meet the projected

revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order. Further, continuing with the approach

adopted in previous years, the Commission has attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while

desiging the tariffs for various categories as elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.8.2 Rebate in Demand Charges for non-supply of power


M/s USMA suggested that the current level of 20% rebate in demand charges for minimum

average supply to HT Industrial Consumers of 18 hours per day during the month should be

changed to minimum average supply of 22 hours per day during the month.


The Petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Tariff Order, 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.


The Commission is of the view that the current provision that if the minimum average

supply to HT Industrial Consumer is less than 18 hours per day during the month, demand charges

for such industry is reduced by 20% is appropriate.

2.8.3 Textile Industry


Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd., M/s Vista Alps

Industries Ltd. and some other stakeholders submitted that the textile policy for the State of

Uttarakhand was released on December 11, 2014 providing 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, textile industries in the State should be allowed power rebate of Rs.

1 per unit and waiver in electricity duty.




The Petitioner submitted that as per section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if the State

Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumer in the tariff

determined by the State Commission, the State Government shall pay in advance the amount of

subsidy to the DISCOM. Thus, the subsidy to any industry may be given as per this provision.

As per 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 categories of consumers. Government of Uttarakhand vide its notification no.

79/I/2016-01(3)/01/2003, dated 25-01-2016 has fixed these rates applicable w.e.f. 1-01-2016. UPCL

is charging electricity duty as per the Government Orders. The Electricity duty charged from

consumers is payable by UPCL to GoU and hence, this matter may be taken up with GoU.

2.8.3.3 Commission’s Views The issue of Government subsidies/concessions and Electricity Duty does not fall under the

purview of the Commission and while fixing tariff, the Commissin is bound by the provisions of the

Act & Regulations framed thereunder.

2.8.4 Fixed/Demand Charge and Energy Charge


M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the proposed hike in demand charges

for HT Industry is on a higher side and the demand charges should be abolished.

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kashi Enterprises and other industrial

consumers submitted that in the past, the Commission has increased energy charges by around 10-

15 paise/kVAh in each financial year. UPCL has proposed an increase of 95 paise/kVAh which is

very high and cannot be considered in present market scenario.

They also submitted that in the past, the Commission has increased demand charges by

around Rs. 10-20 /kVA in each financial year. UPCL has proposed an increase of Rs. 75/kVA. They

submitted that most the industries under this category is using more than 80% power load of their

contracted load and hence, there is no need to increase demand charges and rather the demand

charges should be abolished.



SIDCUL Manufacturers Association Uttarakhand submitted that fixed charges on new

connection to industrial consumer should be reduced as the rates charged are three times of the cost

incurred.


The Petitioner submitted that the justification to the proposed tariff increase has clearly been

brought out in the Petition which is to meet the revenue gap.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates for a two part tariff

and the relevant clause is reiterated below:



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

distribution licensee.”



revenue stability. Presently only 14% of revenue at existing tariff is recovered from fixed charges.

Also two part tariff exercise involves determination of fixed and energy charges to meet the

cost of supply, any reduction in fixed charges would thus, call for increase in energy charges to

match the tariff with COS.


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 the 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. Accordingly, as discussed in detail in Section 6 of the Order, the

Commission has marginally increased the Fixed/Demand Charges for various categories of

consumers.

2.8.5 Time of Day Tariff


M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal and some other stakeholders,

submitted that the morning peak hours should be abolished or shifted to the period between 7-9.30

AM, retain the evening peak hour charges and increase the rebate during off peak hours from 10%

to 25%. Uttarakhand Steel Manufactures Association (USMA) suggested that the peak hour rates

should be in about 15-20% higher than the normal rates in line with Other States and the rebate for

off peak hours should be increased to 20%.

Shri G.S. Bedi of Indian Drug and Pharmacueticals Ltd., USMA & M/s BST Textile Mills

suggested that the differential tariff for morning peak hours should be abolished as in other States

including Himachal Pradesh differential tariff for morning peak hours does not exist and with

morning hours continuing till 9.30 AM, it is not leaving a space for 8 hours general shift working at

normal rates in the industry.



Shri Rakesh Bhatia, Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association & M/s BST Textile Mills

Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the night shift breakdown should be attended in the night itself which is

not happening and the morning peak hours in winter season should be abolished immediately.

Bhartiya Kisan Club submitted that Time of Day Tariff should be applicable for every

consumer category.


The Petitioner submitted that the objective of introduction of ToD Tariff is to minimize the

gap between maximum (peak) demand and minimum demand and to bring the peak demand as

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 very effective tool of demand

side management which makes possible 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. With a view to effectively implement the ToD

Tariff, substantial increase in tariff is required for consumption during peak hours.

The Petitioner further submitted that the 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 hours to 09:30 hours. 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 State of Uttarakhand from 06:00 hours to 09:30 hours is negligible. Therefore, morning

peak hours in winter are required to be continued. Further, it is also worthwhile to mention here

that the own generation of Himachal Pradesh is much higher than Uttarakhand and, therefore,

imposition of peak hours in both the States should not be compared. It is submitted that 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 normal hours. Further, the gap of

demand between normal hours and off peak hours is not too high and, therefore, keeping in view

the level of this gap, this rebate should not be increased.

The Petitioner also submitted that there is a deficit situation of electricity throughout the

day, but the quantum of deficit during peak hours is much more than the quantum of deficit during

normal hours and off-peak hours. Further, the quantum of deficit during normal hours is more than



quantum of deficit during off peak hours. In this situation, the Petitioner submitted that its priority

is to shift the demand during peak hours first to off-peak hours and, thereafter, to normal hours

thereby flattening the load curve and making the diversity factor closer to unity. Therefore, higher

tariff is needed for peak hours in order to shift the demand to off peak and normal hours. Further,

the determination of peak hour tariff is the Commissions prerogative which gives sufficient

incentive during the off peak period.

The Petitioner further submitted that as per the ToD tariff, during off-peak hours, a rebate of

10% is already allowed by the Commission for industrial category as per existing tariff, and UPCL

has followed the same approach, while proposing the ToD tariffs for the said category in its MYT

Petition. Further, any increase in the rebate during the off peak hours would require proportionate

increase in energy charges during peak/normal hours.

As regards applicability of Time of Day for all the categories, the Petitioner submitted that

presently, time of day tariff is applicable only in Industrial Category. The nature of requirement of

consumption of other categories like domestic and non-domestic category is that they cannot shift

their consumption during peak hours to any other timeslot and, therefore, ToD Tariff has not been

proposed for other categories.


The Commission has analysed the actual daily hourly load curves in the State of

Uttarakhand and has found apparent morning peak demand in the State. The Commission has

further deliberated on this issue in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.8.6 Rostering and Load Shedding


M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti and Shri Harindra

Kr. Garg, Chairman, SIDCUL Manufactures Association submitted that in the State of Uttarakhand,

there is a big and old problem of un-scheduled power rostering resulting in huge hidden losses

which needs special attention. M/s Tata Motors Limited submitted that UPCL should either

arrange power from open market or declare a schedule for load shedding in advance so that

interested consumers may avail power under Open Access during peak hours. USMA submitted

that in the current year, there has been load shedding of around 6 hours and considering the overall



power supply situation in the country, there should not be any load shedding. M/s Hindustan

Glass & Industries Ltd submitted that continuous process industries that are paying additional

charge should be provided power supply without any interruption/with utilities taking planned

shutdown with advance intimation. Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Bhartiya Kisan Club submitted that

the UPCL should be made accountable for the load shedding under the tariff norms and proper

action should be taken against UPCL in case of unauthorized load shedding.

Some of the stakeholders submitted that for continuous process industries power should be

supplied without interruption and the shutdown should be planned by utilities with proper prior

intimation well in advance to the consumers.

During the hearing in Dehradun, Shri Virat Seth also mentioned that existing infrastructure

of the utilities are inadequate to meet the demand and as a result, the overloaded sub-stations are

also resulting in load shedding.


The Petitioner submitted that in FY 2014-15 it has met 97% of the demand of electricity. 3%

unmet demand was due to gap in demand and availability of energy/transmission network/

distribution network. This level is also being maintained in the current year.

The Petitioner further submitted that it has prepared its power cut policy, which is as

follows:-

• Commonly, there is no powercut in the state of Uttarakhand.

• In case the demand exceeds the availability, due to Non-availability of

Transmission/Distribution system within or outside the State, etc. in such type of

emergency conditions the Power cut in the State will be according to the following

priority as shown below:

Table 2.3: Load Shedding Priority decided by UPCL Sr.No. Industrial Area Other Areas

1 Steel business/Furnace Business Rural Plain Region 2 Industries not opting for continuous supply Small Urban Plain Region 3 Industries Opting continuous Supply Large Urban Plain Region 4. -- Hilly region 5. -- Capital



• For other categories the time and day of Power cut for operation will be decided by

Director (Operation) based on the demand of electricity for respective categories.

• No load shedding will be applicable for all tourist/Pilgrimage places & hospitals

supplied electricity from independent feeders and Public Water Works.

• The power cut in any region will not exceed 14 days continuously in that region.

• It will be ensured that all the industries get a minimum of 18 hours of electricity per

day in a month.

The Petitioner furtehr submitted that there are times when there occurs certain technical &

environmental complication not in control of the Petitioner due to which there might be

unscheduled power outages. It has always been the first priority of UPCL to provide quick &

reliable services to its customers, therefore, it has taken major steps to minimize these problems &

provide continuous supply to the consumers by using new & improved state of the art technology.


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 vide which the Petitioner has to obtain 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. Further, in case, during any month if the average supply hours

are less than 18 hours per day for HT Industry, then in that case HT Industrial consumers shall

charged only 80% of the applicable demand charges as per rate schedule.

2.8.7 Load Factor based Tariff


Shri R. S. Yadav of M/s India Glycols Limited & M/S BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., submitted

that the load factor based tariff should be abolished or reviewed/modified and charged in

proportionate to consumption in each slab. 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, is 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:

M/s Kashi Enterprises Limited submitted that if the consumer draws maximum power with

the same Contract demand, licensee's average power purchase cost which can be passed on to the

consumer average tariff will automatically get reduced and, therefore, the gain on account of

reduction of average power purchase cost can be passed on to the consumer through load factor

incentive. Higher load factors also result in maximum utilization of transmission and distribution

assets, thus, resulting in average lower costs for the licensee.

Shri Ashok Bansal, Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry made the

following submissions on the issue of load factor based tariff:

a) The Load Factor Tariff is increasing cross subsidy.



b) The existing load factor based tariff penalizes the industries with incremental

consumption within its contracted demand upto 100% load factor by way of higher

energy rates on whole of the consumption for load factor above 40% and further for

load factor above 50%. Such an approach is clearly one sided and completely ignores

the interest of the consumers who are supposed to consume power for the load, they

have contracted with the licensee. Increase of rate of energy charge for higher load

factor is without any basis.

c) The load factor based tariff to HT industries is penalizing them with incremental

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. Even if load factor based tariff is imposed, it should provide telescopic

basis for charging incremental consumption beyond specified load factor limit on

higher rates instead the existing provision and the practice of charging the whole

consumption at higher rate of energy charge for the particular load factor slab.

d) The existing formula for calculation of load factor should be replaced by the

following:

Load factor =

M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd. & M/s East West Products Limited submitted that Calculation of

Load Factor should be based on billable demand and not on contracted demand.


The Petitioner submitted that as per Section 62(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, tariff may be

differentiated on the basis of consumer’s load factor. Further, it is submitted that higher energy

charges are levied for higher consumption due to the fact that the State is power deficit 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 the incentive to the consumer for having higher

load factor.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Load Factor formula is based on the actual

requirement of load of the consumer. In case maximum demand is lower than the contracted load,



maximum demand (actual requirement) is considered. In case maximum demand is higher than the

contracted load, contracted load is considered because the consumer has contracted this capacity.

The Petitioner also submitted that as per the provisions of Tariff Policy, the tariff of

subsidizing categories may be kept at cost plus 20%. The Tariff of HT Industry Category has been

proposed at cost plus 14.58%. Thus, the proposed Tariff is as per the provisions of law. Moreover,

the cross subsidy for this category has not been increased in the proposal. Hence, it is not correct to

say load factor based tariff is increasing cross subsidy.

The Petitioner further submitted that Load Factor formula is based on the actual

requirement of load of the consumer. In case maximum demand is lower than the contracted load,

maximum demand (actual requirement) is considered. In case maximum demand is higher than the

contracted load, contracted load is considered because the consumer has contracted this capacity.


The Commission has deliberated on this issue in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.9 Railway Traction


Shri Pramod Kumar of Northern Railways submitted that the tariff increase proposed by

UPCL is the steepest and will give tariff shock to the consumer like railways. He further submitted

that Railways have been making timely payment, drawing uninterrupted uniform supply day and

night, contributing negligible technical and commercial losses, etc. and hence, the tariff for Railways

should not be increased and should be commensurate with the average cost of supply. He further

submitted that the overall revenue gap estimated by UPCL to be recovered for FY 2016-17 is Rs.

1220.26 Crore. An average tariff hike of 24.96% has been proposed to cover this revenue gap. This

revenue gap should be supported by Government subsidy and tariff of railways should not be

increased.

He further submitted that Tariff Order, 2005 issued by Hon’ble Rajasthan State Electricity

Regulatory Commission, provides for rebate of 5% on railway traction tariff and the same should be

made applicable.

He also submitted that in case of incoming supply failures, Railway have to extend the feed

of Roorkee/TSS being fed by UPCL in the feeding zone of failed TSS being fed by HVPN/UPPCL



and have to pay load violation charges for exceeding the sanctioned contract demand for the

circumstances, whenever there is supply failure from HVPN/UPPCL till such time the supply

failure persists. Further, it submitted that railways takes supply from UPCL for traction purpose at

220 kV at Roorkee/TSS. Railway have to pay load violation charges on exceeding the sanctioned

contracted demand.

As regards metering, he submitted that as per Regulation 7(b)-I of the Central Electricity

Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulation 2006, the consumer meter shall be

installed by the licensee either at consumer premises or outside the consumer premises. In case of

railway traction consumer premises is Railway traction sub station. Therefore, meters should be

installed on the railway traction substation instead of grid sub-station of UPCL. He also requested

to consider the provision of simultaneous maximum demand of all adjacent metering points and

also of making single agreement for all adjacent supply points for future Railway Traction sub-

stations in Uttarakhand.

He suggested that for Demand Charges, the Billing Demand should be 65% of the contract

demand or recorded demand during the month, whichever is higher for traction load as in

Haryana.

He suggested that Railways must be exempted from payment of ACD/security deposit and

if not then Railways may be allowed the payment in form of Letter of assurance from RBI.


The Petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Tariff Policy,

the tariff of all the categories should be determined at Average Cost of Supply keeping the cross

subsidy of subsidizing category at 20%. Accordingly, Tariff of all the categories has been proposed

and Tariff for Traction Category cannot be kept equivalent to Average Cost of Supply. 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

Regulation 91 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The issue of subsidy may be taken up with the

State Government. There is no provision in the Electricity Act to provide any rebate to a new

consumer. However, all the consumers in Uttarakhand are automatically being compensated by

way of cheaper electricity as compared to other States.



On the issue of load violation charges, the Petitioner submitted that as per the existing rate

schedule, 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, such excess

load/demand shall be levied twice the normal rate of fixed/demand charge as applicable. The

submission of consumer cannot be considered, since the power failure at TSS not falling in the area

of distribution licensee is not the responsibility of the licensee. The consumer should take up this

matter with the concerned licensees.

Regarding installation of meters, 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. This is as

per the provisions of law. As per the provisions of existing Tariff Order, single point supply is

allowed to any consumer and, therefore, sum of maximum demand recorded at two or more meters

should not be considered.

As regards the billing demand to be kept at 65%, the Petitioner submitted that about 50% of

UPCL’s cost is fixed in nature while recovery from fixed charges is about 15% and, therefore,

reduction in billable demand from 80% to 65% would further reduce the recovery of fixed charges

which should be avoided in a mandate of two part tariff. Further, in case demand charges are

reduced, the energy charges will have to be increased in order to have the composite tariff

equivalent to the cost of supply and the desired level of cross subsidy.

On the issue of Security Deposit, the Petitioner submitted that the Security deposit is

received from the consumers to securitize the credit sales made by the DISCOM. In case a consumer

defaults in making the payment of his electricity bills, the recovery of such electricity dues may be

made by adjusting the security deposit of the consumer. As per Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act,

2003, the Distribution Licensee is required to pay interest on the security deposit. As interest cannot

be paid on the money held with UPCL as Bank Guarantee/Letter of Credit, the security deposits

should only be in the form of cash/bank draft.




The reply of the Petitioner on subsidy, security deposit etc. is in accordance with the

provisions of the Act, CEA Regulations, and Orders of the Commission. However, w.r.t. tariff hike

as discussed earlier, based on the approved ARR for FY 2016-17 including impact of truing up for

FY 2014-15, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue gap

as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order. Further, continuing with the approach adopted in

previous years, the Commission has attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while desiging the

tariffs for various categories as elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order.

The Commission does not find UPCL’s response in the matter of installation of consumer

meter at the grid sub-station satisfactory and in continuation of the directions issued by the

Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, UPCL is directed to submit a compliance report in this

regard within one month of the date of Order.

2.10 Fixed Charges


Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti and other stakeholders requested the Commission to

abolish the fixed charges. M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that the Fixed Charges should only

be applicable for consumers whose premises are locked for certain period of time and not on all the

consumers.

Shri Rakesh Bhatia, Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that Fixed

charges should not be increased as infrastructure is already available with UPCL and there is no

increase in cost and whatever they are increasing they are claiming depreciation on it which is also

a profit of UPCL.


As regards levy of Fixed Charges, the Petitioner submitted that Section 45(3) of the

Electricity Act, 2003, stipulates for levy of fixed charges as follows:



(b) a rent or other charges in respect of any electric meter or electrical plant provided by the distribution

licensee.”





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

The Petitioner further submitted that the Fixed Charges are based on the cost of the

Company other than variable power purchase cost. On the basis of projected such cost, increase in

fixed charges have been proposed. Further, depreciation is not a profit of the Company rather it is

the recovery of fixed cost already incurred by the Company.


The Commission has already expressed its views on the levy of fixed charges in para 2.8.4.3

above & in Chapter 6 and is not reiterating the same again.

The Commission does not agree with the views of the stakeholder that the Fixed Charges

should only be charged when the premises is locked as in two part tariff structure Fixed Charge is

also one component of tariff which is required to be recovered from all consumers to meet the total

revenue requirement of the Utility and the category-wise tariffs are designed accordingly as

discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order. The Commission also does not agree with the view of

the Stakeholder that fixed cost of the Petitioner is not increasing. All types of fixed costs are linked

to inflation/index and they are bound to increase.

2.11 Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG)


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

has not projected revenue receipt on account of MCG. As per the past data, this amount is very low

and it causes heavy burden on the consumers paying MCG. In respect of Cross Subsidy to be within

the range of target latest by the end of year 2010-11, tariffs are within ± 20% of the average cost of

supply. In case of LT, the Tariff is as high as 100% in some cases being subjected to MCG. MCG

would result in wastage of power as the consumer is left with no incentive to save power. As most

of the LT industries are paying MCG, this is resulting in unnecessary extra burden on them. It

requested that the MCG be removed in the current Tariff fixation.

Shri Mahesh Sharma of Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that the

minimum Consumption Guarantee should be abolished.



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 charges 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 indicate 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the levy of Minimum consumption guarantee is not on the

account of poor billing but for the recovery of minimum fixed charges. In this regard, 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


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

revenue to the licensee from the consumers.

The Petitioner further submitted that the MCG has been proposed at very low level of

consumption i.e. at 6.85% load factor in respect of non-domestic category and LT industry category

and at 13.70% 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 (actual

consumption or minimum consumption, whichever is higher) is adjusted at the end of the financial

year.



The Petitioner further submitted that while computing the Revenue for FY 2016-17, it has

also considered revenue from MCG as follows:-

• RTS - 2 - Rs. 8.35 Crore

• RTS - 7 - Rs. 34.86 Crore


Historically, the fixed cost 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 Commission has, further, deliberated on this issue in

Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.12 Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS)


M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the current rate of DPS @ 1.25% per

month even for one day delay is very high in current economic scenario. They proposed the DPS

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.

During the hearing in Dehradun, Shri V.S. Bhatnagar & Shri Vishwamitra pointed out that

the Scheme of Waiver of DPS introduced by UPCL is unjust for honest consumers who pay their bill

in time.

2.12.1.2 Petitioners Reply

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

received by UPCL in time. This surcharge is also levied with a view to discourage the consumers

who do not pay their bills within due date.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Delayed Payment Surcharge in Uttarakhand is

lower than that charged by other utilities in across states and provided the DPS applicable in few

other Staes as follows:



Table 2.4: Delayed Payment Surcharge applicable in Other 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


The Commission is of the view that the objective of Delayed Payment Surcharge is to recover

the cost of funds for delayed payment by the consumers, and the main objective of DPS is to act as

deterrent so that the consumers pay their bill on time. The Commission agress to the submission

made by the stakeholders that the Scheme for Waiver of DPS gives a wrong message to the honest

consumers. UPCL is advised to refrain itself from allowing such schemes & infact should be

cautious to recover its dues from the consumers in time.

2.13 Rebate and Incentives



Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that the voltage rebate proposed

for 33 kV feeder supply is 1.5% as against existing 2.50% and for 132 kV feeder supply is 5% against

existing 7.5%. UPCL has proposed lower voltage rebates in comparison to the existing voltage

rebates comparing the voltage rebates in other States. Voltage rebate is a technical issue which is to

compensate for lower transmission losses. The difference between input energy and billed energy is

primarily on account of transmission losses. The loss of 17.29% for FY 2016-17 is average across all

the consumer categories. For 33 kV and 132 kV feeder supply, losses shall be minimal. The voltage

rebates for 33 kV and 132 kV feeder supply should be 5% and 12.5% respectively.

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Kashi Enterprises submitted that the

industrial consumers at independent feeders, are making huge investments in construction of

33/132/220 kV substation, which later on becomes the property of the Discom. These independent

feeders gives huge benefit to distribution licensee as losses on these feeders are around 1% as

against 18-19% in case of industries which are not connected on independent feeder. They requested

the Commission to approve a rebate of 10% on energy charges for industries connected on an

independent feeder at 33 kV/132 kV/220 kV.



M/s Tata Motors suggested to increase the voltage rebate from existing level of 7.5% to

12.5% for 220 kV consumers.

M/s India Glycols Limited submitted that the high voltage rebate for 132 kV and above

should not be reduced, rather it should be increased from 7.5% to 10% as the line losses in 132 kV

and above as proposed by PTCUL is only 1.80% and combined loss of UPCL should not be

burdened on the consumers who are not a part of the distribution system. They further submitted

that the details of voltage wise loss have not been given by UPCL, inspite of repeated directions by

the Commission and hence, the Commission should direct UPCL to give the same to arrive at

higher rebate and to determine voltage wise Tariff.

M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the voltage rebate proposed for 33 kV

customers should be increased to 5% from the current rebate of 2.5%.

M/s Khatima Fibres Ltd, M/s East West Products 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, 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 reduced to 1.5% without any justification for such a



change. On being pursued further, the Commission in the last Tariff Order 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.

Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti, Shri Mukesh Chandra and some of the stakeholders

suggested that special rebate should be given to consumers using CFLs, LEDs and other non-

conventional sources of energy.

Shri G.S. Bedi of Indian Drugs and Pharmacueticals Ltd. suggested considering a

rebate/incentive for consumers directly connected to PTCUL substations on account of reduced line

losses. Supply switch gear located in PTCUL for IDPL is separated only by a boundary wall from

IDPL substation receiving supply. He further submitted that Rebate/incentive for reactive power

management by keeping very high PF in case of RTS-8 based on kW/kWh billing be considered to

encourage consumers as it offloads UPCL system from reactive power.

Shri Vishwamita and some of the stakeholders suggested that incentive should be applicable

on timely payment of bills.


The Petitioner submitted that rebate for taking supply at higher voltage was revised by the

Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014 from 1.5% and 5% to 2.5% and 7.5% for taking

supply at 33 kV and 132 kV and above respectively. The Petitioner believes that voltage rebate

approved by the Commission is very high and was done without hearing the Petitioner’s view

point and hence, it has proposed to keep the rates of rebate which were applicable in FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner also submitted that the proposed rates of rebates are higher than the rebates

applicable in neighbouring States like Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi and Punjab.



The Petitioner submitted that the consumers using CFLs/LEDs are automatically awarded

in terms of reduced bills, on account of reduced consumption due to CFLs/LEDs. Further, it is to

inform that a scheme for distribution of LED Bulbs has been started in the State. Under the scheme

all domestic consumers and non – domestic consumers (upto 10 kW load) are being provided three

LED Bulbs at a very low cost of Rs. 110 / bulb. This cost also is being subsidized by State

Government by 75% in respect of BPL consumers and 25% in respect of domestic consumers having

consumption upto 100 units/ month.

As regards rebate for consumers directly connected to PTCUL substations, the Petitioner

submitted that the rebate for supply at 132 kV or above voltage has been proposed @ 5% of energy

charges.

On the issue of rebate/incentive for reactive power management, the Petitioner submitted

that the tariff is determined keeping in view the fact that the consumer will maintain a healthy

power factor.


The Commission in its Order dated April 10, 2014 considering the requests made by various

stakeholders & UPCL’s response on the same, modified the provisions of voltage rebate and the

Commission feels that the provisions of the prevalent voltage rebate are appropriate.

As regards incentive for reactive power management, the Commission has been providing

for kVAh based tariff for industries in its Tariff Orders which covers the benefit of incentive as

suggested by the respondents.

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.”

The above views of the Commission are relevant even in today’s context.

2.14 Energy Sale Forecast


M/s Kashi Enterprises submitted that UPCL has presented CAGR of 3.64% from FY 2011-12

to FY 2015-16 for HT Industrial category and 4.39% for all category of consumer. They submitted as

no new concessional scheme is running in the State, it would be appropriate to consider a growth of

1-2% for HT category and 2-3% increase in overall consumption as against overall 6-7% increase

proposed by UPCL.

Shri Ashok Bansal, (President, Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce Industry), Shri L.S.

Chamyal , Shri Achal Sharma and M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd. submitted that as per the actual energy

consumption, the licensee has reported the State’s energy consumption CAGR of 9.09% over the last

few years and has assumed it to grow in future at the same trend. However, the energy sales for LT

and HT consumer are over projected at the growth rate of 4.15% for LT industry and 5% for HT

industry. He further submitted that the growth rate of energy sales may not be more than 30% of

growth in past for industries and 5% for other categories.

Shri Ashok Bansal (President, Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce Industry), Shri L.S.

Chamyal, Shri Achal Sharma submitted that the growth rate of 3% for various categories as per the

current trend appears reasonable as compared to 4.75% and 5.47% assumed by the Petitioner for LT

and HT industries respectively.

They also submitted that there is also an over estimation in the growth of number of

industrial consumers which must be corrected to 2.5% as per existing trend. For other categories

annual growth rate may be reasonably considered as 5% as against projection from 5.55% to 8.23%

for other categories by the licensee.


The Petitioner submitted that the sales for HT category have been projected at the rate of

5.00% each year which is a decent rate as compared to the trends observed in previous years. The 4

& 5 year CAGR is observed to be 7% and 10% respectively. The Petitioner while taking on



assumption has tried to be as conservative as possible, and thus, a rate of 5% has been assumed for

increase in HT sales. Similarly for other categories, the Petitioner while taking assumptions has

tried to be as realistic and astute as possible.

The Petitioner further submitted that accurate sales estimation is very important while

estimating the annual revenue requirement. For the same, the Petitioner has tried to estimate the

energy sales utilizing three methods

• Estimation of Sales as per draft 18th EPS;

• Estimation of Sales based on Econometric Model;

• Estimation of Sales based on Adjusted trend Analysis (CAGR)

The sales figures arrived at from each of these models were discussed in detail and based on

the existing scenarios, the authenticity of estimation of base variables and the informed judgments

as already explained in MYT petition, it was decided that the best method shall be the estimation of

sales based on adjusted trend Analysis.


The Commission has duly scrutinised and analysed the sales projected by the Petitioner for

the second Control Period and has approved the category-wise sales based on past trends including

recent trends and considering the other factors submitted by the Petitioner and other stakeholders

as elaborated in Chapter 3 of the Order. Further, the Petitioner in its Petition has projected restricted

sales (i.e. presuming load shedding in the State), but the Commission is of the view that for

planning purposes, the sales projections should be unrestricted sales and, accordingly, the

Commission has projected the unrestricted sales for the next Control Period.

2.15 Cost of Supply and Cross Subsidy


Shri Ashok Bansal, KGCCI submitted that UPCL has not submitted the voltage wise cost of

supply. Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shakeel A.

Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that Section 61 of the Electricity

Act, 2003 stipulates that tariff should progressively reflect cost of supply of electricity. The study

conducted by UPCL to determine cost of supply based on which the tariff proposal has been made,



should be shared with public. UPCL should also submit how the proposed tariff shall reduce cross

subsidy. Some of the stakholders suggested linking the category-wise tariffs to averge cost of

supply. Shri R.S. Yadav of M/s IGL submitted that cross-subsidy should be reduced.

They also asked as to how the tariff proposed is helping in reducing cross subsidy.


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 Regulation 91 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The

Petitioner further submitted it is in the process to calculate the voltage wise cost of supply and will

be able to file the next ARR on the basis of the same. The Petitioner further submitted that the

existing and proposed cross subsidy levels have been maintained for each category as follows:-

Table 2.5: Existing and Proposed Levels of Cross-subsidy submitted by UPCL S. No. Category Existing Proposed

1. Domestic -32.74% -32.59% 2. Non Domestic 15.19% 15.15% 3. Public Lamps -0.89% -0.68% 4. Private Tube Wells -68.86% -68.89% 5. Govt. Irrigation System 1.85% 1.97% 6. Public Water Works 2.07% 1.80% 7. Industry LT Industry 14.66% 14.70% HT Industry 14.80% 14.58%

8. Mixed Load -3.64% -4.22% 9. Railway Traction 10.55% 20.87%

The Petitioner, further, submitted that as per the provisions of Tariff Policy, the tariff of

subsidising categories may be kept at cost plus 20%. The tariff of HT Industry Category has been

proposed at cost plus 14.58%. Thus, the proposed Tariff is as per the provisions of law. Moreover,

the cross subsidy for HT Industries has not been increased in the proposal.


The issue of level of cross-subsidy across various categories of consumers and increase in

tariffs has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 6 of the Order.



2.16 Continuous Supply


Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. & M/s Galwalia

Ispat Udyog (P) Ltd. submitted that continuous process industry (as well as non-continuous process

industrial consumers) provides demand visibility to UPCL and thus, it is easier for UPCL to have a

back to back long term power purchase agreements. A generalized commercial principle is that

consumers which guarantee a certain amount of off take are provided concessional rate. In contrary,

additional charge is being imposed on continuous process industry. The additional charge should

be removed or subsidized for continuous process industry as well as non-continuous process

industrial consumers connected on either independent feeders or industrial feeders enjoying

continuous supply as it is contrary to commercial principles.

Shri R.S. Yadav of IGL, M/s Hindustan Glass & Industries Ltd. & Shri V.K. Agarwal

submitted that the Continuous Supply Surcharge (CSS) should be reduced to 10% from the existing

level of 15% and further reduce it to nil in next 3 to 5 years.

Shri Ashok Bansal, Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry submitted that

the Electricity Act, 2003 does not allow the Commission to differentiate consumers by the hours of

supply or consumers subjected to load shedding and CSS should be reduced to 10%. He, further,

submitted that the compensation should be provided in case of interruptions in continuous supply.

M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd. & M/s East West Products Ltd. Submitted that compensation

should be provided in case of interruptions in continuous supply of power. Shri Mahesh Sharma of

Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that option of continuous supply should be

discontinued and if provided should be given with a surcharge of 15%.


The Petitioner submitted that following are the provisions, which proves that levy of higher

energy charges is absolutely necessary in accordance with the provisions of the law:

Para-5.5.1 of National Electricity Policy – “There is an urgent need for ensuring recovery of cost of

service from consumers to make the power sector sustainable.”

Para-8.2.1(1) of Tariff Policy – “……Consumers, particularly those who are ready to pay a tariff

which reflects efficient costs have the right to get uninterrupted 24 hours supply of quality power…”



The Petitioner, further, submits that extra energy charge for continuous supply is charged

from the consumers who have opted for continuous supply. These consumers are exempted from

load shedding during scheduled/unscheduled power cuts and during restricted hours of the period

of restriction of usages approved by the Commission from time to time. However, load shedding

required due to emergency break-down / shut-down is imposed on these consumers as and when

the situations arise.

The Petitioner further submitted that the purchase of power over and above the availability

from firm sources is, inter-alia, required to give continuous supply to the desired industries and,

therefore, keeping in view the rates of electricity in the open market and increase in rates of UI

overdrawl, continuous supply surcharge is required for giving continuous supply and it cannot be

kept below 15% of Energy Charges throughout the year.

As regards compensation for interruptions in continuous supply, the Petitioner submitted

that Industries who have been opted continuous supply are being given continuous supply and no

rostering/power cuts are imposed on them except load shedding required due to emergency

breakdown/ shutdown. Thus, there is no need for compensation to the consumers.


The issue of continuous power supply and surcharge thereof alongwith other terms and

conditions w.r.t. continuous supply has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 6 of the

Order.

2.17 Components on ARR and Revenue

2.17.1 Power Purchase Cost


M/s Tata Motors and Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association (USMA) suggested that

the power purchase cost for Central Generating Stations is decreasing due to decrease in coal prices

and, therefore, the tariffs should not be increased.

USMA suggested that the cess for UJVN Ltd. stations should be discontinued.

Shri Ashok Bansal of KGCCI suggested that projected availability of power from various

sources may be checked by the Commission.



M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that the power purchase cost from outside the State

source is very high and explanations are not given for certain power purchase figures. They

submitted that there must be separate energy audit to ascertain the facts.

M/s KVS Infratech LLP submitted that UPCL has projected power consumption of 10863

MU for FY 2016-17 and availability of 10184 MU from all the sources. As the availability of power is

adequate to meet the requirement for FY 2016-17, there is no need to purchase power from other

sources at a higher rate.

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kashi Enterprises submitted that UPCL is

purchasing very small quantity of power through open market purchase and suggested that UPCL

should purchase maximum power in peak hours from open market at a cheaper cost to reduce the

overall deficit. M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that UPCL has projected the power

purchase from new generating stations of Central Sector @ Rs. 5/kWh, which is very high.

Shri Rakesh Bhatia, Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that the average

power purchase rates from THDC appears higher.


The Petitioner submitted that it is not correct to say that the cost of NTPC Power is being

reduced. The average power purchase price of NTPC Power is around Rs. 3.25/unit this year which

is similar with the rate of previous year. Further, the availability of power from firm sources is not

being increased in the proportion of increase in demand. The deficit of power is increasing every

year and the rate of deficit power to be procured from open market is high as compared to the rate

of firm power. Therefore, weighted average rate of power for the coming years is going to be high

and, accordingly, the power purchase cost has been proposed.

As regards applicability of cess for UJVN Ltd. stations, the Petitioner suggested that this

matter may be taken up with Government of Uttarakhand.

The Petitioner further submitted that the power purchase cost has been projected for each

source individually. The power purchase cost for CSGS stations has been projected based on the

rates approved by the CERC and in case the cost has not been approved by CERC suitable

assumptions has been taken in order to project the cost. Similarly, the cost from other stations, i.e

state generation and IPP’s has been projected after considering suitable assumptions.



On the issue of power availability, the Petitioner submitted that the sales projected for FY

2015-16 are 10227 MU and not 9654 MU. 9654 MU are the actual sales for FY 2014-15. Thus, the sales

for FY 2016-17 are only 6.21% higher which is nominal in regard to the increasing demand and the

trend observed in previous years. Also, since the demand for FY 2016-17 is higher than the

availability, the Petitioner is compelled to procure power from short term market.

As regards the procurement of power through open market, the Petitioner submitted that it

is very important for a distribution utility to have a right mix of short and long term power. It is

submitted that there may be a period when the rate of power from short term market is higher than

firm sources. There is no guarantee that the rate will always remain lower as compared to firm

sources. Furthermore, there may be instances when short term power may not be available during

certain period, at that time firm sources are the best option. Thus, it is always advisable for a

Discom to keep more and more power available from firm sources in order to keep the power

purchase cost minimal and also for the purpose of energy security.

As regards high cost of power purchase from THDC, the Petitioner submitted that the

power purchase amount submitted in the Petition for THDC in FY 2014-15 contains major amount

of arrears and hence, the average power purchase cost is coming to be on a higher side. However

upon excluding the amount pertaining to the arrears, the average cost works out to be Rs.

5.90/kwh.


The issue of the power purchase cost has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 3,

4 & 5 of the Order.

2.17.2 PGCIL Charges


Shri V. K. Garg, Munirka, New Delhi submitted that the PGCIL charges for FY 2015-16

claimed by UPCL are Rs. 349 Crore as against the approved charges of Rs. 228 Crore. This increase

needs to be clarified as to whether there had been huge capital expenditure on new lines in the State

or it is merely because of PoC/ pricing of transmission charges.




The Petitioner submitted that the during the first six months of FY 2015-16, it has received

bills of Rs. 174.72 Crore on account of revised POC Charges starting from May 2015 as per various

CERC amendments notified during Jan to July 2015. Due to these amendments, the Petitioner has

incurred an additional expenditure of Rs. 42 Crore approx. on account of adjustments for FY 2015-

16 in the first six months. Subsequently, for estimating PGCIL transmission charges for FY 2015-16,

the Petitioner has assumed the same amount for remaining six months. The per MU PGCIL Charge

for FY 2015-16 has been calculated using the estimated charges and energy coming from outside

Uttarakhand during FY 2015-16. The per MU rate thus, calculated is escalated by 4% per annum and

then multiplied by the projected power purchase quantum for each year of the Control Period to

arrive at the total estimated PGCIL charges.


The issue of PGCIL charges has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 5 of the

Order.

2.17.3 Return on Equity


Shri V. K. Garg, Munirka, New Delhi submitted that the Return on Equity for FY 2015-16

claimed by UPCL is Rs. 93 Crore as against the approved Return on Equity of Rs. 48 Crore. UPCL

should clarify if this increase is on account of increase in equity and should submit the copy of GO

regarding the equity contribution for FY 2016-17.

Shri Pankaj Gupta, President, Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that no

Return on Equity should be allowed on the assets created out of grant in line with the earlier

approach of the Commission.

M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that RoE is increasing every year as addition in equity

in each year is based on funding pattern projected for investing in the capital expenditure plan.


The Petitioner submitted that in the MYT Petition, RoE has been computed @ 16% on the

average equity. Year wise addition of equity has been considered at maximum of 30% of the

capitalization excluding grants for each year. In the year when the equity deployed was less than



30%, actual equity has been considered. The equity in excess of 30% has been considered as

normative loan.

The Petitioner, further, submitted that it has not claimed any return (depreciation/interest)

on the assets created out of grant.


The issue of Return on Equity has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 & 5 of

the Order.

2.17.4 Operation & Maintenance Expenses


M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that the O&M expenses proposed with an overall

increase of 10% with respect to preceding years is very high as compared to the inflation index and

current market scenario.

Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry submitted that

all regular cadres should find place on UPCL’s rolls and contract system of employees should be

abolished as early as possible.

M/s Khatema Fibres Limited submitted that as per the details provided by UPCL only the

officer and supervisory staff are being recruited and no office staff is being recruited.

Shri Katar Singh submitted that under-staffing in UPCL should be taken care of and vacant

posts should be filled immediately.


The Petitioner submitted that O&M Expenses are calculated as per UERC MYT Regulations,

2015 and methodology prescribed by the Commission. The growth factor considered for projecting

employee expenses are as per the recruitment plan to be carried out in the Control Period. 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.

The Petitioner submitted that outsourcing of employees is required for core and non-core

activities. It is submitted that there are instances when UPCL is not able to recruit employees for

core activities due to factors beyond the control of the Petitioner, for instance Court Order and



various legal roadblocks. During that time outsourcing on contractual basis is the best option

available to the Petitioner as it provides instant manpower to carry out the day to day activities

which otherwise would have been stopped due to deficit manpower which would ultimately have

an adverse effect on the consumers. The Petitioner, further, submitted that the outsourcing not only

brings inefficiency in the system but also helps in reducing the costs incurred by the Petitioner.

On the issue of recruitment, the Petitioner submitted that as per the recruitment plan

provided in the Business Plan and MYT Petition (Page 111 of the MYT Petition) the recruitment is

envisaged at each and every level of service during the three year period specifically for core

activities concerning the Petitioner.


The issue of the Operation & Maintenance Expenses has been deliberated by the

Commission in Chapter 3, 4 & 5 of the Order.

2.17.5 Depreciation


Shri V. K. Garg, Munirka, New Delhi submitted that the depreciation for FY 2015-16

claimed by UPCL is Rs. 122 Crore as against the approved depreciation of Rs. 94 Crore. Further, the

depreciation proposed for FY 2016-17 is Rs. 145 Crore which has increased to Rs. 209 Crore in FY

2018-19. UPCL should clarify whether such increase in depreciation is on account of carry forward

of Kedarnath tragedy damages or its write off process or incremental capital expenditure. UPCL

should specify the rates of depreciation considered.

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

Depreciation should be allowed considering the opening value of GFA as on 08.11.2001 as Rs. 508

Crore and additional capitalisation as approved by the Commission. He also submitted that in line

with the earlier approach of the Commission, depreciation should not be allowed on the assets

created out of grants.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 approved

depreciation @ 4.57% on the depreciable opening GFA (net of grant) of Rs. 2068.62 Crore and the

rate of depreciation was assumed as was computed for FY 2013-14. UPCL in the MYT Petition



computed depreciation @ 5.20% on the depreciable average GFA (net of grant). UPCL further

confirmed that no Kedarnath Tragedy damages or write offs have been considered in the

computation of depreciation in the MYT Petition.

The Petitioner submitted that for computation of depreciation, the value of GFA and its

financing from FY 2001-02 to FY 2012-13 has been considered the same which has been considered

by the Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders and, accordingly, GFA as on 08-11-2001 is considered

as Rs. 508 Crore.


The issue of depreciation has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 & 5 of the

Order.

2.17.6 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts


Shri V. K. Garg, Munirka, New Delhi submitted that the provision for bad and doubtful

debts proposed by UPCL is Rs. 46 Crore for FY 2015-16, Rs. 55 Crore for FY 2016-17, Rs. 61 Crore for

FY 2017-18 and Rs. 89 Crore for FY 2018-19. UPCL should clarify as to how the bad debts are

decided and proposed in advance to be increasing every year. One time provision for bad and

doubtful debts for Kedarnath tragedy may be acceptable but not an increased write off every year.

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

following:

a. The Commission has not fixed any norm for bad and doubtful debts.

b. UPCL has not identified and actually written off bad debts according to a transparent

policy approved by the Commission.

c. UPCL is trying to move in its own direction without taking into consideration the

observations of the Commission on bad and doubtful debts.

d. The earlier stand taken by the Commission for bad and doubtful debts should hold

good for this year also.

Shri Ashok Bansal of KGCCI, M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd., M/s East West Products Ltd., M/s

Asahi India Glass Ltd. and other stakeholders submitted that the provisions for bad & doubtful

debts are on a higher side and are unjustified.




The Petitioner submitted that Regulation 31 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 provides

that the Commission may allow a provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts @ 1% of the estimated

Annual Revenue subject to (i) actual writing off of Bad Debts in previous years, (ii) the total amount

of such provisioning allowed in the previous years should not exceed 5% of the receivables at the

beginning of the year. UPCL at the time of transfer of Assets and Liabilities got a provision for Bad

and Doubtful Debts amounting to Rs. 230.01 Crore. UPCL started its functioning w.e.f. 09-11-2001

and the Commission so far allowed a provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts of Rs. 103.74 Crore.

UPCL for the period upto FY 2014-15 has written off the bad debts amounting to Rs. 139.15 Crore.

Accordingly, the entire provision allowed by the Commission has been exhausted by UPCL. Thus,

the claim of provision of 1% of Annual Revenue for each year is in line with the provisions of the

Regulations.


The issue of provision for bad & doubtful debts has been deliberated by the Commission in

Chapter 4 & 5 of the Order.

2.17.7 Other Costs



Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that the contribution of power

purchase cost in the total ARR was 89.65% in FY 2014-15 which is proposed to be 84.24% in FY 2016-

17 and 82.04% in FY 2018-19 while the contribution of other costs in the total ARR has increased

from 10.35% in FY 2014-15 to 17.96% in FY 2018-19. In absolute terms, other costs have increased

from Rs. 451.46 Crore in FY 2014-15 to Rs. 1252.69 Crore in FY 2018-19 which is an increase of 177%

in 5 years. The increase in other costs (primarily fixed in nature) is not being met by commensurate

increase in volumes as billed energy has increased only by 27.08% over the 5 years period.

Shri Rajiv Gupta submitted that the provision of cost towards the RPO should not be

allowed.




The Petitioner submitted that in its MYT Petition, it has proposed various improvements

and other works for providing continuous and quality supply and other services to the consumers.

Impact of these works is reflecting in the increased level of other costs. Further, increase in power

purchase cost has been kept at minimum which is major part of cost of supply and increased level

of such cost may lead to abnormal hike in consumer tariffs. The Petitioner, further, submitted that

the projections of all the expenses have been made as per the provisions of UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015.


The issue of other costs has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 & 5 of the

Order.

2.17.8 Consumer Security Deposit


Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. & M/s Galwalia

Ispat Udyog (P) Ltd. submitted that the rate of interest on consumer security deposit should be

increased from 9% as credit facilities available to the industries is around 12% to 14%. Also, UPCL

has proposed the rate of interest on working capital as 14.05% and rate of interest on loans as

10.17%.

M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd submitted that the security deposit rule of 2 months should

be reduced to 1.5 months.

M/s East West Products Ltd., M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of KGCCI & M/s

Ganesha Ecosphere Ltd. requested to facilitate the process of depositing the security and additional

security deposit by way of bank guarantee/ letter of credit.

Shri Mahesh Sharma, Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that interest on

cosumer security deposit is not being paid yearly.

Shri Arvind Jain & Shri Vishwamitra submitted that the amount of security deposit is not

mentioned in the bills.




The Petitioner in its response has submitted as follows:

• Interest on Security Deposit is being paid as per the provision of section 47(4) of the

Electricity Act, 2003. The rate of Interest for FY 2015-16 is 8.50 % p.a.

• While computing the working capital consumer security deposit is reduced and

UPCL is allowed interest on such value of working capital.

• Security deposit is received from the consumers to securitize the credit sales made by

the DISCOM. In case a consumer defaults in making the payment of his electricity

bills, the recovery of such electricity dues may be made by adjusting the security

deposit of the consumer. Thus, the rate of interest on loans and working capital can

not be compared with interest on security deposits.

As regards reduction in security deposit from 2 months to 1.5 months, the Petitioner

submitted that once the supply is drawn by a consumer the bill is generated after a period of 1

month. In 15 days, the bill is received by the consumer and a 15 days time period is given for

payment. Thus, a 2 month period is justifiable and is also in accordance with the UERC Supply

Code.

As regards depositing the security and additional security deposit by way of Bank

Guarantee/Letter of Credit, the Petitioner submitted that as per Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act,

2003, the Distribution Licensee is required to pay interest on the security deposit. As interest cannot

be paid on the money held with UPCL as Bank Guarantee/Letter of Credit, the Bank Guarantee

should only be in the form of cash/bank draft.

On the contention of non-payment of interest on security deposit, the Petitioner submitted

that there are clear orders of UPCL to pay interest on security deposits to the consumers on yearly

basis. This interest is first adjusted towards shortage of security deposits, if any, and the balance

amount of interest is adjusted in the electricity bills of the consumers.


The Commission agrees with the replies made by the Petitioner in this regard. However,

UPCL is directed to make full payment/adjustment of the interest on security deposit & also to



show the amount of interest so due alongwith the amount of security deposit in the bills of the

consumers.

2.18 Capital Expenditure


M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd. & M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that the capital

expenditure plan proposed for the Business Plan period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is very high.


Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that UPCL had been proposing

capital expenditure on various measures for controlling losses like replacement of mechanical

meters with electronic meters, installation of electronic meters in unmetered connections,

installation of additional distribution transformers, installation of capacitor bank, installation of

double metering of high voltage consumers, augmentation of existing 33/11 kV S/s etc. The capital

expenditure of UPCL directly affects the consumers in the form of interest on loans. But, UPCL has

not submitted the target and actual works executed. Further, non-execution of the proposed capital

expenditure results in power theft, losses etc.

They requested that the details of capital expenditure works undertaken and accomplished

with pendency thereon should be shared with consumers.

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

with the earlier approach of the Commission, capitalisation of assets should be allowed only if the

Electrical Inspector Certificates have been submitted.


the Capital expenditure plan proposed by UPCL may be considered by the Commission in terms of

revenue generated by these schemes and all other schemes that are not deemed to be productive

should be scrapped.


The Petitioner submitted that the year wise and work wise details of capital expenditure is

mentioned in the MYT Petition and Business Plan. The Petitioner further submitted that with a view

to provide better power supply, consumer services and providing electricity to all the households/

consumers of the State, UPCL has proposed many works to be executed for this purpose and,



accordingly, the capex plan has been prepared. In this capex plan, there are two central sponsored

schemes (IPDS, DDUGGY) in which major part of funding is grant which will be passed on to the

consumers and there will be no impact of such expenditure on the tariffs of the consumer.

The Petitioner, further, submitted that the need for capital expenditure in UPCL is for two

primary reasons:

• The rising 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 growing consumers.

• Making investments to facilitate loss reduction, increase operational efficiency through

IT and automation to improve the quality and reliability of supply.

Thus, the Petitioner has proposed the capital investments in purview of the above

mentioned objectives which will in turn help in more revenue generation for the Petitioner.

As regards the capitalisation after clearances are received from the Electrical Inspector, the

Petitioner submitted that out of total HT/EHT works amounting to Rs. 1630.45 Crore capitalized for

the period from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14, UPCL has submitted the Electrical Inspector Certificates

in respect of assets amounting to Rs. 1330.52 Crore and there is a balance of Rs. 299.93 Crore only

and the certification work in respect of these assets is in progress and the certificates shall be

provided to the Commission shortly. Further, as against the HT/EHT works capitalized during FY

2014-15 amounting to Rs. 209.77 Crore, certificates in respect of HT works amounting to Rs. 107.15

Crore have already been submitted to the Commission. The Petitioner submitted that thus, it is clear

that it is very near to the target of submission of Electrical Inspector Certificate and hence, the

Petitioner should be allowed return for the same.


The Commission has duly scrutinised each and every element of ARR for the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 in accordance with the provisons of UERC Tariff Regulations,

2015 and the same has been discussed in Chapter 3, 4 & 5 of the Order.



2.19 Truing-up for Past Years

2.19.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comment


shortfall in revenue as against the revenue projected by the Commission during FY 2014-15 is

mainly due to load shedding on industrial consumers. Industrial consumers pay the highest tariff

and they are subject to maximum rostering resulting in shortfall in revenue for UPCL. In other

States, rostering of industrial consumers is done as the last measure to maintain grid balance.

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s KVS Infratech LLP submitted that UPCL

has proposed to recover the Revenue Gap of Rs 1220.26 Crore from FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17 which

is very huge and equivalent to one fourth of total revenue. They requested the Commission to

examine the huge gap and publish the reason in Tariff Order whether it is due to wrong estimation

or it is due to inefficiency of the licensee.

Shri Mahesh Sharma of Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that during

FY 2014-15, UPCL was having a revenue surplus.


The Petitioner submitted that the gap of revenue and expenditure for FY 2014-15 is mainly

due to lesser rate of power purchase approved by the Commission. The actual power purchase cost

was Rs. 3.29 /unit whereas the Commission had approved Rs. 3.13/ unit. This increased the gap by

Rs. 190 Crore. The second main reason was low level of distribution losses approved by the

Commission as compared to actual. Actual distribution losses for FY 2014-15 are 18.79% whereas

the Commission approved only 15.50%. This loss is equivalent to the revenue of Rs. 160 Crore.

The Petitioner further submitted that during FY 2014-15, 97% of demand was met and 3%

unmet demand was due to gap of demand and availability of energy/transmission network/

distribution network. The Petitioner, further, submitted that it has also prepared its rostering policy.


The Commission has duly scrutinised each and every element of Truing up for FY 2014-15 in

accordance with the provisons of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011 and the same has been discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order.



2.20 Departmental Employees



there has been a nominal hike of tariff for departmental employees and pensioners, however, tariff

for other consumers has increased by about 40% in past 12 years.

Shri Amar S Dhunta, RTI Club, Uttarakhand submitted that most of the departmental

employees are not being billed and charged for their consumption of electricity and the tariff they

are charged with is subsidised. The meter placed in the employees premises are damaged,

electricity is being misused by the employees as they use it for commercial purposes.

Shri Viru Bisht submitted that UPCL’s offices and sub-stations do not have meters.


The Petitioner submitted that 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 favorable to the terms

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

under the 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 the 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 the 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 it (UPCL).

The Petitioner, further, submitted that the meters have been installed on the connections of

the Departmental Employees/Pensioners and any employee/pensioner found indulging in

unauthorized use of electricity through departmental electricity connection is liable to penal action

as per departmental rules/provisions of Law.




Regarding the issue of misuse of electricity by the employee of the Petitioner, the

Commission in its previous Tariff Orders had directed the Petitioner to take appropriate steps on

the issues raised by the respondents to avoid the misuse of electricity by UPCL’s employees.

Further, the Commission clarifies that while approving the cost of electricity consumed by

employees, average consumption of metered domestic category for the whole State at normal

domestic tariff has been considered. Based on the above, the cost of energy consumed to the extent

not recovered from the employees is to be borne by the Petitioner, i.e. it is not being passed on to

other consumers of the State.

Further, the Commission also directs the Petitioner to install meters at all its offices and

sub-stations, if not installed, within one month of the date of the Order and submit report to the

Commission by May 15, 2016.

2.21 Collection Efficiency


M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s KVS Infratech LLP submitted that UPCL

has failed to collect target percentage of revenue from the consumers and requested for analysis of

the reason behind the same.

M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals and other stakeholders submitted that unpaid billed amounts

from Govt. as well as non-Govt. organisations should be recovered regularly to improve the

collection efficiency.


The Petitioner submitted that during the last 5 years it has reduced its AT&C Losses by

10.77% at a yearly average of 2.154 %, increased collection efficiency by 6.34% at an yearly average

of 1.268%. The level of AT&C Losses and Collection Efficiency in FY 2014-15 is 18.64% and 99.87%

respectively. This may be treated a good performance of UPCL.

The Petitioner submitted that it is a constant endeavour of the Petitioner to improve upon its

collection efficiency each year so that the burden of lesser revenue realisation is not put on to the

other consumers. Continuous efforts are made to realise revenue specifically from the Government



organisations as is evident from the increasing collection efficiency for this category through the

years.


The Commission has approved the collection efficiency trajectory for the second Control

Period while approving the Business Plan as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order.

The Commission agrees with the concerns 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 the bad debts and initiating recovery of its dues from other

consumers. Further, as elaborated in Chapter 4 and 5 of the Order, the Commission in this Tariff

Order is not allowing any provision for bad and doubtful debts as proposed by the Petitioner. With

regard to the issue of collection efficiency and receivable management, the Commission has

discussed the same in Chapters 3, 4 & 5 of the Order.

2.22 Fuel Charge Adjustment


M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals & M/s Dev Bhoomi Dharamshala Prabhandhak Sabha

submitted that the fuel Charges should not be charged to the consumers and should be pre-

included in the tariff.


The Petitioner submitted that the Fuel Charge Adjustment is levied on account of

incremental fuel charges of the generating stations not envisaged at the time of determination of

Tariff. In case a normative incremental fuel cost is added in the power purchase cost at the time of

determination of tariff, this will unduly increase the tariff of the consumers. Therefore, on the basis

of actual incremental fuel cost, fuel charge adjustment is revised quarterly. During FY 2015-16 the

FCA was zero in the second and last quarter.




With regard to FCA recovery mechanism, the Commission has already specified the

mechanism in its UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

2.23 Metering and Billing


Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti made certain suggestions that the bill distribution system

should be improved and meters should be shifted from open areas to closed areas to avoid

tampering and theft of meters.

M/s KVS Infratech LLP & Shri P.C. Agarwal submitted that the Commission has approved

15 days grace period for depositing electricity bill from the date of billing but for last so many

months, bills are prepared/delivered/published on internet just before last date and hence, the

benefit of grace period is not available.

M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that the domestic supply is being utilised for the non-

domestic purposes. They further submitted that the replacement of defective meters should be done

within 7 days.

Bhartiya Kisan Union submitted that the Meters for Private Tube Well connections should

be placed on HT line (11 kV), further PTW connection should be disconnected after six months if the

payments for the bills are not made in time.

Bhartiya Kisan Union submitted that if meter shows the reading of NR for PTW connections

then the concerned customer should be given notice for that and should be asked for the

replacement of meter and if the customer does not act, accordingly, then proper penalty should be

levied on the customer.

a. In case of meter showing the NR for (PTW) connections unless meter is replaced, the

reading should be charged according to the fix rate within 2 months.

b. If the meter is showing RDF/NA, NR/IDF to the PTW electricity connection the

concerned authority (Meter reader, AE, JEE, EED, SE) should be made accountable

and should be punished according to the degree of offence.



Bhartiya Kisan Club submitted that separate connections should be given to cane crushers

other than the private tube well connections. They also submitted that those consumers who can

lease their land for one year should be given temporary connections for six months.

Bhartiya Kisan Club submitted that the load capacity of the connection is not clearly

mentioned in FY 2015-2016 tariff, while in earlier tariffs it was clearly mentioned for the meter

connections upto 4 kW load.

M/s Indus Tower Ltd., requested the Commission to provide directions to the utilities for

supporting the proposal of installation of AMR meters and roll out of consolidated billing for large

consumers with multiple connections. Such a measure would drive the efficiency of the DISCOM by

way of savings in meter reading and billing cost while also ensuring accuracy.

SIDCUL Manufacturers Association Uttarakhand submitted as part of check meter

assessment, consumers should not be charged more than 3 months of average consumption. They

further submitted that 100% online billing shall be implemented for industrial consumers.

Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti submitted that Prepaid metering should be extensively

publicised and the tariff for the same should be reduced by 15-20% across all categories.

Shri Sunil Kapri suggested that consumers should be allowed the facility of payment of bills

through cheque to person who distributes the bills.


The Petitioner submitted that the meter reading of the consumers is being taken by the

meter readers and the bill is being provided to the consumers at the time of meter reading. The

following consumer services have also been started by UPCL.

• Online billing of all the consumers

• Online bill payment facility for all the consumers

• Bill payment facility in the branches of Punjab National Bank

• An agreement has been signed with M/s CSC to collect the payment of bills in

various locations of the State. Presently, 1,119 centers are operative.

As regards the grace period, the Petitioner submitted that the grace period was allowed by

the Commission on the premise that 15 clear days are not given to the consumers for making the



payment of the bill. UPCL starts billing from fifth of every month but in some cases due date for

payment of bill is not kept giving clear 15 days. However, bill is always delivered before the due

date and thus, the consumer avails a grace period of 15 days for making the payment.

As regards the domestic supply being utilised for the non-domestic purposes, the Petitioner

submitted that tariff for non-domestic category is specified by the Commission and the same is

applicable to consumers falling under that category. For particular cases as mentioned here the

stakeholder is requested to report the case to the respective division office.

As regards the replacement of meters, the Petitioner submitted Defective Meters are being

replaced as per the provisions of Tariff Order/Regulations. During FY 2015-16 UPCL has replaced

1,05,076 meters till 31-01-2016.

Regarding, AMR, the Petitioner submitted that AMR of all the Commercial and Industrial

Consumers having load above 5 kW is under consideration and shall be finalized in due course of

time.

Regarding Check Meter Assessment, the Petitioner submitted that it is done as per the

provisions of UERC (The Electricity Supply Code), Regulations, 2007.

On the suggestion of online billing, the Petitioner submitted the the facility of online

payment of electricity bills has already been provided to all its consumers.

Regarding publicity of pre-paid metering, the Petitioner submitted that notice showing the

category wise details of postpaid tariff and prepaid tariff were published in the following news

papers:

• Amar Ujala, Uttarakhand dated 31-01-2016

• Hindustan (Hindi), Uttarakhand 31-01-2016

• Rastriya Sahara, Uttarakhand 31-01-2016

• The Times of India, New Delhi dated 01- 02-2016


The Commission has taken note of various suggestions received from the stakeholders

regarding improvement in metering and billing and the Commission directs the UPCL to consider

the suggestions given by the stakeholders to improve its metering and billing system. The



Commission directs UPCL to provide services to the Consumers namely restoration of power,

voltage fluctuation, metering & billing related etc. as per Orders/Supply Code/SOP Regulations

of the Commission. The Commission has deliberated on technical & commercial performance of

the Petitioner in Chapter 7 of the Order.

With regard to the request of the consumers of payment of bill through cheque to the person

who distributes the bill, the Commission is of the view that it is a policy matter to be decided by the

Petitioner with the approval of GoU & its Board of Directors. Hence, UPCL is directed to submit

the comments on the suggestions of payment of bills by cheque to the person who come to

distribute the bills within one month of the date of Order.

2.24 Load Reduction


SIDCUL Manufacturers Association Uttarakhand submitted that load reduction should be

allowed more than once in a financial year.


The Petitioner submitted that on the basis of contracted load of the consumers, UPCL plans

its power purchases and frequent reduction in contracted load will make the planning difficult.

Thus, load should not be reduced more than once in a Financial Year.


The Commission agrees with the views of the Petitioner that if frequent reduction in load is

allowed, then it will affect the planning of power procurement and the same may affect the quality

of supply. Further, this is also in accordance with relevant Regulations of the Commission.

2.25 Distribution Line/ Line Losses


Shri Virat Seth, Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Shri

Shakeel A. Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that the emphasis of

UPCL should be on reducing the line losses, pilferage by theft, collection inefficiency, strong

mechanism of recovering bad debts instead of directly increasing the tariff.



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

following:

a. UPCL had been claiming in its Petitions that the Distribution Loss trajectory

specified by the Commission is unachievable and unrealistic. The whole focus of the

Electricity Act, 2003 was to be on efficient use of resources and reduction of

Distribution Losses is the most important goal to this act.

b. In Uttarakhand, the sale of energy to industrial consumers has increased from 28% in

FY 2004-05 to 56% in FY 2014-15. Therefore, the loss level should be much lower. It is

generally accepted that the losses incurred in the distribution to these industrial

consumers cannot be more than 3%-4%. With such lower loss levels of industrial

consumers, the overall losses should be much lower than the target level. If the losses

at all levels other than industrial consumers is seen, then these losses are actually

increasing.

c. The Commission had fixed the loss reduction target and directed UPCL to carry out

Energy Audit to which UPCL has not complied. UPCL should be directed to carry

out Energy Audit at S/s level and also at different voltage levels separately so that

the actual reason for losses can be ascertained and action be taken to bring down the

losses to target level.

d. The Commission should appoint an agency for carrying out the investigation of

losses and energy audit. If the HT consumers are consuming more than 50%, whose

losses should not be more than 5%-6%, the losses in other categories are more than

45%. This is enough reason for proper investigation under Section 128 of the

Electricity Act, 2003.

e. UPCL should convert their S/s into cost centres and any S/s found to be losing

money should be subjected to penalties.

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., M/s KVS Infratech LLP, M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.

and some other consumers submitted that there is a gap of around 2-3% in distribution losses

approved by the Commission and actual distribution losses. They submitted that it is not feasible to

pass on the inefficiencies of UPCL on the consumers.



M/s Tata Motors submitted that UPCL is not achieving the loss targets and consequently

consumers are facing tariff increase. They requested the Commission to fix the stringent targets for

distribution losses and not to pass the impact of non-achievement of targets to the consumers.

Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that the determination of voltage-wise losses

should be carried out.

Shri Ashok Bansal submitted that the tariff of HT industries in the last Tariff order was fixed

on the basis of assumption of 15% losses in the UPCL’s System. Realistically the losses at HT level

may not be more than 5% and these can be fairly accurate extent with a little exercise and effort by

licensee.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Bhartiya Kisan Club submitted that losses in the domestic lines

and PTW lines should be shown separately.

Shri Rakesh Bhatia, President, Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association submitted that

UPCL should submit area wise distribution losses and collection efficiency to the Commission in

order to substantiate their claim decrease in losses in FY 2014-15.

Shri Mahesh Sharma and Shri Mukesh Chandra also suggested that the trajectory for

reduction of losses should be specified.


The Petitioner submitted that during the last 5 years it has reduced its AT&C Losses by

10.77% at an yearly average of 2.154%, increased collection efficiency by 6.34% at an yearly average

of 1.268%. The level of AT&C Losses and Collection Efficiency in FY 2014-15 is 18.64% and 99.87%

respectively.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Commission had estimated the distribution losses

of UPCL for FY 2002-03 as 44.32%. These losses for FY 2014-15 are 18.79%. Thus, UPCL reduced

these losses by 25.53% within a period of 12 years at an yearly average of 2.1275 % and this may be

treated as a good achievement of UPCL.

The Petitioner also submitted that even after such significant reduction in distribution losses,

UPCL has suffered a loss of Rs. 1023 Crore from FY 2003-04 to FY 2013-14 due to stringent loss

trajectory fixed by the Commission, which is adversely impacting the financial position of the



Company. The Petitioner also submitted that electricity tariff in Uttarakhand is lowest and the

distribution loss trajectory claimed by UPCL is realistic and should be allowed.

The Petitioner also submitted that in order to curb theft of energy, the following measures

have been taken up by it:

• Vigilance Raids are being conducted and cases are being registered under Section 126

and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Legal proceedings are being initiated against the

person(s) who is found indulging in theft of electricity.

• Mechanical meters are being replaced by electronic meters. 25,042 meters have been

replaced so far in this year.

• All defective meters are being replaced. 93,691 meters have been replaced so far in

this year.

• AB cable is being laid in theft prone areas. 1706 Km. cable has been laid so far in this

year.

• New connections are being released by installing meters outside the premises of the

consumers.

• Meters installed on the connections of existing consumers are being shifted outside

the premises of the consumers.

The Petitioner further submitted that the following consumer services have also been started

by UPCL.

• Online billing of all the consumers

• Online bill payment facility for all the consumers

• Bill payment facility in the branches of Punjab National Bank

• An agreement has been signed with M/s CSC to collect the payment of bills in

various locations of the State. Presently, 1,119 centers are operative.

The Petitioner, further, submitted that it is in process of working out the voltage

wise/category wise losses and cost of supply, and will be able to file the next ARR on the basis of

the same.



As regards, area wise distribution losses and collection efficiency, the Petitioner submitted

that circle wise/division wise information including collection efficiency is submitted to the

Commission during the process of tariff determination each year. However, as per prevailing

Regulations area wise separate tariff cannot be determined.


The Commission has taken note of the concerns raised by the stakeholder and the initiatives

taken by UPCL for reducing the losses. The Commission would like to clarify that though the actual

distribution losses are higher, the Commission for the tariff purposes have been considering the

distribution loss target approved by the Commsision and the same approach has been continued

while approving the true-up for FY 2014-15 as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order. Further, the

Commission has specified the loss reduction target for second Control Period as elaborated in

Chapter 3 of the Order while approving the Business Plan.

2.26 Distribution Infrastructure


M/s Tata Motors submitted that the existing infrastructure in U S Nagar and TML vendor

park is not sufficient to meet the demand for the areas as load has increased by more than 40% and

hence, should be augmented.

Shri Rakesh Bhatia submitted that the Commission should not allow the licensee to increase

the fixed cost as there is enough infrastructure available with the Petitioner so there is no increase in

the cost. Further, he submitted that whatever the corporation is increasing they are claiming

depreciation on it which is also a profit to UPCL.


The Petitioner submitted that its constant endeavors is trying to provide the best quality

supply to its consumers. Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the capital expenditure in

respective Discom areas. The Petitioner has proposed capital expenditure in US Nagar in purview

of substation augmentation of 66/33/11 kV, increase in network line, meter replacement, electronic

metering, new substations etc. as can be observed in the Business Plan submitted to the

Commission.



Further, the Petitioner in response to Shri Rakesh Bhatia submitted that Fixed Charges are

based on the cost of the Company other than variable power purchase cost. On the basis of the

projected costs, increase in fixed charges have been proposed. Further, depreciation is not a profit of

the Company rather it is the recovery of fixed cost already incurred by the Company.


The Commission has taken note of concern raised by the stakeholder about inadequate

distribution infrastructure and directs the Petitioner to strengthen its distribution network. The

Commission based on analysis of past performance of UPCL in executing capital works has

approved the Capital Expenditure for the next Control Period as discussed in Chapter 3 of the

Order while approving the Business Plan.

2.27 KCC Data


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

although UPCL has done good job in compiling data in KCC cell, enough benefit is not being

derived from scrutiny of this data. He suggested that the Commission may set up one cell either in

its office or in UPCL for scrutiny of this data. This cell should be independent and should not be

reporting to UPCL. The formation of this cell would help in proper diagnostics of UPCL at division

level.


The Petitioner submitted that it 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.


As regards the suggestion for scrutiny of KCC data, the Commission would like to clarify

that the commercial performance monitoring including KCC data of the Petitioner is being done at

Commission’s office on regular basis based on the monthly report submitted by the Petitioner on

regular basis on the prescribed format.



2.28 Quality of Power



issues like voltage variations amongst different phases, low voltage, high voltage, frequent

breakdowns etc. have become a common practice. The Commission should give clear directions to

UPCL for improvement in quality of supply.

M/s Hindustran Glass & Industries Limited submitted that alternate source of supply

should be provided to HT and LT Consumers in case of a breakdown.


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.

The Petitioner submitted that it tries to provide best quality supply to all its consumer but

there occurs instance when a breakdown occurs which is beyond the control of the Petitioner and

when such situation arises, it tries its level best to keep the response time as minimal as possible.


The Commission has taken note of concerns raised by the stakeholders and directs UPCL to

take adequate steps to improve the quality of supply. In this regard, the Commission would like

to clarify that UPCL’s complaint handling procedures have been approved by the Commission

and are available in the website of the Commission. If the complaints are not resolved by UPCL

internally, the consumers can also lodge their complaints with the “Consumer Grievance

Redressal Forum” functional in the respective Garhwal and Kumaon Zones of Uttarakhand.

2.29 Open Access


Shri Shakeel A. Siddiqui of M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted the

following:



a. In Uttarakhand, the demand exceeds supply till the open access power purchase is

not supported in the State.

b. There is no system of adjustments of open access unit at the time of billing and too

much follow up for rectification of the same is required. There are no guidelines for

adjustment and this is leading to confusion.

c. The compensation allowed by the Commission in case of open access is not being

paid to the consumers in spite of repetitive reminders.

d. The NOC to procure open access power is given by SLDC normally in the last days

of the month. A schedule needs to be provided by which NOC is given latest by 15th

of every month.

M/s Kashi Enterprises M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Galwalia Ispat

Udyog (P) Ltd. submitted that the Commission may take interest and encourage open access to

purchase power through open access to reduce the burden on UPCL and this can happen when

different losses and charges are reasonably reduced. This will increase power in the State resulting

in availability of power to industries. Further, all departmental defaults should be minimised.

M/s Tata Motors suggested to reduce the losses from 15% to 8.33% for computing Open

Access Charges.

M/s Hindustan Glass & Industries Ltd submitted that there is no fool proof system for

adjustment of energy availed under open access through IEX. They proposed that the entire system

of open access adjustments should be made online and copies be provided to the consumers.

M/s Hindustan Glass & Industries Ltd. further suggested that the renewal of open access

should be on annual basis instead of monthly basis.

M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that no wheeling charges should be levied on

open access power as demand charges are already being paid.


The Petitioner submitted that it already allows open access to the consumers to the extent

technically possible. This is also evident from the fact from its large number of registered open

access consumers.



The Petitioner, further, submitted that the extra energy charges for continuous supply are

charged from the consumer who has opted for continuous supply. This charge is premium to get

continuous and quality supply. These consumers are exempted from load shedding during

scheduled/unscheduled power cuts and during restricted hours of the period of restriction of

usages approved by the Commission from time to time. With a view to recovery of cost, continuous

supply surcharge @ 15% is justified. In this connection, the following provisions of Law are

relevant:-

Para-5.5.1 of National Electricity Policy – “There is an urgent need for ensuring recovery of cost of

service from consumers to make the power sector sustainable.”

Para-8.2.1(1) of Tariff Policy – “…onsumers, particularly those who are ready to pay a tariff which

reflects efficient costs have the right to get uninterrupted 24 hours supply of quality power…”

The Petitioner submitted that there is no centralized mechanism for monthly adjustment of

Open Access Power Purchases by consumers. However, this adjustment of Open Access Energy is

being done by division offices in the next billing cycle. Further, in order to make adjustment of

Open Access Energy in the current billing cycle, a centralized system is being studied at head

quarter level.

As regards the distribution losses for open access, the Petitioner submitted that as per

Regulation 29(2) of the UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2010,

Distribution Loss on Open Access Energy are required to be calculated by applying the following

formula:-

“Average Distribution Loss – Average Recovery Rate from HT Industry Category / Average Power

Purchase Rate x Applicable Voltage Rebate. Accordingly, distribution losses at 33 Kv and 132 Kv

were computed 13.88% and 8.92% respectively for FY 2014-15.”

UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2015 were issued on

13-01-2015 and as per Regulation 29(2), system distribution losses shall be as determined by the

Commission in the Tariff Order for the open access customers. At the time of issuance of Tariff

Order for FY 2015-16, Regulations, 2015 was applicable and the Commission in the said order

approved the pooled average system distribution losses for FY 2015-16 @ 15%. Thus, the request of

the consumer cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of Regulations.



As regards the wheeling charges for Open Access, the Petitioner submitted that the

Wheeling Charges is the sum of all expenses of UPCL other than power purchase expenses and

Transmission charges. As the demand charges has been kept less than the required wheeling

charges, the differential of required wheeling charges and demand charges is also payable as

wheeling charges by the embedded open access consumers.


Some of the stakeholders have raised the issues related to Open Access such as renewal of

open access, etc, which are governed by Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms

and Conditions of Intra State Open Access) Regulations, 2015 and are not relevant to ARR and

Tariff determination process. On the issues raised that no wheeling charge should be levied on open

access consumers as demand charges are already being paid by them, the Commission clarifies that

wheeling charges recovered by embedded open access consumers is net off demand charges

applicable to such consumers in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations.

2.30 Green Cess and Electricity Duty for Open Access Consumers


M/s BST Textile Mills (P) Ltd. and M/s Tata Motors submitted that Green Cess @ Rs.

0.10/kWh is levied on open access consumers to create “Green Energy Fund”. As Open Access

consumers are purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates to meet RPO, this will result in duplicity

of charges. They further submitted that the electricity duty shall also be waived for Open Access

consumers.

2.30.1.2 Petitioner’s Response

The Petitioner submitted that as per Section 4 of the Uttarakhand Green Energy Cess Act,

2014, Government of Uttarakhand has levied this cess w.e.f. 01-07-2015 @ Rs. 0.10/unit on the

electricity consumption by Commercial and Industrial Consumers. UPCL is charging this cess as

per Government orders. This cess charged from consumers is payable by UPCL to GoU. Therefore,

the matter may be taken up with GoU.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that as per 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 categories of consumers. Government of



Uttarakhand vide its notification no. 79/I/2016-01(3)/01/2003, dated 25-01-2016 has fixed these

rates applicable w.e.f. 1-01-2016. UPCL is charging electricity duty as per Government Orders. The

electricity duty charged from consumers is payable by UPCL to GoU. Therefore, the matter may be

taken up with GoU.


These issues do not fall under the purview of the Commission.

2.31 Renewable Energy Promotion


M/s Bhilangana Hydro Power Ltd. submitted that the Small Hydro Electric Plants

(hereinafter referred as “SHEP”) within the state of Uttrakhand are already under financial stress

due to non-functioning of the REC markets under recovery of cost/poor selling price. Now this

additional cost due to levy of water tax may lead to defaults in meeting the obligations by SHEPs. It

further submitted that UPCL preferably procures Renewable Energy power through competitive

bidding on short term basis and the levy of water tax would mean that SHEP within the State of

Uttarakhand would be at disadvantage from other generators outside the State. The imposition of

water tax affects the competitive leverage of the SHEPs in comparison to the generators from

outside the State. However, the other SHEPs who have entered into a long term PPA with UPCL are

at an advantageous position. The SHEP willing to sell Renewable energy to UPCL on short term

basis are at clear disadvantage to that of SHEP who are under long term PPA with UPCL as they

have no such obligation.

M/s Bhilangana Hydro Power Ltd. submitted that the impact of water tax should be

considered in this tariff as a special provision for only those who are willing to sell RE to UPCL on

short term basis. M/s Bhilangana Hydro Power Ltd. submitted that the Commission should

consider the above submission in order to not only motivate the renewable energy generators in the

State of Uttarakhand to sell renewable energy within the State but also be a big step in promotion of

Renewable Energy in the State of Uttarakhand.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission may take a view in the matter.




This issue is not related to approval of Business Plan, true-up for FY 2014-15, ARR for

second Control Period and Tariff for FY 2016-17.

2.32 Miscellaneous Comments

2.32.1 LED Lamps


Shri Mukesh Joshi, Village Joshiyada, Pauri Garhwal and other stakeholders submitted that

there should be a VAT exemption and rebate on the purchase and use LED bulbs.

2.32.1.2 Commission’s View

The issue of taxation including VAT is not under the purview of the Commission and,

therefore, the consumer may take up the matter with the Government. The issue of rebate on

purchase of LEDs has already been dealt in the reply of the Petitioner in Para 2.13.1.2 above and the

Commission agrees with the same.

2.32.2 Payment of Public Lamp connections


Shri Ghanshyam Singh Rana, Village Thali, Pauri Garhwal submitted that the bills for street

lighting and public lamps in the hilly areas should be paid by the State Government.


The Commission is of the view that street lighting/public lamps system is the responsibility

of the local bodies namely Municipal Corporations, Panchayats etc. and these local bodies have

elected public representatives as their heads and the staffs in these bodies are primarily

Government employees. In case local bodies decided to handover operation & maintenance of the

above system to UPCL, it conducts the operation and maintenance of street light/public lamp

system as an agency to these local bodies and material cost incurred is borne by these local bodies

while UPCL is entitled for labour charges to be recovered by these local bodies. It is for these bodies

and the Government to decide amongst themselves as to who would be making payments for

electricity consumed by them.



2.32.3 Temporary Connections


Shri Viru Bisht submitted that the temporary connection issued for marriages, ceremonies

and other similar purposes are not issued properly and are sometimes irregular connections which

results in burning of transformers due to overloading.


The Commission is of the view that this is a complete menace, wherein due to the

unplanned release of temporary connections in a locality for marriages/

ceremonies/functions/Melas etc. by UPCL’s field officers without even assessing the overall load of

such new temporary connections in the locality vis-à-vis the capacity of the existing transformer in

the locality which would be feeding this enhanced load. This results into failure of the transformer

and consumers of the locality bear the burnt and get adversely affected by the non-supply of power.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to issue instructions to its field/

distribution division officers to properly plan and take caution while releasing such temporary

connections and submit a compliance report within one month of the issuance of this Order.

2.32.4 Location of Installation of meters


Shri Manoj Chauhan, Shri Pawan Kumar Joshi, Shri Pankaj Kathayat, Shri Mahendra Waldia

present during the hearing at Pithoragarh and some other stakeholders also submitted that the

meters are installed on the electricity poles outside the premises which are residential/shops in

congested markets are getting damaged. Therefore, they requested the Commission for shifting of

the meters to the premises. Further, the consumers also submitted about the existence of old poles

which are not firmly erected causing accidents. Further, the conductors between the span are very

loose and hence, the lines are found to be hanging very low causing accidents and becoming a

major issue of safety.


The Commission enquired from the field officers of the Petitioner about the issues raised by

the consumers. The Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh, UPCL agreed to resolve the problems of

the consumers and shift the meters in a secure place on the consumer premises. Taking a serious



view on the same, the Commission directed Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh to submit a

detailed compliance report of action taken for shifting of the meters to a safer location in or around

the premises within two months. Accordingly, Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh, UPCL is

directed to submit a detailed compliance report on action taken for shifting of the meters to a

safer location in or around the premises within one month of the date of Order.

The Commission also expressed serious concern on the safety aspect. Hence, the

Commission directs the Chief Engineer, Rudrapur Zone, UPCL and Executive Engineer, EDD

Pithoragarh, UPCL to take necessary action and submit the compliance report within one month

of the date of the Order.

2.32.5 Load Shedding

2.32.5.1 Stakeholder’s comments

During the public hearing in Pithoragarh, the consumers also raised the issue of power cut

and load sheddings between 7:00 am to 10:00 a.m. every morning. They requested that the same

should be done away with since in the morning people require electricity for their daily needs.


The Commission enquired the same from the field officers of Pithoragarh division and they

informed the Commission that they carry out the load shedding on the Orders of the District

Administration and local authorities since a large number of people in Pithoragarh have installed

electric pumps on the water supply lines which prevent water from flowing into the premises of

those persons where such pumps are not installed.

The Commission directs the concerned Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, EDD

Pithoragarh, UPCL to coordinate with the District Administration/Local authorities and resolve

this issue and submit the compliance report within one month of the date of the Order.

2.32.6 Transfer of Petitioner’s personnel


Some of the consumers during the hearing submitted that the Petitioner’s personnel posted

in the field like lineman etc. should be transferred on regular intervals and there should be a proper

mechanism laid down by the Petitioner for transfer of lineman from one part of the State to another



in a definite time frame. Moreover, the Petitioner’s field personnel/staff should be imparted proper

technical training of the job assigned to them.


The Commission has taken note of the above suggestion with regard to the personnel

including lineman of the Petitioner and directs the Petitioner to lay down a policy in this regard

and submit a compliance report within two month of the issuance of this Order.

2.32.7 Departmental employees


Some stakeholders/consumers submitted before the Commission that departmental

employees of the Petitioner are not metered and even if they are metered then meter readings are

not being taken.


The Commission takes note of the above and directs the Petitioner to carry out 100%

metering of its departmental employees, to take regular meter readings and to maintain separate

energy account of all its employees on a monthly basis. The Commission directs the Petitioner to

submit a compliance report of the same within one month of the issuance of this Order.

2.32.8 Safety Requirements


Shri K.L. Sundriyal representing licensed electrical contractor/wiremen submitted before

the Commission that electrical works inside the buildings are not being carried out by skilled

licenced persons and, hence, these works are not compliant with IE/safety rules and requested the

Commission to make Work Completion Certificates/(B&L form), a compulsory requirement before

the release of new Connection by the Petitioner.


The Commission is of the view that provision for release of new connections are covered in

the relevant Regulations and, therefore, this matter cannot be dealt in the Tariff proceedings as

these are the subject matter of the Regulations.



2.33 Views of Advisory Committee Meeting

During the Advisory Committee meeting held on March 4, 2016, the Members made the

following suggestions on the Petition for True of FY 2014-15, Business Plan and MYT for the second

Control Period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

• Linking Fixed Charge for domestic consumer category to consumption is detrimental

to the Utility. The Fixed Charge for domestic consumer category should be linked to

the Connected Load/contract Damand.

• Payment of electricity bills should be linked to Direct Benefit Transfer mechanism of

GoI.

• For pre-paid metering, the validity of recharge amount in prepaid metering should

not be restricted to three months and should be carried forward at the time of

recharge. Also recharge/top up should be without any interface with UPCL office.

• Measures need to be taken to procure power by UPCL through long term contracts

rather than short term contracts.

• Voltage rebates may be retained at the present levels or increased further.

• Modes of payment of security deposit by the consumers should not be restricted to

cash payment or Demand Draft and other modes of payment should be allowed.

• Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) encourages wasteful consumption of

electricity and need to be abolished atleast for LT industries. Also MCG should not

be applicable during the period of temporary disconnection.

• Peak hours need to be revisited as the existing definition of peak hours of 8 hours

during winter months in a day of 24 hours is very high.

• Distribution loss for each year may be approved by the Commission in line with the

earlier approved trajectory.

• Payments of bills should be accepted at UPCL collection centres till 4 P.M. in the day

and not only upto 1.30 PM currently in practice at UPCL’s collection centres.



• Income from the hoardings on the electric poles should be to the account of UPCL

and not to the municipal bodies.

• Return on Equity on government contribution from PDF is not allowable as the PDF

was funded by the public for the specific purpose of utilisation in the power sector of

the State.

• For pre-paid meters, the recharge should be allowed to be made online and wide

publicity publicity should given by UPCL regarding the new initiatives by hosting

them on the website or developing a departmental application.

• Representative of Railways mentioned that electrification and doubling of railway

traction has been sanctioned for some of the routes in the State and some new routes

have been proposed. As some of the State Electricity Regulators have incentivised the

tariff of railway traction, the tariff of railway traction in the State may also be

incentivised for the promotion of projects in the State.


The issues related to fixed charge, prepaid metering system, power procurement, voltage

rebates, security deposit, MCG, duration of peak hours, distribution losses/trajectory, RoE & tariff

rationalisation have been discussed in detail in this Order. However, issues related to standard of

services offered by the Petitioner have been particularly discussed in this Chapter and how the

Commission is regularly monitoring technical & commercial performance of the Petitioner keeping

in view the consumer services, specific/centric Regulations of the Commission. The Commission

has compiled a Charter of Services which is a collection of the provisions of aforesaid Regulations.

Also, the Commission has approved a Complaint Handling Procedure for the Petitioner which is IT

driven mechanism with minimal manual intervention. All the abovesaid Regulations, Codes,

Charter of Services & Complaint Handling Procedures are available in the website of Commission

www.uerc.gov.in.


3. Petitioners’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny

and Conclusion on Business Plan for the second Control Period

3.1 Statutory Requirement

The Commission had notified the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011on December 19, 2011 in

accordance with the provisions of the Act. The above Regulations were applicable for determination

of Tariff for the first Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. The Commission had further

notified the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 on September 10, 2015 applicable for determination of

Tariff for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

3.2 Multi Year Tariff Framework

As regards the Multi Year Tariff Framework, UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies as

follows:

“4. Multi-year Framework

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;

3. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Business Plan for the second Control Period


e) Sharing of excess profit or loss due to controllable and uncontrollable factors as per

provisions of these Regulations.

…

7. 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 the approved values by the Commission, the

latest audited accounts, estimates for the relevant year, prudence check and other factors

considered by the Commission.

The Commission may re-determine the baseline values for the base year based on the actual

audited accounts of the base year.”

3.3 Business Plan for the second Control Period

Regulation 8 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies as follows:

“8. Business Plan

(1) An Applicant shall submit, under affidavit and as per the UERC (Conduct of Business)

Regulations, 2014, a Business Plan by November 30th, 2015, for the Control Period of three (3)

financial years from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019,

...

c) The Business Plan for the Distribution Licenses shall be for the entire control period and shall,

interalia, contain-

(i) Sales/demand forecast for each consumer category and sub-categories for each year of

the control period;

(ii) Distribution loss reduction trajectory for each year of the control period, including

details of the measures proposed to be taken for achieving the target loss;

(iii) Power procurement plan in case of long term, medium term and short term based on

the sales forecast and distribution loss trajectory for each year of the business plan period;



the power procurement plan may also include energy efficiency and demand side

management measures;

(iv) Collection efficiency improvement trajectory for each year of the control period;

(v) Capital investment plan considering the sales/demand forecast, power procurement

plan, distribution loss trajectory, targets for quality of supply, etc. The capital investment

plan shall be consistent with the perspective plan drawn by the State Transmission Utility

(STU), and the investment plan should also include yearly phasing of capital expenditure

alongwith the source of funding, financing plan and corresponding capitalisation schedule;

(vi)The appropriate capital structure of each scheme proposed and cost of financing

(interest on debt and return on equity), terms of the existing loan agreements, etc;

(vii) Details related to availability of power from renewable energy sources and actions

proposed for complying with the RPO specified by the Commission.

...

(2) The Applicant shall also submit the details in respect of its manpower planning for the

Control Period as part of Business Plan.

(3) The Commission shall scrutinize and approve the business plan after following the due

consultation process.”

With regard to Sales Forecast, Regulation 77 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies

as follows:

“77. Sales Forecast

(1) Considering the importance of capturing seasonal variation, Monthly Sales Forecast for

the Control Period shall be done in respect of each consumer category/sub-category and to

each tariff slab within such consumer category/sub-category, based on the past trends, as far

as possible and shall be submitted to the Commission for approval along with the Business

Plan. Suitable adjustments shall be made to reflect the effect of known and measurable

changes with respect to number of consumers, the connected load and the energy

consumption, thereby removing any abnormality in the past data.

Provided that where the Commission has stipulated a methodology for forecasting sales to any

particular tariff category, the Distribution Licensee shall incorporate such methodology in



developing the sales forecast for such tariff category.

(2) The sales forecast shall be consistent with the load forecast prepared as part of the long-

term power procurement plan submitted as a part of Business Plan under these Regulations

and shall be based on past data and reasonable assumptions regarding the future.

(3) The Commission shall examine the forecasts for reasonableness based on growth in

number of consumers, the connected load and the energy consumption in previous years and

anticipated growth in the next year and any other factor, which the Commission may consider

relevant and approve the projected sale of electricity to consumers with such modifications as

deemed fit.”

Regarding Distribution Losses, Regulation 79 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies

as follows:

“79. Distribution Losses

(1) Energy loss in the distribution system shall be called Distribution Loss.

(2) Distribution Loss above and up to a particular voltage level shall be calculated as the

difference between the energy initially injected into the distribution system and the sum of

energy sold up to that level and energy delivered to next voltage level.

% Distribution Loss above and up to a particular voltage level shall be expressed in

terms of Distribution Loss up to that level as a percentage of the energy initially injected into

the distribution system.

(3) The Commission may require information on Circle-wise/Division-wise and/or month-

wise Distribution loss calculation.

(4) To substantiate the Distribution Loss calculations, the Commission may require the

Distribution Licensee to conduct proper and reliable energy audit.

(5) The Distribution Licensee shall also propose voltage-wise losses for remaining years of the

control period from FY 2017-18 onwards for the determination of voltage-wise cost of supply.

The Commission shall examine the filings made by the licensee for the distribution loss

trajectory for each year of the control period and approve the same with modification as it may

consider necessary.

(6) The Commission may ask Distribution Licensee to submit detailed information on

voltage-wise Distribution Losses segregating them into Technical loss (i.e. Ohmic/Core loss

in the lines, substations and equipment) and Commercial Loss (i.e. unaccounted energy due



to metering inaccuracies/inadequacies, pilferage of energy, etc.). The Commission shall

examine the filings made by the Distribution Licensee in respect of distribution loss

(segregated into technical loss and commercial loss) and approve the same with modification,

as it may consider necessary.

(7) The Commission may fix targets, both long term and short term, for each year of control

period for loss reduction to bring down the Distribution loss levels (both technical and

commercial) gradually to acceptable norms of efficiency.”

Regarding Power Procurement Plan, Regulation 73 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015

specifies as follows:

“73. Power Procurement Plan

(1) The Distribution Licensee shall prepare a plan for procurement of power to serve the

demand for electricity in its area of supply and submit such plan to the Commission for

approval:

Provided that such power procurement plan shall be submitted for the second Control Period

commencing on April 1, 2016:

Provided further that the power procurement plan, approved as a part of the Business Plan,

shall be submitted along with the application for determination of tariff.

Provided that the power procurement plan submitted by the Distribution Licensee may

include long-term, medium-term and short-term power procurement sources of power, in

accordance with these Regulations. However, the distribution licensee should as far as

possible, not plan for short-term purchases except for conditions specified in Regulations 75

and should endeavor to meet its requirement from long term and medium term power

procurement and make a plan accordingly.

(2) The power procurement plan of the Distribution Licensee shall comprise of the following:

a) A quantitative forecast of the unrestricted demand for electricity for each tariff

category, within its area of supply over the Control Period;

b) An estimate of the quantities of electricity supply from the identified sources of

generation and power purchase;

c) An estimate of availability of power to meet the base load and Peak load

requirement.



Provided that estimate should be monthly estimation of demand and supply expressed

both in Mega-Watt (MW) as well as in Million Units (MUs).

d) Standards to be maintained with regard to quality and reliability of supply, in

accordance with the UERC (Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2007, as

amended from time to time;

e) Measures proposed to be implemented as regards energy conservation and energy

efficiency;

f) The requirement for new sources of power generation and/or procurement,

including augmentation of generation capacity and identified new sources of supply,

based on (a) to (d) above;

g) The plan for procurement of power including quantities and cost estimates for such

procurement:

Provided that the forecast/estimate contained in the long-term procurement plan shall

be separately stated for peak and off-peak periods, in terms of quantities of power to be

procured (in millions of units of electricity) and maximum demand (in MW / MVA):

Provided further that the forecasts/estimates shall be prepared for each month of the

Control Period:

Provided also that the long-term procurement plan shall be a cost-effective plan based

on available information regarding costs of various sources of supply.

h) Short-term power procurement proposed shall be in accordance with Regulation 75

of these Regulations.

(3) The forecasts/estimates shall be prepared using forecasting techniques based on past data

and reasonable assumptions regarding the future:

Provided that the forecasts/estimates shall take into account factors such as overall economic

growth, consumption growth of electricity-intensive sectors, advent of competition in the

electricity industry, trends in captive power, impact of loss reduction initiatives,

improvement in Generating Station Plant Load Factors and other relevant factors.

(4) Where the Commission has stipulated a percentage of the total consumption of electricity

in the area of a Distribution Licensee to be purchased from co-generation and renewable

sources of energy, the power procurement plan of such Distribution Licensee shall include the

plan for procurement from such sources at least upto the stipulated level.



(5) The Distribution Licensee shall be required to forward a copy of the power procurement

plan to the State Transmission Utility for verification of its consistency with the transmission

system plan for the intra-State transmission system;

Provided that the Distribution Licensee may also consult the State Transmission Utility at

the time of preparation of the power procurement plan to ensure consistency of such plan with

the transmission system plan.

(6) The Distribution Licensee may, as a result of additional information not previously known

or available to him at the time of submission of the procurement plan under sub-Regulation

(1) above, apply for a modification in the power procurement plan, for the remainder of the

Control Period, as part of the application for Annual Performance Review:

(7) The Commission may, as a result of additional information not previously known or

available to the Commission at the time of submission of the procurement plan under sub-

Regulation (1) above, if it so deems, either on suo motu basis or on an application made by

any interested or affected party, modify the procurement plan of the Distribution Licensee, for

the remainder of the Control Period, as part of the Annual Performance Review.

(8) The Commission shall review the power procurement plan of the Distribution Licensee, or

any proposed modification thereto, and upon such review being completed, the Commission

shall either-

a) Issue an order approving the power procurement plan, or modifications thereto,

subject to such modifications and conditions as it may deem appropriate; or

b) Reject the power procurement plan or application for modification thereto, for

reasons recorded in writing, if such plan is not in accordance with the guidelines

contained in this Part, and direct the Distribution Licensee to submit a revised plan

based on such considerations as it may specify:

Provided that the Distribution Licensee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard

before rejecting its power procurement plan.”

Regarding Capital Investment Plan, Regulation 71 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015

stipulates as follows:

“71. Capital Investment Plan

(1) The Distribution Licensee shall file a detailed capital investment plan, financing plan and

physical targets for each year of the Control Period, for meeting the requirement of load



growth, reduction in distribution losses, improvement in quality of supply, reliability,

metering, reduction in congestion, etc. to the Commission for approval as a part of Business

Plan. The capital investment plan should be filed at the beginning of the Control Period.

(2) The investment plan shall be a least cost plan for undertaking investments on

strengthening and augmentation of the distribution system for meeting the requirement of

load growth, reduction in distribution losses, improvement in quality of supply, reliability,

metering, etc.

(3) The investment plan shall cover all capital expenditure projects to be undertaken by the

Transmission Licensee in the Control Period and shall be in such form as may be stipulated

by the Commission from time to time.

(4) The prior approval of the Commission shall be required for all capital expenditure

schemes of the value exceeding the ceiling specified by the Commission in the distribution

license.

(5) The investment plan shall be accompanied by such information, particulars and

documents as may be required showing the need for the proposed investments, alternatives

considered, cost/benefit analysis and other aspects that may have a bearing on the wheeling

tariff and retail tariffs. The investment plan shall also include the capitalisation schedule and

financing plan.

…”

In accordance with Regulation 8, Regulation 71, Regulation 73, Regulation 77 & Regulation

79 of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, the Petitioner submitted the Business Plan for the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The Petitioner in its Business Plan Petition and

subsequent submissions has submitted the Sales Forecast, distribution loss reduction trajectory,

power procurement plan, collection efficiency improvement trajectory, capital expenditure plan,

capitalisation plan, and human resources plan for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19. The Petitioner’s submissions and the Commission’s analysis on the approval of the

Business Plan for UPCL for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 are detailed

below.



3.4 Sales Forecast

The Petitioner submitted that in the State of Uttarakhand one of the reasons for the State

witnessing gap between electricity demand and supply is the increase in per capita power

consumption. According to the Power for All document of Ministry of Power, the per capita

electricity consumption in Uttarakhand was 1012 kWh in FY 2011-12 which increased to 1154 kWh

in FY 2014-15 in a span of three years. Based on actual energy sales data, Uttarakhand had energy

consumption CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 9.09% over the past five years from FY

2010-11 to FY 2014-15. The actual consumer category wise sales for the past 5 years are as shown in

the Table below:

Table 3.1: Actual consumer category wise sales for FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 (MU)

Consumer Category FY 2010-11

FY 2011-12

FY 2012-13

FY 2013-14

FY 2014-15

RTS-1: Domestic 1485.57 1676.70 1795.06 2105.05 2272.98 RTS-2:Non-Domestic 812.52 885.42 953.94 995.76 1069.93 RTS-3: Public Lamps 53.86 66.89 87.20 44.06 46.84 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 183.02 188.46 244.80 222.76 268.89 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 112.97 136.56 130.20 104.23 107.64 RTS-6: Public Water Works 276.37 324.52 302.68 293.37 316.64 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 4197.72 4805.52 4884.88 5092.57 5371.28 Total LT 234.96 269.78 289.42 287.66 304.79 Total HT 3962.76 4535.74 4595.46 4804.91 5066.49 RTS-8: Mixed Load 120.86 160.26 167.55 177.60 185.68 RTS-9: Railway Traction 7.80 8.39 7.83 11.49 14.70

Total 7250.68 8252.72 8574.15 9046.89 9654.58

The Petitioner further submitted the projected annual sales as per the draft 18th Electric Power

Survey forecast as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.2: Projected sales as per 18th EPS forecast (MU)

Total Annual Sales FY 2012-13

FY 2013-14

FY 2014-15

FY 2015-16

FY 2016-17

FY 2017-18

FY 2018-19

A. Projected Sales (MU) 8216 8832 9387 9974 10600 11265 11974 B. Actual Sales (MU) 8574 9047 9655 - - - - Difference (A-B) -358 -215 -268 - - - -

The Petitioner submitted that for projecting the consumer category-wise sales for each year

of the Control Period, the Adjusted Trend Analysis Method has been adopted. This method

assumes that the underlying factors which drive the demand for electricity are expected to follow

the same trend as in the past. This approach also discounts any outlier (relative to the trend)



observed in the growth rates over the period of 5 years and excludes the same while making

projections for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. As per this method, Compound Annual Growth Rate

(CAGR) for each consumer category has been computed from the actual sales for the past 5 years

from FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15. The CAGR calculated for different lengths of time from FY 2010-11

to FY 2014-15 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.3: Computed CAGR of sales as submitted by the Petitioner Consumer Category 5 year 4 year 3 year 2 year 1 year

RTS-1: Domestic 10.38% 11.23% 10.69% 12.59% 7.98% RTS-2:Non-Domestic 7.81% 7.12% 6.51% 5.91% 7.65% RTS-3: Public Lamps -1.85% -3.43% -11.20% -18.10% 6.29% RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 8.22% 10.10% 12.58% 4.81% 20.71% RTS-5: Government Irrigation System -1.65% -1.20% -7.63% -9.08% 3.27% RTS-6: Public Water Works 5.07% 3.46% -0.82% 2.28% 7.93% RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 9.58% 6.36% 3.78% 4.86% 5.47% Total LT 8.59% 6.72% 4.15% 2.62% 5.96% Total HT 9.64% 6.34% 3.76% 5.00% 5.44% RTS-8: Mixed Load 8.62% 11.33% 5.03% 5.27% 4.55% RTS-9: Railway Traction 14.89% 17.15% 20.55% 36.99% 27.98% Total 9.09% 7.42% 5.37% 6.22% 6.72%

The Petitioner submitted that for projecting the sales for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19, first of all sales for FY 2015-16 has been estimated based on the category wise

actual sales in FY 2015-16 in Apr- June, comparing the same with category wise actual sales for Apr-

June for FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 and total sales for respective years. For forecasting

the expected sales for each year of the Control Period, projected sales for FY 2015-16 have been

considered as the base, i.e. the chosen growth rate is applied over the sales for FY 2015-16.

Subsequently to project the sales for each year, the chosen rates are applied upon the sales of the

preceding year to finally arrive upon the sales for FY 2018-19. Energy sales to un-metered

consumers under Domestic and Private Tube Wells in FY 2014-15 have been re-casted as per the

methodology (based on the 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 submitted that the sales for various categories of consumers have been

projected in the following manner:



• The RTS-1: Domestic and RTS-9: Railway Traction category sales have been

projected based on the year on year average increase in the sales for last five

years excluding the outliers.

• Sales for RTS-2: Non- Domestic, Private Tube-wells and Public Water Works have

been projected based upon the 5 year CAGR of the respective categories.

• Sales for RTS-3: Public Lamps and RTS-5 Government Irrigation System have

been projected to increase at a subjective Rate of 5%.

• Sales for LT and HT categories have been projected based upon 3 year and 2 year

CAGR and for Mixed Load Consumers Y-o-Y increase for FY 2013-14 to FY 2014-

15 has been chosen as per the best possible trends observed.

The projections of consumer category wise sales for the second Control Period from FY 2016-

17 to FY 2018-19 submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.4: Consumer Category wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

Consumer Category FY 2015-16 (Revised)

Growth Rate

FY 2016-17

FY 2017-18

FY 2018-19

RTS-1: Domestic 2360 8.72% 2566 2790 3033 RTS-2:Non-Domestic 1099 7.81% 1185 1278 1378 RTS-3: Public Lamps 50 5.00% 52 55 58 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 313 8.22% 338 366 396

RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 118 5.00% 124 131 137

RTS-6: Public Water Works 333 5.07% 349 367 386 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 5736 6020 6318 6631 Total LT 313 4.15% 326 339 353 Total HT 5423 5.00% 5694 5979 6278 RTS-8: Mixed Load 203 4.55% 213 222 232 RTS-9: Railway Traction 15 6.90% 16 17 18 Total 10227 10864 11544 12269

The Petitioner submitted that the annual projected sales as shown in the Table above have

been further projected month-wise and category wise. For projection of sale for sub-categories of

any consumer category on a monthly basis over the Control Period, UPCL has used the seasonality

in energy consumption and the ratio of actual sales in the sub-category to total sales of the category

as observed in the actual sales data of FY 2014-15.



The month wise and consumer category-wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.5: Month wise and Consumer Category wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 (MU)

Consumer Category

Apr-16

May-16

Jun-16

Jul-16

Aug-16

Sep-16

Oct-16

Nov-16

Dec-16

Jan-17

Feb-17

Mar-17 Total

RTS-1: Domestic 181 199 220 224 243 237 217 219 213 209 202 201 2566

RTS-2: Non-Domestic 83 93 104 109 109 109 101 95 89 99 95 99 1185

RTS-3: Public Lamps 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 5 52

RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets

14 17 33 39 18 18 22 18 44 60 27 28 338

RTS-5: Government Irrigation System

8 11 12 12 9 8 8 11 10 13 10 11 124

RTS-6: Public Water Works 25 31 32 26 29 24 32 33 28 31 31 28 349

RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 487 499 501 498 513 519 492 495 495 513 502 506 6020

Total LT 24 27 26 28 33 27 26 29 26 29 26 25 326 Total HT 463 472 475 470 480 492 466 466 469 484 476 481 5694 RTS-8: Mixed Load 16 15 16 17 17 18 15 14 15 22 29 20 213

RTS-9: Railway Traction

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 16

Total 819 871 925 931 944 937 893 893 901 953 902 898 10864




Consumer Category

Apr-17

May-17

Jun-17

Jul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

Nov-17

Dec-17

Jan-18

Feb-18

Mar-18 Total

RTS-1: Domestic 197 216 240 244 265 258 236 238 231 228 220 218 2790 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 90 100 112 118 118 117 109 103 96 107 102 106 1278

RTS-3: Public Lamps 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 55


15 19 36 42 19 19 24 19 48 65 29 31 366


8 12 13 13 9 9 8 12 11 14 11 12 131



Total LT 25 28 27 29 35 28 27 30 27 30 27 26 339 Total HT 486 495 499 493 504 516 490 490 493 508 500 505 5979 RTS-8: Mixed Load 16 15 16 18 18 18 16 15 16 23 30 21 222

RTS-9: Railway Traction 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 17

Total 869 925 983 990 1004 996 949 948 957 1012 957 953 11544


Consumer Category Apr-18

May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Oct-18

Nov-18

Dec-18

Jan-19

Feb-19

Mar-19 Total

RTS-1: Domestic 214 235 261 265 288 281 256 259 252 247 239 237 3033 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 97 108 121 127 127 126 117 111 104 115 110 115 1378 RTS-3: Public Lamps 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 4 5 5 5 58 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 16 20 39 46 21 21 26 21 52 70 31 33 396

RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 8 12 13 14 10 9 9 12 11 14 11 12 137



Total LT 26 29 28 30 36 29 28 31 28 32 28 27 353 Total HT 510 520 524 518 529 542 514 514 517 533 525 530 6278 RTS-8: Mixed Load 17 16 17 18 19 19 16 16 17 24 31 21 232 RTS-9: Railway Traction 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 18

Total 923 982 1045 1053 1068 1059 1009 1008 1018 1076 1017 1013 12269



The Petitioner submitted that for making projections of connected load and number of

consumers, the actual connected load/number of consumers for FY 2015-16 for each consumer

category is taken as the base, i.e. the chosen growth rate is applied over the actual connected

load/number of consumers for FY 2015-16 to make the projections for each category for FY 2016-17,

and for projections for FY 2017-18, the growth rate is applied on the projected connected

load/number of consumers of FY 2016-17, while for FY 2018-19, the growth rate is applied on

projected connected load/number of consumers for FY 2017-18. The projected connected load for

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 for each consumer category is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.8: Consumer Category wise connected load projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (kW)

Consumer Category FY 2015-16 (Revised Estimate)

Growth Rate FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19



RTS-6: Public Water Works 74885 13.67% 85122 96760 109989

RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 1778773 1874702 1975814 2082389

Total LT 195252 4.75% 204521 214231 224402 Total HT 1583521 5.47% 1670181 1761583 1857987 RTS-8: Mixed Load 64445 5.00% 67670 71055 74610 RTS-9: Railway Traction 6800 0.00% 6800 6800 6800

Total 5454637 7.41% 5858916 6294895 6765206

The projected number of consumers for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 for each consumer

category is as shown in the Table below:



Table 3.9: Consumer Category wise number of consumers projected by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (No.)

Consumer Category FY 2015-16 (Revised Estimate)

Growth Rate FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19



RTS-6: Public Water Works 1293 4.89% 1356 1422 1492 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 11465 11558 11653 11751 Total LT 9593 0.36% 9627 9661 9696 Total HT 1872 3.16% 1931 1992 2055 RTS-8: Mixed Load 79 7.03% 85 91 97 RTS-9: Railway Traction 1 0.00% 1 1 1 Total 1989719 5.54% 2099990 2216400 2339294

The Commission observed that the sales projections made by the Petitioner for the second

Control Period are the restricted sales projections as the Petitioner has computed the growth rates

based on actual restricted sales and then applied the growth rates on the actual restricted sales. It

would be important to note that the actual load shedding in FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 was to the

extent of 458 MU and 370 MU respectively.

The Commission is of the view that for the purpose of planning, it would be more

appropriate to project the unrestricted sales for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 as UPCL can arrange to procure additional power from the market due to improvement in

demand supply situation across the country as well as in the Northern Region. Accordingly, the

Commission has projected the unrestricted sales for the second Control Period.

For projecting the category-wise sales for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19, the Commission analysed the growth rates derived based on re-casted unrestricted sales

data for the previous 6 years. The Commission has normalized the growth rate, wherever,

considered appropriate based on the ground reality, to realistically estimate the sales figures for a

particular category of consumers for each year of the Control Period. The Commission has first

applied the growth rates so derived on the actual re-casted sales figures for FY 2014-15 to estimate

the category wise sales for FY 2015-16 and, thereafter, applying the same growth rates on the

estimated sales figures for FY 2015-16, category wise sales figures has been projected from FY 2016-



17 onwards for the second Control Period.

The category-wise growth rates considered by the Commission for different categories of

consumers and sales projections for the Control Period are discussed in the following paras.

3.4.1 Domestic (RTS-1)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 8.72% based on average growth less outliers

in respect of sales of domestic consumers and applied the same over the restricted sales.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected energy sales to domestic consumers for FY 2016-17 as

2565.79MU.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for domestic

category works out to 9.58%, 11.50%, 12.92%, 12.69% and 10.83% respectively. Considering the

CAGR of previous years and year on year variation, the Commission for projecting the sales for the

second Control Period has considered five year CAGR of 9.58%. Hence, the sales for domestic

Category projected by the Commission for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to

2800.54 MU, 3068.92 MU and 3363.03 MU respectively.

3.4.2 Non-Domestic (RTS-2)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 7.81% based on 5 years CAGR in respect of

sales of non-domestic consumers and applied the same over the restricted sales. Accordingly, the

Petitioner has projected energy sales to non-domestic consumers for FY 2016-17 as 1185 MU.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for non-domestic

category works out to 7.02%, 6.84%, 6.73%, 4.74% and 6.16% respectively. Considering the CAGR of

previous years and year on year variation in sales, the Commission for projecting the sales for the

second Control Period has considered four years CAGR of 6.84%. Hence, the sales for non-domestic

Category projected by the Commission for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to


3.4.3 Public Lamps (RTS-3)

The Petitioner has estimated sales to Public Lamps on the basis of growth rate of 5% applied

over the restricted sales. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected a total sale of 52 MU for FY 2016-

17 for this category.



Based on the analysis of sales of previous years, it is observed that the 5 years, 4 years, 3

years and 2 years CAGR of unrestricted sales works out to be negative, while for FY 2014-15, the

growth rate with respect to previous year is 8.32%. As no clear trend is observed in the sales of

previous years, the Commission has considered a growth rate of 5% for projecting the sales for the

second Control Period for this category. With these assumptions, the total consumption of public

lamps as projected by the Commission for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to 49.22

MU, 51.69 MU and 54.27 MU respectively.

3.4.4 Private Tube-Wells (RTS-4)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 8.22% based on 5 years CAGR applied over

the restricted sales and projected the consumption for Private Tube-Wells as 338 MU for FY 2016-17.

The 5 years CAGR of unrestricted sales for PTW category works out to 9.64%, while the 4

years CAGR, 3 years CAGR and 2 years CAGR works out to be very high. Considering year on year

variation in sales, the Commission for projecting the sales for the second Control Period has

considered a growth rate of 7%. Hence, the sales for PTW Category projected by the Commission

for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to 318.57 MU, 340.87 MU and 364.73 MU

respectively.

3.4.5 Government Irrigation Systems (RTS-5)

The Petitioner has estimated the sales to Government Irrigation System on the basis of the

growth rate of 5% applied over the restricted sales. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected a total

sale of 124 MU for FY 2016-17 in this category.

As no clear trend is observed in the sales of previous years for this category, the Commission

has considered a growth rate of 5% for projecting the sales for the second Control Period for this

category. With these assumptions, the total consumption of GIS as projected by the Commission for

FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to 123.18 MU, 129.34 MU and 135.81 MU

respectively.

3.4.6 Public Water Works (RTS-6)


the restricted sales and projected the consumption for PWW as 349 MU for FY 2016-17.



As no clear trend is observed in the sales of previous years for this category, the Commission

has considered a growth rate of 5% for projecting the sales for the second Control Period for this

category. With these assumptions, the total consumption of PWW as projected by the Commission

for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to 361.63 MU, 379.71 MU and 398.70 MU

respectively.

3.4.7 Industry (RTS-7)


the restricted sales for projecting the sales of LT Industry. The Petitioner projected the consumption

for LT Industry as 326 MU for FY 2016-17.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for LT Industry

works out to 7.88%, 6.13%, 4.43%, 1.59% and 4.70% respectively. Considering the CAGR of previous

years and year on year variation in sales, the Commission for projecting the sales for LT Industry

for the second Control Period has considered three year CAGR of 4.43%. Hence, the sales for LT

Industry projected by the Commission for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to


The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 5% based on a 2 years CAGR applied over the

restricted sales for projecting the sales of HT Industry. The Petitioner projected the consumption for

HT Industry as 5694.15 MU for FY 2016-17.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for HT Industry

category works out to 8.92%, 5.75%, 4.11%, 5.10% and 4.21% respectively. Considering the CAGR of

previous years, year on year variation in sales and views expressed by the industrial consumers, the

Commission for projecting the sales for HT Industry for the second Control Period has considered

three year CAGR of 4.11%. Hence, the sales for HT Industry projected by the Commission for FY

2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to 5701.46 MU, 5936.01 MU and 6180.22 MU

respectively.

3.4.8 Mixed Load (RTS-8)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 4.45% based on the growth in one year which

is applied over the restricted sales for projecting the sales of Mixed Load. Accordingly, the



Petitioner projected the consumption for Mixed Load as 213 MU for FY 2016-17.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for Mixed Load

category works out to 7.90%, 10.72%, 5.32%, 4.22% and 3.32% respectively. Considering the CAGR

of previous years and year on year variation in sales the Commission for projecting the sales for

Mixed Load for the second Control Period has considered three year CAGR of 5.32%. Hence, the

sales for this Category projected by the Commission for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19

works out to 213.80 MU, 225.16 MU and 237.13 MU respectively.

3.4.9 Railway Traction (RTS-9)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 6.90% over the restricted sales for projecting

the sales of Railway Traction. Accordingly, the Petitioner projected the consumption for Railway

Traction as 16 MU for FY 2016-17.

As the 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for this

category works out to be on higher side, the Commission for projecting the sales for Railway

Traction for the second Control Period has considered the growth rate of 7%. Hence, the sales for

this Category projected by the Commission for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 works out to

17.47 MU, 18.69 MU and 20 MU respectively.

The summary of the category-wise sales projected by the Petitioner and as approved by the

Commission for the second Control Period is given in the Table below:

Table 3.10: Category Wise Sales Projections for second Control Period (MU)

S.No Category Petitioner’s Projections Approved

FY 2016-17

FY 2017-18

FY 2018-19

FY 2016-17

FY 2017-18

FY 2018-19

A. Domestic 2,566 2,790 3,033 2,801 3,069 3,363 B. Non Domestic 1,185 1,278 1,378 1,257 1,338 1,425 C. Public Lamps 52 55 58 49 52 54 D. Private Tube Wells (PTW) 338 366 396 319 341 365 E. Government Irrigation System (GIS) 124 131 137 123 129 136 F Public Water Works (PWW) 349 367 386 362 380 399 G Industrial Consumers

LT Industries 326 339 353 345 360 376

HT Industries 5,694 5,979 6,278 5,701 5,936 6,180

Total 6,020 6,318 6,631 6,047 6,296 6,557 H Mixed Load 213 222 232 214 225 237 I Railway Traction 16 17 18 17 19 20

GRAND TOTAL 10,864 11,544 12,269 11,188 11,849 12,555



3.5 Efficiency Parameters

3.5.1 Distribution Losses

The Petitioner submitted the year-wise status of distribution losses which is as shown in the

Table below:

Table 3.11: Year wise distribution losses as submitted by the Petitioner

Year Approved by the Commission

Actual Estimated by the

Commission

Actual as per UPCL record

FY 2003-04 40.32% 35.55% 29.52% FY 2004-05 36.32% 36.63% 26.66% FY 2005-06 32.32% 33.38% 28.37% FY 2006-07 28.32% 32.84% 29.73% FY 2007-08 24.32% 30.98% 29.65% FY 2008-09 22.32% 31.02% 28.01% FY 2009-10 20.32% 25.09% 24.53% FY 2010-11 19.00% 22.72% 21.61% FY 2011-12 18.00% 21.27% 19.96% FY 2012-13 17.00% 21.70% 20.50% FY 2013-14 16.00% 20.66% 19.18% FY 2014-15 15.50% - 18.53% FY 2015-16 15.00% - -

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission in the past had considered the deemed

revenue due to non-achievement of target distribution losses. Out of the accumulated losses of Rs.

1695 Crore as on March 31, 2014 for the Petitioner, Rs. 1022.51 Crore are towards the deemed

revenue considered by the Commission on account of non-achievement of target distribution losses

from FY 2003-04 to FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner further submitted that it has taken the following initiatives 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;

• Implementation of Double metering in selected 11 kV and 33 kV consumers;

• Implementation of AMR;

• Replacement of mechanical meters with electronic meters and installation of

electronic meters in un-metered connection;



• Laying of LT ABC;

• DT metering;

• Replacement of defective meters;

• Procurement of high value consumer management system (HVCMS).

The Petitioner submitted that at a distribution loss level below 20%, reduction of distribution

losses is extremely difficult and the reduction in losses reduces considerably. The Petitioner

proposed to reduce the distribution losses by 1% during FY 2015-16 and further 0.5% per annum

during every year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The proposed

distribution loss trajectory for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown

in the Table below:

Table 3.12: Distribution Loss trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2014-15 (Restated)

FY 2015-16 (Projected)




Distribution Losses 18.79% 17.79% 17.29% 16.79% 16.29%

The distribution loss target approved by the Commission and the actual distribution loss

achieved for the first Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.13: Distribution Losses for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16

Particulars FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Proposed

Distribution Losses 16.00% 19.18% 15.50% 18.79% 15.00% 17.79%

As regards the distribution loss trajectory of UPCL, the Commission would like to refer to

the MoU signed between the Ministry of Power, Government of India and the Government of

Uttarakhand on March 30, 2001. The purpose of the MoU was to affirm the commitment of

Uttarakhand towards upgrading the services in the power sector with a view to providing

commercial viability and quality 24-hour supply at affordable rates to all its residents. It was,

further, agreed that Uttarakhand will undertake Energy Audit at all levels in order to reduce system

losses to bring them progressively to the level of 20% by March, 2004. This was required to be done

in a time bound manner, and in the following steps:

a) Joint verification and sealing of interface points with power suppliers.

b) To meter all 11 kV feeders by 31.03.2001 & in no case later than 30.09.2001.



c) 100% metering of all consumers to be done by 31.12.2001.

d) Number of billing and collection centers including computerized billing centers to be

increased by 31.12.2001.

e) Identify and develop distribution circles as profit centers. Separate commercial

accounts/shadow Balance Sheets for such centers to be prepared from 31.03.2001.

f) In case commercial viability in distribution is not attained by 31.03.2003,

corporatization/co-operatization/privatization of distribution, to be considered.

g) To consider innovations such as the creation of user groups/peoples‘ cooperatives to

oversee LT distribution in composite clusters and to take over the responsibility of

billing, collection, theft detection, etc.

Clearly the idea was to reduce the distribution losses and bring them down to the level of

20% by March, 2004. In this connection, it is also to be underlined that while fixing the loss

reduction trajectory, the Commission, did not consider the losses as given under the FRP for FY

2002-03, i.e. 38%, instead considering the ground realities, it fixed the opening losses for FY 2002-03

at 44.32%, i.e. 6.32% higher than the losses of 38.00% considered under the FRP. The Commission,

therefore, allowed the utility an extra cushion and comfort to reduce distribution losses in a gradual

manner. Further, the trajectory for reduction of losses by 4% every year, specified by the

Commission was applicable for an initial period of 5 years only, i.e. upto FY 2007-08. Thereafter,

while determining the UPCL’s ARR and Retail Supply Tariff for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, the

Commission directed UPCL to submit a loss reduction trajectory from FY 2008-09 onwards.

However, in the absence of any study conducted by UPCL for realistic assessment of losses in line

with past trend, the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 specified a

distribution loss target of 22.32% for FY 2008-09. Further, the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY

2009-10 directed the Petitioner to reduce the distribution losses of 22.32% fixed for FY 2008-09, by a

modest 2% to achieve the distribution loss target of 20.32% for FY 2009-10. This reduction target was

also in accordance with the recommendations of the Task Force set up by Ministry of Power,

Government of India on APDRP Programme (Abraham Committee), which recommended that

licensee with distribution losses in the range of 20 to 30% should be given a loss reduction target of

2% per annum. However, the Commission in its subsequent Tariff Order for FY 2010-11 took a

lenient view and considering the difficulties faced by the Petitioner in reducing the losses, set a loss



reduction target of only 1.32% for FY 2010-11 for UPCL and approved the target losses of 19% for

FY 2010-11. Subsequently, the Commission in its Tariff Orders for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13

approved the loss reduction target of only 1% and the detailed reasons for the same are elaborated

in respective Tariff Orders.

The Commission, so as to review and revise the loss reduction trajectory, has been

repeatedly directing the Petitioner, in its previous Tariff Orders, to carry out the energy audit study.

However, the Petitioner has so far not made any substantial progress in this regard. The Petitioner

has consistently failed to address the issues of replacement of defective meters and meter reading in

each billing cycle. The sum of defective meters and meter not read continue to be above 20% of the

total consumers for more than 5 years in each billing cycle. Further, it would also not be out of place

to mention that the Petitioner had itself been making unmetered supply to some of the consumer

categories including the departmental employees despite categorical directions and being subject to

a recurring daily penalty imposed on it by the Commission. Apparently the provisional billing on

assumed consumption basis for aforesaid consumers is used for booking of losses by the Petitioner

in order to camouflage its distribution losses. Besides, the status of Feeder metering as well as DT

metering of the Petitioner has not been satisfactory despite repeated directions of the Commission.

Further, as pointed out by the Commission in its previous Orders large number of ghost consumers

exists in the Petitioner’s billing database. Considering all these facts, it would not be improper to

say that the Petitioner’s actual losses can be still higher than that submitted by it and this being so

despite huge investments of about Rs. 3000 Crore made by the Petitioner over a period of 15 years.

As discussed in the Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015 for FY 2015-16, the Commission observed that

for the past 5 years there had been no reduction in losses of consumers in LT categories, since the

Petitioner had not put in serious efforts in reducing the losses and ensuring compliance with the

directions issued by the Commission from time to time. The loss reduction that occurred in the

distribution system was due to the fact that proportion of sales to HT consumers which was about

25% in FY 2002-03 increased to about 60% in FY 2013-14. Thus, the under-achievement of losses by

UPCL was not due to the stringent targets fixed by the Commission but due to its own inefficiency

and callous approach which in no way can be passed on to the consumers.

Infact Hon’ble ATE in its Judgment dated May 18, 2015 in Appeal no. 180 of 2013 has also

held as under:



“We find that during the period 2006-07 to 2011-12, the State Commission had given a target of

28.32% to 18% i.e. 10% in a period of 5 years. However, UPCL was able to reduce it to only upto

19.96% at the end of 2011-12. For the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 Commission has fixed target of 17

and 16% respectively i.e. reduction of 1% over the previous year’s target. Thereafter for 2014-15 and

2015-16, the reduction in loss level has been reduced to 0.5% per annum. It is clear from the

submissions made by State Commission that the Appellant has not been taking action on the

directions given by the State Commission on defective meter and meter not read which remained

above 20% of total consumers more than five years in each billing cycle. The State Commission UPCL

has not taken action for energy audit. We do not find any infirmity in fixing up of loss reduction

targets by the State Commission. The Appellant has not given any instances where funds for capital

works for strengthening of distribution system have been denied by the State Commission in ARR.

Wesco’s case will not be applicable to the present case as in Wesco, the Discom was not allowed

adequate amount in Annual Revenue Requirement for capital works. On the other hand the Appellant

is also a beneficiary of RAPDRP. This issue is decided against the Appellant. “

In this context, the Commission would also like to highlight the issues emerging out of the

R-APDRP programme of the Central Government. The focus of the R-APDRP programme is to

develop the distribution infrastructure in such a manner so as to improve the commercial viability

of the sector. The programme, accordingly, focuses on actual, demonstrable performance in terms of

sustained loss reduction. Under this Scheme, the projects are being taken up by the utilities in two

parts. Part-A includes the projects for establishment of base line data and IT applications for energy

accounting/auditing & IT based consumer service centres. Part-B includes regular distribution

system strengthening projects. The Central Government is providing 100% funds for the Part-A

project as loan. Whereas under Part-B of the project, the Central Government shall provide up to

90% funds for the projects to special category States like Uttarakhand, through loan from GoI. The

MoU further stipulates conditions for conversion of loans into grants for each of the projects. In case

of Part-A, the loan along with the interest thereon shall be converted into grant in case projects are

completed within 3 years from the date of sanctioning of the projects. In case of Part-B, the loan

shall be converted into grant in five equal tranches on achieving 15% AT&C loss in the project area

on a sustainable basis for a period of five years. Further, if the utility fails to achieve or sustain the

15% AT&C loss target in a particular year, conversion of that year‘s tranche of loan to grant will be

reduced in proportion to the shortfall in achieving 15% AT&C loss target from the starting AT&C



loss figure. Thus, this would have a financial implication for both the Petitioner as well as the

consumers. In case, the Petitioner is not able to achieve or sustain the 15% AT&C loss target, it

would result in an increased burden of loan on the Petitioner, which if allowed as pass through in

tariffs, would put extra burden on the consumers. In case, the loss targets are revised as proposed

by the Petitioner, the Petitioner will not be able to reach the AT&C loss target of 15%, which the

Petitioner has itself committed to achieve while seeking funding under R-APDRP from the Central

Government. Further, the Central Government has also sanctioned “Integrated Power Development

Scheme” (IPDS) on December 03, 2014 under which new initiatives have been planned by the

Petitioner for strengthening of distribution system, metering of feeders/distribution transformers/

consumers in urban areas and IT enablement of its operations.

Based on the above discussions and more so in the absence of any energy audit study and

considering the ground realities, the Commission decides not to modify the opening loss for FY

2016-17. UPCL’s inaction and continuous high level of inefficiency does not allow it to claim that

every time a new Regulation is made, loss level should be refixed at a level higher than prevailing

in the previous Regulations. Accordingly, the Commission decides to retain the distribution loss for

FY 2016-17 at 15%, i.e. at the same target level as applicable for FY 2015-16. The Commission has set

the target of marginal loss reduction to the extent of 0.25% for second and third year of the second

Control Period. The distribution loss trajectory proposed by the Petitioner and approved by the

Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.14: Distribution Losses for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved

Distribution Losses 15.00% 17.29% 15.00% 16.79% 14.75% 16.29% 14.50%

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Commission has considered the entire distribution loss reduction target for each year of the Control

Period 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.

Accordingly, the estimated energy requirement at distribution periphery, State periphery

and approved loss level for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 are given in

the Table below:



Table 3.15: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Distribution Sales (MU) 11,188 11,849 12,555 Loss level for Energy Input (MU) 15.00% 15.00% 14.75% Energy Input required at T-D interface (MU) 13,162 13,940 14,771 Commercial Loss reduction (%) - 0.25% 0.25% Commercial Loss reduction (Additional sales due to efficiency improvement) (MU) - 34.85 36.93

Total sales with efficiency improvement (MU) 11,188 11,884 12,592 Overall Distribution Loss (%) 15.00% 14.75% 14.50% PTCUL Loss (%) 1.78% 1.78% 1.78% Energy Input at State periphery (MU) 13,401 14,193 14,994

3.5.2 Collection Efficiency

The Petitioner submitted that in FY 2014-15, the actual collection efficiency was recorded to

the tune 100.61% (including arrears) and 95.9% (without arrears). The recorded collection efficiency

for FY 2013-14 is 98.43%. The collection efficiency approved for FY 2014-15 is 98.00%. The slight

improvement in collection efficiency in FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 is the result of continuous and

dedicated measures undertaken by the Petitioner such as introduction of surcharge waiver scheme,

which is one time in nature, implementation of systems under RAPDRP schemes, due to which

billing process has been streamlined, accuracy in the system which has led to proper recording of

the information, timely collection of bills during the FY 2014-15. The Petitioner submitted that the

following initiatives have been implemented for commercial loss reduction and improvement in

collection efficiency:

• Implementation of R-APDRP, Part-A & Part-B in 31 towns having population above

10,000, SCADA/DMS in towns having population greater than 4 lacs and energy input

greater than 350 MU/annum.

• Convenient bill payment options like cash collection counters, online bill payment

through credit card, debit card, internet banking, etc.

• More teams to be sent to rural areas for increasing collection.

• Recovery of past arrears

These efforts put in by the Petitioner needs to be continued in the future as well.

The collection efficiency trajectory proposed by the Petitioner is as shown in the Table

below:



Table 3.16: Collection efficiency trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2014-15 (Actual)





Collection efficiency 95.9% 96.65% 97.40% 98.25% 99.0%

The collection efficiency (without arrears) achieved by the Petitioner against the approved

levels for the first Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.17: Collection efficiency for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16

Particulars FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Proposed

Collection efficiency 97.50% 98.43% 98.00% 95.90% 98.50% 96.65%

The actual collection efficiency (current dues) for FY 2014-15 is 95.9%. The Petitioner has

proposed improvement of 0.75% each year from FY 2015-16 to FY 2018-19. It is disheartening to

observe that against the collection efficiency of 98.43% achieved by the Petitioner in FY 2013-14, the

collection efficiency has gone down to 95.90% in FY 2014-15. The Petitioner should strive to improve

upon its performance rather than have a laid-back approach. The Commission is of the opinion that

the target of collection efficiency of 98.50% so approved for FY 2015-16 is not a stringent target and

can be easily achieved if proper focus on billing and realisation of its dues. The same has already

been achieved by the Petitioner once in FY 2013-14. Hence, in line with the approach adopted by the

Commission in the approval of Distribution Loss, the Commission has approved the collection

efficiency of 98.50% for FY 2016-17 which is also the approved collection efficiency for FY 2015-16.

For FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, the Commission has considered an improvement of 0.25% in

collection efficiency. The collection efficiency trajectory approved by the Commission for the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.18: Collection efficiency for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Proposed Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved

Collection efficiency 97.40% 98.50% 98.25% 98.75% 99.0% 99.0%

However, the Commission would like to point out that it does not determine the ARR and

Tariffs of UPCL based on the AT&C loss levels but based on the distribution loss levels. The

shortfall in collections is covered through an allowance in working capital for the distribution

licensee to the extent of collection inefficiency. The licensee should strive for maximum collections



so as to improve its financial health and prevent any receivables turning bad. Further, the scheme of

surcharge waiver should not be encouraged as it gives a wrong signal to the honest consumers who

pay their dues in time. The Petitioner is required and expected to improve its bill collection system

further, and also to monitor its receivables so as to prevent them from turning into bad and

unrealizable.

3.6 Power Procurement Plan

The Petitioner submitted that the total consumer sales for each year have been grossed up by

the distribution loss level for the respective year, to arrive at the required quantum of power

purchase for that year at the Discom periphery. The power requirement of UPCL is met from

various sources which includes the generating stations of:

• State Generating Stations of UJVN Ltd.

• NTPC Ltd.

• NHPC Ltd.

• NPCIL

• SJVN Ltd.

• THDC India Ltd.

• Independent Power Producers (IPPs)

• Solar Rooftop generators

• Short term power arrangements: Banking, open market purchases etc.

For projecting the availability of power for FY 2016-17, the Petitioner considered the average

of the actual monthly energy generation during the past 3 years. For the stations which have not

been operational for complete 3 years, the average of the actual monthly generation during the

years in which such stations have been fully operational has been considered. The energy

availability from various sources has been projected based on the following:

• UJVN Ltd. – For 10 LHPs, the average of actual monthly energy generation during the

past 3 years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 has been considered. For SHPs, the average

of actual monthly energy generation in FY 2012-13 and FY 2014-15 has been considered.

• NTPC – For Singrauli STPS, Unchahar I, II, III, Dadri (NCT) II and Rihand STPS I, II, the

average of actual monthly energy generation during the past 3 years from FY 2012-13 to



FY 2014-15 has been considered. For Rihand STPS III, Aravali (Jhajjar), gas power plants

Anta, Auraiya, Dadri (Gas), the actual monthly energy generation for FY 2014-15 has

been considered. For Kahalgaon II, the average of actual monthly energy generation of

FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 has been considered. For Koldam HPS, the energy

availability has been projected based on the Design Energy of the Station and share

allocation to UPCL.

• NHPC – For Salal, Tanakpur, Chamera I, II, Dulhasti and Sewa II, the average of actual

monthly energy generation during the past 3 years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 has

been considered. For Chamera III, the average of actual monthly energy generation for

FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 has been considered. For Dhauliganga and Uri I, the average

of actual monthly energy generation for FY 2012-13 and FY 2014-15 has been considered.

For Uri II and Parbati III, the energy availability has been projected based on the Design

Energy of the respective station and share allocation to UPCL.

• NPCIL – For NAPP and RAPP, the average of actual monthly generation during the past

3 years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 has been considered.

• SJVNL – For Nathpa Jhakri, the average of actual monthly generation during the past 3

years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 has been considered. For Rampur HPS, the energy

availability has been projected based on the Design Energy of the station and the share

allocation to UPCL.

• THDC – For Tehri I and Koteshwar, the average of actual monthly energy generation

during the past 3 years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 has been considered.

• Vishnu Prayag HEP – For Vishnu Prayag HEP, the average of actual monthly energy

generation of FY 2012-13 and FY 2014-15 has been considered.

• UREDA stations and IPPs – For SHPs of UREDA, the average of actual monthly energy

generation during the past 3 years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 has been considered

and for IPPs based on the information furnished by the developers. For Sasan UMPP, the

energy availability has been projected considering the PLF of 75% for FY 2016-17, and

85% for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. The energy availability from solar rooftop generators

has been considered based on the capacity being added during each of the Control



Period and normative PLF.

• Upcoming stations – The energy availability from hydro stations expected to be

commissioned during the Control Period has been projected considering the likely COD

of such generating stations, normative performance parameters and share allocation to

UPCL.

• Forward banking of power – The Petitioner has proposed a forward banking of 300 MU

in FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 which shall be returned under reverse banking

in FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. During FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, the forward banking

and reverse banking would nullify each other.

• Transmission Losses – The Petitioner has considered the ISTS losses of 4% and intra-

State transmission losses of 1.78%.

• Short term purchases – Based on the energy balance at UPCL periphery, after

considering the energy availability from firm sources, the Petitioner has projected

shortfall of 3246 MU in FY 2016-17, 2790 MU in FY 2017-18, and 3106 MU in FY 2018-19.

• The Petitioner has proposed the total power purchase of 13673.41 MU in FY 2016-17,

14124.55 MU in FY 2017-18 and 14922.25 MU in FY 2018-19.

The Commission has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner. The

Commission for projection purposes has considered the energy availability from various generating

stations on the basis of month-wise energy availability from all the generating stations. On the basis

of monthly energy availability and estimated energy requirement, the Commission has computed

the deficit quantum of power which the Petitioner would be required to purchase from open

market, energy exchange, medium/short term basis depending on its requirement. The

Commission for projecting power purchase has considered both existing generating stations and

upcoming stations to be commissioned during the Control Period, in which UPCL has share

allocation. The Commission, however, has projected the power purchase cost only for FY 2016-17 in

Chapter 5 of the Order while analysing the ARR for FY 2016-17 as projecting power purchase cost at

this point of time for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 will be of no relevance as the fuel costs varies

significantly over a period of time and further CERC is also yet to issue the Orders for most of the

NTPC, THDC and NHPC stations for the tariff period FY 2014-15 to FY 2018-19 . Further, as per



UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, the Petitioner shall be filing Petitions for tariff determination for FY

2017-18 and FY 2018-19 alongwith the Annual Performance Review for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18

and power purchase cost will require detailed scrutiny while processing those Petitions. The

detailed approach for approving the power purchase quantum has been discussed below and the

detailed approach for projecting power purchase cost for FY 2016-17 is discussed in Chapter 5 of the

Order.

For projecting the energy availability quantum from various sources, the Commission

sought the following information from the Petitioner:

• Copies of agreements executed with upcoming generating stations.

• Likely COD of the upcoming generating stations.

• Economics of forward banking and reverse banking projected during the Control Period.

• Actual ISTS losses for the past 52 weeks (1 year) based on bills received from Central

Sector Generating Stations (CSGS).

In reply, UPCL submitted the following:

• Copies of PPAs for the upcoming generating stations.

• Likely COD of the upcoming generating stations.

• Regarding banking of power, the Petitioner submitted that banking is an instrument for

safeguarding the distribution utility from the fluctuations in the short term power

market.

• UPCL submitted the actual ISTS losses for the period of December 2014 to November

2015.

The Commission while projecting the quantum of energy available from various sources for

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has made the assumptions as detailed below.

3.6.1 Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of UJVN Ltd. as

under:



Table 3.19: Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd. Stations of UJVN

Ltd. Basis Rationale

UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs)

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months); The impact of loss in generation during the relevant months due to approved RMU works and DRIP closure for the respective stations in the 9 LHPs has been considered in FY 2016-17 FY 2013-14 has not been

considered as the hydro generation in the State was adversely affected due to natural calamity.

Maneri Bhali-II

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months) The Commission has considered the shutdown of the generating station during the months of November 2016 to January 2017 for carrying out works related to increase in dam height and, accordingly, energy generation during these months has not been considered in FY 2016-17

SHPs, viz. Pathri, Mohammadpur & Galogi

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

FY 2013-14 has not been considered as the hydro generation in the State was adversely impacted due to natural calamity; FY 2012-13 has not been considered as RMU works were carried out during FY 2012-13 and enhanced generation on account of the same has been observed in FY 2014-15.

The Commission has estimated the energy availability from these generating stations to

UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary consumption and also excluding

the share allocation to Himachal Pradesh. The summary of energy availability from UJVN Ltd. for

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.20: Energy Availability from UJVN Ltd. For FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19(MU)

Station FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Estimated by UPCL

Estimated by Commission

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) 2955.02 2972.04 2955.02 3004.38 2955.02 3004.38 Maneri Bali II 950.66 971.05 950.66 1088.40 950.66 1088.40 Small Hydro

Pathri 134.69

111.80 134.69

111.80 134.69

111.80 Mohammadpur 52.52 52.52 52.52 Galogi 5.73 5.73 5.73

Total 4040.37 4113.15 4040.37 4262.84 4040.37 4262.84



3.6.2 Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of NHPC Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.21: Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. Stations of

NHPC Basis Rationale

Salal

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9

months, projections for 3 months)

FY 2013-14 has not been considered as the hydro generation had been

adversely affected

Tanakpur Chamera I Chamera II Chamera III Uri Dhauliganga Dulhasti Sewa II Uri II Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY

2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Considered the full years of operation Parbati III


UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary consumption, actual ISTS losses

for the respective generating station for the period from December 2014 to November 2015 and

considering share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from NHPC Ltd.

for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the

Table below:

Table 3.22: Energy Availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU) Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

Salal 38.37 40.04 Tanakpur 12.30 16.17 Chamera I 80.05 86.37 Chamera II 18.61 17.75 Chamera III 49.54 50.05 Uri 99.78 101.18 Dhauliganga 43.39 48.51 Dulhasti 105.06 105.46 Sewa II 26.19 28.80 Uri II 55.10 56.27 Parbati III 34.82 32.38 Free Power-Tanakpur 39.94 53.48 Free Power-Dhauliganga 106.76 114.03 Total 709.91 750.51



3.6.3 Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of THDC Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.23: Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. Stations of THDCIL Basis Rationale

Tehri HEP Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

FY 2013-14 has not been considered as the hydro generation in the State had been adversely affected Koteshwar HEP




considering the share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from THDC

Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 at State periphery as estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.24: Energy Availability at State periphery from THDC Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

State Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

Tehri HEP 110.84 101.25 Free Power-Tehri HEP 388.62 358.93 Koteshwar HEP 50.55 62.91 Free Power-Koteshwar HEP 147.96 139.03 Total 697.97 662.11

3.6.4 Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of NTPC Ltd. as

under:



Table 3.25: Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. Stations of

NTPC Basis Rationale

Singrauli STPS

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Actual monthly generation of past 3 years

Rihand STPS Rihand I Rihand II Rihand III Unchahar TPS Unchahar I Unchahar II Unchahar III Anta CCPP Auraiya CCPP Dadri CCPP Dadri (NCTPP) Jhajjar Kahalgaon TPS Koldam Monthly ex-bus generation as projected by UPCL -




considering the share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from NTPC

Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 at State periphery as estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.26: Energy Availability from NTPC Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission Singrauli STPS 782.02 720.76 Rihand STPS Rihand I 304.60 256.73 Rihand II 294.38 232.47 Rihand III 275.98 267.23 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 266.52 230.18 Unchahar II 133.86 107.91 Unchahar III 105.31 87.86 Anta CCPP 76.56 73.95 Auraiya CCPP 72.37 71.66 Dadri CCPP 99.62 109.24 Dadri (NCTPP) 38.20 47.02 Jhajjar 5.63 28.56 Kahalgaon TPS 184.48 170.17 Koldam 197.66 198.94

Total 2837.19 2602.69



3.6.5 Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of SJVN Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.27: Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd. Stations of

SJVNL Basis Rationale

Nathpa Jhakri HEP

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

FY 2013-14 has not been considered as the hydro generation had been adversely affected

Rampur HPS

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Full years of operation have been considered




considering the share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from SJVN

Ltd. for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as estimated by the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.28: Energy Availability from SJVN Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission Nathpa Jhakri HEP 49.30 45.66 Rampur HPS 185.25 175.89 Total 234.55 221.55

3.6.6 Power Purchase from existing Renewable Energy Sources

The existing renewable energy sources include the hydro power stations of UREDA, IPPs,

co-generation plants, and solar power plants within the State. For these generating stations, the

Commission has considered the energy availability at State periphery as projected by UPCL.

The summary of energy availability from existing renewable energy sources for FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.29: Energy Availability from existing Renewable Energy Sources for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

Existing renewable energy sources 511.76 511.76



3.6.7 Power Purchase from Vishnu Prayag HEP (State Royalty Power)

For estimating the State Royalty power from Vishnu Prayag HEP, the Commission has

considered the average of actual monthly generation for the years FY 2012-13, FY 2014-15 and FY

2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months). The summary of energy availability from

Vishnu Prayag HEP as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.30: Energy Availability from Vishnu Prayag HEP at State Periphery (State Royalty Power) for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL


Vishnu Prayag HEP (State Royalty Power) 196.27 195.93

3.6.8 Power Purchase from Sasan UMPP

For estimating the energy availability from Sasan UMPP, the Commission has considered

the actual monthly generation of FY 2015-16 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months) as the

entire capacity of the generating station come into operation from April, 2015. The Commission has

estimated the energy available from Sasan UMPP to UPCL at State Periphery after considering the

normative auxiliary consumption, actual ISTS losses for the period from December 2014 to

November 2015 and considering share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy

availability from Sasan UMPP for FY 2016-17 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is

shown in the Table below:

Table 3.31: Energy Availability from Sasan UMPP at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19(MU)


FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 & FY 2018-19

Sasan UMPP 552.02 625.62 625.62 685.39

3.6.9 Power purchase from Kashipur CCPP

The Commission vide its Order dated February 8, 2016 approved the PPA between UPCL

and Gama Infrapop (P) Ltd. (Kashipur CCPP) for sale of power corresponding to 107 MW (gross

capacity) to UPCL. The Commission, accordingly, has considered the energy availability from

Kashipur CCPP considering the normative performance parameters. The summary of energy

availability from Kashipur CCPP for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as estimated by the Commission is




Table 3.32: Energy Availability from Kashipur CCPP at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)


Kashipur CCPP 0.00 776.80

3.6.10 Power purchase from Greenko Budhil Hyrdo

The Commission vide its Order dated October 15, 2015 ruled that approval of PPA between

UPCL and Greenko Budhil Hydro for sale of power corresponding to 70 MW (gross capacity) to

UPCL shall be taken up subsequenty after the Tariff for the generating station has been determined

by the Commission under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Petition for approval of

generation tariff in this matter has been filed before the Commission. In light of the above, the

Commission, accordingly, has considered the energy availability from the generating station based

on the month wise Design Energy. The Commission has estimated the energy available from the

generating station to UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary

consumption, ISTS losses of 4% and also excluding the free share of Himachal Pradesh. The

summary of energy availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as

estimated by the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.33: Energy Availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)


Greenko Budhil Hydro 0.00 232.98

3.6.11 Power purchase from upcoming generating stations

The upcoming generating stations include the IPPs within the State, hydro power plants of

UREDA, solar power plants within the State and Central Sector Generating Stations (CSGS)

expected to be commissioned during the second Control Period. For estimating the energy

availability from IPPs within the State and hydro power plants of UREDA, the Commission has

considered the actual progress of those generating stations and likely commissioning dates. The

Commission has also considered the energy availability from solar generation capacity amounting

to 30 MW from April, 2016 and another 180 MW from November, 2016 based on the normative

performance parameters. Regarding upcoming CSGS, UPCL had projected the energy availability

from Meja STPP and Unchahar IV in FY 2016-17. As per the monthly report on status of thermal



power projects issued by CEA for the month of December, 2015, the likely COD of Meja STPP and

Unchahar IV is in FY 2017-18. Hence, the Commission has not considered the energy availability

from these CSGS in FY 2016-17.

The summary of energy availability from upcoming generating stations expected to achieve

COD during the second Control Period as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown

in the Table below:

Table 3.34: Energy Availability from upcoming generating stations at State periphery for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19(MU)

Station FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Upcoming generating stations 332.10 202.33 1176.51 722.10 1709.65 1256.39

3.6.12 Energy available from Firm Sources

The total energy available from firm sources estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 3.35: Energy available from Long Term Sources (MU)

Station FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


UJVN Ltd. 4040.37 4113.15 4040.37 4262.84 4040.37 4262.84 NHPC Ltd. 709.91 750.51 709.91 750.51 709.91 750.51 THDCIL 697.97 662.11 697.97 662.11 697.97 662.11 NTPC Ltd. 2837.19 2602.69 2837.19 2602.69 2837.19 2602.69 NPCIL 255.99 265.95 255.99 265.95 255.99 265.95 SJVN Ltd. 234.55 221.55 234.55 221.55 234.55 221.55 Existing Renewable sources 511.76 511.76 511.76 511.76 511.76 511.76 Free Power-Vishnu Prayag 196.27 195.93 196.27 195.93 196.27 195.93 Sasan UMPP 552.02 685.39 625.62 685.39 625.62 685.39 Kashipur CCPP 0.00 776.80 0.00 776.80 0.00 776.80 Greenko Budhil Hydro 0.00 232.98 0.00 232.98 0.00 232.98 Upcoming Stations 332.10 202.33 1176.51 722.10 1709.65 1256.39 Total 10368.13 11221.16 11286.14 11890.61 11819.28 12424.90

3.6.13 Power Purchase for fulfilling RPO

UPCL had proposed to fulfill the RPO over and above the estimated power purchase from

renewable energy sources by purchase of RECs.

The Commission had specified the RPO for FY 2016-17 as 1.50% for Solar and 8.00% for

Non-Solar and for FY 2017-18 as 2.50% for Solar & 8.00% for Non-Solar. Based on the estimated



power purchase from renewable energy sources, the status of fulfillment of RPO and additional

purchase required is as shown in the Table below.

Table 3.36: Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO Particulars Units FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Total Power Purchase at State Periphery MU 13400.60 14193.00 RPO

Solar % 1.50% 2.50% Non-Solar % 8.00% 8.00%

RPO Solar MU 201.01 354.83 Non-Solar MU 1072.05 1135.44 Total MU 1273.06 1490.27

Purchase from Renewable Sources Solar MU 214.48 416.95 Non-Solar MU 655.81 738.42 Total MU 870.29 1155.37

Additional Energy to be purchased for fulfilment of RPO Solar MU 0.00 0.00 Non-Solar MU 416.24 397.02 Total MU 416.24 397.02

Hence, the additional energy to be purchased from Non-Solar renewable energy sources,

over and above the energy sources listed above, for fulfilling the RPO targets for FY 2016-17 is

416.24 MU and 397.02 MU for FY 2017-18.

3.6.14 Return of banked power during FY 2016-17

The Petitioner, in its replies to data gaps submitted that it had executed an agreement for

inward banking of 200 MW RTC power from October, 2015 to March, 2016 which would be

returned with 5% extra power during the period July, 2016 to September, 2016. The Petitioner had

not considered the same in its projections of power purchase for FY 2016-17 submitted in the

Petition. The Commission, accordingly, has considered 907.52 MU to be returned by UPCL during

the period of July 2016 to September, 2016.

3.6.15 Deficit/ (Surplus) energy

As against the energy requirement of 14308.12 MU (13400.60+907.52), the total estimated

energy available from firm sources is 11637.39 MU leaving a deficit of 2670.72 MU.

Further, the energy deficit/surplus scenario estimated by the Commission for FY 2016-17 to

FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table given below:



Table 3.37: Energy deficit/surplus Scenario for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU) Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Energy requirement at State periphery 14308 14193 14994 Total Energy available from firm sources 11637 12216 12425 Deficit/(Surplus) 2671 1977 2569

In view of persistent deficit scenario, the Petitioner should put its sincere efforts to

procure the deficit energy through a mix of long term arrangements, medium term arrangements

and short term purchases optimizing the cost of power purchase and reliable power. Further, the

procurement should be through transparent process of bidding and not on mutual agreements as

has been the practice of UPCL. UPCL is directed to submit a comprehensive plan as to how it

intends to meet the deficit within one month of the date of Order.

3.7 Capital Expenditure Plan and Capitalisation Plan

The Petitioner submitted that in order to achieve the anticipated load growth and targeted

loss reduction, it has carried out a detailed analysis of capital investment required for next three

years based on various technical and physical requirements. The capital expenditure plan proposed

for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.38: Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars FY

2016-17 FY

2017-18 FY

2018-19 Total

1 Load Growth 1.1 Construction of 33/11 kV Substation 129.58 98.6 61.9 290.08 1.2 Increasing Capacity of 33/11 kV substations 12.88 10.50 10.50 33.88 1.3 Release of New PTW Connections 2.46 2.72 2.98 8.16

1.4 Installation of meters for giving new connections 25.15 29.65 34.82 89.63

1.5 Deen Dayal Upadhyay Grameen Jyoti Yojana 168.40 421.00 235.76 825.16 Sub-total for Load Growth 338.47 562.47 345.96 1246.90

2 Loss Reduction 2.1 Installation of Capacitor Bank at 33/11 kV

substations 45.16 25.97 10.34 81.47

2.2 Implementation of R-APDRP Part A scheme 20.78 11.01 0 31.79 2.3 Implementation of R-APDRP Part B scheme 223.9 0 0 223.9

2.4 Installation of Double metering in selected 11 kV & 33 kV consumers 2.15 1.65 1.81 5.61

2.5 Implementation of AMR 8.53 3.56 3.56 15.65 2.6 IPDS 57.21 95.34 38.14 190.68



Table 3.38: Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

2.7 Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters and Installation of Electronic meters in un-metered connections

4.88 5.37 5.91 16.18

2.8 11 kV Cable for forest 10.42 11.47 12.61 34.52 2.9 Laying of LT ABC 143.38 157.72 173.50 474.60 2.10 Replacement of defective meters 23.35 25.69 28.26 77.32

2.11 Procurement of High value consumer management system (HVCMS) 2.37 2.37 2.37 7.11

2.12 33 kV Underground Cable 19.55 21.51 23.66 64.72 Subtotal for Loss Reduction 569.71 361.67 300.17 1223.55

3 System reliability and safety improvement 3.1 Additional Transformers installation with

associated 11 kV 70.84 77.93 85.72 234.49

3.2 Installation of 11 kV underground cables 22.16 24.38 26.81 73.35 3.3 Smart Grid projects for industrial areas 11.85 11.85 11.85 35.55 3.4 LT Protection System for safety Improvement 15.51 17.06 18.77 51.34 3.5 Safety Measures 7.77 8.54 9.40 25.71

Subtotal for System reliability and safety improvement 128.13 139.76 152.55 420.44

4 Creation of infrastructure facilities & other misc.

4.1 Video conferencing services and integrating it with all the divisions/sub-divisions 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.36

4.2 Procurement of Sub-station and consumer meter testing equipment 1.19 1.19 1.19 3.57

4.3 Consumer care centres, E-payment of bills and Cash collection centres 1.19 1.19 1.19 3.57

4.4 New and emerging technologies and miscellaneous works like, new vehicles, office infrastructure, IT infrastructure, etc.

4.74 12.74 4.74 22.22

Subtotal for Creation of infrastructure facilities & other misc. 7.24 7.24 7.24 29.72

Total Capital Expenditure 1043.54 1071.12 805.91 2920.58

The Petitioner has estimated that the expenditure incurred towards Central Schemes will be

capitalized within two years from the year in which the expenditure has been incurred. The balance

capital expenditure is split into 35%, 35% and 20% over three years based on the historical trend.

The opening CWIP at the end of FY 2014-15 has been estimated to be capitalised equally during FY

2015-16 and FY 2016-17. The capitalisation plan proposed by the Petitioner during the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:



Table 3.39: Capitalisation Plan for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Capital expenditure Capitalisation FY 2016-17 1043.54 903.60 FY 2017-18 1071.12 1023.61 FY 2018-19 805.91 949.13 Total 2920.58 2876.34

Regarding the proposed capital expenditure and capitalisation during the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 the Commission sought the following information:

• Preparedness to execute the proposed capital works in terms of status of Commission’s

approval for the proposed schemes, orders placed and funds tie-up.

• Action plan with PERT Chart for each scheme.

• Current status of DPR for each scheme.

• Status of tendering process for each scheme.

• Status of funds tie-up for each scheme.


• RAPDRP Part A and Part B had been approved by the Commission. The capital works

under the schemes like IPDS and DDUGY have been approved by the Central

Government. For the remaining works, the funds would be arranged after obtaining

approvals from the Commission.

• The orders for equipment worth Rs. 295.99 Crore have been placed to be utilized for the

proposed schemes. The tendering process and activities for later years of the Control

Period can only be initiated as per the requirements.

The actual GFA addition by UPCL during the last 3 years is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.40: Actual GFA addition of UPCL (Rs. Crore) Year Amount

FY 2012-13 369.76 FY 2013-14 265.17 FY 2014-15 595.03

In comparison to the actual capitalisation during the last 3 years, the year wise capitalisation

proposed during the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is substantially higher.

Further, the Distribution Licensee is required to seek prior approval of the Commission for all the

capital expenditure schemes of the value exceeding the ceiling specified by the Commission in the



distribution licence.

In view of the actual performance of the Petitioner in the past, the Commission finds the

proposed year wise capital expenditure and capitalisation proposed by the Petitioner on a much

higher side. As many of the schemes are also yet to be accorded investment approval by the

Commission, the Commission does not find it prudent to approve scheme wise capitalisation

during the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 based on the estimated cost

submitted by the Petitioner. Hence, the Commission for the purpose of approval of Business Plan

has considered the capitalisation for each year of the Control Period based on the approved total

Capital Expenditure and Capital Works in Progress (CWIP). However, during the Annual

Performance Review/Truing-up exercise, the Commission shall consider the Capitalisation on

actual basis subject to capitalisation of only those Schemes which fulfill the conditions as stipulated

by the Commission. The approach adopted by the Commission in approval of year wise capital

expenditure and capitalisation for the second Control Period is detailed below.

The Commission analyzed the trends of amount capitalised by the Petitioner as percentage

of the sum of opening CWIP) and Capital Expenditure for the past 3 years from FY 2012-13 to FY

2014-15 based on the audited accounts submitted by the Petitioner. The same is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.41: Capitalisation as % of sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Legend FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Opening CWIP A 248.08 296.08 411.68 Addition to CWIP (Capital Expenditure) B 345.54 386.84 568.37 Deduction from CWIP (Tfd. To GFA) C 297.54 271.24 597.43 Closing CWIP A+B-C 296.08 411.68 382.62 Capitalisation as % of opening CWIP plus capital expenditure C÷(A+B) 50% 40% 61%

Average of 3 years 50%

As discussed earlier, the capital expenditure proposed by the Petitioner during each year of

the second Control Period is substantially higher than the actual capital expenditure incurred

during the last three years. The average actual capital expenditure incurred during the last three

years is Rs. 433.58 Crore and the maximum actual capital expenditure of Rs. 568.37 Crore was

incurred in FY 2014-15. Considering the past performance of the Petitioner and the status of capital

investment approval of the schemes, the capital expenditure plan submitted by the Petitioner for



the second Control Period appears to be over ambitious and unlikely to materialize. The

Commission for the purpose of approval of Business Plan is approving the capital expenditure of

Rs. 568.37 Crore (equivalent to maximum actual capital expenditure in any year during the last

three years) for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

The Commission observed that the amount capitalised by the Petitioner during the past 3

years is in the range of 40% to 61% of the sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure during the

year. For approving the capitalisation for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to

FY 2018-19, the Commission has considered the average capitalisation as % of the amount

transferred from CWIP over the sum of opening CWIP and capital expenditure for the past 3 years,

i.e. 50%.

Further, based on the submissions of the Petitioner regarding the revised capitalisation for

FY 2015-16, the Commission has worked out the allowable capitalisation for FY 2015-16.

The year wise capital expenditure and capitalisation approved by the Commission for FY

2015-16 and for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.42: Capital expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Opening CWIP 382.64 382.62 601.65 472.96 741.59 517.89 789.10 540.24 Capital Expenditure 686.83 568.37 1043.54 568.37 1071.12 568.37 805.91 568.37 Capitalisation 467.82 478.03 903.60 523.44 1023.61 546.02 949.13 557.26 Closing CWIP 601.65 472.96 741.59 517.89 789.10 540.24 645.88 551.35 Capitalisation as % of opening CWIP plus capital expenditure

44% 50% 55% 50% 56% 50% 60% 50%

The Commission will consider the actual capital expenditure/capitalization as a part of

Annual Performance Review/Truing-up exercise subject to prudence check in accordance with the

conditions stipulated by the Commission.

3.8 Financing Plan

The financing plan for the proposed capitalisation for the second Control Period as

submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below.



Table 3.43: Financing Plan proposed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Capitalisation Grant Debt Internal Resource/ State Govt. Equity

FY 2016-17 903.60 342.23 392.96 168.41 FY 2017-18 1023.61 430.39 415.25 177.97 FY 2018-19 949.13 224.40 507.31 217.42

The Commission has approved the funding of the approved capitalisation for the second

Control Period by considering the average of the actual funding pattern of capitalisation during FY

2012-13 to FY 2014-15 as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.44: Actual funding of capitalisation for FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Average Approved Approved Approved Capitalisation 230.50 185.01 472.76 Financing Debt 93.61 41% 134.01 72% 268.47 57% 57% Equity-State Government 17.20 7% 19.05 10% 22.45 5% 8% Grant-Central Government 119.70 52% 31.95 17% 181.84 38% 36% Total 230.51 100% 185.01 100% 472.76 100% 100%

Accordingly, the financing plan approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.45: Financing Plan approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Capitalisation 523.44 546.02 557.26 Financing Debt 296.32 309.11 315.47 Equity-State Government 39.27 40.96 41.81 Grant-Central Government 187.85 195.95 199.98 Total 523.44 546.02 557.26

3.9 Human Resources Plan

The Petitioner submitted that as against the total sanctioned posts of 6158, the actual

employee strength as on March 31, 2015 is 3509. The report on man power assessment, which

includes the analysis on the current man power requirement of UPCL has been sent to the

Government of Uttarakhand (GoU) for approval. Once the report is approved by GoU, it will be

submitted to the Commission. The additional sanctioned posts will be filled within six months after

approval from the Government of Uttarakhand. The Table below details the additional man power



requirement of UPCL designation-wise against which recruitment will be considered:

Table 3.46: Additional man power requirement as submitted by the Petitioner Designation FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Accounts Officer 11 02 02 02 Law Officer 02 01 01 01 Assistant Engineer (E&M) 47 11 11 11 Assistant Engineer (Civil) 07 02 02 02 Junior Engineer (E&M) 13 23 23 23 Junior Engineer (Civil) 20 35 35 35 Office Assistant-III 77 121 121 121 Technician Grade-2 496 116 116 117 Assistant Accountant 57 13 13 13 Assistant Store Keeper 20 - - - Stenographer Grade 3 - 14 14 14 Total 750 338 338 339

Regarding the proposed HR plan for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-

19, the Commission sought the following information:

• Actual recruitment in FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15.

• Actual number of employees recruited in FY 2015-16 till December, 2015.

• Actual number of employees joined in FY 2015-16 till December, 2015.

• Employees likely to be recruited and likely to join in FY 2015-16 during January to

March, 2016.

• Actual number of employees retired in FY 2015-16 till December, 2015.

• Number of employees likely to retire during January to March, 2016.

• Revised recruitment plan for each year from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 along with current

status giving the preparedness and expected time for each recruitment.

• Number of employees retiring during each year from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.


• The actual recruitment is 2 number of employees in FY 2013-14 and 5 number of

employees in FY 2014-15.

• The number of employees recruited is 89 and number of employees joined is 43 in FY

2015-16 till January 20, 2016.

• The number of employees likely to be recruited during the remaining period in FY



2015-16 is 661 and all the employees are likely to join before March, 2016.

• There is no revision in the recruitment plan submitted in the Petition for the second

Control Period.

• The number of employees retiring in FY 2016-17 are 233, in FY 2017-18 are 214 and in

FY 2018-19 are 208.

The Commission had approved the recruitment of 444 employees for FY 2013-14 and 444

employees for FY 2014-15. As against the same, the actual recruitment is 2 in FY 2013-14 and 5 in FY

2014-15. The number of employees retired during the respective years outpaced the recruitment

and, hence, in actuality, the number of employees of UPCL has decreased over the two years. The

Commission also does not find the submissions of the Petitioner regarding the recruitment of 661

employees during the period of January to March 2016 achievable given the past performance.

Hence, the Commission has considered the recruitment in FY 2015-16 as 89.

As the adequate human resources are crucial for maintaining reliability in operations and

also the quality of supply, the Commission has considered the recruitment plan proposed by the

Petitioner. The Commission has considered the recruitment of 661 employees, which the Petitioner

has proposed during the period Feb-Mar, 2016 in next financial year, i.e. FY 2016-17. The

Commission has shifted the proposed recruitment for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 to the following

years, i.e. FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. If the actual addition to the number of employees is lower

than the recruitments considered in this Order, the impact of same shall be adjusted while carrying

out the Truing Up.

The HR Plan approved by the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.47: HR Plan approved by the Commission Particulars FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Opening no. of employees 3456 3456 4076 3415 4181 3843 4305 3967 Recruitment 750 89 338 661 338 338 339 338 Retirement 130 130 233 233 214 214 208 208 Closing no. of employees 4076 3415 4181 3843 4305 3967 4436 4097


4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny

and Conclusion on Truing Up for FY 2014-15

4.1 Truing-up for FY 2014-15

Regulation 13(3) of the UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations,

2011 specifies as under:

“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;

d) Computation of sharing of gains and losses on account of controllable factors for the previous

year.”

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission vide its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013

determined the expenses and revenue of the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 based on the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011 and also on the basis of historical trends. Further, the Commission, vide its Order

dated April 10, 2014 determined the expenses and revenue for FY 2014-15 based on the revised

projections of the Petitioner.

The Commission has analysed the head-wise elements of ARR and revenue for FY 2014-15 in

the succeeding paragraphs. The head-wise details of variations in expenses and revenues are

enumerated below.

4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing Up for FY 2014-15


4.1.1 Sales

The Commission had approved the energy sales for FY 2014-15 in the Tariff Order dated

April 10, 2014 as 9915 MU. The Petitioner in the current Petition has submitted the actual restated

sales for FY 2014-15 as 9655 MU.

The Commission continuing with its approach adopted in its Tariff 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

provisional/assessment basis for FY 2014-15 during the current proceedings. In reply to the

Commission’s direction, the Petitioner submitted the following:

Table 4.1: Break up of Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 (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 297044 286979 179.60 22427 22066 13.96 319471 309045 193.56

(ii) Other Domestic Consumers 1189261 1783396 1798.97 131512 178450 183.37 7626 9981 10.77 1328399 1971827 1993.10

(iii) UPCL Employees and Pensioners

- - - 8051 25254 47.80 - - - 8051 25254 47.80

(iv) UJVNL Employees and Pensioners

- - - 661 1625 3.57 - - - 661 1625 3.57

(v) PTCUL Employees and Pensioners

- - - 355 1166 1.36 - - - 355 1166 1.36

(vi) Single Point Bulk Supply 93 21357 34.62 - - - - - - 93 21357 34.62

Total Domestic 1486399 2091732 2013.20 163005 228561 250.06 7626 9981 10.77 1657030 2330274 2274.02 2 Non-domestic 178876 764004 1043.81 13010 17506 24.14 191886 781510 1067.95 3 PTW 23965 140545 233.85 1894 11067 20.32 1389 8776 44.27 27248 160388 298.44 4 LT Industry 8759 184660 299.82 544 3041 4.97 9303 187701 304.79 5 Public Lamps 629 11332 36.83 28 402 1.50 40 1454 8.51 697 13188 46.84

6 Govt. Irrigation System 1345 50832 104.93 59 1303 2.71 - - - 1404 52135 107.64

7 Public Water Works 1165 69700 309.58 49 1430 7.06 - - - 1214 71130 316.64

8 HT Industry 1827 1458303 5066.49 - - - - - - 1827 1458303 5066.49 9 Mixed Load 76 61409 185.68 - - - - - - 76 61409 185.68 10 Railway Traction 1 6800 14.70 - 1 6800 14.70

11 Other State Supply 6 985 1.97 - - - - - - 6 985 1.97

Total 1703048 4840302 9310.85 178589 263310 310.76 9055 20211 63.54 1890692 5123823 9685.16



The Petitioner had also submitted the division wise commercial statement for FY 2014-15.

From the division wise commercial statement submitted by UPCL for FY 2014-15, certain anomalies

like higher consumption per kilowatt or lower revenue per unit than that approved by the

Commission for FY 2014-15 has been observed in some of the distribution divisions of UPCL for

some of the categories of consumers which are discussed hereunder.

In the Mixed Load category under RTS-8 anamolies were observed in the following

distribution divisions given in the Table below:

Table 4.2: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per unit of Mixed Load as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15

Sl. No. Category Division Consumption/ kW Revenue/unit

(Rs. per unit) 1.

Mixed Load- RTS 8

EDD, Gopeshwar 546.10 2.60 2. EDD (U), Roorkee 300.00 3.40 3. EDD (R), Haridwar 733.33 4.00 4. EDD Pithoragarh 184.04 3.73

Here it would be relevant to point out that the average billing rate approved for FY 2014-15

for the Mixed Load category was Rs. 3.94 per unit with Energy Charges of Rs. 3.80 per unit. Hence,

the average billing rate for this category can in no way be less than the energy charges approved for

FY 2014-15. Similarly the sales reported by EDD, Gopeshwar, EDD (U), Roorkee and EDD (R),

Haridwar implies a load factor of 75.85%, 41.67% and 101.85% respectively which in turn signifies

the utilisation of all the electrical fittings and appliances for 18.20 hours, 10 hours and 24.44 hours

per day respectively which is highly unimaginable.

Similarly, for LT Industries under RTS-7, the revenue reported by the following distribution

divisions given in the Table below are even less than the average cost of supply approved for FY

2014-15 and in EDD Kotdwar even less than the Energy Charges approved of Rs. 3.75 per unit. The

average billing rate of LT industry approved for FY 2014-15 was Rs. 4.54 per unit and they were

cross-subsidising category of consumers. However, the actual average billing rate even being lower

than the cost of supply is not possible. The highest load factor amongst the Distribution division

listed below is 28% in EDD Rudrapur and 15.38% in EDD Gopeshwar and the average billing rate at

the approved tariffs at these load factor works out to Rs. 4.25 per unit and Rs. 4.65 per unit

respectively against the actual billing rate reported of Rs. 3.94 per unit and Rs. 3.93 per unit.



Table 4.3: Division wise anomalies in Average Revenue per unit of LT Industries as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15

S. No. Division Consumption/ kW Revenue/unit (Rs. per unit)

1. EDD, Gopeshwar 110.74 3.93 2. EDD, Kotdwar 138.75 2.90 3. EDD (U), Roorkee 157.80 3.77 4. EDD, Ramnagar 112.91 3.96 5. EDD (R), Haldwani 127.12 3.98 6. EDD, Rudrapur 201.62 3.94 7. EDD, Sitarganj 120.26 3.91

For HT Industries under RTS-7, the revenue reported by the following distribution divisions

given in the Table below are even less than the average cost of supply approved for FY 2014-15. The

average billing rate of HT industry approved for FY 2014-15 was Rs. 4.57 per unit and they were

cross-subsidising category of consumers. However, the actual average billing rate even being lower

than the cost of supply is not possible. The highest load factor amongst the Distribution division

listed below is 69.78% in EDD Sitarganj and 16.79% in EDD Tehri and the average billing rate at the

approved tariffs at these load factor works should work out to Rs. 4.79 per unit and Rs. 4.14 per unit

respectively at base rate (ignoring the ToD charges and the continuous supply surcharge) against

the billing rate reported of Rs. 3.63 per unit and Rs. 3.72 per unit.

Table 4.4: Division wise anomalies in Average Revenue per unit of HT Industries as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15


(Rs. per unit) 1. HT Industry

(upto 1000 KVA)

EDD, Tehri 120.91 3.63 2. EDD (R), Haldwani 222.41 3.74 3. EDD, Sitarganj 250.66 3.83 4. HT Industry (Above

1000 KVA) EDD (R), Haldwani 213.33 3.62

5. EDD, Sitarganj 502.39 3.72

Similarly, for PTW consumers under RTS-4, the revenue reported by the following

distribution divisions given in the Table below are even less than the energy charges approved by

the Commission for these consumers for FY 2014-15. The energy charges approved by the

Commission for RTS-4 consumers is Rs. 1.10 per unit, however, the average billing rate reported by

UPCL for FY 2014-15 is as low as Rs. 0.83/unit in EDD, Kotdwar.



Table 4.5: Division wise anomalies in Average Revenue per unit of PTW consumers as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15

Sl. No. Division Consumption/ kW Revenue/unit (Rs. per unit)

1. EDD (R), Dehradun 89.04 1.02 2. EDD, Vikasnagar 17.98 0.88 3. EDD, Kotdwar 59.52 0.83 4. EDD (U), Roorkee 238.49 1.07 5. EDD (R), Roorkee 121.36 0.97 6. EDD (U), Hardwar 107.66 1.01 7. EDD, Laksar 41.70 0.99 8. EDD, Rudrapur 135.51 1.08 9. EDD, Champawat 94.66 1.05

In the Public Lamps category under RTS 3, EDD (R), Roorkee, EDD Kashipur and EDD

Bajpur reported a sale of 1152.78 units/kW/month, 1035.29 units/kW/month and 737.24

units/kW/month respectively which implies a daily running of about 38, 35 and 24 hours a day

which is abnoxious. Even the consumption in EDD Srinagar implies a daily running of almost 18

hours a day which is again unreasonable. On an average, the daily consumption of this category

should not exceed 10-13 hours a day. This signifies wastage of electricity or a refuge to book excess

losses as it is understood that most of the connections in this category are still unmetered. The

Commission has been time and again directing UPCL to devise means to prevent the wasteful

consumption of electricity in this category but the data reported by UPCL reveals that UPCL has

paid no heed to the directions of the Commission. Further, the average billing rate of Rs. 2.14 per

unit reported by EDD (R) Roorkee and Rs. 3.79 per unit reported by EDD (R) Haridwar is

unacceptable as the energy charges approved for FY 2014-15 was itself Rs. 4.10 per unit and, hence,

the average billing rate can in no way be less than the energy charges.

Table 4.6: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per Unit of Public Lamps as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15

Sl. No. Division Consumption/ kW Revenue/unit (Rs. per unit)

1. EDD, Srinagar 531.81 4.04 2. EDD (R), Roorkee 1152.78 2.14 3. EDD (R), Hardwar 197.99 3.79 4. EDD, Kashipur 1035.29 4.12 5. EDD, Bajpur 737.24 4.17 6. EDD, Pithoragarh 367.44 4.05



In the Public Water Works category under RTS 6, as given in the Table below, Jal Sansthan

connections in EDD (C), Dehradun, EDD Kashipur, EDD Bajpur are having a very high sales

signifying the running hours as 24.81 hours/day, 71.61 hours/day and 23.55 hours/day

respectively. Even EDD (R) Haridwar is having a very high consumption/kW signifying a running

hour of 16.80 hours/day. The running hours in these connections for more than 24 hours a day is

totally unrealistic. In case of EDD Kashipur the running hours are equivalent to almost 72

hours/day. UPCL’s field divisions are making a mockery by submitting such data. Further, the

energy charges approved for FY 2014-15 for this category was Rs. 4.00/kVAh, however, the actual

average billing rate reported by EDD (R) Haridwar and EDD Rudrapur is even lower than the

energy charges.

Further, in respect of Other Water Works/Plastic Recycling Plant under RTS-6, as given in

the Table below, EDD (R), Dehradun, EDD Vikasnagar and EDD, Ranikhet are having a very high

sales signifying the running hours as 23.00 hours/day, 38.89 hours/day and 19.71 hours/day

respectively. The running hours in these connections are totally unrealistic. Moreover, the average

billing rate in EDD (U), Roorkee is infact even lower than the energy charges approved for this

category. The average billing rate in EDD, Bageshwar of Rs. 0.42/unit is infact even lower than the

lowest tariffs approved by the Commission for PTW connections.

Table 4.7: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per unit of Public Water Works as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15


(Rs. per unit) 1.

Jal Sansthan

EDD (C), Dehradun 744.32 4.74 2. EDD (R), Hardwar 504.14 3.93 3. EDD, Kashipur 2148.19 4.15 4. EDD, Bajpur 706.61 4.15 5. EDD, Rudrapur 358.79 3.76 6.

Other Water Works/Plastic Recycling Plant

EDD (R), Dehradun 690.73 4.26 7. EDD, Vikasnagar 1166.67 4.73 8. EDD (U), Roorkee 243.83 3.79 9. EDD, Bageshwar 52.63 0.42

10. EDD, Ranikhet 591.23 4.07

In the Government Irrigation System under RTS-5, as given in the Table below, State

Tubewell Connections in EDD, Rishikesh and EDD (R), Haridwar are having a very high sales

signifying the running hours as 29.56 hours/day and 29.49 hours/day respectively. The running

hours in these connections for more than 24 hours a day is totally unrealistic. Further, the energy



charges approved for FY 2014-15 for this category was Rs. 4.10/kWh, however, the actual average

billing rate reported by EDD (R) Haridwar and EDD Rudrapur is even lower than the energy

charges approved by the Commission.

Further, in respect of Pump Canals under RTS-5, as given in the Table below, EDD

Vikasnagar is having a very high sales signifying the running hours of almost 18.00 hours/day.

Moreover, the average billing rate in EDD, Srinagar, EDD, Gopeshwar, EDD, Kotdwar and EDD,

Ramnagar are even lower than the energy charges approved for this category.

Table 4.8: Division wise anomalies in Consumption and Average Revenue per unit of Government Irrigation System as per Commercial Statements for FY 2014-15


(Rs. per unit) 1.

State Tubewell EDD, Rishikesh 886.92 4.89

2. EDD (R), Hardwar 884.55 1.17 3. EDD, Rudrapur 385.78 3.01 4.

Pump Canal

EDD, Vikasnagar 538.33 4.35 5. EDD, Srinagar 42.86 2.38 6. EDD, Gopeshwar 8.10 3.11 7. EDD, Kotdwar 0.93 - 8. EDD, Ramnagar 34.23 3.96

This signifies that either proper load monitoring is not being carried out and the connections

are released on lower contracted load or fictitious sales are booked to camouflage the losses because

of which the consumption/kW is coming very high and average revenue/unit is working out to be

even lower than the energy charges. In either case, UPCL’s revenue is being suppressed and is

being loaded on to other consumer categories. This also reflects towards the inadequate monitoring

of sales and revenues at the distribution/circle/zonal/head office level of UPCL. Infact during the

current proceedings UPCL was asked to submit the reasons and basis for the anamolies discussed

above. UPCL in its reply merely submitted that it has taken strict measures for curbing the same

and the Field officers have been directed to avoid such kind of careless mistakes and be accountable

for such kind of errors. UPCL further submitted that in order to avoid such errors in the future and

to simplify the monitoring system, the corporate office has revised the formats and, accordingly,

circulated them to the field offices.

In its reply dated January 25, 2016 filed under affidavit, UPCL further submitted that the

matter was examined at the Corporate Office and it was found that the bills are being generated

through a billing software. The billing logics were checked and found to be correct and hence, the



billing was being done correctly and accordingly, it requested the Commission to treat the pointed

out deficiencies in such a manner that no financial loss is caused to it.

The reply of UPCL again exemplifies its callous and casual approach. In its reply, UPCL

made reference to the billing logic, however, it easily chose to ignore the fact that the Commerical

Statements are being prepared manually and there are every possible chance of human error be it

deliberate or inadvertent. If everything was correct then, UPCL should have furnished the reason

for consumption equivalent to almost 72 hours in a day in case of Jal Sansthan connection in EDD

Kashipur or the Average Revenue in case of Industries being lower than even Rs. 4.00 per unit.

The Commission has been pointing out to such abnormalities in the sales of UPCL in its

previous Orders also, however, still no corrective action has been taken by UPCL in this regard. The

Commission in these proceedings is not making any adjustment on the above accounts. However,

the Commission would examine the matter and if required necessary corrections to this extent

would be made in the subsequent years. In this regard, the Zonal Chiefs, the Circle Chief and the

concerned Executive Engineers are hereby directed to examine the data pointed out above with

reference to their Divisions for FY 2014-15 and submit the justification to the Commission within

45 days of the date of Order on the above discrepancies failing which action may be initiated

against them individually by the Commission under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The category wise sales of UPCL for FY 2014-15 are being discussed hereunder:

a) Domestic Consumers:-

Based on the detailed analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted for FY 2014-15, it is

observed that for domestic consumers, the load factor (sales/kW of connected load) for unmetered

consumers and consumers whose consumption was recorded on assessment basis was substantially

higher than the load factor 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 numbers of defective meters as

in previous years and substantial number of these meters have not been replaced for years. The

Commission in its previous Tariff Orders has been recasting the unmetered sales and assessed sales

based on the load factor of metered consumers.

For carrying out the Truing Up of sales for FY 2014-15, the Commission considering the

abnormalities observed while carrying out the sales analysis for FY 2014-15 has continued with the



approach adopted by it in the previous Orders and has recasted the sales for FY 2014-15 of

unmetered consumers and consumers billed on assessment basis. For recasting sales of domestic

category, the Commission has considered the load factor of metered consumers as the basis for

deriving the sales of unmetered consumers and consumers billed on assessment basis.

The Commission has also recasted the sales of departmental employees on the basis of the

load factor of the metered domestic consumers considering the Petitioner’s admission that although

the Departmental employees had been metered, however, the consumption of Departmental

employees was not being recorded and, hence, the same has been considered as unmetered sales by

the Commission.

Accordingly, based on the above, the total recasted sales for Domestic Category for FY 2014-

15 works out to 2245.37 MU against 2274.02 MU submitted by UPCL and the same is summarised

in the Table below:

Table 4.9: Re-casted Sales for Domestic Category for FY 2014-15 (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)

1. BPL and Kutir Jyoti 297044 286979 179.60 625.83 22427 22066 13.96 13.81 - - - - 193.41

2. Other Domestic Consumers 1189261 1783396 1798.97 1008.70 131512 178450 183.37 180.01 7626 9981 10.77 10.07 1989.05

3. UPCL Employees and Pensioners - - - - 8051 25254 47.80 25.47 - - - - 25.47

4. UJVNL Employees and Pensioners - - - - 661 1625 3.57 1.64 - - - - 1.64

5. PTCUL Employees and Pensioners - - - - 355 1166 1.36 1.18 - - - - 1.18

6. Single Point Bulk Supply 93 21357 34.62 1621.10 - - - - - - - - 34.62

Total Domestic 1486399 2091732 2013.20 - 163005 228561 250.06 222.11 7626 9981 10.77 10.07 2245.37

b) PTW Consumers

Based on the detailed analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted for FY 2014-15, it is

observed that for PTW consumers also, the load factor of unmetered consumers and consumers

whose consumption was recorded on assessment basis was substantially higher than the load factor

of the 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. The Commission in its previous Tariff Orders has been recasting the unmetered sales and



assessed sales based on the load factor of metered consumers.

For carrying out the Truing Up of sales for FY 2014-15, the Commission has continued with

the approach adopted by it in the previous Orders and has recasted the sales for FY 2014-15 of the

unmetered consumers and consumers billed on assessment basis. For recasting the sales of PTW

category, the Commission has considered the load factor of metered consumers as the basis for

deriving the sales of unmetered consumers and consumers billed on assessment basis.

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for PTW Category for FY 2014-15

works out to 266.86 MU against 298.44 MU submitted by UPCL and the same is summarised in the

Table below:

Table 4.10: Re-casted sales for PTW Category for FY 2014-15 (MU)

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)

PTW 23965 140545 233.85 1663.8 1894 11067 20.32 18.41 1389 8776 44.27 14.60 266.86

c) Other Categories

For some other categories, i.e. Non-Domestic, PWW, GIS, Public Lamps and LT Industrial

based on the analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted for FY 2014-15, it is observed that for

these categories, the load factor of unmetered consumers and consumers whose consumption was

recorded on assessment basis was marginally higher than the load factor of those consumers whose

consumption was recorded on the basis of actual meter reading. The Commission in its previous

Tariff Orders has been recasting the unmetered sales and assessed sales based on the load factor of

the metered consumers. For recasting sales for these categories, the Commission has considered the

load factor of the metered consumers as the basis for deriving the sales of unmetered consumers

and consumers billed on assessment basis.



Table 4.11: Re-casted sales for Other Categories for FY 2014-15 (MU) S.

No

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. Non Domestic 178876 764004 1043.81 1366.2 13010 17506 24.14 23.92 - - - - 1067.73 2. PWW 1165 69700 309.58 4441.6 49 1430 7.06 6.35 - - - - 315.93 3. GIS 1345 50832 104.93 2064.2 59 1303 2.71 2.69 - - - - 107.62 4. Public Lamps 629 11332 36.83 3249.8 28 402 1.50 1.31 40 1454 8.51 4.73 42.86 5. LT Industry 8759 184660 299.82 1623.6 544 3041 4.97 4.94 - - - - 304.76

d) HT Industries

The Petitioner submitted the sales to HT Industry of 5066.49 MU for FY 2014-15. The

Commission in this regard sought clarification from 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. 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 category wise sale for FY 2014-15 as re-worked by the

Commission is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.12: Category-wise Sales for FY 2014-15 (MU)

Categories Approved in the

Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014

Claimed in the Petition

Approved after Truing Up

Domestic (RTS - 1) 2039.38 2272.98 2245.37 Non-domestic, incl Commercial (RTS - 2) 1173.72 1069.93 1067.73 Public Lamps (RTS - 3) 89.70 46.84 42.86 Private Tubewell/Pump Sets (RTS - 4) 210.16 268.89 266.86 Government Irrigation System (RTS - 5) 179.62 107.64 107.62 Public Water Works (RTS - 6) 438.26 316.64 315.93 Industrial Consumers (RTS - 7) 5554.22 5371.28 5371.25 Mixed Load (RTS - 8) 219.23 185.68 185.68 Railway Traction (RTS - 9) 10.26 14.70 14.70 Total 9914.54 9654.58 9618.00

4.1.2 Distribution Losses

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted its distribution losses for FY 2014-15 at 18.79%.



The Commission for FY 2014-15 had approved distribution losses of 15.50% based on the loss

reduction trajectory approved in the MYT Order for the Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-

16. However, as per the actual data submitted by the Petitioner and the sales approved by the

Commission, the actual distribution losses for FY 2014-15 works out to 19.06%.

The Commission, in accordance with the approach adopted in its previous Orders, has

allowed the actual power purchase made by the Petitioner. Considering the actual energy input of

11,882.20 MU at distribution periphery (T&D interface) for FY 2014-15 and applying the approved

loss level of 15.50% for the year, the Commission has re-estimated the sales of 10040.46 MU for FY

2014-15. As against this sale of 10040.46 MU, the actual sales recasted by the Commission for FY

2014-15 is 9618.00 MU. Therefore, there is a loss of sales to the tune of 422.46 MU on account of

commercial inefficiencies of the Petitioner resulting from its failure to achieve target distribution

losses approved by the Commission. The Petitioner has submitted the average billing rate of Rs.

4.09/kWh worked out on the claimed sales of 9654.58 MU. However, on the recasted sale of 9618

MU, the average billing rate works out to Rs. 4.11/kWh and, accordingly, the Commission has

worked out additional revenue of Rs. 173.63 Crore at an average billing rate of Rs. 4.11/kWh for the

sales lost during FY 2014-15. The following Table shows actual distribution loss and approved

distribution loss along with efficiency loss for FY 2014-15 as explained above.

Table 4.13: Assessed Distribution losses for FY 2014-15 (MU)

Particulars Approved in the

Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014

Revised Claim

Approved after Truing

Up Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface / Power Purchase Requirement (MU) 11,803.03 11,882.20 11,882.20

Actual/ Recasted Sales (MU) 9,914.54 9,654.58 9,618.00 Actual Distribution Loss (MU) 1,888.49 2,227.62 2,264.20 Distribution Loss Level (%) 16.00% 18.79% 19.06% Commercial Loss Reduction (%) 0.50% - 0.50% (Loss)/Gain of sales due to inefficiency/efficiency (MU) (Normative Sales-Actual Re-casted Sales)

59.02 390.97 422.46

Approved Distribution Loss (%) 15.50% 15.50% 15.50% Total Normative Sales (MU) 9,973.56 10,045.55 10,040.46 PTCUL Losses (%) 1.82% 1.78% 1.78% Energy Input at State Periphery 12,021.83 12,097.54 12,097.54

Further, as distribution loss is a controllable parameter, the Commission has carried out the

sharing of the impact of excess distribution loss in accordance with the provisions of UERC Tariff



Regulations, 2011.

4.1.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

The comparison of source wise power purchase quantum and cost as approved by the

Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2014-15 and actual as claimed by UPCL for FY 2014-15 is as


Table 4.14: Power Purchase Cost approved in the Tariff Order Vs Actual Power Purchase Cost for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Source Approved in the Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL

Quantum (MU)

Total cost (Rs. Crore)

Rate (Rs./kWh)

Quantum (MU)

Total cost (Rs. Crore)

Rate (Rs./kWh)

UJVN Ltd. 4463.51 737.73 1.65 3828.31 643.86 1.68 NHPC 637.78 210.09 3.29 562.07 215.00 3.83 THDC 183.15 85.66 4.68 143.99 111.81 7.77 NTPC 3147.85 953.00 3.03 2481.45 803.39 3.24 NPCIL 222.36 68.45 3.08 231.49 72.43 3.13 Free Power 866.43 148.09 1.71 799.89 154.92 1.94 SJVNL 107.46 42.67 3.97 174.35 72.67 4.17 Other IPPs 1162.95 383.93 3.30 709.47 211.22 2.98 Open Market Purchases 1345.54 547.63 4.07 2275.08 844.03 3.71

Banking 115.19 - - 776.76 299.38 3.85 PTCUL - 238.70 - - 236.78 - PGCIL - 254.92 - - 246.50 - Water charges - 20.00 - - - -

Total 12021.85 3690.87 3.07 11982.86 3911.99 3.26

Based on the above comparative statement, the Commission sought the following

clarifications from UPCL:

• Basis of arriving at the banking cost of Rs. 299.38 Crore.

• Reasons for claiming lower PTCUL charges than that approved by the Commission.

In reply, the Petitioner submitted the following:

• The total quantum of 809.125 MU was received by UPCL under banking arrangement

during FY 2014-15 which has to be returned with additional energy of 5% in FY 2015-16.

In the power deficit scenario in the State, the inability of firm sources to meet the existing

demand and absence of any new source in the State, the per unit rate of banking has

been considered as the average per unit rate incurred for purchase from open market



with 5% escalation to balance out the 5% additional energy to be returned. Accordingly,

the cost of Rs. 299.38 Crore has been booked in the accounts considering the average rate

of Rs. 3.70/kWh.

• The Petitioner submitted that an amount of Rs. 1.91 Crore pertaining to wheeling

charges of open access has been adjusted against the PTCUL charges and submitted the

copies of supporting invoices for the same.

Further, the Commission sought the following information from the Petitioner:

• Month wise energy banking details for FY 2014-15.

• Detailed reasons for making the provision of cost towards banked energy in FY 2014-15

as the energy is to be returned in FY 2015-16.

• How provisioning of cost towards banking made in FY 2014-15 would be dealt in FY

2015-16.

• Source wise actual power purchase cost showing past arrears separately.

In reply, the Petitioner submitted the following information:

• Month wise banking details of forward banking and reverse banking in FY 2014-15.

• Under the banking arrangement, either the energy is received first from other utility and

is returned with some additional energy in the next year of the receipt or energy is given

first to the other utility and is received back alongwith the additional energy. Generally,

no cash transaction is involved in such Banking arrangement of Energy. However, in

case at the end of the year there is any balance of such Banking, the cost has to be

reflected in the books of Accounts and in the cost of electricity supplied. The Petitioner

also placed reliance on Accounting Standard – 1 issued by ICAI which specifies the

fundamental Accounting Assumptions. One of such assumption is “Accrual”, which has

been defined to mean that Financial Statement is prepared on mercantile system only.

Mercantile System of Accounting is known where all the transactions (expenses/

revenues) are recorded on occurrence of such transactions and not when the cash is paid

/received. The Petitioner also submitted that any balance of energy received under

banking arrangement is the part of cost of supply of energy of the year in which such

energy is received and revenue is also booked in the year of receipt of energy and,

therefore, the cost of energy should be booked on the estimated basis in the year of



receipt of such energy which is in line with the matching principle. However, in case at

the end of the year, there is any balance of such banking, the cost has to be reflected in

the books of accounts towards cost of electricity supplied.

• The Petitioner received 809 MU of energy under banking arrangement during FY 2014-

15 and booked the cost of such energy in FY 2014-15. This energy has been returned in

FY 2015-16 out of the power purchase made for FY 2015-16. Thus, the payment of energy

received under banking system in FY 2014-15 has been made in FY 2015-16. The

provision made by UPCL towards the cost of energy banked in FY 2014-15 shall be

reduced in FY 2015-16 and shall not form the part of the power purchase cost in FY 2015-

16. In the previous years, since the net balance of banking energy remained nominal, the

cost of the same was being considered in the year in which it was returned (where it was

first received) and in the year in which it was given (where it was first given).

• The Petitioner submitted that the power purchase cost claimed for true up of FY 2014-15

is as per the audited accounts. The information of actual arrear amount pertaining to the

power purchase cost booked in the accounts for each of the sources of power for FY

2014-15 is not maintained. The Petitioner submitted that the arrear amount as reflected in

the comdata for FY 2014-15 may be considered. The Petitioner further submitted that

during the start of a financial year, billing adjustments are done of bills pertaining to the

previous financial years in the accounts, therefore, certain variations occur on this

account between the cost reflected in the comdata and in the accounts. The Petitioner

also submitted that the average power purchase cost of THDC Ltd. for FY 2014-15 was

substantially high due to arrears.

After scrutiny of the submissions of the Petitioner, the Commission does not find the

methodology adopted by the Petitioner regarding the provisioning of cost towards banked energy

in FY 2014-15 as appropriate since the energy is due to be returned in FY 2015-16. This methodology

leads to serious financial implications as observed in the past practices of the Petitioner when the

excess provisioning towards power purchase cost was made by the Petitioner in previous years and

those provisions were written back in FY 2013-14. The Commission is of the view that the energy

received under banking in FY 2014-15 is to be returned in FY 2015-16 and this is a regular

phenomenon every year. The Petitioner itself in replies to queries raised has also mentioned that the

cost of energy purchased towards return of energy banked in FY 2014-15 has been incurred in FY



2015-16. Further, it is important to note that the Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 while

approving the quantum of power purchase observed as follows:

“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.”

Thus, the Commission while approving the power purchase quantum and cost for FY 2015-

16 in its Order dated April 11, 2015 had allowed surplus energy of around 290.08 MU to be utilised

for returning the energy received through banking. Further, the Commission is of the opinion that

reliance made by the Petitioner on AS-1 regarding the accrual system of accounting is not relevant

in this issue. In this regard, AS-1 stipulates as under:

“...Revenues and costs are accrued, that is, recognised as they are earned or incurred (and not as

money is received or paid) and recorded in the financial statements of the periods to which they

relate...”

(Emphasis added)

Here, the relevant issue would be the period to which the cost resulting from the banking

arrangement would relate. In accordance with the Banking arrangement entered into by the

Petitioner, it is bound to ensure return of 105% of the banked power during the surplus months, i.e.

summer/rainy season of the financial year, i.e. between 01.07.2015 – 30.09.2015. Hence, the cost

does not accrue to the Petitioner during FY 2014-15 as the Petitioner would either have to return the

banked power during FY 2015-16 or in case of its failure to return such power, it would be liable to



pay the penalty @ average IEX rate of that particular day +Rs. 2.04/kWh. Thus, the Commission

does not confirm to the views of the Petitioner in this regard and is, therefore, of the view that it

would be a more prudent approach to consider the return of energy banked in the year in which it

is being returned instead of making the provisioning of power purchase cost in the year in which

energy has been received under the banking arrangement.

It would also be relevant to mention that the Petitioner has made excess provisioning in this

regard. The Petitioner has made a provision of the cost of Rs. 299.38 Crore considering the average

rate of Rs. 3.70/kWh. However, the Commission had vide its Order dated July 03, 2015 allowed the

Petitioner purchase of about 849.58 MU of energy from M/s. Manikaran Power Limited at a Landed

Price of Rs. 3.37/kWh at the State Periphery which was to be returned to M/s. Haryana Power

Purchase Centre. Thus, the Petitioner has already made an excess provision of Rs. 27 Crore.

In view of the above, the Commission has not considered the provisioning of Rs. 299.37

Crore in approving the power purchase cost for FY 2014-15. The Commission would duly consider

the energy requirement and its cost for FY 2015-16 including return of banked energy received in FY

2014-15 while carrying out the truing up for FY 2015-16. The Petitioner in this regard is directed to

separately claim the cost of the energy returned under banking during truing up exercise of FY

2015-16 and not show the same as adjustment from the provisions.

Further, the Petitioner has also shown Rs. 160.48 Crore paid to UJVN Ltd. towards its past

dues against the gap allowed to UJVN Ltd. for previous years. The Petitioner was asked to clarify

the same. In response the Petitioner submitted that the total past dues of UJVN Ltd. amounting to

Rs. 160.48 Crore were paid during FY 2014-15 and the same were part of the cost of UPCL in FY

2014-15. Since, the Commission has been allowing power purchase cost on the basis of audited

accounts, accordingly, the Commission has considered Rs. 160.48 Crore paid to UJVN Ltd. towards

its past dues for FY 2014-15 on the basis of the audited accounts. Further, with regard to the arrears

paid during FY 2014-15, as the Petitioner has not submitted the break-up for the same, the

Commission has approved the sources wise power purchase cost as reflected in the audited

accounts. Henceforth, the Commission directs the Petitioner to put in place a mechanism for

recording the arrears paid in the year for submission along with its claim of truing up for the

respective year in the absence of which the Commission shall take an appropriate view

regarding the allowable power purchase cost while carrying out the truing up exercise.



Further, the Commission sought the details of deemed generation charges paid by UPCL for

FY 2014-15. In reply the Petitioner submitted that the amount of Rs. 0.17 Crore has been paid on

account of deemed generation charges in FY 2014-15. In this regard, Regulation 47(5) of the UERC

(Tariff and Other Terms of Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources and non-fossil fuel

based Co-generating Stations) Regulations, 2013 specifies as follows:

“(5) Any charges paid by the distribution licensee towards deemed generation shall not be allowed as

an expense to be pass through in tariffs. The distribution licensee will have to bear such charges.”

In accordance with RE Tariff Regulations, the charges paid by the distribution licensee

towards deemed generation are not allowable in the ARR of the distribution licensee. Hence, the

Commission has not considered the charges of Rs. 0.17 Crore in power purchase cost of FY 2014-15

paid towards deemed generation.

The Commission has considered the rate of 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 in its Order dated April 10, 2014 for FY 2014-15. Based

on the above approach, the rate of free power works out to Rs. 1.94/kWh which is equal to the rate

claimed by the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the power purchase cost approved by the Commission on truing up for FY

2014-15 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.15: Power Purchase Cost claimed by UPCL and approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL

Approved by the Commission

Power Purchase Expenses 3267.69 2968.15 UJVN Ltd. Arrear 160.48 160.48 Transmission Charges-PGCIL 246.54 246.54 Transmission Charges- PTCUL 236.78 236.78 Total Power Purchase Cost 3911.49 3611.95

4.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses

O&M expenses comprises of Employee Expenses, A&G Expenses and R&M Expenses, i.e.

expenditure on staff, administration and repairs and maintenance etc. For estimating the O&M

expenses for the first Control Period, Regulation 84 of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specifies as

below:



“...

(2) The O&M expenses for the first year of the Control Period will be approved by the Commission

taking into account the actual O&M expenses for last five years till Base Year subject to prudence

check and any other factors considered appropriate by the Commission.

(3) The O&M expenses for the nth year and also for the year immediately preceding the Control

Period, i.e. 2012-13, shall be approved based on the formula given below:-

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) The above components shall be computed in the manner specified below:

EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (CPIinflation)

R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (WPIinflation) and

A&Gn = (A&Gn-1) x (WPIinflation) + Provision

Where –

• EMPn-1 – Employee Costs for the (n-1)th year;

• A&Gn-1 – Administrative and General Costs for the (n-1)th year;

• Provision: Cost for initiatives or other one-time expenses as proposed by the Distribution

Licensee and approved by the Commission after prudence check.

• “K” is a constant specified by the Commission in %. Value of K for each year of the

control period shall be determined by the Commission in the MYT Tariff order based on

licensee’s filing, benchmarking of repair and maintenance expenses, approved repair and

maintenance expenses vis-à-vis GFA approved by the Commission in past and any other

factor considered appropriate by the Commission;

• CPIinflation – is the average increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for

immediately preceding three years;

• WPIinflation – is the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index (CPI) for immediately

preceding three years;



• GFAn-1 - Gross Fixed Asset of the Transmission Licensee for the n-1th year;

• 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 licensee’s filings, benchmarking and any other factor that the Commission feels

appropriate:

Provided that repair and maintenance expenses determined shall be utilised towards repair and

maintenance works only.”

4.1.4.1 Employee Expenses

The Petitioner submitted that the normative employee expenses for FY 2014-15 have been

arrived at as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 by considering the employee expenses for FY

2011-12 as the base year expense.

The Petitioner submitted that it had to bear the responsibility of paying enhanced pension

which was 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 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. On February 5, 2013, Additional

Secy (Energy) vide letter no. 173 directed UPCL to release enhanced pension from their own fund.

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 2014-15 was Rs.

11.23 Crore. Since enhanced pension was not part of the base employee expenses, this has been

considered additionally in FY 2014-15. The Petitioner has claimed the normative gross employee

expenses for FY 2014-15 of Rs. 352.99 Crore as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.16: Revised Employee Expenses Trajectory for MYT Control Period as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Inflation Factor 10.40% 9.76% 9.50% 8.80% Growth Factor 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.91% Gross Employee Expenses 284.35 312.10 341.76 393.82 Impact of enhanced pension 17.23 11.23 12.22

Gross Employee Expenses 284.35 329.33 352.99 406.03

The Petitioner submitted that the normative gross employee expenses for FY 2014-15 have

been considered as Rs. 352.99 Crore. The actual capitalisation of employee expenses for FY 2014-15

is Rs. 50.34 Crore. Hence, the normative net employee expenses for FY 2014-15 is Rs. 302.65 Crore as

against the actual net employee expenses of Rs. 263.72 Crore.

The Commission has re-worked the normative employee expenses for FY 2014-15 in

accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Commission has approved the trued up

normative gross employee expenses of Rs. 261.99 Crore for FY 2013-14. Considering the same, in

accordance with the Regulations, the Commission has computed the normative employee expenses

for FY 2014-15. Regarding the growth factor, the Commission observed that the number of

employees of UPCL has reduced from FY 2013-14 to FY 2014-15 as the retirement of employees

outpaced the recruitment of employees during these years. Hence, the Commission has considered

the Gn factor as zero. The Commission has considered the inflation factor of 9.50% which is the

average of CPI inflation for the preceding three years of FY 2014-15 as against the inflation factor of

8.75% approved by the Commission in the MYT Order based on the CPI inflation for FY 2010-11 to

FY 2012-13. The Commission has considered the capitalisation of expenses in the same proportion

of actual capitalisation of expenses to the actual gross expenses. Further, in line with the approach

adopted by the Commission in the true up for FY 2013-14, the Commission has considered the

impact of enhanced pension as claimed by UPCL considering the statutory liability of the Petitioner.

However, the Commission would again like to caution the Petitioner that 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. The normative employee expense approved by the

Commission for FY 2014-15 is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.17: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in

the Tariff Order

Actual as per Audited

Accounts

Normative Claimed by

UPCL Approved

Employee expenses 259.89 263.72 302.65 255.86

4.1.4.2 Repair and Maintenance

The Commission has approved the R&M expenses of Rs. 119.56 Crore for FY 2014-15. As

against the same, the actual R&M expenses for FY 2014-15 as per the audited accounts is Rs. 86.99

Crore. The Petitioner has claimed the normative R&M expenses of Rs. 119.56 Crore.

The Commission has re-worked the normative R&M expenses for FY 2014-15 in accordance

with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 had

approved the K factor of 2.84% based on the revised GFA approved for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13.

The Commission has considered the inflation factor of 7.42% which is the average of WPI inflation

for the preceding three years of FY 2014-15. The normative R&M expenses approved by the


Table 4.18: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)


the Tariff Order


Accounts


UPCL Approved

R&M Expenses 119.56 86.99 119.56 114.02

4.1.4.3 A&G Expenses

The Commission has approved the A&G expenses of Rs. 24.79 Crore for FY 2014-15. As

against the same, the actual A&G expenses as per the audited accounts is Rs. 20.99 Crore. The

Petitioner has claimed the normative A&G expenses of Rs. 24.79 Crore for FY 2014-15.

The Commission has re-worked the normative A&G expenses for FY 2014-15 in accordance

with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Commission has considered the inflation factor of 7.42%

which is average of WPI inflation for the preceding three years of FY 2014-15. 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 incurred under these

heads from the Petitioner. The Petitioner in response submitted that the actual cost incurred

towards the same was Rs. 0.75 Crore. The Commission has, therefore, allowed Rs. 0.75 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. 8.14 Crore as submitted by the Petitioner. The A&G expenses approved

by the Commission for FY 2014-15 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.19: Approved A&G expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)


the Tariff Order


Accounts


UPCL Approved

A&G expenses 24.79 20.99 24.79 21.03

Accordingly, the Commission has allowed net O&M expenses as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.20: Approved O&M expenses for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars

Approved in the Tariff

Order


Accounts


UPCL Approved

1. Employee expenses 259.89 263.72 302.65 255.86 2. R&M expenses 119.56 86.99 119.56 114.02 3. A&G expenses 24.79 20.99 24.79 21.03 Total 404.23 371.70 447.00* 390.90

*submitted as 440.47 in the Petition

4.2 Cost of Assets & Financing

4.2.1 Capital cost of Original Assets

As regards the capital cost of original assets, the Commission vide its Order dated April 11,

2015 held as under:

“3.2.5.1 Capital Cost of Original Assets

The Commission observed that the issue of original value of fixed assets for the Petitioner 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.”

In this regard, Hon’ble ATE in its Judgment dated May 18, 2015 in Appeal No. 180 of 2013

ruled as under:



“25. We feel that since it is matter of transfer scheme and apportioning of value of assets between two

States after reorganization, the Appellant should take up the matter with State Government for

issuance of notification on transfer of assets to Uttarakhand from UP. Accordingly decided.”

In light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble ATE, the Commission does not find the need to

revise the capital cost of original assets from the earlier approved value of Rs. 508 Crore for the

Petitioner.

As regards the capitalisation of assets, the Commission vide its Order dated April 11, 2015

held as under:

“3.2.5.2 Capitalisation of Assets

……………………….

In view of the above and taking cognisance of the efforts made by the Petitioner so far to get the

clearance of all the HT/EHT works and also 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…………………

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…”

In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that the year wise gross addition in fixed assets

(plant and machinery & lines and cables) as per the Audited Accounts was as follows:



Table 4.21: Year wise GFA addition as submitted by UPCL (Rs. Crore)

Year Plant & Machinery Lines & Cables

Sum of Plant and Machinery and Lines &

Cables

HT LT Total HT LT Total HT LT Grand Total

FY 2007-08 49.50 70.01 119.51 184.42 48.26 232.68 233.92 118.27 352.19 FY 2008-09 40.50 45.27 85.77 70.51 34.65 105.16 111.01 79.92 190.93 FY 2009-10 67.81 117.91 185.72 258.35 143.51 401.86 326.16 261.42 587.58 FY 2010-11 24.92 88.87 113.79 276.91 196.37 473.28 301.83 285.24 587.07 FY 2011-12 24.04 129.76 153.80 319.73 119.92 439.65 343.77 249.68 593.45 FY 2012-13 41.69 64.67 106.36 122.50 92.02 214.52 164.19 156.69 320.88 FY 2013-14 84.19 41.30 125.49 65.38 102.99 168.37 149.57 144.29 293.86 FY 2014-15 124.43 126.58 251.01 166.56 156.99 323.55 290.99 283.57 574.56 Total 457.08 684.37 1141.45 1464.36 894.71 2359.07 1921.44 1579.08 3500.52

• It was observed that out the HT/EHT assets amounting to Rs. 1921.44 Crore as per the

Audited Accounts, physically HT/EHT assets amounted to Rs. 1358.13 Crore and

remaining assets were LT. Hence, out of the total assets amounting to Rs. 3500.52 Crore,

the value of HT/EHT assets amounts to Rs. 1358.13 Crore and value of LT assets

amounts to Rs. 2142.39 Crore.

• The Electrical Inspector Certificates for HT works amounting to Rs. 1358.13 Crore has

been submitted to the Commission vide various correspondences.

The Commission vide its Order dated April 11, 2015 had carried out the truing up for FY

2013-14 by provisionally considering the revised net fixed assets addition till FY 2013-14. As there is

no change in the opening fixed assets and net fixed assets addition for FY 2013-14, the provisional

truing up for FY 2013-14 has attained finality and the Commission does not find the need to reopen

the same. However, the Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 has not carried out the final

true up of capital related expenses for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 although the revised net fixed assets

addition had been provisionally considered.

Considering the fact that the Petitioner has already submitted the Electrical Inspector

Certificates for the entire HT works amounting to Rs. 1358.13 Crore and since, the balance works are

LT works, accordingly, the Commission has carried out the truing up of capital related expense for

FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 based on the revised net fixed assets addition.



4.2.1.1 Impact of truing up of capital related expense for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13

4.2.1.1.1 Gross Fixed Assets

The details of capitalisation as approved by the Commission for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 is

as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.22: Net Fixed Assets addition approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13

Net Fixed Assets addition 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50

Accordingly, the Assets base of the Petitioner as approved by the Commission for FY 2007-

08 to FY 2012-13 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.23: Assets base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13

Opening Balance 1227.76 1540.46 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2787.04 Net additions 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50 Closing Balance 1540.46 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2787.04 3017.55

4.2.1.1.2 Financing of Capital assets

The following Table shows the means of finance as approved in the Tariff Order dated April

11, 2015 while carrying out the truing up for FY 2013-14 for assets capitalised from FY 2007-08 to FY

2012-13 .

Table 4.24: Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13

RGVVY Loan 13.24 9.99 6.05 19.94 - - AREP Loans 0.02 - - - 16.84 - State/District Plan 29.43 12.93 10.76 23.19 84.14 10.90 APDRP Loan - 1.82 0.68 4.17 - - R-APDRP Part A Loan - - - - - - REC Loan - - - - - 42.58 PMGY/MNP - - - 9.92 17.64 - PTW Loan 4.63 - - - - - Deposit works 26.07 43.52 164.82 60.40 47.25 26.50 Grants 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 Total 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50

The Commission has, accordingly, re-computed the depreciation, interest on loans, RoE and

interest on working capital for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 on account of revised net fixed asset

addition approved in this Order. The capital cost related expenses approved in the provisional true

up and approved in this Order for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.25: Impact of final true up of capital related expenses for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars

FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13

Prov

isio

nal

true

up

Fina

l tru

e up

Prov

isio

nal

true

up

Fina

l tru

e up

Prov

isio

nal

true

up

Fina

l tru

e up

Prov

isio

nal

true

up

Fina

l tru

e up

Prov

isio

nal

true

up

Fina

l tru

e up

Prov

isio

nal

true

up

Fina

l tru

e up

Depreciation 18.89 26.86 18.87 30.61 24.33 41.14 33.18 45.26 35.19 51.76 38.77 58.83 Interest on Loan 20.25 21.57 20.21 26.20 21.33 26.83 26.96 27.28 27.23 33.81 30.20 35.55

RoE 0.70 9.54 1.64 13.21 3.47 15.49 16.20 18.66 19.80 23.93 22.30 26.74 IWC 4.77 5.08 6.00 6.50 6.93 7.63 12.42 12.71 2.85 3.44 8.70 9.43 Total 44.61 63.05 46.72 76.51 56.06 91.09 88.76 103.91 85.07 112.94 99.97 130.56 Impact 18.44 29.79 35.03 15.15 27.87 30.59

Hence, the total impact of the final true up of capital related expenses for FY 2007-08 to FY

2012-13 results in a gap of Rs. 156.87 Crore. As already held by the Commission in its Order dated

April 11, 2015 no carrying cost has been considered on this gap on account of final true up of capital

related expenses from FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13. The Commission has dealt with this gap of Rs.

156.87 Crore in Chapter 5 of this Order.

4.2.1.2 Truing up of Capital Related Expense for FY 2014-15

The Commission vide its Order dated April 11, 2015 had carried out the true up for FY 2013-

14 and had approved the net GFA addition of Rs. 185.01 Crore for FY 2013-14. The Commission had

also approved the means of finance in the previous Order and the same is shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.26: Approved Means of Finance for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2013-14

RGVVY Loan 7.78 AREP Loan - State/District Plan 1.89 APDRP Loan - R-APDRP Part A Loan 2.97* REC Loan 79.90 PMGY/MNP - PTW Loan - Deposit Works 28.98* Grant - Internal resources 63.49# Total 185.01

*considered as grant #30% has been considered as equity & 70% has been treated as mormative loan

The Petitioner has claimed the net GFA addition of Rs. 472.76 Crore for FY 2014-15. The



Petitioner has submitted the Electrical Inspector Certificates for the HT works capitalised in FY

2014-15. Hence, the Commission has considered the net GFA addition of Rs. 472.76 Crore for FY

2014-15. The means of finance for the capitalisation of Rs. 472.76 Crore as submitted by the

Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.27: Means of Finance for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2014-15 RGVVY Loan 9.62 R-APDRP Part A Loan 16.59 REC Loan 189.89 Deposit Works 181.84 Grant Internal resources 74.82* Total 472.76

* 30% has been considred as equity and balance 70% considered as normative loan

The means of finance approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.28: GFA & Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 Grants Loan Equity Total Grants Loan Equity Total

Opening Value 1 ,362.72 1,195.07 459.76 3,017.55 1394.67 1329.08 478.80 3202.56 Total Addition during the year 31.95 134.01 19.05 185.01 181.84 268.47 22.45 472.76

Closing Value of GFA 1,394.67 1,329.08 478.80 3,202.56 1576.51 1597.56 501.25 3675.32

4.2.1.2.1 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner has claimed Interest and Finance Charges of Rs. 135.49 Crore for FY 2014-15

against the amount of Rs. 121.82 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated April

10, 2014.

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 the Tariff Order for FY 2014-15 dated April 10,



2014.

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 AREP loan were

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 in line with the approach adopted by the Commission in the previous

Tariff 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 2014-15 considering the loan amounts

corresponding to assets capitalised in the year based on the approved means of finance, and the

interest rate of 10.41% has been computed on the basis of weighted average interest rate on the

actual loan portfolio at the beginning of each year.

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 (CSD) for FY

2014-15 as Rs. 43.95 Crore. In reply to the Commission’s query, the Petitioner submitted that the

actual interest on CSD paid/adjusted in the bills for FY 2014-15 was Rs. 31.86 Crore. The

Commission has approved the interest on CSD for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 31.86 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 2014-15

considering the loan amounts corresponding to the assets capitalised in the year based on the

approved means of finance, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.29: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Tariff Order

Claimed by UPCL Approved

Govt. of Uttarakhand Loan 50.13 48.55 47.12 REC Old Loan 25.51 25.51 25.51 Interest on other loans 0.00 67.23 0.00 Total Interest on Loan 75.64 141.29 72.63 Guarantee Fee 2.20 3.40 3.40 Interest on Security Deposit 43.99 43.95 31.86 Other finance and bank charges 0.00 0.62 0.62 Total Interest Charges 121.82 189.26 108.51 Capitalisation 0.00 53.78 0.00 Net Interest and Finance Charges 121.82 135.48 108.51

4.2.2 Depreciation

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that it has calculated depreciation considering

the opening and closing GFA for FY 2014-15 on an 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 5.21% for FY 2014-15. The Petitioner has, accordingly, claimed total

depreciation of Rs. 105.86 Crore as against Rs. 69.38 Crore approved by the Commission in the

Tariff Order for FY 2014-15.

The Commission has allowed depreciation at a weighted average rate of 5.21% based on the



audited balance sheet for FY 2014-15. 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 in its accounts

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 the previous Tariff Orders

of allowing depreciation on the opening balance of GFA.

The Commission in its additional information directed 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 2014-15 has been less than 90% of GFA for all assets in accordance with the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

The depreciation approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.30: Depreciation approved for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

Opening GFA - 3202.56 Grants - 1394.67 Depreciable opening GFA 1876.19 1807.89 Net addition during the year 311.38 290.92* Closing GFA 2187.57 2098.81 Depreciation rate 5.21% 5.21% Depreciation 105.86 94.19

*Addtions less grants

4.2.3 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 other 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 the Commission

in the previous Tariff Orders, 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 approve Rs. 37.55 Crore which is the actual write off of bad debts in FY 2014-15.


“32. Bad and doubtful debts

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.”

As regards the bad and doubtful debts, the Commission sought the following clarification

from UPCL:

• As to whether the provisioning for bad debts allowed by the Commission till FY

2014-15 were sufficient or not.

• Year wise details of provision for bad debts allowed by the Commission and actual

bad debts written off corresponding to the arrears created subsequent to the

formation of UPCL and those bad debts written off which pertained prior to creation

of UPCL.




• The provision for bad and doubtful debts as on November 9, 2001 as per the Transfer

Scheme of Assets and Liabilities executed between UPPCL and UPCL was Rs. 230.01

Crore. The details of provision for bad debts allowed by the Commission and actual

written off is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.31: Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Actual Write off Year Provision allowed by the Commission Actual written off

FY 2001-02 3.86 - FY 2002-03 10.03 - FY 2003-04 10.94 - FY 2004-05 11.03 - FY 2005-06 12.44 - FY 2006-07 13.87 - FY 2007-08 17.59 - FY 2008-09 23.98 - FY 2009-10 - - FY 2010-11 - - FY 2011-12 - 10.96 FY 2012-13 - 44.04 FY 2013-14 - 47.01 FY 2014-15 - 37.14 Total 103.74 139.15

• Hence, no bad debts have been written off out of the provision made in the Transfer

Scheme.

• Out of the provision of Rs. 103.74 Crore allowed by the Commission till FY 2008-09,

the actual bad debt written off till FY 2013-14 is Rs. 102.01 Crore. In the absence of

availability of sufficient provision, bad debts written off during FY 2014-15 have been

claimed in the true up for FY 2014-15.

• UPCL has identified bad and doubtful arrears amounting to Rs. 417.32 Crore against

1,43,579 consumers. UPCL has targeted to settle this bad debt amount during FY

2016-17 taking steps as per the rules for recovery of the debt and by writing off

irrecoverable amount.

UPCL was asked to submit the details of bad debts written off and also to confirm that the

amount shown as bad debts written off does not include any billing adjustments. However, in

response UPCL submitted the category wise details of the bad debts written off and did not clarify

that the amount shown as bad debts written off does not include any billing adjustments. On

perusal of the category wise details of bad debts written off during FY 2014-15, it appears that



UPCL has written off Rs. 1.65 Crore dues of Public Water Works and Government Irrigation

System, which are connections to Government owned corporations or departments and it is

unimaginable to comprehend as to how the dues to such connections can turn bad. Moreover, with

respect to the amount written off by the Petitioner during FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13, the Petitioner

in the previous proceedings had submitted that the wrong billing made in the earlier period were

corrected by the distribution divisions and the value of excess billing had been written off in FY

2011-12 and FY 2012-13. Since the write offs were basically the rectification of wrong billing and,

accordingly, the Commission had held that such corrections cannot be treated as writing off of bad

debts. This clearly indicates lack of proper policy framework for identification, recognition and

management of provision for bad and doubtful debt. Further, it is surprising that despite categorical

directions issued by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, to frame a transparent policy for

identifying, recognising and writing off the bad debts, the Petitioner in its reply has yet again

submitted that it is in the process to finalise the bad debts write off policy of the company.

The Petitioner is directed to finalise the Policy within three month from the date of Order

and submit the same for approval of the Commission.

It is all the more surprising to note that the Petitioner has chosen to ignore the provisions of

Rs. 230 Crore inherited by it from UPPCL against the opening debtors of Rs. 619 Crore. The Transfer

Scheme agreed by the two Corporation dates back to the year 2001. It cannot be ruled out that out of

Rs. 619 Crore inherited by UPCL, some amount may be bad and doubtful by now which have to be

written off by the Petitioner from the total amount of provisions available with it. Infact, UPCL in its

submissions has also submitted that the arrears amounting to Rs. 273 Crore are pending for more

than 5 years. However, UPCL has not submitted the basis of arriving at the ageing of debtors. UPCL

is directed to submit the basis of arriving at the ageing of debtors within one month of the date

of Order. Hence, the Commission does not see any justification on the part of the Petitioner to

ignore the opening provisions inherited by UPCL.

Hence, the Commission has already allowed the Petitioner a total provision of Rs. 333.74

Crore till FY 2008-09 which also includes the opening balance of the provision inherited from

UPPCL. Even considering the actual write off debt of Rs. 139.15 Crore till FY 2014-15, the Petitioner

is still left with a provision of about Rs. 194 Crore. The closing debtors of UPCL as on 31.03.2015

were to the tune of Rs. 2087.33 Crore. Hence, the provision available with UPCL is to the extent of

9.30% of the existing debtors and any additional provision is not allowable in accordance with the



Regulations as referred above.

4.2.4 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. -66.78 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 4.32: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Operation and Maintenance Expenses (one month) 30.98 Maintenance @ 15% of O&M Expenses 55.76 Receivables (2 months) 685.01 Sub-total 771.74 Less: Adjustment for security deposits & Credit available for Power Purchase 838.53 Net working capital -66.78 Interest on working capital 0.00

The Commission has computed the working capital requirement as per UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011. Similar to the 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 2014-15, and hence, 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 2014-15 based

on actual equity invested in the business. The Petitioner further submitted that it has calculated RoE

on the basis of the following:

• Revised opening equity has been considered for FY 2001-02 depending upon the

finalisation of transfer scheme.

• Year wise addition of equity has been considered at maximum of 30% of the

capitalisation excluding grants and deposit works for each year. In the year when the

equity deployed was less than 30%, actual equity has been considered. The equity in



excess of 30% has been considered as normative loan.

• The closing equity for FY 2013-14 has been considered as the opening equity for FY 2014-

15.

• The capitalisation for FY 2014-15 excluding the grants and deposit works has been

considered to be funded in the debt equity ratio of 70:30.

• Return on equity has been computed on the average equity at the rate of return of 16%.

In this regard, Regulation 22 of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specifies as under:

“22. Debt-equity ratio

(1) For a project declared under commercial operation on or after 1.4.2013, debt-equity ratio shall

be 70:30. Where equity employed is more than 30%, the amount of equity for the purpose of

tariff shall be limited to 30% and the balance amount shall be considered as normative loan.

Where actual equity employed is less than 30%, the actual equity would be used for

determination of Return on Equity in tariff computations...”

Further, Regulation 27 of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specifies as under:

“27. Return on Equity

(1) Return on equity shall be computed on the equity base determined in accordance with Regulation

22.

Provided that, Return on Equity shall be allowed on amount of allowed equity capital

for the assets put to use at the commencement of each financial year…”

(Emphasis added)

Thus, it is to be noted that merely having equity in its accounts does not qualify the equity as

eligible for return purposes. For equity to be eligible for return, the same should have been invested

in creation of an asset. Moreover, contrary to UPCL’s practice of considering the year wise addition

of equity at maximum of 30% of the total capitalisation excluding grants and deposit works for each

year, the Commission in accordance with the Regulations has considered project wise financing as

submitted by UPCL and if in any project equity is in excess of 30% of the cost of the project, balance

has been treated as normative loan. Further, as per the Regulations referred above, return on equity

is allowable on opening equity.

Hence, the Commission has considered the closing equity for FY 2013-14 as the opening



equity for FY 2014-15. The Commission has approved the Return on Equity at the rate of 16% on the

opening equity in accordance with the Regulations. The Return on Equity approved by the


Table 4.33: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

Return on Equity 40.42 78.17 36.36

4.2.6 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. 162 Crore on the actual basis, including delayed payment

surcharge of Rs. 60.58 Crore. The actual Non-Tariff Income as per the audited accounts is Rs. 515.86

Crore. The Petitioner has not considered the Non-Tariff Income on account of material cost

variance, interest on institutional liabilities for previous years written back and 50% of

rebate/incentive.

The Petitioner submitted that the Non-Tariff Income on account of material cost variance has

not been considered as this is only an accounting entry due to change in accounting policy and

there is no cash involved in the same. The Non-Tariff Income further included the impact of

reversal of provision for obsolete stock material as the provision was written back in FY 2014-15 to

portray true state of affairs of the Corporation since the credit balance was persisting in the audited

accounts from the date of creation of UPCL. The Petitioner submitted that the Non-Tariff income on

account of interest on institutional/liabilities for previous years written back has not been

considered as the same pertains to accounting adjustments of previous years.

Further, the Petitioner in reply to the Commission’s query submitted that the material cost

variance amounting to Rs. 117.71 Crore was pertaining to the previous years from creation of UPCL

till FY 2014-15. The Petitioner requested the Commission to consider the same as Non-Tariff Income

equally in the next 10 years. The Petitioner also requested the Commission to consider the

provisioning of obsolete stock material amounting to Rs. 14.52 Crore as Non-Tariff Income equally

in the next 10 years. The Commission has dealt with this issue and other past period adjustments in

the next Chapter on Approval of ARR and Revenue Gap for FY 2016-17.



The Commission for the purpose of truing up for FY 2014-15 has considered the Non-Tariff

Income as claimed by UPCL. The Non-Tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 is

as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.34: Non-tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order

Claimed by UPCL Approved

Non–Tariff Income 70.04 162.00 162.00

4.3 Tariff Revenue

The Petitioner submitted the revenue at existing tariff as Rs. 3950.12 Crore as against the

revenue of Rs. 4145.84 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2014-15.

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 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 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 by 5.74% in the last 6 years.

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. 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 2014-15 and is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.35: Revenue loss due to higher distribution loss for FY 2014-15 claimed by the Petitioner

Particulars Formula Amount Actual/recasted sales (MU) A 9654.58 Actual energy input at distribution periphery (MU) B 11882.20 Approved distribution losses (%) C 15.5% Sales at approved distribution loss level (MU) D = B*(1-C) 10045.55 Loss of sale due to inefficiency in distribution loss (MU) E=D-A 390.98 Revenue for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) F 3950.12 ABR (Rs./kWh) G= F/A 4.09 Revenue from additional sale (Rs. Crore) F=E*G 159.97

The Petitioner has submitted that as per UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 distribution losses is

a controllable parameter and, hence, it has proposed to share losses on account of under-

achievement of distribution losses for FY 2014-15.

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 May 6, 2013 has fixed the collection efficiency target for the Petitioner for FY

2014-15 as 98%. The Petitioner submitted that the actual collection efficiency achieved by the

Petitioner was 100.61% (including arrears), resulting in gain due to higher collection by Rs. 103.19

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 of gains 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. Moreover, the licensee should strive for maximum collections so as to improve its

financial health and preventing any receivables turning bad. Hence, sharing of gains 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 2014-15 as approved by it in its

MYT Order and, accordingly, has computed the loss of sales as 422.46 MU due to commercial

inefficiencies of UPCL.



As discussed while approving the category wise sales for FY 2014-15, the Commission has

recasted the sales of domestic, PTW, Non-Domestic, PWW, Public Lamps and LT Industry

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. The revenue corresponding to the assessed sale is shown

in the Table below:

Table 4.36: Revenue for FY 2014-15 Corresponding to Assessed Sales

Particulars

Assessed Sales to be reduced based

on average metered sale (MU)

Actual ABR (Rs./kWh)

Revenue Corresponding to

Assessed Sales (Rs. Crore)

BPL and Kutir Jyoti 0.15 2.12 0.03 Other Domestic Consumers 4.05 2.96 1.20 Non Domestic 0.22 4.74 0.10 PTW 31.58 1.18 3.74 PWW 0.71 5.44 0.39 GIS 0.02 4.73 0.01 Public Lamps 3.98 5.62 2.24 LT Industries 0.03 4.52 0.01 Total 7.71

With regards the revenue from departmental employees both in service and retired, it is

observed that per unit rate of Rs. 0.39/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 the 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, therefore, 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 2014-15.



Considering the re-casted consumption of 28.29 MU and the average billing rate of other

domestic consumers which are metered, i.e. Rs. 2.96/kWh the revenue works out to Rs. 8.37 Crore.

However, as per the submission of the Petitioner the revenue realized from the departmental

employees is only to the extent of Rs. 0.96 Crore. As detailed in the previous Tariff Orders, 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.

7.42 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 4.37: Revenue from Sale of Power for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Actual Revenue 3950.12 Less: Revenue corresponding to reduction in Sales 7.71 Add: Revenue corresponding to departmental employees 7.42 Total Revenue 3949.83

Further, as discussed above there is a loss of 422.46 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. 173.63 Crore at an average billing

rate of Rs. 4.11 kWh for this additional loss of sale on account of higher distribution losses while

truing up the ARR for FY 2014-15 as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.38: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) Sr. No. Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Actual/ Re-casted Sales (MU) 9,654.58 9,618.00 2. Approved Distribution Loss Level (%) 15.50% 15.50% 3. Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface (MU) 11,882.20 11,882.20 4. Sales at Actual Energy Input with 15.50% Loss (MU) 10,045.55 10,040.46 5. Loss of Sales due to Inefficiency (MU) 390.97 422.46 6. Revenue at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) 3950.12 3949.83 7. ABR (Rs./kWh) 4.09 4.11 8. Additional Revenue due to higher distribution losses (Rs. Crore) 173.63 9. Losses to borne by Petitioner Rs Crore) (75% of (8)) 130.22

Accordingly, the Commission has considered tariff revenue of Rs. 4080.05 Crore including

Rs. 130.22 Crore as deemed revenue on account of excess loss for FY 2014-15 as against total

revenue of Rs. 3950.12 Crore claimed by the Petitioner.



4.4 Sharing of gains and losses

The Petitioner submitted that it has achieved better performance against the targets specified

on the performance parameters, i.e. employee expenses, R&M expenses, A&G expenses and

collection efficiency and it was not able to achieve the performance target w.r.t. the distribution

losses.

The sharing of gains and losses claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 is as shown in the

Table below:

Table 4.39: Sharing of Gains and Losses for FY 2014-15 claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount Consumer Share UPCL Share

A. Gain 20% 80% Employee Expenses 38.93 7.79 31.14 A&G Expenses 3.80 0.76 3.04 R&M Expenses 32.57 6.51 26.06 Collection Efficiency 103.19 20.64 82.55 Subtotal (A) 171.95 35.70 142.79 B. Loss 25% 75% Revenue from Additional Sales 159.97 39.99 119.97 Subtotal (B) 159.97 39.99 119.97 Grand Total – (Loss)/ profit to be borne (4.30) 22.81

Regulation 13 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specifies 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.”


“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;

…”


“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 of the above mentioned

Regulations.

The sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY

2014-15 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 4.40: Sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 (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 CLoss D=25% x C E=C-D

O&M expenses 371.70 390.90 19.20 3.84 15.36 Distribution Loss 19.06% 15.50% (173.63) (43.41) (130.22) Total (154.43) (39.57) (114.86)

4.5 ARR & Revenue for FY 2014-15

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014 had approved the Net Revenue

Requirement for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 4124.92 Crore. The Petitioner has now claimed an ARR of Rs.

4340.13 Crore for FY 2014-15. 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 2014-15 is given in

the Table below:



Table 4.41: Summary of true up for FY 2014-15 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) S.

No. Particulars Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Total Power Purchase Cost 3690.88 3911.49 3611.95 2. Interest on Loan 121.82 135.48 108.51 3. Guarantee Fee 4. Depreciation 69.38 105.86 94.19 5. O&M expenses after sharing of gains and losses 404.23 371.70 387.06 6. Interest on Working Capital 6.36 0.00 0.00 7. Return on Equity 40.42 78.17 36.36 8. Provision for Bad and doubtful debts 0.00 37.55 0.00 9. Aggregate Revenue Requirement 4333.09 4640.26 4238.07

10. Less: Non-Tariff Income 70.04 162.00 162.00 11. Gap/(Surplus) of previous year -138.13 -138.13 -138.13 12. Net ARR 4124.92 4340.13 3937.94 13. Revenue

Revenue at Existing Tariff 4145.84 3950.12 3949.83

Revenue from Addl Sales. (after sharing) 130.22 14. Total Revenue 4145.84 3950.12 4080.05 15. Other Adjustment 16. Sharing of Gains and Losses - 22.81 - 17. Adjusted Revenue (Surplus)/Gap -20.92 412.82 -142.11

The Petitioner in its Petition had requested the Commission to approve the gap of Rs. 412.82

Crore. However, the Commission has approved a surplus of Rs. 142.11 Crore for FY 2014-15. The

surplus for FY 2014-15 with carrying cost works out to Rs. 175.10 Crore which has been adjusted by

the Commission in ARR of FY 2016-17.


5. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on MYT Period for second Control Period

5.1 Background

This Chapter deals with the determination of the projected ARR of the Petitioner for the

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. To determine the ARR of the Petitioner for the

ensuing year FY 2016-17, the Commission has first projected the monthly power purchase

requirement of the Petitioner by estimating the category wise sales based on the past trends and

considering the normative distribution losses. After determining the monthly power purchase

requirement, the Commission has determined the overall power purchase cost by applying monthly

merit order. The Commission has discussed the Sales Projections, Distribution loss trajectory, Power

Purchase Plan and Capital Expenditure in detail in Chapter 3 of this Order while approving the

Business Plan components. The Commission has, thereafter, estimated the other elements of ARR

such as Depreciation, O&M expenses, Interest and Finance Charges, Working Capital requirement

and Return on Equity to project the ARR of the Petitioner for the Control Period from FY 2016-17 to

FY 2018-19. Based on the analysis and scrutiny of Petitioner’s projections in the Petition and

considering the subsequent submissions including actual data for the preceding years, the

Commission has determined the total ARR for first year of the second Control Period, i.e. FY 2016-

17 and ARR excluding Power Purchase Cost for the remaining two years of the Control Period from

FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 as detailed in the subsequent Paras of this Chapter.

5.2 Sales

The Commission has already discussed the approach adopted by it for approving the

consumer category wise sales for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order. The consumer category wise sale approved by the

Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table

below:



Table 5.1: Consumer Category wise sales approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (MU)

S. No. Category

Petitioner’s Projections Approved FY

2016-17 FY

2017-18 FY

2018-19 FY

2016-17 FY

2017-18 FY

2018-19 1. Domestic 2,566 2,790 3,033 2,801 3,069 3,363 2. Non Domestic 1,185 1,278 1,378 1,257 1,338 1,425 3. Public Lamps 52 55 58 49 52 54 4. Private Tube Wells (PTW) 338 366 396 319 341 365

5. Government Irrigation System (GIS) 124 131 137 123 129 136

6. Public Water Works (PWW) 349 367 386 362 380 399 7. Industrial Consumers

LT Industries 326 339 353 345 360 376

HT Industries 5,694 5,979 6,278 5,701 5,936 6,180

Total 6,020 6,318 6,631 6,047 6,296 6,557 8. Mixed Load 213 223 232 214 225 237 9. Railway Traction 16 17 18 17 19 20 GRAND TOTAL 10,864 11,544 12,269 11,188 11,849 12,555

The Commission would like to once again highlight that the Petitioner has projected the

restricted sales for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The Commission as

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order has projected unrestricted sales for the second Control Period.

5.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory

The Commission has approved the Distribution Loss Trajectory for the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order. The distribution loss

trajectory approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-

19 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.2: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Proposed Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved

Distribution Losses 17.29% 15.00% 16.79% 14.75% 16.29% 14.50%

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Commission has considered the entire distribution loss reduction target for each year of the Control

Period 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.

Accordingly, the estimated energy requirement at distribution periphery, State periphery



and approved loss level for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 are given in

the Table below:

Table 5.3: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Distribution Sales (MU) 11,188 11,849 12,555 Loss level for Energy Input (MU) 15.00% 15.00% 14.75% Energy Input required at T-D interface (MU) 13,162 13,940 14,771 Commercial Loss reduction (%) 0.00% 0.25% 0.25% Commercial Loss reduction (Additional sales due to efficiency improvement) (MU) 0.00% 34.85 36.93

Total sales with efficiency improvement (MU) 11,188 11,884 12,592 Overall Distribution Loss (%) 15.00% 14.75% 14.50% PTCUL Loss (%) 1.78% 1.78% 1.78% Energy Input at State periphery (MU)* 13,401 14,193 14,994

* In addition to the energy requirement to meet the demand for FY 2016-17, the Commission has also considered 907.52 MU which UPCL has to return under the Banking Arrangement as discussed Chapter 3.

5.4 Aggregate Revenue Requirement


“69. Aggregate Revenue Requirement for each Financial Year of the Control Period

(1) The total annual expenses and return on equity of the Distribution Licensee for each financial year

of the Control Period shall be worked out on the basis of expenses and return allowed in terms of these

Regulations.

(2) The retail supply tariff of a Distribution Licensee for each financial year of the Control Period shall

provide for recovery of Aggregate Revenue Requirement of the Distribution Licensee for each financial

year of the Control Period, as reduced by the amount of non-tariff income, income from wheeling in

respect of open access customers, income from Other Business and receipts on account of cross-

subsidy surcharge and additional surcharge for the relevant financial year, as approved by the

Commission, and subsidy from the State Government for the financial year, if any, and shall comprise

the following:

(a) Cost of power purchase;

(b) Transmission charges;

(c) System Operation Charges i.e. Fee and Charges paid to NLDC/RLDC/SLDC



(d) Interest and Finance charges on Loan Capital and on consumer security deposit;

(e) Depreciation, including and amortisation of intangible assets;

(f) Lease Charges

(g) Operation and Maintenance expenses;

(h) Interest on working capital; and

(i) Return on equity capital;

(j) Income-tax;

(k) Provision for Bad and doubtful debts

(3) Net Revenue Requirement from sale of electricity = Aggregate Revenue Requirement, as above,

minus:

(a) Non-Tariff Income;

(b) Income from wheeling charges recovered from open access customers;

(c) Income from Other Business, to the extent specified in these Regulations;

(d) Receipts from cross-subsidy surcharge from open access consumers; and

(e) Receipts from additional surcharge on charges of wheeling from open access consumers.

(f) Any revenue subsidy or grant received from the State Government other than the subsidy

under Section 65 of Electricity Act, 2003.”

The Commission in this Order has determined the Net Revenue Requirement for the first

year of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2016-17 and Net Revenue Requirement excluding Power Purchase

Cost for the remaining two years of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 as detailed in

the subsequent Paras of this Chapter.

5.5 Power Purchase Cost

The power requirement of UPCL is met from various sources which includes the generating

stations of:

• State Generating Stations of UJVN Ltd.

• NTPC Ltd.



• NHPC Ltd.

• NPCIL

• SJVN Ltd.

• THDC Ltd.

• Independent Power Producers (IPPs)

• Deficit in power purchases met through Banking arrangements, open market

purchases etc.

The Commission has approved the power procurement plan from various sources for each

year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 in Chapter 3 of the Order. As

discussed in Chapter 3, the Commission is only projecting the power purchase cost for the first year

of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2016-17 and for reasons mentioned in Chapter 3, the Commission finds

no relevance in approving the power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19.

5.5.1 Merit Order

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in the previous Tariff Orders for the

Petitioner, the Commission has projected the power purchase cost for FY 2016-17 by applying the

monthly merit order principle. The Commission is of the view that this approach would help the

Petitioner to plan its monthly power requirement accurately. However, the energy to be procured

from generating stations which are must run generating stations need to be excluded from the merit

order. The Commission, however, recognizes that the actual off take from a generating station and

associated costs for the Petitioner might be different from that determined in the merit order above.

The Commission would, accordingly, review these differences at the time of carrying out the truing

up for FY 2016-17 in future years, subject to prudence check.

5.5.2 Cost of power purchase

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase has been projected based on the

following assumptions.

For the procurement of power from 10 LHPs of UJVN Ltd., the Petitioner submitted that the

approved Tariff for FY 2015-16 has been escalated by 5% each year for projecting the cost of power

purchase from UJVN Ltd. for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase from NTPC, NHPC, NPCIL, SJVNL and



THDC stations has been projected by escalating the actual power purchase cost for FY 2015-16

(based on the bills raised by the respective generating companies) for each year of the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power

purchase from IPPs has been considered as per the tariff determined by the Commission. The

Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase from Sasan UMPP has been considered as per

the bid tariff.

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of free power has been calculated in line with the

methodology specified by the Commission. It also submitted that for upcoming thermal and large

hydro stations, the tariff of Rs. 5/kWh has been considered. The Petitioner submitted that the cost

of power purchase from short term sources has been considered based on the actual cost of short

term power purchase in FY 2015-16 with annual escalation of 5% for each year of the Control

Period.

The Petitioner has projected the average power purchase cost of Rs. 2.80/kWh, Rs.

3.00/kWh and Rs. 3.18/kWh for FY 2016-17, for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.

The Commission has estimated the cost of power purchase from various sources as detailed

below:

Table 5.4: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase Source Approach of the Commission in estimating the cost of power purchase

UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the approved Tariff of UJVN Ltd. (10 LHPs) for FY 2016-17. As per the GoU 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, the Cess for the purpose of PDF is leviable if the energy rate (tariff) is less than Rs. 0.80/kWh for more than 10 years old stations at the time of notification. The Commission has not considered the cess imposed by GoU for the purpose of Power Development Fund as the approved Energy rate (tariff) is more than Rs. 0.80/kWh for all the 9 LHPs. Further, as the approved tariff for all the stations is more than Rs. 0.80/kWh, the Commission has also not considered the royalty of 10 paise/kWh towards royalty to the State Govt. based on notification no. 1993/I/2005-01(3)/1/03 dated 25.4.2005. For SHPs, the Commission has considered the applicable Tariff for those generating stations as specified in the Renewable Energy Regulations.

NHPC Ltd., THDC Ltd., SJVN Ltd.

For the generating stations for which the Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 has been issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, the approved Tariff for FY 2016-17 has been considered.



Table 5.4: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase Source Approach of the Commission in estimating the cost of power purchase

For other stations, the latest approved Tariff has been considered with annual escalation of 3%.

NTPC Ltd.

As the Tariff Orders for FY 2016-17 are yet to be issued, the latest approved AFC has been considered with annual escalation of 3% till FY 2016-17. For estimating the Energy Charges for FY 2016-17, the weighted average of actual Energy Charges for the months of October 2015 to December 2015 has been considered with an escalation of 3%.

NPCIL The tariff for NPCIL stations has been considered based on the actual billing during FY 2015-16 and escalated by 3% for FY 2016-17.

Renewable energy sources

The applicable tariffs for the respective generating stations within the State have been considered as per the Tariff Orders issued by the Commission in accordance with the Renewable Energy Regulations and the Tariff specified in the Renewable Energy Regulations.

Sasan UMPP The applicable tariff for FY 2016-17 as per the PPA has been considered. Kashipur CCPP

The tariff has been considered as Rs. 4.70/kWh as provisionally approved by the Commission.

Greenko Budhil Hydro

The provisional ex-bus Tariff of Rs. 4/kWh has been considered as approved by the Commission.

Additional purchase for fulfilling RPO

The Tariff for the additional purchase for fulfilling the Non-Solar RPO has been considered as Rs. 4.75/kWh in line with the Commission’s approach in the previous Tariff Orders

Upcoming Stations

For upcoming renewable generating stations within the State, the applicable Tariff as per the Renewable Energy Regulations has been considered. For the solar generating capacity of 30 MW expected to be commissioned by April 2016, the tariff of Rs. 7.50/kWh has been considered and for the solar generating capacity of 180 MW expected to be commissioned by November, 2016, the tariff of Rs. 5.99/kWh has been considered.

Deficit purchase

The tariff for deficit purchase has been considered as Rs. 3.64/kWh as proposed by UPCL.

Cost of free power

The cost of free power has been computed in line with the methodology adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders as shown below:

Particulars Quantum Total Cost Average Cost

MU Rs. Crore Rs./kWh UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) 2972.04 264.78 0.89 Maneri Bhali II 971.05 201.98 2.08 NHPC 582.99 199.65 3.42 Tehri 101.25 62.03 6.13 Koteshwar 62.91 26.39 4.20 Nathpa Jhakri HEP 45.66 14.47 3.17 Average 4735.90 769.31 1.62

The summary of estimated power purchase cost for FY 2016-17 is as shown in the Table

given below:



Table 5.5: Summary of power purchase cost for FY 2016-17

Station

Claimed Approved PP at State

periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

PP at State

periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

MU Rs. Crore Rs./kWh MU Rs. Crore Rs./kWh UJVN Ltd. UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) 2955.02 320.64 1.09 2972.04 264.78 0.89 Maneri Bali II 950.66 185.46 1.95 971.05 201.98 2.08 Small Hydro 134.69 22.95 1.70 170.06 18.76 1.10 Total UJVN Ltd. 4040.37 529.05 1.31 4113.15 485.52 1.18 NHPC Salal 38.37 3.83 1.00 40.04 4.77 1.19 Tanakpur 12.30 3.63 2.95 16.17 4.94 3.05 Chamera I 80.05 14.75 1.84 86.37 15.29 1.77 Chamera II 18.61 5.46 2.93 17.75 5.32 3.00 Chamera III 49.54 23.67 4.78 50.05 21.71 4.34 Uri 99.78 16.13 1.62 101.18 17.09 1.69 Dhauliganga 43.39 15.57 3.59 48.51 16.43 3.39 Dulhasti 105.06 66.23 6.30 105.46 60.65 5.75 Sewa II 26.19 12.23 4.67 28.80 12.61 4.38 Uri II 55.10 20.59 3.74 56.27 24.54 4.36 Parbati III 34.82 23.56 6.77 32.38 16.30 5.03 Free Power-Tanakpur 39.94 7.64 1.91 53.48 8.69 1.62 Free Power-Dhauliganga 106.76 20.41 1.91 114.03 18.52 1.62 Total NHPC 709.91 233.70 3.29 750.51 226.86 3.02 THDC Tehri HEP 110.84 71.84 6.48 101.25 62.03 6.13 Free Power-Tehri HEP 388.62 74.30 1.91 358.93 58.30 1.62 Koteshwar HEP 50.55 22.80 4.51 62.91 26.39 4.20 Free Power-Koteshwar HEP 147.96 28.29 1.91 139.03 22.58 1.62 Total THDC 697.97 197.23 2.83 662.11 169.32 2.56 NTPC Singrauli STPS 782.02 165.80 2.12 720.76 145.39 2.02 Rihand STPS Rihand I 304.60 90.25 2.96 256.73 77.08 3.00 Rihand II 294.38 89.17 3.03 232.47 68.37 2.94 Rihand III 275.98 96.92 3.51 267.23 73.90 2.77 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 266.52 113.85 4.27 230.18 88.59 3.85 Unchahar II 133.86 55.73 4.16 107.91 41.62 3.86 Unchahar III 105.31 49.21 4.67 87.86 39.05 4.44 Anta CCPP 76.56 39.15 5.11 73.95 35.79 4.84 Auraiya CCPP 72.37 44.78 6.19 71.66 41.34 5.77 Dadri CCPP 99.62 56.02 5.62 109.24 52.06 4.77



Table 5.5: Summary of power purchase cost for FY 2016-17

Station

Claimed Approved PP at State

periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

PP at State

periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

MU Rs. Crore Rs./kWh MU Rs. Crore Rs./kWh Dadri (NCTPP) 38.20 21.56 5.64 47.02 25.15 5.35 Jhajjar 5.63 11.81 20.98 28.56 17.63 6.17 Kahalgaon TPS 184.48 71.58 3.88 170.17 72.62 4.27 Koldam 197.66 87.16 4.41 198.94 87.23 4.38 Total NTPC 2837.19 992.99 3.50 2602.69 865.82 3.33 NPCIL Narora APP 109.70 29.12 2.65 120.39 30.47 2.53 Rajasthan APP 146.29 55.99 3.83 145.56 53.18 3.65 Total NPCIL 255.99 85.11 3.32 265.95 83.65 3.15 SJVNL Nathpa Jhakri HEP 49.30 15.08 3.06 45.66 14.47 3.17 Rampur HPS 185.25 63.60 3.43 175.89 70.36 4.00 Total SJVNL 234.55 78.68 3.35 221.55 84.83 3.83 Other Renewable 511.76 244.90 4.79 511.76 254.03 4.96 Free Power-Vishnu Prayag 196.27 37.52 1.91 195.93 31.83 1.62 Sasan UMPP 552.02 72.81 1.32 685.39 94.58 1.38 Kashipur CCPP 0.00 0.00 0.00 776.80 365.10 4.70 Greenko Budhil Hydro 0.00 0.00 0.00 232.98 97.07 4.17 Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO 161.89 416.24 197.71 4.75 Upcoming Stations 332.10 159.65 4.81 202.33 119.74 5.92 Deficit Purchase 3305.27 1201.79 3.64 2670.72 971.07 3.64 Total 13673.41 3996.08 2.92 14308.12 4047.13 2.83

The Commission, further, directs 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 quantum and cost for FY 2016-17 as

indicated in the Table below, failing which, the Commission may disallow power purchases so

made while Truing up the ARR for FY 2016-17.

Table 5.6: Quarterly Power Purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17

Quarter Power Purchase Quantum (MU)

Power Purchase Cost (Rs. Crore)

April – June 3224.26 818.35 July – September 4376.55 1060.41 October – December 3313.05 1067.93 January – March 3394.25 1100.43 Total 14308.12 4047.13



Moreover, it has been observed that the Petitioner has been continuously resorting to short

term power purchase without adopting a transparent process and also does not seek approval of

the Commission. In this regard, Third proviso of Regulation 73(1) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015

is reproduced hereunder:

“Provided that the power procurement plan submitted by the Distribution Licensee may include long-

term, medium-term and short-term power procurement sources of power, in accordance with these

Regulations. However, the distribution licensee should as far as possible, not plan for short-

term purchases except for conditions specified in Regulations 75 and should endeavor to

meet its requirement from long term and medium term power procurement and make a plan

accordingly.”

(Emphasis added)

Regulation 75 specifies the circumstances under which short term power procurement may

be made by the distribution licensee without seeking prior approval of the Commission. However,

Regulation 75(5) specifies as under:

“(5) Within fifteen (15) days from the date of entering into an agreement or arrangement for short-

term power procurement for which prior approval is not required, the Distribution Licensee shall

provide the Commission, full details of such agreement or arrangement, including quantum, tariff

calculations, duration, supplier details, method for supplier selection and such other details as the

Commission may require with regard to such agreement/arrangement to assess that the conditions

specified in this Regulation have been complied with:”

While projecting the power purchase requirement of the Petitioner for each year of the

second Control Period, it has been observed that the Petitioner is having deficit in almost every

month. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to prepare its power purchase plan for the next

three years and initiate the bidding process to meet the deficit, if any. The Petitioner is directed

to submit an action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of Order. The Petitioner is also

directed to ensure compliance of the Regulations issued by the Commission from time to time,

failing which any consequent liability would be to the account of the Petitioner.

The base Energy Charges of thermal stations (base fuel cost) for the purpose of computation

of FCA is given in the Table below:



Table 5.7: Energy Charges of thermal generating stations for FY 2016-17

Generating Station Energy Charges (Rs./kWh)

Singrauli STPS 1.352 Rihand STPS Rihand I 1.856 Rihand II 1.652 Rihand III 1.542 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 2.667 Unchahar II 2.643 Unchahar III 2.642 Anta CCPP 3.155 Auraiya CCPP 3.810 Dadri CCPP 3.351 Dadri (NCTPP) 3.453 Jhajjar 3.730 Kahalgaon TPS 2.595

5.6 Transmission Charges

5.6.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL

The Petitioner submitted that during the first six months of FY 2015-16, it has received bills

of Rs. 174.72 Crore towards Inter-State Transmission Charges. By assuming the same amount for the

remaining six months, the per MU PGCIL charge for FY 2015-16 has been calculated using the

estimated charges and energy coming from outside the State during FY 2015-16. The per MU rate

calculated has been escalated by 4% per annum and then multiplied by the projected power

purchase quantum for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The

Petitioner has proposed the Inter-State Transmission Charges of Rs. 385.26 Crore, Rs. 441.27 Crore,

and Rs. 497.57 Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively. The Commisison at

this stage has considered the PGCIL charges for FY 2016-17 as claimed by UPCL which shall be

subject to true up based on actual expenses incurred.

As the Commission has not approved the power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-

19, the Commission in this Order has not considered the inter-State Transmission Charges for FY

2017-18 and FY 2018-19. The Commission will carry out the Truing up of transmission charges

based on actual transmission charges paid to PGCIL during the year.



5.6.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL

The Petitioner submitted that the Intra-State Transmission Charges for FY 2016-17 have been

projected by escalating the approved Annual Transmission Charges for PTCUL for FY 2015-16 by

applying an annual escalation of 4% for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to

FY 2018-19.

The Commission has approved the Annual Transmission Charges for PTCUL of Rs. 261.04

Crore for FY 2016-17 vide its Order dated April 5, 2016. Hence, the Commission has considered the

same in the approval of ARR for FY 2016-17 for the Petitioner.

5.6.3 Transmission Charges

The Transmission Charges claimed by the Petitioner and approved by the Commission for

FY 2016-17 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.8: Transmission Charges for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

Inter-State Transmission Charges 385.26 385.26 Intra-State Transmission Charges 307.11 261.04 Total 692.37 646.30

5.7 SLDC Charges

The Petitioner has not claimed any SLDC charges.

The Commission has approved the SLDC Charges of Rs. 10.08 Crore for FY 2016-17 vide its

Order dated April 5, 2016. Hence, the Commission has included the same in the ARR for FY 2016-17

for the Petitioner.

5.8 Water Tax

The Petitioner in the submissions made subsequent to the filing of the MYT Petition

submitted that the Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012 came into force w.e.f.

August 15, 2015. As per the provisions of the stated Act, Water Tax is payable on the electricity

generated in Uttarakhand. The tax is applicable on the electricity generation from the generating

stations of UJVN Ltd., NHPC Ltd. and THDC located in the State. The Petitioner requested the

Commission to consider the impact of Water Tax in determination of ARR for the Petitioner.



Section 17 of The Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012 specifies as

follows:

“17. (1) The user shall be liable to pay the Water Tax under the Act at such rates as the Government

may by notification fix in this behalf.

(2) The State Government may review, increase, decrease or vary the rates of the Water Tax fixed

under this section from time to time in the manner it deems fit.”

The State Government vide the notification dated November 7, 2015 notified the applicable

rates of Water Tax.

The Commission has computed the likely impact of Water Tax for the Petitioner for FY 2016-

17 as Rs. 153.82 Crore. The Commission has considered the same in the approval of ARR for FY

2016-17 for the Petitioner. The same shall be trued up based on the actual amount paid by the

Petitioner for FY 2016-17 without considering the variation of the same as efficiency gain or loss.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit all the relevant information along with the

supporting documents for substantiating the actual expenses incurred on account of Water Tax,

for FY 2016-17 along with its proposals for True up for FY 2016-17.

5.9 GFA and Additional Capitalisation

5.9.1 GFA base for FY 2015-16

The Commission vide its Order dated April 11, 2015 on approval of ARR for the Petitioner

had approved the capitalisation of Rs. 355.77 Crore for FY 2015-16. As against the same, the

Petitioner has proposed the capitalisation of Rs. 467.82 Crore for FY 2015-16. Further, in reply to the

Commission’s query on the likely achievement of capitalisation considering the actual progress, the

Petitioner has proposed the capitalisation of Rs. 514.44 Crore.

The Commission has considered the scheme wise closing GFA approved for FY 2014-15 as

the opening GFA for FY 2015-16. The Commission, in Chapter 3 of the Order, on approval of

capitalisation plan for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has considered the

capitalisation of Rs. 478.03 Crore in FY 2015-16.

Based on the above, the GFA base approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is as shown

in the Table below:



Table 5.9: GFA base approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars

Approved in the Tariff

Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Opening Value 3553.20 3695.79 3675.32 2. Total addition during the year 355.77 467.82 478.03 3. Less: Deletions during the year 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Closing value 3908.97 4163.61 4153.35

5.9.2 Capitalisation during the second Control Period

The Commission, in the approval of Business Plan for the second Control Period as

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has approved the capitalisation

of Rs. 523.44 Crore in FY 2016-17, Rs. 546.02 Crore in FY 2017-18 and Rs. 557.26 Crore in FY 2018-19.

The Commission has considered the year wise capitalisation for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as approved in the Business Plan. The GFA base approved by the

Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 5.10: GFA base approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Claimed by UPCL Approved Claimed by

UPCL Approved Claimed by UPCL Approved

Opening GFA 4163.61 4153.35 5067.21 4676.79 6090.82 5222.81 GFA addition during the year 903.60 523.44 1023.61 546.02 949.13 557.26

Closing GFA 5067.21 4676.79 6090.82 5222.81 7039.95 5780.07

5.10 Means of Finance

The Commission has approved the funding of the approved capitalisation for FY 2015-16 by

considering the average of the actual funding pattern of the Petitioner’s capitalisation during FY

2012-13 to FY 2014-15 as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.11: Details of financing for capitalisation for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2015-16 Grants etc. Loan Equity Total

Opening Value 1576.51 1597.56 501.25 3675.32 Addition during the year 171.55 270.61 35.86 478.03 Deletions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Closing Value of GFA 1748.06 1868.17 537.11 4153.35



The Commission, in the approval of Business Plan for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order has approved the Financing Plan of the

approved capitalisation during the second Control Period. The Commission has considered the

Financing Plan for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as approved in the

Business Plan. The Financing Plan for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 approved by the Commission is as

shown in the Tables given below:










5.11 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner submitted that the interest expenses have been computed based on the

existing loans and new loans proposed for funding the capital expenditure. For existing loans,

interest has been separately calculated for each loan based on the terms and conditions of such

loans. For new loans, the sources have been considered as PFC and REC. The new loans have been

considered with 3 years moratorium, 10 years repayment period and 11.50% interest rate. The

Petitioner submitted that the interest on GPF loan shall be claimed based on the actual interest



during the truing up for the respective year.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the interest of Rs. 105.76 Crore, Rs. 133.77 Crore,

and Rs. 164.65 Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively. The Petitioner has

claimed the interest on consumer security deposit of Rs. 52.56 Crore, Rs. 54.14 Crore and Rs. 55.76

Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively. The Petitioner has claimed the

guarantee fee of Rs. 3.40 Crore for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19.


“27. Interest and finance charges on loan capital and on Security Deposit

(1) The loans arrived at in the manner indicated in Regulation 24 shall be considered as gross

normative loan for calculation of interest on loan.

(2) The normative loan outstanding as on 1.4.2016 shall be worked out by deducting the

cumulative repayment as admitted by the Commission up to 31.3.2016 from the gross normative

loan.

(3) The repayment for each year of the Control Period shall be deemed to be equal to the

depreciation allowed for that year…

…

(5) The rate of interest shall be the weighted average rate of interest calculated on the basis of the

actual loan portfolio at the beginning of each year applicable to the project:

…

(6) The interest on loan shall be calculated on the normative average loan of the year by applying

the weighted average rate of interest.

…”

The Commission has considered the closing loan balance of Government of Uttarakhand

loans for FY 2014-15 as opening loan balance for FY 2015-16. Thereafter, the Commission has

considered the loan addition during FY 2015-16 as per the approved means of finance for FY 2015-

16. The Commission has considered the depreciation for FY 2015-16 as the normative repayment for

the year. The Commission has considered the closing loan balance for FY 2015-16 as the opening



loan balance for FY 2016-17. The Commission has considered the loan addition during each year of

the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as per the approved Financing Plan. The

Commission has considered the normative repayment equivalent to the approved depreciation for

each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The Commission has

considered the interest rate of 10.41% which is the weighted average rate of interest for FY 2014-15.

The Commission has determined the interest on loan by applying the interest rate of 10.41% on the

amount of average of the opening loan & closing loan excluding the loan additions corresponding

to the assets capitalised during the year for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19. The Commission has not allowed interest on additions during year as the Petitioner

capitalises the assets at the end of the financial year and during the year, whatever interest accrues

on the loan portion corresponding to the capital expenditure, the same is Interest during

construction and is capitalised as CWIP. The interest on loan approved by the Commission for the

second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.15: Interest on Loan approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Claimed Allowable Claimed Allowable Claimed Allowable

Opening Loan balance 795.98 829.55 1043.35 1000.56 1283.00 1166.86 Drawal during the year 392.96 296.32 415.25 309.11 507.31 315.47 Repayment during the year 145.59 125.32 175.61 142.80 209.88 161.04 Closing Loan balance 1043.35 1000.56 1283.00 1166.86 1580.43 1321.29 Interest Rate 11.50% 10.41% 11.50% 10.41% 11.50% 10.41% Interest 105.76 79.83 133.77 96.73 164.65 113.09

Further, the Commission, for the purpose of approving the ARR for FY 2016-17, has

considered the interest on consumer security deposit and guarantee fee for FY 2016-17 as proposed

by the Petitioner.

5.11.1 Depreciation

The Petitioner submitted that the asset class wise depreciation has been computed

considering the proposed GFA for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY

2018-19 and the rates of depreciation prescribed in the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Accordingly,

the Petitioner has proposed the depreciation of Rs. 145.59 Crore, Rs. 175.61 Crore, and Rs. 209.88

Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.




“28. Depreciation

(1) The value base for the purpose of depreciation shall be the capital cost of the asset admitted by

the Commission.

Provided that depreciation shall not be allowed on assets funded through Consumer Contribution

and Capital Subsidies/Grants.

(2) The salvage value of the asset shall be considered as 10% and depreciation shall be allowed up

to maximum of 90% of the capital cost of the asset.

...

(4) Depreciation shall be calculated annually based on Straight Line Method and at rates specified

in Appendix - II to these Regulations.

…”

The Petitioner has claimed depreciation on the average of opening and closing balances of

the depreciable GFA for the year. However, as observed from the audited accounts till FY 2014-15 of

the Petitioner, the Petitioner follows the practice of capitalising 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 for allowing the 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 has time and again directed the Petitioner to

take note of the above prerequisite. Further, the Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 on

approval of ARR and Retail Tariff for FY 2015-16 directed as under:

“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 Petitioner submitted that it is very difficult to prepare the Fixed Assets Register showing

the date and location of each Asset existing as on November 9, 2001 and created thereafter. The

Petitioner also submitted that the Fixed Assets Register upto FY 2012-13 have been submitted and

that the preparation of Fixed Assets Register for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 is under progress.

In the absence of complete Fixed Asset Register, the Commission at this stage has considered

the weighted average rate of 5.21% computed for FY 2014-15 and has applied the same on the

opening depreciable GFA for each year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

The depreciation approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-

17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.16: Depreciation approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Claimed Allowable Claimed Allowable Claimed Allowable

Opening GFA - 4153.35 - 4676.79 - 5222.81 Grants - 1748.06 - 1935.91 - 2131.86 Depreciable opening GFA 2439.02 2405.29 2974.02 2740.88 3798.12 3090.95 Net addition during the year 561.37 335.59 593.22 350.07 724.73 357.27 Closing GFA 3080.51 2740.88 3673.73 3090.95 4522.85 3448.22 Depreciation rate 5.21% 5.21% 5.21% 5.21% 5.21% 5.21% Depreciation 145.59 125.32 175.61 142.80 209.88 161.04

5.11.2 Operation and Maintenance expenses

Regarding the Operation and Maintenance expenses, Regulation 84 of the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015 specifies as follows:

“84. Operation and Maintenance Expenses

(1) The O&M expenses for the first year of the Control Period will be approved by the Commission

taking into account actual O&M expenses for last five years till Base Year subject to prudence

check and any other factors considered appropriate by the Commission.

(2) The O&M expenses for the nth year and also for the year immediately preceding the Control

Period i.e., FY 2015-16shall be approved based on the formula given below:-

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;

(3) The above components shall be computed in the manner specified below:

EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (CPIinflation)

R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (WPIinflation) and

A&Gn = (A&Gn-1) x (WPIinflation) + Provision

Where –

• EMPn-1 – Employee Costs for the (n-1)th year;

• A&Gn-1 – Administrative and General Costs for the (n-1)th year;

Provision: Cost for initiatives or other one-time expenses as proposed by the Distribution

Licensee and approved by the Commission after prudence check.

• “K” is a constant specified by the Commission in %. Value of K for each year of the

control period shall be determined by the Commission in the MYT Tariff order based on

Distribution Licensee’s filing, benchmarking of repair and maintenance expenses,

approved repair and maintenance expenses vis-à-vis GFA approved by the Commission in

past and any other factor considered appropriate by the Commission;

• CPIinflation – is the average increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for

immediately preceding three years;

• WPIinflation – is the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index (CPI) for immediately

preceding three years;

• GFAn-1 - Gross Fixed Asset of the distribution licensee for the n-1th year;

• 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:

Provided that in case of a distribution licensee is governed by Government pay structure, the

Commission may consider allowing a separate provision in Employee expenses towards the

impact of VIIth Pay Commission.



Provided that repair and maintenance expenses determined shall be utilised towards repair and

maintenance works only.”

The O&M expenses include Employee expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expenses. In

accordance with Regulation 84 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, the O&M expenses for the

second year of the Control Period shall be determined by the Commission taking into account the

actual O&M expenses of the previous years and any other factors considered appropriate by the

Commission. The submissions of the Petitioner and the Commission’s analysis on the O&M

expenses for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is detailed below.

5.11.3 Employee expenses

The Commission had approved the employee expenses of Rs. 329.63 Crore for FY 2015-16 in

its Order dated April 11, 2015 on approval of ARR and Retail Tariff for FY 2015-16. As against the

same, the Petitioner has computed the employee expenses for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 346.39 Crore as per

the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 considering the actual employee expenses for FY 2014-15.

The Petitioner submitted that the employee expenses for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has been proposed as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 considering the

actual employee expenses for FY 2014-15. Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the employee

expenses of Rs. 386.58 Crore, Rs. 433.08 Crore and Rs. 485.54 Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and

FY 2018-19 respectively.

The Petitioner submitted that employee expenses are likely to increase based on the

recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission. The Petitioner submitted that the estimated

impact of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission could not be worked out. The

Petitioner requested the Commission to allow increase in employee expenses on account of

recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission on finalisation of the same and after acceptance

by the State Government.

The Commission has computed the employee expenses in accordance with the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015. In accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, the Gn (growth factor) is

to be considered in the computation of employee expenses. The Commission, in the approval of the

Business Plan for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as discussed in Chapter

3 of the Order has approved the HR Plan. Based on the approved HR Plan, the Commission has



computed the Gn factor as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.17: Gn approved by the Commission Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Closing no. of employees 3456 3415 3843 3967 4097 Gn - 0.00% 12.53% 3.23% 3.28%

In accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, CPI inflation which is the average

increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the preceding three years is to be considered. The

Commission has calculated the annual growth in the values of CPI (overall) based on the average of

preceding three full years for FY 2014-15 as 9.50% and for FY 2015-16 and for each year of the

Control Period FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as 8.80%.

The Commission has averaged the actual gross employee expenses for FY 2012-13 to FY

2014-15 to arrive at the gross employee expenses for the median year FY 2013-14. Thereafter, the

gross employee expenses, thus, arrived for FY 2013-14 has been escalated by the CPI inflation of

9.50% to arrive at EMPn-1 for FY 2015-16. Further, the Commission has considered the capitalisation

rate of employee expenses as 14.04% which is the average capitalisation rate of employee expenses

for FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15.

The Government of India, vide Notification No. 1/1/2013-E.III(A) of 28.02.2014 appointed

the Seventh Central Pay Commission with specified Terms of Reference. The Seventh Central Pay

Commission submitted its report to the Government of India on November 19, 2015. In light of the

recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission and the provisions of the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015 UPCL being governed by the Government pay structure, the Commission has

considered the impact of Seventh Pay Commission to the tune of 20% of the approved net employee

expenses. The Commission shall consider the actual impact of Seventh Pay Commission during

each year of the second Control Period in Truing up exercise without considering the efficiency

gain/loss on account of the same. The normative employee expenses approved by the Commission

for FY 2015-16 and for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the

Table below:



Table 5.18: Employee expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Approved Claimed by UPCL Approved Claimed

by UPCL Approved Claimed by UPCL Approved

EMPn-1 - 402.98 345.19 449.74 422.64 503.84 474.68 Gn - 2.58% 12.53% 2.97% 3.23% 3.04% 3.28% CPIinflation - 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% 8.80% EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (1+CPIinflation) - 449.74 422.64 503.84 474.68 564.86 533.38

Capitalisation rate - 14.04% 14.04% 14.04% 14.04% 14.04% 14.04% Less: Employee expenses capitalised - 63.16 59.35 70.76 66.66 79.33 74.91

Net Employee expenses - 386.58 363.29 433.08 408.02 485.54 458.48 Impact of Seventh Pay Commission - - 72.66 - 81.60 - 91.70

Total Employee expenses 329.63 386.58 435.95 433.08 489.62 485.54 550.17

The overall employee expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is higher than as claimed by UPCL mainly due to impact of Seventh Pay

Commission considered by the Commission, which shall be subject to true up based on actuals.

5.11.4 R&M expenses

The Commission had approved the R&M expenses of Rs. 134.39 Crore for FY 2015-16 in its

Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015 on approval of ARR and Retail Tariff for FY 2015-16. The

Petitioner has proposed the R&M expenses for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 134.39 Crore, the same as approved

by the Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015.

The Petitioner submitted that the R&M expenses for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has been proposed as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the

Petitioner has proposed the R&M expenses of Rs. 129.25 Crore, Rs. 165.34 Crore and Rs. 208.89

Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.

The Commission has determined the R&M expenses for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The Commission has

computed the percentage of actual R&M expenses upon actual opening GFA for each year of FY

2012-13 to FY 2014-15. Thereafter, the Commission has considered the average of such percentages

as K factor which works out to 2.67% for FY 2015-16 and for each year of the Control Period FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19. Since Regulation 84(3) reproduced above specifies that “K” is a constant in %,



accordingly, for FY 2016-17, the value of ‘K’ will remain 2.67% against the Petitioner’s claim of

escalating it also by the WPI w.e.f. 2013-14 onwards.

The Commission has considered the WPI inflation based on the average of preceding three

full years for FY 2015-16 and for each year of the Control Period FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as 5.11%.

The Commission has considered the opening GFA for FY 2015-16 and for each year of the second

Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

The R&M expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.19: R&M expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)




K - 2.95% 2.67% 3.10% 2.67% 3.26% 2.67% GFAn-1 - 4163.61 4153.35 5067.22 4676.79 6090.83 5222.81 WPIinflation - 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) 134.39 129.25 116.74 165.34 131.45 208.89 146.80

5.11.5 A&G expenses

The Commission has approved the A&G expenses of Rs. 27.50 Crore for FY 2015-16 in its

Order dated April 11, 2015 on approval of ARR and Retail Tariff for FY 2015-16. The Petitioner has

computed the A&G expenses for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 22.52 Crore as per UERC Tariff Regulations,

2015.

The Petitioner submitted that the A&G expenses for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has been proposed as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the

Petitioner has proposed the A&G expenses of Rs. 26.67 Crore, Rs. 27.88 Crore and Rs. 29.15 Crore

for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.

The Commission has averaged the actual gross A&G expenses for FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15

to arrive at the gross A&G expenses for the median year FY 2013-14. Thereafter, the gross A&G

expenses, thus, arrived at for FY 2013-14 has been escalated by the WPI inflation of 7.42% to arrive

at A&Gn-1 for FY 2014-15. For FY 2015-16 and for each year of the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19, the WPI inflation has been considered as 5.11%. Further, the Commission has



considered the capitalisation rate of A&G expenses as 26.68% which is the average capitalisation

rate of A&G expenses for FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15.

The Regulations provide for Provision in A&G expenses towards cost for initiatives or other

one-time expenses. The Petitioner has proposed Rs. 3.00 Crore against the same, towards data

centre cost. In this regard, the Commission during the first Control Period, i.e. FY 2013-14 to FY

2015-16 had allowed UPCL Rs. 3.48 Crore each for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 and Rs. 4.61 Crore for

FY 2015-16 towards the provision for data centre and call centres costs against which UPCL has

incurred Rs. 0.56 Crore in FY 2013-14 and Rs. 0.75 Crore in FY 2014-15. The expenses incurred in this

regard are significantly lower than the provision allowed to the Petitioner by the Commission.

Moreover, these expenses are already included in the A&G expenses of FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15.

As already discussed above, the Commission while approving the A&G expenses for the second

Control Period has averaged the gross A&G expenses for FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 and escalated for

subsequent years. Accordingly, these expenses have already been factored in the average expenses

considered by the Commission and hence, the Commission finds no reason to allow such provision

again. However, in case the actual expenditure incurred during the second Control Period exceeds

the amount approved by the Commission, the same shall be Trued up based on the actual without

any sharing of gains or losses.

The normative A&G expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.20: A&G expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)




A&Gn-1 - 30.62 28.60 32.18 30.07 33.83 31.60 WPIinflation - 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% 5.11% Gross A&G expenses - 32.18 30.07 33.83 31.60 35.56 33.22 Capitalisation rate - 26.45% 26.68% 26.45% 26.68% 26.45% 26.68% Less: A&G expenses capitalised - 8.51 8.02 8.95 8.43 9.40 8.86

Net A&G expenses - 23.67 22.05 24.88 23.17 26.15 24.36 Provision - 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 A&Gn = A&Gn-1 x (1+WPIinflation) + Provision

27.50 26.67 22.05 27.88 23.17 29.15 24.36



5.11.6 O&M expenses

The O&M expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY


Table 5.21: O&M expenses approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)




Employee expenses 386.58 435.95 433.08 489.62 485.54 550.17 R&M expenses 129.25 116.74 165.34 131.45 208.89 146.80 A&G expenses 26.67 22.05 27.88 23.17 29.15 24.36 Total O&M expenses 542.50 574.73 626.30 644.25 723.59 721.33

5.11.7 Interest on Working Capital

The Petitioner has submitted that the interest on working capital for the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 has been proposed in accordance with UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the IWC of Rs. 33.11 Crore, Rs. 36.01

Crore and Rs. 42.78 Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.

Regulation 33(2) of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies as follows:

“(2) Distribution

a) The Distribution Licensee shall be allowed interest on the estimated level of working capital

for the financial year, computed as follows:

(i) Operation and maintenance expenses for one month;

(ii) Maintenance spares @ 15% of operation and maintenance expenses; plus

(iii) Two months equivalent of the expected revenue from sale of electricity at

prevailing tariffs;

(iv) Capital required to finance such shortfall in collection of current dues as may be

allowed by the Commission; minus

(v) Amount held as security deposits under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section

(1) of Section 47 of the Act from consumers and Distribution System Users; minus

(vi) One month equivalent of cost of power purchased, based on the annual power

procurement plan.”

The Commission has determined the interest on working capital for the second Control



Period in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The Commission has computed the interest on working capital in accordance with UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2015. Since the Commission has not approved the power purchase cost for FY

2017-18 and FY 2018-19, the Commission has determined the interest on working capital for FY

2016-17 only in this Order.

5.11.8 One Month O&M Expenses

The annual O&M expenses approved by the Commission are Rs. 574.73 Crore for FY 2016-

17. Based on the approved O&M expenses, one month’s O&M expenses work out to Rs. 47.89 Crore

for FY 2016-17.

5.11.9 Maintenance Spares

The Commission has considered the maintenance spares as 15% of annual O&M expenses in

accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, which works out to Rs. 86.21 Crore for FY 2016-17.

5.11.10Receivables

The Commission has approved the receivables for two months equivalent to the expected

revenue from the sale of electricity at the net revenue requirement of Rs. 5,252.87 Crore for FY 2016-

17, which works out to Rs. 875.48 Crore for FY 2016-17.

5.11.11Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues

The Petitioner has claimed Rs. 144.70 Crore towards the capital required to finance the

shortfall in collection of current dues and the same is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.22: Capital required to finance the shortfall in collection of current dues as claimed by the Petitioner

Particulars Legend FY 2016-17 Annual Revenue (Rs. Crore) A 5565.44 Collection efficiency approved for FY 2015-16 B 98.5% Collection efficiency proposed C 97.4% Difference D=100%-C 2.6% Short fall in current dues (Rs. Crore) DxA 144.70

The Working capital specified in the Regulations is on normative basis. Further, as referred

above almost 75% of the revenues is from Industries, Govt. categories and other bulk supply



consumers having load above 25 kW and, hence, in no way the payment from them can be beyond

the period specified in the norms. Further, even UPCL recognizes DPS in its accounts on cash basis,

i.e. when it is collected from the consumers. UPCL is required to devise a system wherein

collections from the consumers are received by it within a period of 2 months. The Commission did

not prevent UPCL from collecting its dues from the consumers or writing off the bad debts.

The Commission has approved the collection efficiency of 98.50% for FY 2016-17 while

approving the Business Plan of UPCL for the second Control Period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. In

accordance with the provisions of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 the Commission has approved

the capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues as shown in the Table given

below:

Table 5.23: Capital required to finance the shortfall in collection of current dues approved by the Commission

Particulars Legend FY 2016-17 Net Revenue Requirement (Rs. Crore) A 5252.87 Collection efficiency approved B 98.5% Difference C=100%-B 1.5% Short fall in current dues (Rs. Crore) CxA 78.79

5.11.12Adjustment for security deposits and credit by power suppliers

The Petitioner has proposed the amount held as security deposit as Rs. 584.02 Crore and one

month of power purchase cost as Rs. 390.70 Crore totalling to Rs. 974.72 Crore for FY 2016-17.

Considering the same amount of security deposit as proposed by the Petitioner and estimating one

month of power purchase cost as Rs. 337.26 Crore, the Commission has approved the total amount

of Rs. 921.28 Crore for FY 2016-17 as the amount held as security deposits and credit by power

suppliers.

Based on the above, the total working capital requirement of the Petitioner for FY 2016-17,

works out to Rs. 167.10 Crore. The Commission has considered the rate of interest on working

capital as 14.05% equal to State Bank Advance Rate (SBAR) of State Bank of India as on the date of

filing of the MYT Petition and, accordingly, the interest on working capital works out to Rs. 23.48

Crore for FY 2016-17. The interest on working capital for FY 2016-17 approved by the Commission

is as shown in the Table below:



Table 5.24: Interest on working capital approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved O&M expenses for 1 month 45.21 47.89 Maintenance Spares 81.38 86.21 2 months of expected revenue at prevailing tariffs 927.57 875.48 Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues 144.70 78.79

Minus: Amount held as security deposits and credit by power suppliers 974.72 921.28

Net Working Capital 224.14 167.10 Rate of Interest on Working Capital 14.05% 14.05% Interest on Working Capital 33.11 23.48

5.11.13Return on Equity

The Petitioner has considered the opening Equity for FY 2016-17 as Rs. 634.75 Crore. The

Petitioner has considered the equity addition during each year of the second Control Period from

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 as per the proposed financing plan for the respective year. The Petitioner

has proposed the Return on Equity at the rate of 16.50% on the average equity for the year.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the Return on Equity of Rs. 118.63 Crore, Rs. 147.20 Crore,

and Rs. 179.82 Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.

Regarding the Return on Equity, Regulation 26 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015

specifies as follows:

“26. Return on Equity

(1) Return on equity shall be computed on the equity base determined in accordance with Regulation

24.

Provided that, Return on Equity shall be allowed on account of allowed equity capital for the assets

put to use at the commencement of each financial year.

(2) Return on equity shall be computed on at the base rate of 15.50% for thermal generating stations,

transmission licensee, SLDC and run of river hydro generating station and at the base rate of 16.50%

for the storage type hydro generating stations and run of river generating station with pondage and

distribution licensee on a post-tax basis.”

In accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, Return on Equity is allowable on the

opening equity for the year. Hence, the Commission has determined the Return on Equity for each



year of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 considering the eligible opening

equity for return purposes for the respective year.

The Commission has considered the closing eligible equity for return purposes approved for

FY 2014-15 as the opening balance for FY 2015-16. Thereafter, the Commission has considered the

equity addition during FY 2015-16 as per the approved means of finance for FY 2015-16. The

Commission has considered the closing balance for FY 2015-16 as the opening balance for FY 2016-

17.

The Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY


Table 5.25: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)




Opening Equity 634.75 285.58 803.16 324.85 981.12 365.82 Addition during the year 168.41 39.27 177.97 40.96 217.42 41.81

Closing Equity 803.16 324.85 981.12 365.82 1198.54 407.63 Rate of Return 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% Return on Equity 118.63 47.12 147.20 53.60 179.82 60.36

5.11.14Income Tax

The Petitioner has not claimed any Income Tax in its ARR proposals for the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.


“34. Tax on Income

Income Tax, if any, on the income stream of the regulated business of Generating Companies,

Transmission Licensees, Distribution Licensees and SLDC shall be reimbursed to the Generating

Companies, Transmission Licensees, Distribution Licensees and SLDC shall be reimbursed to the

Generating Companies, Transmission Licensees, Distribution Licensees and SLDC as per actual

income tax paid, based on the documentary evidence submitted at the time of truing up of each year of

the Control Period, subject to prudence check.”

As stated above, Income Tax is admissible at the time of Truing up and hence, the



Commission has not considered any Income Tax in the approval of ARR for the second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

5.11.15Provision for Bad and doubtful debts

The Petitioner submitted that the actual collection efficiency for FY 2014-15 is 95.90%

towards the current dues. Although all efforts would be made to achieve 99% collection efficiency,

achievement of the same from the current level of 95.90% in a span of one year is not possible. The

Petitioner submitted that the provision for bad debts has been considered as per the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015. The Petitioner further requested the Commission to consider bad debts at the rate

of ‘100% minus collection efficiency’ of the estimated revenue. Accordingly, the Petitioner has

proposed the provision for bad debts as Rs. 55.65 Crore, Rs. 61.90 Crore, and Rs. 69.73 Crore for FY

2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively.


“31. Bad and doubtful debts

(1) 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 bad debts

by it in the previous years.

Provided further that where the total amount of such provisioning allowed in previous years 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 sought justification from the Petitioner for proposing the provision for bad

and doubtful debts when the present provision already exceeds 5% of the amount of receivables. In

its reply, the Petitioner submitted that the provision for bad debts has been proposed as per the

provisions of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The Petitioner further submitted that as per the directions of the Audit Committee given in

its 28th meeting, the draft Write Off Policy was sent to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of

India on March 27, 2015 for examination by them in view of all the Accounting and Auditing

Standards, Legal Provisions and Practices followed in other companies. In reply, the Institute

informed that the issue raised cannot be considered in view of Rule 3 of the Advisory Service Rules



of the Committee.

As discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order, the Petitioner has chosen to ignore the provisions of

Rs. 230 Crore inherited by it from UPPCL against the opening debtors of Rs. 619 Crore. The Transfer

Scheme agreed by the two Corporation dates back to the year 2001. It cannot be ruled out that out of

Rs. 619 Crore inherited by UPCL, some amount may be bad and doubtful by now which has to be

written off the Petitioner by the total amount of provisions available with it.

The Commission in its Order dated April 10, 2014 on approval of ARR and Retail Tariff for

FY 2014-15 stated as under:

“7.1.23 Bad & Doubtful Debts

...

The Commission has taken note of the reply submitted by the Petitioner in this regard. UPCL

initiated the audit work as late as one and a half year when the direction was first issued and since

then the Petitioner has been extending its timelines for completion and submission of the audit

report...”

The Commission in the previous Tariff Order had directed the Petitioner to carry out an

audit of receivables and also identify and classify the same, however, till date the Petitioner has not

complied with the directions of the Commission. Hence, the Commission has not considered the

provision for bad and doubtful debts in the approval of ARR for FY 2016-17 in accordance with the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

5.11.16Non-Tariff Income

The Petitioner has proposed non-tariff income of Rs. 178.60 Crore, Rs. 187.54 Crore and Rs.

196.91 Crore for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 respectively. In absence of any yardstick for

estimating the non-tariff income of the Petitioner, the Commission provisionally accepts the same

for the second Control Period. The same shall, however, be Trued up based on the actual audited

accounts for the year.

5.11.17Past year adjustments

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Petitioner has not considered the material cost variance for

FY 2014-15 as Non-Tariff Income in its proposal for True up. In reply to the Commission’s query



regarding the same, the Petitioner submitted that some of it relates to the R&M expenses and some

pertains to capital expenditure. The Petitioner further submitted the year wise details of material

cost variance. The Petitioner submitted that the credit balance as on November 9, 2001 is Rs. 5.67

Crore. With yearly additions till FY 2014-15, the total credit balance as on March 31, 2015 is Rs.

198.86 Crore. The Petitioner submitted that the break-up of material cost variance pertaining to

R&M expenses and capital expenditure is not available. The Petitioner also submitted that the

material cost variance pertains to grants as well. The material cost variance pertaining to grants may

be excluded and the remaining may be treated as Non-Tariff Income. The Petitioner submitted that

the material cost variation pertaining to grants may be considered as Rs. 81.16 Crore. Hence, the

balance material cost variance is Rs. 117.71 Crore (198.86 minus 81.16). The Petitioner requested the

Commission to spread this amount as Non-Tariff Income for 10 years.

The Commission has worked out the material cost variance pertaining to grants portion in

the same proportion of material cost variation pertaining to grants in overall material cost variance

as submitted by the Petitioner. The Commission has considered the net material cost variance after

excluding the grants portion as the Non-Tariff Income for each year from FY 2001-02 to FY 2014-15.

The year wise material cost variance to be treated as Non-Tariff Income considered by the

Commission is as shown below:

Table 5.26: Material Cost Variance considered as Non-Tariff Income (Rs. Crore)

Year Material cost variance considered as Non-Tariff Income

FY 2001-02 5.63 FY 2002-03 3.43 FY 2003-04 11.44 FY 2004-05 6.85 FY 2005-06 3.08 FY 2006-07 1.23 FY 2007-08 19.31 FY 2008-09 1.52 FY 2009-10 1.48 FY 2010-11 1.50 FY 2011-12 1.33 FY 2012-13 31.86 FY 2013-14 17.15 FY 2014-15 11.86 Total 117.70



Further, the Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 on approval of True up for FY

2013-14 ruled as under:

“3.2.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

…

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 has 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 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 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.”

In its reply, the Petitioner submitted the information sought by the Commission. The

Commission has considered the prior period adjustments on account of power purchase expenses

and other prior period income from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 as shown in the Table given below:



Table 5.27: Prior Period Income (Rs. Crore)

Year Prior period income on account of Power Purchase

Other prior period income

Total prior period income

FY 2007-08 238.24 - 238.24 FY 2008-09 4.12 1.95 6.07 FY 2009-10 7.89 3.12 11.01 FY 2010-11 72.30 3.34 75.65 FY 2011-12 -53.05 3.10 -49.95 FY 2012-13 -6.61 -28.67 -35.28 FY 2013-14 -1.45 - -1.45 Total 261.45 -17.16 244.29

Considering the year wise material cost variance and prior period income the Commission

has worked out the total amount of Rs. 522.91 Crore till FY 2015-16 to be returned by the Petitioner

to the consumers. While computing the same, the Commission has not considered the carrying cost

on the balance till FY 2007-08, as the Commission had not allowed the carrying cost for the

Petitioner while carrying out the Truing up till FY 2007-08. The past year adjustments worked out

by the Commission is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.28: Past year adjustments approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY

2008-09 FY

2009-10 FY

2010-11 FY

2011-12 FY

2012-13 FY

2013-14 FY

2014-15 FY

2015-16 Opening Balance 289.23 332.72 345.21 422.36 373.74 370.32 386.02 455.70 Addition during the year 7.59 12.49 77.15 -48.61 -3.42 15.70 11.86 - Closing Balance 296.82 345.21 422.36 373.74 370.32 386.02 397.88 455.70 Average Balance 293.03 338.96 383.78 398.05 372.03 378.17 391.95 455.70 Carrying Cost 35.90 41.52 45.09 51.75 54.87 54.65 57.81 67.22 Carry forward to next year 332.72 386.73 467.45 425.49 425.20 440.67 455.70 522.91

5.11.18Treatment of past year adjustments

As discussed in the preceding Para, the Commission has approved the past year adjustments

of Rs. 522.91 Crore to be returned by the Petitioner. The treatment of the past year adjustments is

discussed hereunder.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Commission has carried out the truing up of capital related

expenses from FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 and had approved the amount of Rs. 156.87 Crore as the

amount due to the Petitioner. As the amount due to the Petitioner on account of True up of capital

related expenses also relate to the past years, the Commission has adjusted the same with the

corresponding amount to be returned by the Petitioner from the past year adjustments. The balance

remaining amount of Rs. 366.04 Crore shall be adjusted from the ARR for the Petitioner during the 3



years of the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The treatment of past year

adjustments approved by the Commission are as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.29: Treatment of past year adjustments approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Legend Amount (Rs. Crore)

Past year adjustments A -522.91 Past year adjustments set off against the entitlement of the Petitioner on account of true up of capital related expenses from FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13

B +156.87

Balance past year adjustments C = A+B -366.04 Total past year adjustments considered in FY 2016-17 E=C÷3 -122.01 Past year adjustments to be considered in the ARR for FY 2017-18 F= C÷3 -122.01 Past year adjustments to be considered in the ARR for FY 2018-19 G= C÷3 -122.01

The remaining amount of Rs. 244.03 Crore would be adjusted by the Commission from the

ARR of subsequent year alongwith the carrying cost.

5.11.19Revenue Requirement for FY 2016-17

Based on the above, the Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17

is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.30: Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved 1. Power Purchase Cost 3996.08 4047.13 2. Impact of True-up of UJVN Ltd. - -35.19 3. Transmission Charges

PGCIL 385.26 385.26

PTCUL 307.11 261.04 4. SLDC Charges 10.08 5. Water Tax - 153.82 6. Interest on Loan 105.76 79.83 7. Interest on Consumer Security Deposit 52.56 52.56 8. Guarantee Fee 3.40 3.40 9. Depreciation 145.59 125.32

10. O&M expenses 542.50 574.73 11. Interest on Working Capital 31.49 23.48 12. Return on Equity 118.63 47.12 13. Provision for Bad and doubtful debts 55.65 0.00 14. Aggregate Revenue Requirement 5744.04 5728.58 15. Less: Non-Tariff Income 178.60 178.60 16. Add: True up impact of FY 2014-15 544.39 -175.10 18. Past year adjustments - -122.01 19. Net Revenue Requirement 6109.83 5252.87



5.11.20Revenue at Existing Tariff

The Petitioner has forecasted the revenue of Rs. 4889.57 Crore for FY 2016-17 at the

approved Tariff for FY 2015-16.

By applying the approved Tariff for FY 2015-16 the Commission has estimated the total

consumer category wise revenue for FY 2016-17 as Rs. 5003.31 Crore.

The revenue at existing Tariff as proposed by the Petitioner and estimated by the

Commission is shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.31: Revenue for FY 2016-17 at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) S.

No. Consumer Category

Proposed by the Petitioner Estimated by the Commission Sales (MU)

Revenue (Rs. Crore)

Average Billing Rate (Rs./kWh)

Sales (MU)

Revenue (Rs. Crore)

Average Billing Rate (Rs./kWh)

1 RTS-1: Domestic 2566.19 776.77 3.03 2800.54 925.32 3.30

2 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1185.31 614.49 5.18 1256.82 648.96 5.16

3 RTS-3: Public Lamps 52.27 23.32 4.46 49.23 21.99 4.47

4 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 338.49 47.44 1.40 318.57 44.65 1.40

5

RTS-5: Government Irrigation Systems

124.35 57.00 4.58 123.18 56.50 4.59

6 RTS-6: Public Water Works 349.47 160.54 4.59 361.63 165.54 4.58

7 RTS-7: Industry LT Industry 325.76 168.10 5.16 345.05 167.82 4.86 HT Industry 5693.88 2941.71 5.17 5701.46 2841.59 4.98

8 RTS-8: Mixed Load 212.52 92.16 4.34 213.80 92.94 4.35

9 RTS-9: Railway Traction 16.19 8.05 4.98 17.47 7.99 4.58

Incremental Revenue from MCG

- - - - 30.00 -

Total 10864.42 4889.57 4.50 11187.75 5003.31

5.11.21Revenue Gap for FY 2016-17 at existing Tariff

Based on the net revenue requirement of Rs. 6109.83 Crore (including the proposed True up

amount for FY 2014-15) and revenue at existing Tariff of Rs. 4889.57 Crore, the Petitioner has

proposed the revenue gap of Rs. 1220.26 Crore to be recovered by way of proposed Tariff for FY



2016-17.

Considering the net revenue requirement of Rs. 5252.87 Crore and revenue at existing Tariff

of Rs. 5003.31 Crore, the Commission has approved the revenue gap of Rs. 249.56 Crore for FY 2016-

17. The Commission has approved the Retail Tariff for FY 2016-17 to cover the approved revenue

gap of Rs. 249.56 Crore.

The revenue gap for FY 2016-17 proposed by the Petitioner and approved by the

Commission is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.32: Revenue Gap for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Proposed by the Petitioner Approved

Net Revenue Requirement 6109.83 5252.87 Revenue at existing Tariff 4889.57 5003.31 Revenue Gap 1220.26 249.56


6. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

6.1 Discontinuation of Additional Surcharge on account of Re-Determination of

Tariff for FY 2010-11 from FY 2016-17 onwards

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity in its Judgment dated February 27, 2013 issued in

Appeal No. 152 of 2011 filed by M/s. 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 was to be met out of additional revenue for recovery of additional

surcharge from subsidized categories based on the re-determined tariffs, the Commission allowed

rebate to subsidising categories in three years in the proportion of 20% during FY 2013-14, 40%

during FY 2014-15 and 40% during FY 2015-16. As the entire amount towards re-determined tariff

from subsidized categories has been recovered till FY 2015-16 and corresponding rebate has been

passed on to subsidizing categories, additional surcharge on account of re-determiantion of tariff for

FY 2010-11 shall not be applicable from FY 2016-17 onwards.



6.2 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2016-17

6.2.1 General

In Chapter 5 of the Order, it has been concluded that the revenue projected to be earned by

UPCL during FY 2016-17 at currently prevailing tariffs will be Rs. 5003.31 Crore. Against this, the

ARR approved by the Commission for FY 2016-17 including gap and surplus on account of truing

up of previous years works out to Rs. 5252.87 Crore, leaving a total gap of Rs. 249.56 Crore. In view

of the objections received and the Petitioner’s submission, the Commission considers it appropriate

to first take a view in this Chapter on the tariff rationalisation measures suggested by the Petitioner

and the concerns voiced by other stakeholders.

6.2.2 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 the 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 2016-17 are

as follows:

6.2.2.1 Domestic Tariff for consumption on electricity operated water pumps by rural groups under

Uttarakhand Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (URWSSP)

The Petitioner submitted that Government of Uttarakhand (GoU) had directed it to submit

tariff proposal for charging domestic tariff for the consumption towards electricity operated water

pumps by rural groups under Uttarakhand Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (URWSSP)

Scheme of the GoU which is being charged under RTS-6 (Public water works). The Petitioner

requested the Commission for considering the same.

6.2.2.2 Abolition of MCG from RTS-4(Private Tube Wells)

The Petitioner submitted that it had received several representations from various farmer

groups for abolishing Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) from RTS-4 (Private Tube Well)

6. Tariff Rationalsation, Tariff Design and Related Issues


category on the ground that they are not able to consume even the minimum consumption specified

in the Tariff Schedule on account of various reasons like availability of water, higher ground water

level, etc. The Petitioner proposed that MCG may be abolished for RTS-4, if the Government of

Uttarakhand subsidises the same.

6.2.2.3 Revision of Terms and Conditions applicable on Seasonal Industries

The Petitioner proposed to revise the terms and conditions applicable for Seasonal Industries

to bring more clarity and avoid any dispute and has proposed to add the following two new

conditions:

• Any existing consumer, desirous of availing seasonal benefit for any Financial Year,

shall submit his application in the concerned distribution division clearly specifying

the period of operation latest by 15th day of March of previous year.

• Any prospective consumer, desirous of seasonal benefit, shall specifically declare his

seasonal period for the Financial Year at the time of submission of application /

execution of agreement clearly mentioning the period of operation.

6.2.2.4 Rebate for availing supply at higher voltage


Commission in its Tariff Order dated 10th April 2014 from 1.5% and 5% to 2.5% and 7.5% for taking

supply at 33 kV and 132 kV and above respectively. The Petitioner further submitted that voltage

rebate approved by the Commission is very high and was done without hearing the Petitioner’s

view point. The Petitioner further submitted the details of higher voltage rebate applicable in some

other States.

The Petitioner requested the Commission to revise the rebate for availing supply at higher

voltage from the current levels of 2.5% and 7.5% to 1.5% and 5% for availing supply at 33 kV and

132 kV respectively. The Petitioner submitted that the increase of volatage rebate in the Tariff Order

for FY 2014-15 resulted in huge revenue loss.

6.2.2.5 Prepaid metering

The Petitioner submitted the Tariff proposal for prepaid metering. The Petitioner submitted

the key alterations from prepaid guiding principles approved by the Commission in the Tariff



Order for FY 2012-13, relaxations in General Conditions of supply and new provisions proposed in

the prepaid retail tariff for FY 2016-17, and the same are as follows:

a) The Petitioner proposed to limit the prepaid option upto 25 kW under LT category.

b) The Petitioner submitted that as per the guiding principles there shall be a minimum

recharge of Rs. 100 and the maximum limit of recharge shall be Rs. 5000 for single

phase connection and Rs. 15000 for three phase connections. Considering the

operational issues, the maximum limit of recharge is proposed as Rs. 10000

irrespective of single phase or three phase connection. The Petitioner submitted that

it shall generate recharge of any amount in cases of testing of meter, adjustment of

arrear or otherwise and any other reason it deems fit. The time extension recharge for

balance amount after 3 months shall also be allowed.

c) The Petitioner submitted all the future prepaid tariffs shall be made applicable from

at least 30 days ahead of the release of the Tariff Order providing sufficient time for

developing the tariff codes so that no retrospective adjustments would be required.

d) The Petitioner submitted that as per the guiding principles and Section 47(5) of the

Electricity Act, 2003, it shall not charge any security deposit as is required in post

paid connections but price equivalent to the material cost shall be charged as

material security which shall be returned at the time of permanent disconnection.

The proposed material security deposit for FY 2016-17 is Rs. 6000.00 (Rs. 4300.00 for

prepaid meter + Rs. 700 for display unit (keypad) + Rs. 1000 for meter box) and

similarly for three phase prepaid meter is Rs. 12000.00 (Rs. 10300.00 for prepaid

meter + Rs. 700 for display unit (keypad) + Rs. 1000 for meter box).

e) The Petitioner proposed a deviation from the guiding principles and requested the

Commission to restrict the transfer of postpaid connection to prepaid connection in

case consumer has any pending arrear liability.

f) The Petitioner proposed that consumer may be allowed only one transfer from

postpaid to prepaid or otherwise in a financial year.

g) The Petitioner proposed to provide friendly credit hours and days on non-working

hours and on all holidays for which the credit charges shall be adjusted from

subsequent recharge.



h) The Petitioner proposed a fixed solar rebate of 80% of the rate proposed in postpaid

connections irrespective of the actual bill. The Petitioner proposed that the additional

credit of due solar rebate would be done with the issuance of immediately next

recharge.

i) The Petitioner proposed that no excess load/demand penalty shall be levied on the

consumer.

j) The Petitioner proposed that there shall be no annual adjustment of Minimum

Consumption Guarantee in case of prepaid metering. The Petitioner proposed to

reduce the MCG to 80% of the units proposed in prepaid mechanism.

k) The Petitioner proposed the mandatory prepaid metering for the following:

i. Domestic consumers who have contracted load upto 2 kW and some

premises of Consumer is used for Non Domestic purpose;

ii. Non Domestic consumers who have contracted load upto 4 kW and

consumption upto 50 units per month;

iii. Non Domestic Independent Advertisement Hoarding;

iv. Non Domestic mobile towers.

l) In contrast to the postpaid scheme for Domestic Consumers other than Life Line

Consumers wherein the Contracted load is upto 2 kW and some premises of the

Consumer is used for Non Domestic purpose, with the increase in consumption over

200 units all the previous 200 units are also required to be billed at commercial rates,

the Petitioner proposed that in prepaid scheme the rates of first 200 units shall not be

altered and shall remain same irrespective of consumption over or below 200 units.

m) In contrast to the postpaid scheme for Small Non Domestic Consumers with

connected load upto 4 kW and consumption upto 50 units per month, with the

increase in consumption over 50 units all the previous 50 units are also required to be

billed at higher commercial rates, the Petitioner proposed that in prepaid scheme the

rates of first 50 units shall not be altered and shall remain same irrespective of

consumption over or below 50 units.



6.2.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures

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 following Sections discuss the tariff rationalisation measures suggested by the

Petitioner, Respondents, and the Commission’s view on the same.

6.2.3.1 Domestic Tariff for consumption on electricity operated water pumps by rural groups under

Uttarakhand Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (URWSSP)

As discussed earlier, the Petitioner has proposed levying the domestic tariff on electricity

operated water pumps by rural groups under URWSSP. As per the existing Tariff Schedule, Tariff

of RTS-1: Domestic is applicable for residential premises/purposes and places of worship only. The

usage of electricity by these electricity operated water pumps by rural groups under URWSSP by no

means qualify under consumption for residential purposes or places of worship. Hence, the

Commission does not find any appropriate reason to accept the proposal of the Petitioner in this

regard. However, in case the Government of Uttarkhand provides subsidy, then UPCL can charge

the tariff lower than the approved tariff.

6.2.3.2 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 the 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:


(b) 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 a two part tariff

structure linked to cost structure. Further, in its subsequent Tariff Orders for FY 2009-10 to FY 2015-

16, 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 had 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 fractioned contracted 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, during the tariff proceedings

for FY 2015-16, the Commission floated an in-house paper on the issue of Fixed Charges based on

consumption and the Commission after detailed deliberations in its Order dated April 11, 2015

introduced consumption based fixed charges for domestic consumers.



At the approved tariffs, the recovery from Fixed Charges from the consumers for FY 2016-17

is estimated to be around 12.90% against the total fixed cost incidence on the Petitioner of about

48.71% of the licensee’s ARR for FY 2016-17.

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 had 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 if

their load factor is very low, in the range of 10-15% with 3-4 hours/day usage of electricity. Hence,

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 their load, the MCG charges gets subsumed in

energy charges.

The Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 taking into cognisance the various

representations received for reduction in MCG and also in line with its plan for gradual elimination

of MCG reduced the MCG to 50 units/kWh/month for all those Non-Domestic sub-categories on

which MCG were earlier specified as 60 units/kWh/month. For HT industries the same was

revised to 100 kVAh/kVA/month from the earlier level of 110 kVAh/kVA/month. For Atta

chakkis, the MCG was revised to 30 units/kW/month from the earlier level of 40 units/kW/month.



For PTW category the MCG was reduced to 60 units/BHP/month from earlier level of 70

units/BHP/month.

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 the

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

an illustration in “General Condition of Supply” in the Rate 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%.

6.2.3.3 Abolition of MCG from RTS-4(Private Tube Wells)

As discussed earlier, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to abolish the MCG from

RTS-4 with the condition that State Government subsidises the revenue loss on account of the same.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has not given any firm proposal in this

regard and has submitted a conditional proposal that MCG may be abolished for RTS-4 subject to

Government of Uttarakhand subsidising the revenue loss to the Petitioner on account of the same,

which in absence of a concrete proposal from Government of Uttarakhand on which a decision can

be taken, cannot be considered.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner cannot submit a conditional proposal to

the Commission and in case the Petitioner wants this proposal to be implemented, the Petitioner



should have beforehand approached the State Government in this regard and submitted a letter

from Government of Uttarakhand towards commitment of subsidy in this regard.

The Commission in its MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 had modified the Minimum

Consumption Guarantee (MCG) mechanism for PTW consumers on the basis of units/month from

Rs. 100/BHP/month. Further, the Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 21, 2015 had reduced

the MCG from 70 units/BHP/month to 60 units/BHP/annum.

Based on the above, since the Commission has not received any communication from

Government of Uttarakhand towards reimbursement of subsidy in this regard, the Commission

does not find any appropriate reason to abolish the MCG for PTW category. However, in case, the

Government of Uttarkhand provides subsidy, then UPCL, based on the quantum of subsidy, can

charge lower tariff than the approved tariff.

6.2.3.4 Continuous Supply Surcharge

The Petitioner has proposed the continuous supply surcharge of 15% for industries opting

for continuous supply.

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 would 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

the 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 in its ARR/Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015 after detailed deliberations on

the issue after floating the in-house paper extended the option of continuous supply to non-

continuous process industries in addition to the continuous process industries.

In these tariff proceedings, the Commission has received mixed responses from various

stakeholders. Some of the industries submitted that the continuous supply surcharge be reduced.

The Commission would like to clarify that it may not be appropriate to reduce the

continuous supply surcharge at this stage as the State of Uttarakhand is still facing power shortage

and UPCL is procuring short term power from market to meet the demand. Even for FY 2016-17,



the Commission has estimated a deficit of about 2670 MUs in the requirement of UPCL which is of

substantial nature. Hence, the Commission does not find any reason to reduce or abolish the

continuous supply surcharge. However, 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.

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 April 01, 2016 or

in case of new consumers from the date of connection, till March 31, 2017 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, 2017, 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, 2016 till March 31,

2017. 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, 2016.

• 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, 2016 till March

31, 2017. 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, 2016 and they shall continue

to pay continuous supply surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order

till April 30, 2016. 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.

6.2.3.5 Tariff Categorisation for Horticulture and Floriculture Consumers;

The Commission during the last year tariff proceedings floated an in-house paper on tariff

categorisation for Horticulature and Floriculture Consumers. After detailed deliberations on the in-

house paper, the Commission in its ARR/Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015 created a separate 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.”

The Commission has received the representations that the activities mentioned in the

Agriculture Allied Activites are primarily agricultural activities only and hence, the tariff applicable

for PTW category should also be applicable for these activities. The Commission is of the view that

since, agricultural activity is common for both the activities under RTS-4 & RTS-4A, accordingly, the

Commission has decided to equate the tariff of “Agriculture Allied Activites”with the tariff of RTS-

4: Private Tube Wells/Pumping Sets.

Hence, the tariff applicable for Private Tube Wells/Pumping Sets shall also be applicable to

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. However, billing cycle will be different for these consumers instead of half

yearly billing cycle provided for PTW consumers.

6.2.3.6 Tariff Categorisation for HT Industries and Load Factor based Tariff

The Commission has considered the stakeholders/industries responses and observed that

some of the consumers have again raised the issue of load factor based tariff for HT Industries.

Some of the stakeholders submitted that the load factor based tariff for HT Industries is

discriminatory as well as against the provisions of the Act, Tariff Policy and the Commission’s

Tariff Regulations.

The Commission would like to highlight Section 62(3) of the Act, which empowers the

Appropriate Commission, while determining the tariff, to differentiate according to the consumer’s

load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity etc. Section 62(3) of the Act is

reproduced below:

“The Appropriate Commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this Act, show undue

preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumer's load

factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period or the time

at which the supply is required or the geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and the

purpose for which the supply is required” (emphasis added).



Regulation 93(2) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011, specifically empowers the Commission

to design load factor based tariffs for any category of consumers and is reproduced below:

“The Commission, shall not, while determining the tariff, show undue preference to any consumer of

electricity but may differentiate according to consumer’s load factor, voltage, total consumption of

electricity during any specified period or time at which the supply is required or the geographical

position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is required. “

The Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 after detailed deliberations in response to

the in-house paper modified the slabs for load factor based tariff from three slabs to two slabs.

Further, as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order, some of the stakeholders submitted that the

principle applied for the categorisation of the industry on the basis of load factor should be on the

principle of higher the load factor, lower the tariff as prevalent in other States. They further

expressed that the higher load factor implies that the consumer consumes nearly as much as it has

contracted for and has paid the demand charges, accordingly, and the Utility stands to benefit by

higher load factor because the utility is able to sell the electricity which it has arranged for meeting

the demand of the consumer. They further opined that if the load factor is lower, the utility would

find itself having contracted higher power from generating companies than it would be able to sell

to the consumers and in this process may suffer loss.

The Commission does not agree with the views of the stakeholders that higher load factor

implies that the Utility stands to benefit because the Utility is able to sell the electricity which it has

arranged for meeting the demand of the consumer. The Commission would like to clarify that there

is diversity in time of usage of electricity by different consumers and, hence, the actual

simultaneous maximum demand of all the consumers put together shall always be less than the

summation of their contracted loads. Further, nowhere, the Utility makes the power purchase

arrangement equivalent to the contracted demand of its consumers. Further, increase or decrease of

the contracted load, and/or, the load factor, by consumer does not actually influence the

consumption pattern of consumers including diversity factor and, hence, the actual simultaneous

maximum demand, which is the basis for contracting power from different sources by the licensee

rather than the contracted load/load factor of the consumers. Therefore, the argument that if the

load factor increases, the utility is able to sell the electricity which it has arranged is totally incorrect.

As discussed in Chapter 3 and 5 of the Order, currently there is huge demand supply gap and,



hence, UPCL has to purchase additional power to meet the peak demand. Further, the utilisation of

the contracted capacity from firm sources by UPCL is more than 90% and with the increase in load

factor of consumers, the energy requirement of the Utility will further increase, which the Petitioner

will have to purchase at marginal price, i.e. the Petitioner will have to purchase costlier power to

meet the increase in energy requirement at higher load factor.

The Two Part Tariff tends to encourage high consumption as the same reduces the effective

per unit composite rate. Accordingly, to correct this, tariff also needs to increase in a manner so as

to achieve a near uniform composite rate. To do this demand and energy charges would have to

increase with every small increase in contracted demand or load utilization percentage. Although

theoretically possible, such an approach would make the tariffs too complex, incomprehensible and

will pose serious problems in implementation. There is, therefore, a trade of between the simplicity

of the tariff structure and precision in correcting the above distortion. The Commission’s attempt

has been to strike a balance between the two by choosing a uniform rate of demand charge and

different rates of energy charges linked to the consumption levels represented by the Load Factor.

The Commission has avoided sharp increases in energy charges and has infact modified the three

slabs prevalent earlier to only two slabs in its previous Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015.

As had been illustrated by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders in case of single

energy charge, without any load factor slabs, the effective tariff of an intended cross-subsidising

consumer goes down steeply with increasing load factor, thereby reducing the quantum of cross-

subsidy charged from it. After a threshold level of load factor, this structure leads to an undesirable

anomaly that the effective tariff becomes lower than the Cost of Supply and the consumer instead of

being subsidising consumer becomes subsidised consumer. Thus, this structure apart from leading

to the abovesaid anomaly is highly inequitable amongst the consumers of same category with

consumers having low load factor being loaded with much higher tariff and making up for loss due

to lower tariff even below cost of supply paid by high load factor consumers. Transition from

subsidising consumer to subsidised consumer with increasing load factor is not only incorrect but

also highly undesirable.

This issue has been dealt in detail by the Commission in the the in-house paper issued

during the previous tariff proceedings. Thus, to have cost reflective tariffs, the energy charges

should increase with load factor.



Hence, in view of the above, the Commission is continuing with the existing load factor

based tariff structure for HT Industry.

6.2.3.7 Time of Day Tariff

Regarding Time of Day Tariff, the stakeholders requested the following:

• Abolishing the morning peak hours.

• Morning peak hours in winter season should be from 7 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. in place of

existing 6 A.M. to 9:30 A.M.

• The ToD charges should be at existing levels.

• The rebate of 10% for consumption during off-peak hours should be increased to

20%/25%.

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 in the State. The Commission has analysed the unrestricted load curves of

summer as well as the 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 have been examined and the same are graphically presented below:



Chart 1: Load Curve for 29th Jan., 2016 (MW)

Peak Demand – 2034 MW at 8 AM Peak Hours – 7 to 10 AM

Chart 2: Load Curve for 3rd Feb., 2016 (MW)

Peak Demand – 1977 MW at 8 AM Peak Hours – 7 to 10 AM



Chart 3: Load Curve for 29th May, 2015 (MW)

Peak Demand – 1965 MW at 8 PM Peak Hours – 8 to 10 PM

Chart 4: Load Curve for 10th June, 2015 (MW)

Peak Demand – 1986 MW at 9 PM Peak Hours – 8 to 10 PM

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, the morning peak demand has been found to be even more pre-dominant than the

evening peak demand. Further, the overall system peak of Uttarkhand State during the year is also



observed in the morning hours. 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 Order dated April 11, 2015

6.2.3.8 Rebate for availing supply at higher voltage


Commission in its Tariff Order dated 10th April 2014 from 1.5% and 5% to 2.5% and 7.5% for taking

supply at 33 kV and 132 kV and above respectively. The Petitioner requested the Commission to

revise the rebate for availing supply at higher voltage from the current levels of 2.5% and 7.5% to

1.5% and 5% for availing supply at 33 kV and 132 kV respectively.

As discussed in Chapter 2 of the Order, some of the stakeholders suggested to retain the

rebates at existing prevalent level in the absence of voltage wise cost of supply.

The Commission after considering the views expressed by several stakeholders revised the

rebate for availing supply at higher voltage in its Order dated April 10, 2014. The Commission is of

the view that supply at higher voltages benefits the Licensee as the losses at higher voltages are on

lower side. As regards the loss incurred by UPCL on account of higher rebate, the Commission

would like to clarify that such losses are not borne by UPCL as the actual revenue billed by UPCL

for industrial consumers is considered while carrying out the truing up of revenue for a particular

year. Further, UPCL has wrongly mentioned that its views were not considered by the Commission

while changing the rebates. The Commission had sought response of UPCL on the suggestions

made by the industries for increasing the rebates and the Commission has dealt with the same in

the said Tariff Order.

In view of above, the Commission has decided to continue with the prevelant rebate levels

for availing supply at higher voltage levels.

6.2.3.9 Revision of Terms and Conditions applicable on Seasonal Industries

As regards addition of new conditions proposed by the Petitioner for seasonal industries, the

Commission is of the view that the existing provisions of Rate Schedule regarding Seasonal

Industries are amply clear and no change is warranted in the same.



6.2.3.10 Load Factor Computation

Some of the stakeholders submitted that in the formula for computation of Load Factor,

lower of maximum demand and contracted demand is considered and in case the maximum

demand is lower than the contracted demand the billable demand is considered as 80% of

contracted demand for billing purpose. They suggested that the computation of Load Factor based

on contracted demand is appropriate in cases where the monthly billable demand is more than the

contracted demand and hence, the formula may be revised as follows:

The Commission in its ARR/Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014 modified the load factor

computation formula which was further revised by the Commission vide its Order dated November

07, 2014 in Petition No. 24 of 2014 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 the existing load factor formula is appropriate as UPCL

has to make arrangements of power for the demand contracted by the consumers and not based on

billable demand. The Commission has, therefore, decided to continue with the formula as approved

by the Commission in its Order dated November 07, 2014.

6.2.3.11 Prepaid metering

The Petitioner has proposed some amendments to the Prepaid Metering Scheme approved

by the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2012-13. The Commission recognises that Prepaid

Metering is expected to provide better services to the consumers, improve and secure the cash flow

of the Petitioner and also lead to reduction in consumer grievance and dissatisfaction to the



consumers. Hence, after detailed deliberations on the proposals of the Petitioner, the Commission

approves the following conditions for Pre-Paid Metering:

a) The option of Pre-paid metering shall be available for all categories of consumers

upto 25 kW load under LT category. Prepaid Metering shall be mandatory for new

Temporary LT connections upto 25 kW and for Advertisements/Hoardings.

The Commission is of the opinion that the same should not be forced upon small

consumers as proposed by UPCL. Hence, proposal of UPCL in this regard is

unacceptable.

b) There shall be a minimum recharge of Rs. 100 and the maximum limit of recharge

shall be Rs. 5000 for single phase connection and Rs. 15000 for three phase

connections.

The Commission does not find any reason for change in this stipulations and, hence,

decides to continue with the same.

c) Any recharge shall be for a maximum period of six months after which time

extension of remaining amount or another top up will be essential.

The apprehension of the licensee in this regard for proposing quarterly recharges

was the levy of FCA charges. Ideally, the meter readers of the licensee visits every

locality atleast once in two months for meter reading and consequent changes for

FCA in the pre-paid meters can be done during those visits of the meter readers

when he goes to take meter readings of post paid consumer in that locality.

Moreover, levy of FCA is an ongoing process as the same changes every quarter so

there may be instances of delay in recovering the FCA charges from the consumers

having pre-paid connections, however, the net impact may not be substantial.

d) As regards the charging for testing of meter, the Petitioner shall recover the amount

as approved by the Commission under Schedule of Miscellaneious Charges directly

from such prepaid consumers as is done for postpaid consumers and shall not be

charged from the recharge amount.

e) The Petitioner shall issue an advertisement in the newspapers within 15 days of the

issue of this Order, briefly mentioning salient features of the Prepaid Metering

Scheme for LT consumers upto 25 kW to provide an option to the consumer to

express their interest to opt for the Prepaid metering scheme latest by June 15, 2016.



It may be noted that the objective of calling applications for Prepaid metering shall

be primarily for the purpose of estimation of the requirement of such meters based

on the demand of the Scheme. Based on the requests received from the consumers

opting for Prepaid metering, UPCL shall implement the Prepaid metering in a

phased manner. Further, the Petitioner may also allow prepaid metering services to

the consumers who could not submit their request within the stipulated time given

in the advertisement and opt for it subsequently.

f) The Petitioner is also directed to prepare a Salient Features of the Prepaid Metering

Scheme (in 1-2 pages) and circulate the same along with the bills of May, 2016 to all

the eligible consumers, i.e. LT consumers upto 25 kW, to facilitate wide circulation as

well as to provide salient features of the proposed mechanism of the Prepaid

Metering Scheme.

g) In case, the consumer opting for Prepaid Metering have outstanding arrears, the

Petitioner shall adjust 20% of the past arrears or 50% of the recharge amount,

whichever is higher from the recharge voucher, subject to the maximum of the

outstanding arrears. Further, the maximum limit of recharge as mentioned above,

shall not be applicable in case of consumers having outstanding arrears and

accordingly, such consumers having past arrears will have to take minimum

recharge of more than 20% of the outstanding arrears.

The licensee’s proposal of not allowing pre-paid connections to the consumers

having arrears would infact be detrimental to its own interest. After installing the

pre-paid meters atleast some portion of the arrears due would start getting collected

through the mechanism proposed by the Commission.

h) The Petitioner shall make necessary provisions to provide friendly credit hours/limit

to the consumers, in order to ensure uninterrupted supply to the consumer in the

event of expiry of the balance during non working hours, i.e. night time or during

holiday, so as to provide reasonable time to the consumer to procure the recharge

voucher at the next possible working hours or working day. However, the charges

for the electricity consumed between expiry of balance during non-working hours

and subsequent recharge voucher shall be adjusted from the recharge voucher.

i) All the Prepaid meters will be provided with an alarm to indicate low credit.



j) As per the guiding principles and Section 47(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the

Petitioner shall not charge any security deposit as is required in post paid

connections but price equivalent to the material cost, i.e. cost of meter and associated

equipments shall be charged as material security which shall be returned at the time

of permanent disconnection. The approved material security deposit for FY 2016-17

is Rs. 5000/- for single phase connection and Rs 10,000/- for three phase connection.

The Commission would again review the amount so specified above after availability

of the data relating to meter costs. The licensee is directed to submit the data

related to the cost of the meter and other associated equipments to the

Commission in the Tafiff proceedings for FY 2017-18.

k) The consumer shall be allowed only one transfer from postpaid to prepaid or

otherwise in a financial year.

l) Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) shall not be applicable for prepaid

connections.

m) The Commission approves a rebate of 4% of Energy Charges for Domestic Category

and 3% of Energy Charges for other categories as per the applicable tariff schedule

for the consumers availing this scheme and the rebate shall only be applicable after

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.

6.2.4 kVAh Tariffs

It has come to the notice of the Commission that the power factor of Government

connections like Public Lamps/Government Irrigation System, etc. is very low and with kWh tariff

still continuing for these categories, the Petitioner (UPCL) is incurring both energy as well as

revenue loss.

In the conventional method of electricity metering, the active energy (kWh) is measured and,

accordingly, the discoms have to meet the loss in the system resulting from the additional current

drawn due to the poor power factor of the load maintained by the consumers. Imposing poor power

factor penalty on all the consumers who create this burden, by identifying them through special

tasks, is not practical. Hence, if kVAh (apparent energy) billing is employed, it automatically



becomes the responsibility of the consumer to maintain the quality of the load by improving its

power factor. This can be achieved by installation of electrical devices with power factor correctors,

or install capacitors at their premises by such consumers failing which energy losses of the

Petitioner increases and other consumers, even if they are maintaining good power factor,

automatically pay for the additional burden.

In kVAh billing system as the electricity bills conceive this additional burden for the

consumers who create it, no separate penalty need to be imposed or such burden related to one

consumer will not appear as an indirect liability to other consumers. Further, a significant amount

of precious energy will be saved due to reduction of technical loss in the system from the reduction

in reactive currents. Further, UPCL will also save a large amount of money, as the investments in

installation of capacitors in the system would not be required for compensation or voltage

improvement.

Taking this into cognizance, the Commission has been directing UPCL since its Tariff Order

dated 18.03.2008 for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 for releasing all new 3 phase connections above 4

kW with Electronic Tri-vector Meter having MDI. The Commission has already approved kVAh

billing for public water works and GIS connections over 75 kW.

Accordingly, the Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the type of meters installed

at Public Lamps, GIS upto 75 kW, and its action plan for installation of Tri-Vector meters

capable of recording both kWh and kVAh consumption in the above referred categories/sub-

categories where such meters have not been installed within 1 month of the issuance of this

Tariff Order. The Commission also directs the Petitioner to take such measures for installation of

Tri-vector meters in other categories/sub-categories of consumers where power factor is poor and

tariff is on kWh basis.

Based on the compliances submitted by the Petitioner on the above directives and

preparedness thereof, the Commission may take a view of specifying kVAh tariff for those

categories of consumers who are currently billed at kWh Tariffs from next year onwards.

6.2.5 Treatment of Revenue Gap

As concluded in Chapter 5 of the Order, the revenue at existing tariffs leaves a revenue gap

of Rs. 249.56 Crore to meet the Net Revenue Requirement for FY 2016-17, post adjustment of the



revenue surplus and gap determined after truing up of expenses and revenue based on the audited

accounts for FY 2014-15.

The Commission in order to recover the gap has revised the tariffs for FY 2016-17. The

approved tariff will be applicable from April 1, 2016 and will be effective till revised by the

Commission.

6.2.6 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 APR Order for

FY 2015-16 had computed the cross subsidies for different category of subsidising consumers which

were in accordance with the Tariff Policy.

The Commission has now revised the tariff and ensured that the cross subsidy has broadly

reduced with respect to previous levels with few exceptions as discussed while discussing the cross

subsidy levels at approved tariffs.

6.2.7 Category-wise Tariff Design

The Commission has designed the category-wise tariffs for full recovery of approved Net

Revenue Requirement for FY 2016-17. 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, 2016 and shall continue to be applicable till further revised by

the Commission.

6.2.7.1 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.

11/connection /month to Rs. 14/connection/month. However, the energy charges have not been

increased and are kept intact at Rs. 1.50/kWh.

For other domestic consumers, the fixed charges have been marginally increased to enhance

the recovery from fixed charges. The energy charges for lowest slab, i.e. consumption upto 100

units/month have been nominally increased from the existing level of Rs. 2.40/kWh to Rs.

2.45/kWh. The energy charges for the second slab, i.e. for consumption between 101-200

units/month have been fixed as Rs. 3.10/kWh. The energy charges for the third slab, i.e. for

consumption between 201-400 units/month have been fixed as Rs. 4.10/kWh, for consumers having

consumption above 400 units/month, the energy charges have been fixed at Rs. 4.50/kWh.

For single point bulk supply connections, the energy charges have been increased to Rs.

3.70/kWh from Rs. 3.40/kWh and fixed charges has been increased to Rs. 50/kW/month from Rs.

40/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 6.1 : Tariff for Domestic Consumers

S. No Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved

Fixed Charge (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed Charge (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed Charge (Per

Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-1: Domestic 1.1 Life Line Consumers Rs. 11/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 11/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 14/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh 1.2 Other Domestic Consumers

(i) 0-100 Units/Month Rs. 35/ Connection

Rs. 2.40/kWh

Rs. 45/ Connection

Rs. 3.00/kWh

Rs. 40/ Connection

Rs. 2.45/kWh

(ii) 101-200 Units/Month Rs. 50/ Connection

Rs. 2.90/kWh

Rs. 65/ Connection

Rs. 3.80/kWh

Rs. 60/ Connection

Rs. 3.10/kWh

(iii) 201-300 Units/Month Rs. 70/ Connection

Rs. 3.80/kWh

Rs. 90/ Connection

Rs. 4.80/kWh

Rs. 85/ Connection

Rs. 4.10/kWh

(iv) 301-400 Units/Month Rs. 95/ Connection

Rs. 3.80/kWh

Rs. 120/ Connection

Rs. 4.80/kWh

Rs. 110/ Connection

Rs. 4.10/kWh

(v) 401-500 Units/Month Rs. 120/ Connection

Rs. 4.00/kWh

Rs. 145/ Connection

Rs. 5.00/kWh

Rs. 150/ Connection

Rs. 4.50/kWh

(vi) Above 500 Units/Month Rs. 145/ Connection

Rs. 4.00/kWh

Rs. 175/ Connection

Rs. 5.00/kWh

Rs. 175/ Connection

Rs. 4.50/kWh

2 Single point bulk supply Rs. 40/kW Rs. 3.40/kWh Rs. 50/kW Rs.

4.30/kWh Rs. 50/kW Rs. 3.70/kWh

6.2.7.2 RTS 1-A: Concessional Snowbound Area Tariff

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 6.2 : Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas

S. No Description


Fixed Charge (Per Month) Energy Charges Fixed Charge

(Per Month) Energy

Charges Fixed Charge (Per Month) Energy Charges

RTS-1A: Snowbound

1 Domestic Rs. 11/ Connection Rs. 1.50/kWh Rs. 11/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 14/

Connection Rs. 1.50/kWh

2 Non-Domestic upto 1 kW

Rs. 11/ Connection Rs. 1.50/kWh Rs. 11/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 14/


3 Non-Domestic above 1 kW & upto 4 kW


Connection Rs.

2.25/kWh Rs. 14/


4 Non-Domestic above 4 kW


Connection Rs.

3.40/kWh Rs. 25/


6.2.8 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.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Table below:

Table 6.3: 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. 40/ kW

Rs. 4.05/ kWh Rs. 50/

kW Rs 5.00/

kWh Rs. 45/ kW

Rs. 4.15/ kWh

1.2 Above 25 kW Rs. 45/ kVA

Rs. 3.65/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/annum

Rs. 57/ kVA

Rs. 4.55/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/annum

Rs. 55/ kVA

Rs. 3.85/ 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. 45 / kW

Rs. 4.20/ kWh Rs. 57 /

kW Rs. 5.20/

kWh Rs. 50 / kW

Rs. 4.30/ kWh

2.2

Others upto 25 kW not

covered in 2.1 above

Rs. 45 / kW

Rs. 4.85/ kWh Rs. 57 /

kW Rs. 6.10/

kWh Rs. 55 / Kw

Rs. 5.10/ kWh

2.3 Above 25 kW Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs. 4.75/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 57 / kVA

Rs. 5.95/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 55 / kVA

Rs. 5.00/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

3 Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW

Rs. 45 / kVA

Rs. 4.65/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 57 / kVA

Rs. 5.80/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 55 / kVA

Rs. 4.90/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

4 Independent

Advertisement Hoardings

Rs. 60/ kW

Rs. 4.90/kWh Rs. 75/

kW Rs.

6.10/kWh Rs. 70/ kW

Rs. 5.20/kWh



6.2.9 RTS-3: Public Lamps

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 fixed charges for Pulbic Lamps in rural areas

have been fixed at Rs. 10/kW lower than the fixed charges in urban areas. The existing tariff, tariff

proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in the Table below:

Table 6.4: Tariff for Public Lamps

Description


Fixed / Demand Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-3: Public Lamps 3.1 Urban 1. Metered Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.35/

kWh Rs. 50/kW Rs. 5.45/ kWh Rs. 50/kW Rs. 4.65/ kWh

3.2 Rural

1. Metered Rs. 35/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh Rs. 45/kW Rs. 5.45/

kWh Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.65/ kWh

6.2.10 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. Further, as discussed earlier, the Commision has

equated the tariff of “Agriculture Allied Activities” with RTS-4.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission are

given in the Table below:

Table 6.5: 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

Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Minimum Charges


Metered Nil Rs. 1.40/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month & 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.75/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month &. 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.55/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/


RTS-4A: Agriculture Allied Activities

Metered Nil Rs. 2.25/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/


Nil Rs. 2.80/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month &. 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.55/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/




6.2.11 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 6.6: 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. 40/kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh Rs. 50/kW Rs. 5.45/ kWh Rs. 50/kW Rs. 4.55/ kWh

Above 75 kW Rs. 40/kVA Rs. 4.20/ kVAh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 5.25/

kVAh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 4.40/ kVAh

6.2.12 RTS-6: Public Water Works

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 fixed charges for Pulbic Water Works in rural areas

have been fixed at Rs. 10/kW lower than the fixed charges in urban areas. The existing tariff, tariff

proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in the Table below:

Table 6.7 : 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. 40/kVA Rs. 4.25/ kVAh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 5.30/


Rural Rs. 35/kVA Rs. 4.25/

kVAh Rs. 45/kVA Rs. 5.30/ kVAh Rs. 40/kVA Rs. 4.45/

kVAh

6.2.13 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.

Further, as discussed above, 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 6.8: 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. 105/ kW

Rs. 3.95/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

Rs. 132/ kW

Rs. 4.95/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

Rs. 130/ kW

Rs. 4.05/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

2. LT Industries (above 25kW & upto 75 kW)

Rs. 105/ kVA

Rs. 3.60/ kVAh

50 kVAh/ kVA/month &

600 kVAh /kVA/ annum

Rs. 132/ kVA

Rs. 4.55/ kVAh



Rs. 130/ kVA

Rs. 3.70/ 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 6.9: 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 40% 3.40 Rs. 230/kVA of the billable

demand

100 kVAh/kVA/month

& 1200 kVAh

/kVA/annum

4.15 Rs. 285/kVA of the billable

demand

100 kVAh/kVA/month &1200

kVAh /kVA/ annum

Above 40% 3.75 4.70

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA


demand

4.15 Rs. 365/kVA of the billable

demand Above 40% 3.75 4.70



The approved tariff for HT Industry is given in Table below:

Table 6.10: 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


demand 100 kVAh/kVA/month

& 1200 kVAh /kVA/annum

Above 40% 3.85

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA


demand Above 40% 3.85

6.2.14 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 6.11: Tariff for Mixed Load

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Tariff Design Fixed /

Demand Charges

Per Month)

Energy Charges


Per Month)

Energy Charges


(Per Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-8: Mixed Load Mixed Load Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW including MES as deemed licensee

Rs. 50/kW Rs. 4.15/kWh Rs. 65/kW Rs. 5.15/kWh Rs. 60/kW Rs. 4.50/kWh

6.2.15 RTS-9: Railway Traction

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Table below:

Table 6.12: 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. 200/kVA Rs. 3.60/ kVAh Rs. 260/kVA Rs. 5.00/




6.3 Revenue for FY 2016-17

Considering the revised tariffs, the Commission has computed the projected revenue at the

approved tariffs from each category for FY 2016-17. The summary of category-wise projected

revenue for FY 2016-17 is given in the following Table:

Table 6.13: Revenue at approved Tariffs for FY 2016-17

S. No. Category Sales Revenue

Average Billing Rate

(ABR)

Increase in ABR at Approved Tariffs w.r.t

ABR at existing Tariff

MU Rs. Crore Rs./Unit 1. RTS-1: Domestic 2800.54 997.79 3.56 7.83% 2. RTS-2: Non Domestic 1256.82 683.80 5.44 5.37% 3. RTS-3: Public Lamps 49.23 23.56 4.79 7.14% 4. RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 318.57 49.38 1.55 10.60% 5. RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 123.18 59.67 4.84 5.62% 6. RTS-6: Public Water Works 361.63 173.88 4.81 5.04% 7. RTS-7: Industry LT Industry 345.05 177.87 5.15 5.99% HT Industry 5701.46 2946.28 5.17 3.68%

8. RTS-8: Mixed Load 213.80 101.27 4.74 8.96% 9. RTS-9: Railway Traction 17.47 8.81 5.04 10.20% 10. Sub-Total 11187.75 5222.31 - - 11. Revenue from MCG - 31.50 - - 12. Total 11187.75 5253.82 4.70 -

The estimated revenue for FY 2016-17 at approved tariffs works out to Rs. 5253.82 Crore, as

against the net ARR of Rs. 5252.87 Crore worked out after adjusting trued-up surplus/gaps of

previous years leaving a surplus of Rs. 0.95 Crore with UPCL.

The percentage increase for Railway Traction appears to be on a higher side as load factor of

this category has increased. Even with the percentage increase for Railway Traction as shown

above, the Cross Subsidy from this category has drastically reduced. Further, as observed from

above Table, the percentage tariff increase for most of the subsidized categories, i.e. Domestic, PTW

and Mixed Load is higher than the increase of by 6.58% in Average Cost of Supply approved for FY

2016-17 with respect to approved Average Cost of Supply for FY 2015-16. On the other side, the

percentage tariff increase for most of the subsidizing categories, i.e. Non-Domestic, LT Industries

and HT Industries is lower than the 6.58% increase in Average Cost of Supply approved for FY

2016-17 with respect to the approved Average Cost of Supply for FY 2015-16. Increasing the tariff



for subsidized categories by higher percentage with respect to percentage increase for subsidising

categories is a step towards reduction in cross subsidy.

6.4 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 6.14 : 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 3.56 4.70 75.81% -24.19% Non Domestic 5.44 4.70 115.76% 15.76% Public Lamps 4.79 4.70 101.84% 1.84% PTW 1.55 4.70 32.98% -67.02% GIS 4.84 4.70 103.07% 3.07% PWW 4.81 4.70 102.30% 2.30% LT Industrial 5.15 4.70 109.68% 9.68% HT Industrial 5.17 4.70 109.95% 9.95% Mixed Load 4.74 4.70 100.78% 0.78% Railways 5.04 4.70 107.30% 7.30%

The comparison of Cross Subsidy at approved tariffs with respect to the average cost of

supply in Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 and as approved in this Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 is given

below:

Table 6.15 : Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17

Category Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariff for FY 2015-16

Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariff for FY 2016-17

Domestic -24.84% -24.19% Non Domestic 16.05% 15.76% PTW -63.24% -67.02% GIS 3.37% 3.07% Public Lamps 2.13% 1.84% PWW 1.66% 2.30% LT Industrial 9.92% 9.68% HT Industrial 9.49% (13.30%)* 9.95% Mixed Load -1.66% 7.30% Railways 14.38% 0.78%

* Cross subsidy computed by considering the Revenue from Continuous Supply Surcharge at same level as considered for FY 2016-17.



The Commission while designing the tariffs for FY 2016-17 has reduced the cross subsidies

for most of the categories except PTW category with respect to approved tariffs for FY 2015-16 and

has ensured to bring the cross-subsidy levels within the range specified in the National Tariff

Policy.

For PTW category, even with 10.60% tariff increase, the cross-subsidy is marginally

increasing and in order to retain the cross subsidy at same level of FY 2015-16, the tariff increase

required woud be much higher, which will result in tariff shock.

For HT Industry, the Commission while estimating the revenue from approved tariffs in its

Order dated April 10, 2015 had considered the revenue from continuous supply surcharge as Rs. 25

Crore and, accordingly, computed the Revenue and Cross Subsidy. However, during the

proceedings, UPCL submitted that the revenue from continuous supply surcharge from industries

was around Rs. 116 Crore, which has been considered by the Commission for FY 2016-17. If the

cross subsidy at approved tariffs for FY 2015-16 is computed by considering the revenue from

continuous supply surcharge of Rs. 116 Crore, the cross subsidy for HT Industrial category for FY

2015-16 works out to 13.30%.

Further, 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 having 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.”

6.5 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 this regard, Regulation 20(2) specifies as under:

“Wheeling charges payable to distribution licensee, by an open access customer for usage of

its system shall be as determined as under:

Wheeling Charges = (ARR–PPC–TC) /(PLSD X365) ( Rs./MW/Day)

Where,

ARR=Annual Revenue Requirement of the distribution licensee for the relevant year

PPC= Total Power Purchase Cost of distribution licensee for the relevant year

TC = Total transmission charges paid by distribution licensee for State and Inter-State

transmission system for the relevant year

PLSD= Total Peak load served by the concerned distribution system for the previous year

Provided Embedded open access consumer shall pay wheeling charges as determined by the

Commission in the following manner:

WC Embedded consumer = WC – [FC*0.85*12*1000/365] (in Rs./MW/day)

Where,

WC Embedded consumer = Net wheeling charges for embedded consumers

WC= Wheeling charges as determined by the Commission in accordance with the

methodology specified in Regulation 20(2) contained in Chapter 5 of these regulations.

FC= Fixed/demand charges in Rs/kVA/month as per rate schedule approved in the Tariff

Order for the relevant year. For the purpose of conversion of kVA into kW power factor of 0.85 has

been taken.



Note: In case Wheeling Charges for Embedded consumer worked out as above becomes

negative, such charge shall be zero.”

The PLSD during FY 2015-16 is 2034 MW. Hence, in accordance with the methodology

provided in the aforesaid Regulations, the wheeling charges payable by customers seeking open

access for FY 2016-17 (applicable upto 31st March, 2017) shall be:

Table 6.16 : Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2016-17 Description Rs./MW/day

Wheeling Charges 9804

*“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. 861/MW/day for HT industry consumers and Rs.

8267/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 licensee 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 system 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 2016-17 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 2016-17 have been determined

as Rs. 0.47/kWh for HT industrial consumers and Rs. 0.74/kWh for non-domestic consumers.

The Petitioner is hereby directed that the wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharge

recovered from open access customers shall be shown separately under the separate head of

income in its ARR/Tariff filings from next year onwards. Further, the Petitioner is directed that

the amount received from PTCUL, in lieu of transmission charges collected by PTCUL from

long/medium term open access customers be shown separately under non-tariff income in the

ARR/Tariff filings from next year onwards and should not be reduced from the Transmission

charges payable to PTCUL.


7. Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL

7.1 General

Uttarakhand, the 27th State of India was created on 9th November 2000 as the 10th

Himalayan State of the country blessed with abundant natural resources with an approx. 53,483 sq.

km area and presently having a population of approximately 101.17 Lakh. The Electricity

Distribution Network is managed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (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 caters to the Sub –Transmission &

Distribution network which includes 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 7.1 & 7.2.

Table 7.1: Detail of Sub-stations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2015

S .No. Name of District 66/11 kV S/s 33/11 kV S/s 11/0.415/11 kV S/s

No. No. of Transformers

Total MVA capacity No. No. of

Transformers Total MVA

capacity No. Total MVA capacity

Kumaon Zone 1 Almora 23 38 122 4046 146.66 2 Bageshwar 8 12 37.5 1706 55.3 3 Nainital 27 47 303 4715 419.07

Total Kumaon Zone 58 97 462.5 10467 621.03 US Nagar Zone

1 US Nagar 47 97 761.5 11386 705.14 2 Pithoragarh 16 25 108.5 3264 107.16 3 Champawat 7 11 45 1278 46.52

Total US Nagar Zone 70 133 915 15928 858.82 Garhwal Zone

1 Chamoli 5 8 58 12 17 65 2013 73.92 2 Dehradun 52 102 691.5 6150 737.97 3 Uttarkashi 10 16 59.05 1716 57.77 4 Pauri 31 50 211 5444 230.33 5 Tehri 14 21 102.5 3482 127.65 6 Rudraprayag 6 7 33 1676 51.07

Total Garhwal Zone 125 213 1162.05 20481 1278.71 Haridwar Zone

1 Haridwar 52 108 863 14701 950.87 Total Haridwar Zone 52 108 863 14701 950.87 Total UPCL 5 8 58 305 551 3402.55 61577 3709.43



Table 7.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2015 S .No. Name of District 66 kV line (in km) 33 kV Line

(in km) 11 kV Line

(in km) LT Line (in km)

Kumaon Zone 1. Almora 357.91 3760.23 5580.71 2. Bageshwar 135.8 1578.14 2205.27 3. Nainital 361.9 2691.39 4344.63

Total Kumaon Zone 855.61 8029.76 12130.61 US Nagar Zone

1. US Nagar 526.75 3628.87 4317.68

2. Pithoragarh 69.5 (charged at 33 kV voltage level) 228.72 2803.25 3346.72

3. Champawat 165.87 1647.34 2137.27 Total US Nagar Zone 69.5 921.34 8079.46 9801.67 Garhwal Zone

1. Chamoli 122.26 172 2324.22 3024.32 2. Dehradun 745.93 4437.06 10051.91 3. Uttarkashi 247.6 1485.5 2090.8 4. Pauri 606.44 5099.96 7958.18 5. Tehri 364.38 3796.74 3963.32 6. Rudraprayag 134.44 1240.86 1731.97

Total Garhwal Zone 122.26 2270.79 18384.34 28820.5 Haridwar Zone

1 Haridwar 537 3640.32 4090.71 Total Haridwar Zone 537 3640.32 4090.71 Total UPCL 191.76 4584.74 38133.88 54843.49

The Distribution network of UPCL as on 31st December 2015 contains four Zones namely

Garhwal, Kumaon, Haridwar & Udhamsingh Nagar having total eleven Circles containing 35

Divisions. The State has a distinct advantage over other comparable States as a small number of

consumers consume major share of power for which a Key Consumer Cell (KCC) has been

constituted. Hence a large portion of revenue of the Petitioner comes from these KCC consumers.

There were 17.83 Lakh consumers as on March 2014 and 18.91 Lakh consumers as on March 2015.

This increase of total 1,07,439 consumers during the year was primarily in Domestic category (90%).

The Consumer Mix, Consumption pattern & Revenue pattern for FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15 are

elaborated below:

7.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15

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 account for

around 56.17% of the total consumption of the State and contribute to about 63% of Petitioner’s

revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumers mix in the State during FY 2013-14.



CHART 1: Consumer Mix (FY 2013-14)

In FY 2014-15, out of the total approximately 18.91 Lakh consumers in the State, there were

87.64%-Domestic consumers, 10.15%-Non-Domestic consumers and only 0.59% consumers of the

Industrial category. It is seen that these industrial (HT+LT Industries) consumers account for

around 55.46% of the total consumption of the State and contribute to about 62.05% of Petitioner’s

revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumers mix in the State during FY 2014-15.

CHART 2: Consumer Mix (FY 2014-15)



7.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15

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 3: Consumption Pattern during FY 2013-14

In FY 2014-15, it was observed that with respect to the %age of total consumption of the

State, the consumption of Industrial consumers (HT+LT Industries) was 55.46% and for Domestic &

Non-Domestic consumers the consumption was 23.48% & 11.03% respectively. The following Chart

shows the consumption pattern in the State during FY 2014-15.

CHART 4: Consumption Pattern during FY 2014-15



Comparison of consumption pattern in FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15 depicts that %age share of

Industrial consumption has decreased by 0.72%, whereas, %age share of domestic consumption has

increased by 0.25% and the %age share of non-domestic consumption has increased by 0.06%. 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.

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. Since, Industries are

subsidising consumers, therefore, reduction in revenue from Industries would significantly affect

the commercial viability of the Distribution Business. The following table gives the quantum of

power traded through Exchanges (Open Access) by the Embedded Open Access Consumers.

Table 7.3: 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 FY 2014-15 181.37

7.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15

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 5: Revenue Mix in FY 2013-14



With regard to the revenue from sale of energy during FY 2014-15, the contribution of

Industrial consumers was 62.05% [HT Industrial consumers was 58.59%, LT industrial consumers

was 3.46%] and of Domestic consumers were contributing around 16.32%. The following Chart

shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer categories in the State.

CHART 6: Revenue Mix in FY 2014-15

On comparing the revenues of FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15, it is noticed that the %age

revenue share of Industrial Consumers with respect to the total revenue had decreased by 0.94%

and for domestic & non-domestic consumers had increased by 0.40% & 0.44% respectively.

7.2 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. Infact, higher distribution losses in distribution system

are detrimental to financial and commercial viability of the Petitioner. Therefore, 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.

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, various formats were issued to the Petitioner

vide Commission’s letter UERC/7/CL/152/2008-09/284 dated 17.05.2012 with the direction 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 Orders the

Petitioner had neither been submitting the periodical reports timely nor in accordance with the

prescribed formats.

Going by the past experience of performance monitoring of the Petitioner, the Commission

felt that monitoring should be conducted 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 7.4: 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

However, the Commission has observed that the Distribution Licensee has again been

inconsistent in furnishing the Commercial Performance Monitoring reports on the aforesaid 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.

The Commission has also observed that the Petitioner is not co-relating its monthly

Commercial performance Monitoring reports with its submission with regard to compliance status



of the directives issued by the Commission. Numerous anomalies have been observed in past like

the no. of un-metered consumers as on 31.03.2015 were 7031 as per the Petitioner’s submission vide

letter No. 5060/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated 30.11.2015, whereas, the no. of un-metered consumers

indicated in the prescribed Format- 3 (B) as on 31.03.2015 were indicated as 4691. The Commission

has taken a serious view on the same and is of the view that either the Petitioner’s submission in the

Commercial Performance Monitoring reports is incorrect or its submission vide letter No. 5060

dated 30.11.2015 w.r.t. compliance to the Commission’s directions under affidavit is incorrect.

The Commission directs the Petitioner that such wrong reporting/anomalies under

affidavit in its submissions would not be accepted and repetition of such errors may result in

action against the Petitioner under the provisions of Act/Rules/Regulations.

The Commission’s analysis on the information submitted by the Petitioner for the period

April 2015 to December 2015 through its various submissions is being discussed in the following

paragraphs:

7.2.1 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 mechanical meters with new electronic meters in

accordance with CEA Regulations.

Further, the Commission has observed that the Petitioner has a lackadaisical approach in

furnishing timely and correct report to the Commission in the prescribed formats. The reports

pertaining to various performance parameters on metering and other issues have been analysed and

findings thereof are being discussed below:

7.2.1.1 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission vide its Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015, had issued directions to the

Petitioner to take effective steps to reduce the percentage of provisional billing cases namely

NA/NR,IDF/RDF/ADF below 3% and submit an action plan in this regard within two months of

this Order. In this regard, during the meeting held on 22.04.2015 the Commission directed the

Petitioner that Chief Engineer (distribution) of respective Zones should be made responsible for

reduction of the provisional billing cases to achieve the target by March, 2016.



The Petitioner vide its letter no. 4876/UPCL/RM/M-331 dated 05.11.2015 had submitted

consolidated quarterly targets for NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF in the prescribed Format-2.

A meeting was held on 28.10.2015 pertaining to status of Defective meters in the Petitioner’s

network. The Commission had directed Director (Operations) to furnish a detailed monitorable

Action Plan latest by 30.11.2015, failing which appropriate action against Director (Operations)

under the provisions of the electricity Act, 2003 would be taken holding him personally responsible

for non-compliance of the Commission’s Orders/Regulations.

In this regard, the Petitioner vide its letter no. 2942/D(O)/UPCL/C-4 dated 01.12.2015

requested the Commission for allowing it time extension upto 31.03.2016 for achieving defective

meter percentage to 3% in plain areas and 31.03.2017 for hill areas. The Commission vide its letter

no. 1596 dated 22.01.2016 allowed the Petitioner to achieve a target of 3% defective meters upto

31.03.2016 in Plain areas and upto 30.09.2016 in the Hill areas.

The Commission has observed that total provisional billing cases namely NA/NR,

RDF/ADF/IDF cases furnished in prescribed formats 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 2(D) & 2(E) for FY 2015-16 are

still at alarmingly high percentages vis-a-vis total number of consumers as shown in the Table given

below:

Table 7.5: Status of Provisional Billing Viz. NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF

Status As on 31st March 2013

As on 31st March 2014


As on 31st December 2015

NA (%) 2.5 3.3 4.09 3.35 NR (%) 6.6 5.7 4.79 3.68 IDF (%) 11.9 8.6 7.59 6.66 ADF (%) 0.7 0.5 0.35 0.00 RDF (%) 0.8 1.0 1.62 1.41 Total (%) 22.5 19.2 18.44 15.1 Total Billed Consumers (Nos.) 1647224 1664159 1742507 1802589

From the above table, it is observed that though there is a reduction in total percentage of

NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF cases, however, the decrease in trend in FY 2015-16 (upto 31st December

2015) is not adequate as per the requirement of the Regulations and directions. Moreover, it is also

observed that the percentage of provisional billing cases is around 15% as on 31.12.2015 and the

Petitioner in its action plan dated 01.12.2015 has only submitted % target achievement of defective

meters in the State, as discussed above. Since defective meters is one of the constituents of



provisional billing and constitute only a portion of such billing basis therefore, it can be said that the

Petitioner has to put extra efforts to bring the overall provisional billing percentage to 3% in plain as

well as hill areas of the State. The Commission is of the view that despite numerous directives

issued to the Petitioner for reducing and bringing the provisional billing cases within 3%, the

Petitioner has not even reached to a level of 3% for NA/NR cases and still 7.03% NA/NR cases are

there as on 31.12.2015. Therefore, taking a considerate view on the same, the Commission directs

the Petitioner to reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2% in both Hill & Plain area of the

State latest by 31.12.2016.

7.2.1.2 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective meters (referred to as

Identified defective meters (IDF))

In this regard, the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 had directed 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 had also directed the Petitioner to restrict the

percentage of Defective meters (IDF) to 3% in accordance with the Regulations by 30th September,

2015.

In compliance to the same, the Petitioner in its submission for compliance of directives has

submitted that the billing of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF cases are being done as per the provisions of

The Electricity Supply Code and Tariff Order issued by the Commission.

Circle-wise number of defective meters reported by the Petitioner in the prescribed format

3(A) is shown in the table given below:



Table 7.6: Status of Defective Meters

S. No. Name of Circle

No. of Defective

Meters as on 31.03.2013

No. of Defective


No. of Defective


No. of Defective


1. EDC Dehradun (R) 23166 19278 17263 7458 2. EDC Roorkee 12127 13182 11048 8993 3. EDC Haridwar 16715 9705 7217 6252 4. EDC Srinagar 36515 40586 43236 34202 5. EDC Dehradun 9162 4250 551 556 6. EDC Kashipur 9984 4017 1947 1220 7. EDC Rudrapur 27221 16950 12293 9433 8. EDC Ranikhet 36056 24320 30095 10414 9. EDC Haldwani 25260 10430 8641 6953

10. EDC Tehri - - - 18473 11. EDC Pithoragarh - - - 16144

Total 196206 142718 132291 120098

From the above Table, it can be seen that the Petitioner had managed to reduce 10,427 &

12,193 number of defective meters in FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 (upto December, 2015) respectively.

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.

As already discussed at para 7.2.1.1, the Commission has directed the Petitioner to achieve a

target of 3% defective meters upto 31.03.2016 in Plain areas and upto 30.09.2016 in the Hill areas.

The Commission has observed that the status as on 31.12.2015 is not encouraging as still 120098

defective meters exists in Petitioner’s network and taking a considerate view the Petitioner is

directed to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to 3% in plain areas upto 31.09.2016 and

upto 30.12.2016 in Hill areas of the State, failing which appropriate action under the

Act/Rules/Regulations would be taken against the Petitioner for the continued non-compliance

of the directions of the Commission.

7.2.1.3 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission vide its Order dated April 11, 2015 had directed Petitioner to consolidate

its complete database for mechanical meters including R-APDRP covered towns and submit correct



reports to the Commission latest by 30th June, 2015 and replace all the existing mechanical meters by

static/electronic meters by 31st December, 2015.

The Petitioner in its submission vide letter no. 206/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated 25.01.2016 with

regard to compliance of directives had stated that for the period from April, 2015 to November,

2015 a total of 23,293 mechanical meters have been replaced with electronic meters and the balance

mechanical meters shall be replaced during the control period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

However, as per status of mechanical meters as on December, 2015 given in the below table, still a

staggering figure of 1,28,947 numbers of mechanical meters exist in Petitioner’s network.

The status of mechanical meters furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed format 3(C) is

given below:-

Table 7.7: Status of Mechanical Meters

Status As on 31st

March 2012




As on 31st December

2015 Balance Mechanical Meters to be replaced by Electronic Meters

214693 199730 183005 152560 128947

From the above Table, it can be seen that the rate of replacement of mechanical meters by

electronic meters is extremely slow. It is an established fact that by replacing the mechanical meters

with static/electronic meters, the Petitioner will not only comply with the prevailing SoP

Regulations but also will have more accurate/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 mechanical meters including those not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS

funded schemes in a planned time-bound program. The Petitioner during the discussions on this

matter has submitted that priority is given for replacement of defective meters due to which rate of

replacement of Mechanical meters is not encouraging. To this the Commission is of the view that

the Petitioner cannot absolve itself from complying with the provisions of the CEA Regulations on

meters and directives issued by the Commission in this regard from time to time on the pretext that

it is presently focusing more on replacement of defective meters than replacement of mechanical

meters.



Therefore, the Commission directs Petitioner to replace all the existing mechanical meters

by static/electronic meters by 31st December, 2016 & consolidate its complete database for

mechanical meters including areas not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS Schemes.

7.2.1.4 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

The Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, had directed the Petitioner for identifying and

writing off ghost/fictitious consumers from its billing database under a transparent policy framed

by it.

The Petitioner vide its letter No. 206/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated 25.01.2016 had submitted that

it has targeted to settle these connections during FY 2016-17. Further, it has submitted that they

have prepared a draft policy for Write Off of Bad & Doubtful Debts and have identified Bad &

Doubtful Arrears amounting to Rs. 417.32 Crore which has been targeted to be settled during FY

2016-17.

The status of Ghost/Fictitious consumers furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed

format 3(D) is given below:

Table 7.8: Status of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

Status As on

31st March 2013

As on 31st March

2014

As on 31st March

2015

As on 31st December

2015 Nos. of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers 1368 1135 892 733

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 Aggregate Technical & Commercial losses (AT&C losses).

The Commission is of the view that as the Petitioner has drafted a policy for Write Off of

Bad & Doubtful Debts which would also include the arrears on account of ghost/fictitious/non-

existent consumers. Therefore, the Petitioner should expeditiously identify and Write Off

ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its billing database under a transparent policy.



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,

2016.

7.2.1.5 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 tariffs

has been prescribed for unmetered consumers/connections from FY 2015-16 onwards and

therefore, failure to ensure 100% metering would entail no billing to unmetered consumers.

The Petitioner vide its letters No. 4592/UPCL/RM/C-11 dated 12.10.2015 &

5060/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated 30.11.2015 had submitted that the number of unmetered connections

as on 31.03.2015 were 7031, whereas, from the below table it can be observed that status of un-

metered consumers as on 31.03.2015 were 4691. Further, the Petitioner in its submission vide letter

No. 206/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated 25.01.2016 had submitted that there are 1085 un-metered

connections as on 27.12.2015, whereas, in prescribed Format- 3 (B) of Commercial performance

Monitoring reports, the Petitioner has submitted that the no. of un-metered connections as on

31.12.2015 were 70 as mentioned in the table given below.

Table 7.9: Status of Unmetered Consumers

Status As on 3/14

As on 3/15

As on 4/15

As on 5/15

As on 6/15

As on 7/15

As on 8/15

As on 9/15

As on 10/15

As on 11/15

As on 12/15

Nos. of Un-metered Consumers

6542 4691 3980 2013 346 240 206 201 199 197 70

From the above Table, it is inferred that though Petitioner has been able to reduce the

number of the un-metered consumers, however, it has still failed to achieve 100% metering as per

the directions of the Commission vide its tariff order dated 11.04.2015.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has adopted a callous approach in

submitting its figures for un-metered consumers which differ from submission to submission and as

the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014 had stated that no tariff for un-metered

connection from FY 2015-16 shall be prescribed and failure to ensure 100% metering would entail no

billing to unmetered consumers. Therefore, the Commission reiterates its views expressed in the



aforesaid Tariff Order with regard to elimination of un-metered consumers and is of the view that

the presence of the un-metered consumers in the Petitioner’s network are a liability to it and are

add-ons to its Aggregate Technical & Commercial (AT&C) Losses. Moreover, the same is violation

of the provisions of Section 55 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

7.2.2 Billing

The Commission, vide its earlier Tariff Orders, and various directions issued from time to

time in this regard 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

has developed a system for online view/payment of electricity bill for its consumers which has not

only benefitted the consumers of the state but also has improved the billing mechanism of the

Petitioner. However, the Commission is of the view that still a lot of scope for improvement in

billing, bill distribution and bill collection system is required at Petitioner’s end.

7.2.2.1 NB & SB Cases

The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015, had directed 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.


they have prepared a draft policy for Write Off of Bad & Doubtful Debts and they have targeted to

settle these connections during FY 2016-17.

Petitioner’s submission in the prescribed Format- 4 of Commercial Performance Report

pertaining to Not Billed (NB) and Stop Billed (SB) is being presented in the Table given below:

Table 7.10: Status of NB & SB Cases

Status As on 03/13

As on 03/14

As on 03/15

As on 12/15

No. of NB/SB Cases NB 62800 139614 144480 154825 SB 74660

From the above table it is evident that the no. of NB/SB cases increased by 3.49% in FY 2014-

15 and 7.16% in FY 2015-16 (upto December, 2015) which indicates that the Petitioner has shown its

least interest in reducing the no. of NB/SB cases. The Commission had categorically directed it to

realise atleast 25% of such cases whereas, the trend shows that such cases are increasing on year-on-



year basis which clearly indicates that the Petitioner has failed to comply with the directions of the

Commission.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is hereby again directed to liquidate and finalise at least 25%

of the NB/SB cases latest by 30.09.2016, failing which appropriate action under the



7.2.2.2 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.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 had directed 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.


Division-wise targets have been fixed for collection of Revenue Arrears during FY 2015-16 and till

November, 2015 arrear collected from Non-Government categories was Rs. 83.99 Crore.

The status of Outstanding Arrears furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed Format- 5 is

given below:-

Table 7.11: Status of Outstanding Arrears. Description As on 03/13 As on 03/14 As on 03/15 As on 12/15

Arrear No. Amount (Rs. Lac) No. Amount

(Rs. Lac) No. Amount (Rs. Lac) No. Amount

(Rs. Lac) Arrear>=5 Lac 774 19563 714 25794 1141 49782 1477 60275 1=<Arrear<5 Lac 4260 7989 4306 7747 5538 10136 5896 10710 0.5 Lac=<Arrear<1 Lac 13237 8179 15401 10056 15449 10475 14961 10231

0.1 Lac=<Arrear<0.5 Lac 59115 13673 75696 16140 88900 18846 99991 20592

0.05 Lac=<Arrear<0.1 Lac

46703 3318 60664 4308 69730 4951 79982 5587

Total 124089 52722 156781 64044 180758 94190 202307 107395



From the above Table, it is evident that the Petitioner has not been able to reduce number of

arrear cases and the same are increasing on year-on-year basis and has reached to an all time high of

202307 in FY 2015-16 (upto December 2015).

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has been lackadaisical towards collection

of arrears and lacks seriousness in laying down a planned programme/roadmap. This is a grave

concern for the Petitioner and may weed away the Petitioner’s financial viability since 2.02 Lakh

cases of arrears have been pending as on December, 2015 with a staggering amount of Rs. 107395

Lakh pending recovery by the Petitioner.

The comparison of Outstanding Arrears furnished by the Petitioner in the above table vis-a-

vis Outstanding Arrears shown in Commercial Diary report i.e. CS-4 is given below:-

Table 7.12: Comparison of Outstanding Arrears. Description Total Arrear in Rs. Crore

Commercial Performance Monitoring report as on 31.03.2015 (excluding Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 941.90

Commercial Performance Monitoring report as on 31.12.2015 (excluding Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 1073.95

CS-4 report as on 31.03.2015 (including Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 2147.25

CS-4 report as on 31.12.2015 (including Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 2618.42

From the above Table, it has been observed that the Petitioner has not made enough efforts

in claiming its arrears in FY 2015-16 (upto December, 2015) due to which the total arrear to be

recovered as on 31.12.2015 as per CS-4 report is Rs. 2618.42 Crore i.e. almost 50% of its Annual

Revenue requirement. Further, from the above table, it is observed that total amount of arrears

below Rs. 5000 to be recovered by the Petitioner as on 31.03.2015 & 31.12.2015 were Rs. 1205.34

Crore & Rs. 1544.46 Crore respectively, which shows that the Petitioner is not only failing in

collecting its high arrear amount but also failing in collecting the low arrear amount (below Rs.

5000). The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has to understand the gravity of the

situation otherwise the financial viability of its distribution business would be under serious threat.

This by all standards in any commercial organization is not healthy for its growth and reflects an

indifferent approach in receivable management.

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 receivable management programme besides taking corrective actions

against the habitual defaulters.The Commission also directs the Petitioner to lay down standard

procedure for receivables management and submit to the Commission within one month of

issuance of this Order.

7.2.2.3 Load Factor of KCC Consumers

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 had directed 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

had also directed Petitioner to check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their

sanctioned/contracted demand and take corrective action in such cases.


the analysis of load factor are regularly being done at its KCC Billing Centres for load factors less

than 10%, load factor of steel units less than 50%, load factor of ice factories during season less than

70%, load factor of pulp & paper industry less than 50%, load factor of stone crushers less than 40%,

consumption variation analysis (less than 50% from previous month) and access demand for last 3

billing cycles.

The load factor of the KCC consumers, as submitted by the Petitioner in the prescribed

Format-6 of Commercial Performance Monitoring Report has been shown in Table given below:

Table 7.13: Status of KCC Consumers Description As on 03/13 As on 03/14 As on 03/15 As on 12/15 Total KCC Consumers 16939 18668 19997 20736 *Abnormal cases 2257 2554 2709 2948 L.F<10% 6884 7513 8430 8973 L.F>10% 10055 11155 11567 11763

*Abnormal cases- Consumers exceeding sanctioned demand, Consumers having CT, PT by-pass, Tamper Report, unbalanced Tamper Report & any other Tamper Report.

From the above table, it can observed that as on December, 2015, number of consumers

having load factor less that 10% were 8973, which is around 43.27% of the total number of KCC

consumers. To this the Commission is of the view that the consumers having load factor less than

10% are in alarmingly high numbers. Moreover, 2948 consumers which is 14.22% of the total

number of KCC consumers are covered under abnormal cases out of which majorly comprise of

consumers who have exceeded their sanctioned/contracted demand.



The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has total billed consumer base of about 18

Lakh consumers in the State, out of which 20736 consumers (Industrial category consumers having

load 5 kW & above and Commercial category consumers having load 10 kW & above) as on

31.12.2015, 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.

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.

7.2.2.4 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 had directed 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.


Division-wise and month-wise revenue arrear collection targets have been fixed for FY 2015-16.

Moreover, daily revenue collection monitoring at sub division level is being done at Corporate

Office and Field officers of the Petitioner have been instructed to disconnect the supply of

defaulting consumers alongwith disconnection of all high value consumers in case of non-payment

of undisputed dues. In this regard, the information provided by the Petitioner in the prescribed

Format- 7 is given below:

Table 7.14: 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 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 9685.16 418388 4.32 3.76 4.08 FY 2015-16 (December 2015) 7754.25 308885 3.98 - -



From the above Table it has been observed that the average realization [collection/unit] is

marginally below the overall average cost of supply of the Petitioner except in FY 2014-15 which

reveals that the Petitioner was not even realizing its average cost of supply in FY 2012-13 & FY 2013-

14. However, in FY 2014-15 the Petitioner was able to comfortably recover its average power

purchase cost & average cost of supply. The Commission feels that the Petitioner should

consistently make efforts for maximizing its revenue realization and minimizing its average cost of

Supply so that financial viability of its business is not threatened.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to frame a time-bound programme for

realisation of pending arrears/dues and submit a report on the action taken for realisation of

arrears, amount of arrears realised, arrears remaining outstanding and reasons for non-realisation

of these arrears/dues should be submitted to the Commission within three months of the


7.2.3 Billing and Bill Collection System

Taking cognizance of various complaints received from the consumers to the Commission in

writing and also during public 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 bill generation

and bill distribution system needs to be strengthened 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. The Commission had 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 had submitted in its report

that despite Commission imposing heavy consolidated penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 and recurring

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 scientifically establishing adequate number of Bill Collection Centres/outlets so



that consumers need not to travel more than 1 Km in depositing the bills besides keeping the Bill

Collection Centres consumer friendly and attractive with all basic conveniences 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. In this regard, UPCL

vide its letter No. 4258/UPCL/RMC-9 dated 16.09.2015 submitted its comprehensive Action Plan.

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 [under the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) formulated by the Department of

Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY), Ministry of Communication and Information

Technology, Government of India] 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.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 had observed 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. Further, the Commission directed 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.

A meeting was held on 28.10.2015 regarding the Bill Collection System. The Commission

observed that the licensee has summarily failed to comply with the directions/Orders of the

Commission in the matter of Bill Collection System. Thereafter, the Commission vide its Order

dated 07.01.2016 in the matter of waiver and refund of penalty imposed by the Commission vide

Order dated 01.09.2005 had taken a lenient view and directed the Petitioner to submit bi-monthly

report of action taken to augment and upgrade its Bill Collection System, submit monthly reports

on the status of no. of CSCs integrated during the month latest by 15th day of next month and

submit a comprehensive Action Plan latest by 25.01.2016. However, no submission in this regard

has been furnished by the Petitioner till date.

The Commission has observed that the Petitioner has factually failed to comply with the

directions issued in the Commission’s Order dated 01.09.2005 and 07.01.2016. Therefore, as a last

attempt to induce the Petitioner to work in right earnest for meeting the requirement of the

Commission’s Order dated 01.09.2005, the Commission directs the Petitioner to comply with the

directions issued in the Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016 in the matter of Bill Collection

System, failing which appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be taken

against the Petitioner for the continued non-compliance of the directions of the Commission.


an agreement has been executed between Common Service Centre E-Governance Services India

Ltd., New Delhi and UPCL. Under this agreement CSC will collect payment of electricity bills from

the consumers in various locations mainly in remote and rural areas of the State. At present there

are approx. 1800 functional CSCs in the State, which are expected to go upto 4000 which if

integrated with Petitioner’s billing system shall immensely help the electricity consumers residing

at remote areas of the State. The Commission is of the view that since a large number of CSCs are to

be integrated with UPCL’s billing system for extending the bill collection facility to the consumers

of the State, the Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite integrating CSCs available in State

with its billing system under the agreement executed between UPCL & Common Service Centre

E-Governance Services India Ltd., New Delhi.



7.3 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. Moreover,

the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 had 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 submit action taken report to the Commission on quarterly basis.

A meeting was held on 28.10.2015 with regard to voltage-wise cost of supply. The

Commission had directed the Petitioner to submit the status of metering at various voltage levels,

DTs and at consumer level latest by 15.11.2015. In this regard, the Petitioner submitted vide its letter

No. 2941 dated 01.11.2015 that the metering at 33 kV voltage level shall be completed upto

31.08.2016. However, the Commission has found the Petitioner’s submission as incomplete and had

given further directions to the Petitioner for complying with the directions issued w.r.t. voltage-

wise cost of supply as per meeting held on 28.10.2015.

The Petitioner in its submission vide its letter No. 206/UPCL/RM/B-17 dated 25.01.2016

pertaining to compliance of directives reiterated the points as submitted vide letter No. 2941 dated

01.11.2015. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that the certain vital issues like metering,

voltage-wise cost of supply and energy audit are inter-related and priority should be given to make

a robust metering system which would eventually help in correct energy audit and determining the

voltage-wise cost of supply. Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to provide metering at each

feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network so that effective energy

auditing can be done and proper energy accounting can throw-up several actionable issues

which, when addressed, will result in marked improvement in distribution losses.

Further, the Commission also directs the Petitioner to submit the quarterly progress

report with regard to metering at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its network.

7.4 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 30.06% as on December, 2015. The reason for such high

AT&C loss is primarily high distribution losses and low collection efficiency of the Petitioner till



December, 2015. 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. Similar directions were issued by the Commission in its

Order dated 02.02.2015 in the matter of approval for the investment on the SCADA /DMS Project of

Dehradun town covered under Part-‘A’ of Restructured-Accelerated Power Development & Reform

Program. 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 7.15: 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

(%)

Col

lect

ion

Effi

cien

cy

(%)

Act

ual A

T&C

Los

s (%

)

Com

pute

d A

T&C

loss

es

(Tar

iff O

rder

) (%

) FY 2011-12 10310.64 8252.72 315899 292757 19.96 18.00 92.67 25.82 20.46 FY 2012-13 10789.11 8577.01 356995.3 346873.3 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 18.10 FY 2014-15 11888.23 9685.16 418940 418388 18.53 15.50 99.87 18.64 17.19 FY 2015-16 (upto Dec,15) 9534.91 7754.25 359140 308885 18.68 15.00 86.01 30.06 16.28

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 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 2014-15. This

is primarily due to some power being taken through open access which was around 181.37 MU.

Also this could be due to slow down in economy and load shedding. 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 Chart given below:



Chart 8: AT&C Loss in other category of consumers (excluding HT consumers)

It is observed that for past 3 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 loss level in acceptable limits, the Petitioner

should take up the following works at the earliest:

1. The Petitioner must replace all 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 than 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 into Agriculture and Non-Agriculture load basis which would be an effective

measure for segregation of theft/pilferage of electricity in Agriculture and Non-Agriculture

usage in villages/rural areas.

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 so that revenue recovery can be

enhanced and problems related to accumulation of arrears is resolved.

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.

7.5 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/mechanical



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.

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 of the State.

Going by the past experience of monitoring performance of the Petitioner, the Commission

is of the view that monitoring should be done 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 had 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, so as to reach to the

Commission latest by 25th day of the following month.

Therefore, the Commission again directs Petitioner to submit monthly Commercial

Performance Monitoring reports strictly in the prescribed formats on regular basis, so as to reach

the Commission latest by 25th day of the following month.


8. 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 Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 dated April 11, 2015 as well as the

summary of new directions (given in preceding Chapters of this Order) for compliance and

implementation by the Petitioner.

8.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 dated

April 11, 2015

8.1.1 Performance Report

The Commission directed 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.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The Petitioner submitted that the Commercial Performance Report for the month of July,

2015 and October, 2015 was submitted to the Commission vide its letter no.

4745/UPCL/RM/UERC-10 dated October 23, 2015 and letter no. 5378/UPCL/RM/UERC-10, dated

December 22, 2015 respectively.

The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner in this regard. The

Commission directs the Petitioner that such wrong reporting/anomalies under affidavit in its

submissions would not be accepted and repetition of such errors may result in action against the

Petitioner under the provisions of Act/Rules/Regulations. (Refer Para 7.2).



The Commission again directs Petitioner to submit monthly Commercial Performance

Monitoring reports strictly in the prescribed formats on regular basis, so as to reach the

Commission latest by 25th day of the following month. (Refer Para 7.5)

8.1.2 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 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.

Further, the Commission in its Tariff Orders dated April 10, 2014 and April 11, 2015 again

directed the Petitioner to comply with all the above directives and submit the compliance to the

Commission on regular basis.

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner submitted that it had constituted a committee to identify the status of

departmental employees and pensioners of UJVN Ltd., PTCUL and UPCL availing supply of

electricity at the concessional rates specified by the respective department. The findings of the

Committee are that the 7973 no. of employees of UPCL, 753 no. of PTCUL and 3718 no. of

employees of UJVN Ltd. are availing the electricity at departmental tariff. The Petitioner submitted

that in the month of March, 2015, 718 no. of employees/pensioners of UPCL/PTCUL/UJVN Ltd.

were billed through the billing software of UPCL and their average consumption per employee was

320 units. For the period from November, 2001 to March, 2015, the billed amount against the above

employees was assessed as Rs. 135.93 Crore for UPCL employees, Rs. 10.18 Crore for PTCUL

employees and Rs. 62.25 Crore for UJVN Ltd. employees. The Petitioner submitted that in its Board

8. Commission’s Directions


Meeting held on September 30, 2015 it was agreed to recover the above amount in monthly

instalments of Rs. 10 Crore and Rs. 2 Crore from UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL respectively and the

recovery is being made.

As regards the mechanism for reimbursement of expenses against electricity consumed by

the departmental employees, the Petitioner submitted that its employees are being given the facility

of departmental electricity connection since the existence of UPSEB. Under this facility, a fixed

lump-sum amount is charged from the employees according to their designation towards electricity

charges for electricity supplied to them. Section 23(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act,

1999 provides that the terms and conditions of service of the personnel shall not be less favourable

to the terms and conditions which were applicable before the transfer. 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 to the extent it is not inferior to that existing before January

14, 2000. The rates and charges for this category are in adherence to the statutory provisions. As

UPCL is the successor entity of UPPCL, the above legal provisions are applicable to it also. The

copies of O.M. No. 1714/UPCL/RM/L-99 and No. 1715/UPCL/RM/L-99 dated December 23, 2009

issued in the matter have been submitted to the Commission.

The Petitioner submitted that the number of unmetered connection as on December 27, 2015

is 1085 which are in the Pithoragarah Circle in the area which was maintained and operated earlier

by UREDA/UJVN Ltd. The Petitioner submitted that status of metering of unmetered connections

is 7031 as on March 31, 2015 and 2046 as on August 31, 2015.

The Commission directs the Petitioner 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 alongwith each APR/Tariff Petition.

The Zonal Chiefs, the Circle Chief and the Executive Engineers are hereby directed to

examine the data pointed out with reference to their Divisions for FY 2014-15 and submit the

justification to the Commission within 45 days of the date of Order on the above discrepancies

failing which action may be initiated against them individually by the Commission under

Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003.



8.1.3 Load Shedding

The Commission directed 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.

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner submitted that the rostering policy was approved in its Board of Directors

meeting held on July 23, 2015.

The Petitioner further submitted that it has prepared its power cut policy, which may be

shown as follows:-

1. Commonly, there is no powercut in the state of Uttarakhand.

2. In case of demand more than available energy, Non availability of

Consigned/Distribution Asset within or outside the state, etc , in such type of

emergency conditions the Power cut in the state will be according to the following

priority as shown below:

Table 8.1: Rostering Policy as submitted by the Petitioner S.No. Industrial Area Other Areas 1. Steel business/Furnace Business Rural Plain Region 2. Industries not opting for continuous supply Small Urban Plain Region 3. Industries Opted for continuous Supply Large Urban Plain Region 4. -- Hilly region 5. -- Capital For other categories the time and day of Power cut for operation will be decided by Director (Operation) considering the demand of electricity for respective categories.

3. No load shedding will be applicable for all tourist/Pilgrimage site.

4. The frequent Power cut in any region will not exceed 14 days constantly in that

region.

5. All industries are ensured to have minimum of 18 hours of electricity per day in a

Month.

The Petitioner further submitted that no load shedding has been carried out in any area

continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days.



The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s reply.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.

8.1.4 AT&C Losses

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that it has prepared the Efficiency Plan with Division wise targets

in respect of the following activities for reduction of losses:

(i) Replacement of mechanical meters and defective meters

(ii) Metering of unmetered connections

(iii) Bringing three phase meters outside the premises of the consumers

(iv) Double metering on HT connections

(v) Checking of all three phase domestic connections with a view to detect supply used

for commercial purposes

(vi) Collection of non-government arrears

(vii) Checking of connections to detect and prevent unauthorised use of electricity

(viii) Laying of LT cable

The Petitioner submitted that the Corporate Office fixed the Revenue Collection Targets for

each division for FY 2015-16 separately for Non-Government and Government categories with a

view to achieve 15% reduction in AT&C Losses of Non-Government categories.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner.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.



8.1.5 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 in order to ensure grid

discipline. (Refer Para 4.4.9.7)

The Commission, further, directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that it is restricting its net drawal from the grid within the net

drawal schedules whenever the system frequency is below 49.90 Hz to comply with the directions

of the Commission and in the interest of grid discipline.

The Petitioner submitted that the details of actual power purchases for the quarters ending

June, 2015 and September, 2015 have been submitted to the Commission explaining the reasons for

excess power purchase cost and sought approval for the same. The details of power purchases for

the quarter ending December, 2015 are being compiled and approval shall be sought from the

Commission as per the norms.

The Commission hereby once againdirects the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal from

the grid within its drawal schedules in order to ensure grid discipline.

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 2016-17 as

indicated in the Table 5.6 of this Order, failing which, the Commission may disallow such

additional power purchase cost while truing up the ARR for FY 2016-17.

The Petitioner is directed to prepare its power purchase plan for the next three years and

initiate the bidding process to meet the deficit, if any. The Petitioner is directed to submit an



action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of Order. The Petitioner is also directed to

ensure compliance of the Regulations issued by the Commission from time to time, failing

which any consequent liability would be to the account of the Petitioner.

8.1.6 Fixed Assets Register

The Commission directed the Petitioner to expedite the process and submit the updated

Fixed Assets Register within 3 months of the date of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that Fixed Assets Register for the period upto FY 2012-13have been

submitted to the Commission. Further, the work of preparation of Fixed Assets Register for FY

2013-14 and FY 2014-15 is in progress.

The Commission hereby once again directs the Petitioner to expedite the process and

submit the Fixed Assets Register updated upto 31.3.2015 within 3 months of the date of the Order

and Fixed Assets Register updated upto 31.3.2016 within 6 months of the date of this Order.

8.1.7 Depreciation

The Commission directed 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 Petitioner submitted that it is very difficult task now to prepare the Fixed Assets

Register showing the date and location of each Asset existed as on November 9, 2001 and created

thereafter. The Petitioner requested the Commission to exempt from this direction.

The Commission does not find it appropriate to waive off the directive in this regard. 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 Tariff filings 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 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the sought information is being compiled and shall be

submitted to the Commission.

The Commission takes a serious note of the non-compliance of the Petitioner to the

Commission’s directive in this regard.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.

8.1.9 Employee Expenses

UPCL was 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, the Commission cautioned 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.


The Petitioner submitted the status of direct recruitment as shown in the Table given below:



Table 8.2: Summary of Direct Recruitment Group Position No. Updated Status Remarks

B Accounts Officer 11 Advertisement has been released. Submission of online application shall commence from January 22, 2016

B Law Officer 2

B Assistant Engineer (E&M) 47

B Assistant Engineer (Civil) 7

C Junior Engineer (E&M) 13 Appointment letters issued to 11 no. selected candidates

8 no. selected candidates have joined UPCL

C Junior Engineer (Civil) 20 Appointment letters issued to 16 no. selected candidates

Date of joining has been fixed on January 27, 2016 to January 28, 2016

C Office Assistant-III 77 Written exam held on September 20, 2015 by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad

Further course of action under progress

C Technician Grade-2 496

Advertisement has been released on December 8, 2013 by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad. Recruitment process withheld as per GoU direction till further Orders

Matter pending before Hon’ble High Court, Nainital

C Assistant Accountant 57 Appointment letters issued to 45 no. selected candidates

35 no. selected candidates have joined UPCL

C Assistance Store Keeper 20 17 no. of candidates were selected

Issue of appointment letters is under process

Sub-total 750 C Junior Engineer (E&M) 11 Adhiyachan has been sent to

Uttarakhand Adhinastha Sewa Chayan Ayog vide letter no. 10585 dated September 10, 2015

C Junior Engineer (Civil) 1

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.

8.1.10 Bad & Doubtful Debts

The Commission directed the Petitioner to finalise the policy and submit the same for

Commission’s perusal within three months from the date of this Order.


The Petitioner submitted that as per the direction of the Audit Committee, the draft write off

policy was sent to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in India for examination in view of all

Accounting and Auditing Standards, Legal Provisions and Practices followed in other companies.



In reply, the Institute replied that the issue cannot be considered by the Committee in view of Rule

3 of the Advisory Service Rules of the Committee.

The Petitioner submitted that it has identified bad and doubtful arrears amounting to Rs.

417.32 Crore against 1,43,579 consumers and the list of consumers has been prepared amount wise

and age wise. The Petitioner submitted that it has targeted to settle this debt amount during FY

2016-17 taking steps as per rules for recovery of the debt and by writing off irrecoverable amount.

The Petitioner is directed to finalise the Policy within three month of the date of Order

and submit the same for approval of the Commission.

UPCL is directed to submit the basis of arriving at the ageing of debtors within one

month of the date of Order.

8.1.11 Reliability Indices

The Commission directed the Petitioner to comply with the provision of the Regulations and

submit the target indices along with the next tariff filing. The Commission, also, 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the reliability indices are being regularly submitted the

Commission. The report on the reliability indices for the month of August, 2015 has been submitted

to the Commission vide letter no. 4715/UPCL/RM/SM dated October 20, 2015.

The Commission has noted the Petitioner’s reply in this regard. The Commission 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.

8.1.12 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 Tariff

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 Tariff

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 Commission further directed the Petitioner to submit the action plan

along with the timelines by which the Petitioner will be completing the work as per the action plan,

within one month of issue of Tariff Order for FY 2015-16.


The Petitioner submitted that 33/11 kV substation and feeders emanating from such

substations are 295 and 1355 respectively and all these substations and feeders are metered. The

Petitioner submitted that 5665 DTs covered under 31 towns of R-APDRP are metered.

The Petitioner submitted that in the first phase, metering at all the input and output points

at 33 kV level will be ensured first. The Petitioner submitted that it has identified all the points

where metering is required at 33 kV voltage level and a detailed action plan has been submitted

vide its letter no. 2941/D(O)/UPCL/C-4 dated November 1, 2015.

The Commission has taken note of the submissions of the Petitioner. The Commission

directs the Petitioner to submit the action plan along with the timelines by which the Petitioner

will be completing the work as per the action plan, within one month of issue of this Order.

8.1.13 Demand Side Management Measures

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the report on various Demand Side

Management measures at regular quarterly intervals to the Commission.


The Petitioner submitted that GoUhad approved a scheme on October 31, 2015 for

distribution of LED bulbs in the State under which all domestic consumers and non-domestic

consumers (upto 10 kW) shall be provided three LED bulbs at a price of Rs. 110 per bulb. The

Petitioner submitted the salient features of the Scheme as follows:

(i) 55,65,000 LED bulbs shall be distributed at an estimated cost of Rs. 61.22 Crore.

(ii) 75% cost in respect of BPL consumers and 25% cost in respect of non-domestic

consumers having monthly consumption of 100 units shall be borne by GoU.



(iii) The cost to be borne by GoU is Rs. 15.55 Crore.

(iv) The cost of the LED bulbs shall be recovered in 10 monthly or 5 bi-monthly

instalments.

(v) This Scheme was approved by the Commission.

(vi) The Scheme has been launched in the State and the work of distribution of LED bulbs

has been targeted to be completed by March, 2016.

The Commission has taken note of the submissions of the Petitioner.The Commission

directs the Petitioner to submit the report on various Demand Side Management measures at

regular quarterly intervals to the Commission.

8.1.14 Electrical Accidents

The 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the number of fatal accidents are 45 for FY 2011-12, 50 for FY

2012-13, 84 for FY 2013-14 and 34 for FY 2014-15.

8.1.15 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 MYT filings have been done keeping in view the directions

issued by the Commission and provisions of Law in the matter.

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. The Commission 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.

8.1.16 Additional Surcharge on account of Re-determination of Tariff for FY 2009-10 and

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 2009-10 in FY 2011-12 to FY 2013-

14 separately along with the APR Petition for FY 2015-16.

The Commission directedthe Petitionerto 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 APR Petition for FY 2015-16.


The Petitioner submitted the details of additional surcharge

8.1.17 Load Shedding

The Petitioner submitted that UPCL’s 11 kV Bagwara 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 directed the Petitioner to expedite this work and submit the report to

the Commission within 3 months from the date of this Order.


The Petitioner submitted that a new 11 kV Bagwara Industrial Feeder has been energized on

May 11, 2015 and the industrial consumers of Fulsunga and nearby villages shall be benefited

because of this.

8.1.18 Metering of unmetered connections

The Commission directed the Petitioner to meter all the remaining unmetered connections

immediately and submit the compliance to the Commission latest by 31.05.2015.




The Petitioner submitted that the number of unmetered connection as on December 27, 2015

is 1085 which are in the Pithoragarah Circle in the area which was maintained and operated earlier

by UREDA/UJVN Ltd and it is expected to convert these to metered connections before the end of

this Financial Year.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s reply. The Commission directs the

Petitioner to submit the actual status within one month of date of this Order.

8.1.19 Interest on GPF Trust

The Commission directed the Petitioner to expedite the Audit of Accounts of the trust to

ensure that audit is completed by June 30, 2015 and to submit the audit report to the Commission by

July 31, 2015.


The Petitioner submitted that vide its letter no. 1854/UPCL/RM/C-11 dated May 1, 2015,

the copies of Audited Accounts of UPCL Employees GPF Trust for the period from FY 2002-03 to FY

2009-10. The Petitioner submitted that the work of preparation of Accounts and Audit of the same

for the remaining period is under process and shall be submitted to the Commission.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner. The Commission

directs the Petitioner toexpedite the matter to ensure that audit is completed by June 30, 2016 and

to submit the audit report to the Commission by July 31, 2016.

8.1.20 Treatment of Assets sent for repairs

UPCL was 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 directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the desired information is being prepared and shall be

submitted to the Commission.

The Commission takes a serious note of the non-compliance of the Petitioner in this regard.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the information sought within 3 months from

the date of issue of this Order.

8.1.21 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 Commission directed the

Petitioner to expedite the process for collection of information and start the billing as per

Commission’s directive in this regard.


As regards the mechanism for reimbursement of expenses against electricity consumed by

the departmental employees, the Petitioner submitted that its employees are being given the facility

of departmental electricity connection since the existence of UPSEB. Under this facility, a fixed

lump-sum amount is charged from the employees according to their designation towards electricity

charges for electricity supplied to them. Section 23(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act,

1999 provides that the terms and conditions of service of the personnel shall not be less favourable

to the terms and conditions which were applicable before the transfer. 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 to the extent it is not inferior to that existing before January

14, 2000. The rates and charges for this category are in adherence to the statutory provisions. As



UPCL is the successor entity of UPPCL, the above legal provisions are applicable to it also. The

copies of O.M. No. 1714/UPCL/RM/L-99 and No. 1715/UPCL/RM/L-99 dated December 23, 2009

issued in the matter have been submitted to the Commission.

8.1.22 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 Commission directed the Petitioner to

submit this information alongwith APR Petition for FY 2015-16.


The Petitioner submitted that as the direction of GoU, the energy consumption bills of the

disaster affected areas amounting to Rs. 9.51 Crore were waived off and GoU had reimbursed Rs.

7.84 Crore to UPCL.

8.1.23 Capitalization of Assets

The Commission re-iterated its direction 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.

8.1.24 Installation of Meter

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 Tariff Order

for FY 2014-15 for billing purpose. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the compliance

made by UPCL in this regard. UPCL wasdirected to ensure proper compliances as directed by the

Commission.


The Petitioner requested the Commission to consider the submissions already made in this

regard as follows:



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 to provide the meter either at consumer

premises or outside the consumer premises. Hence, it is the discretion of distribution licensee to

provide the meter either at the consumer premises or outside the consumer premises. UPCL has

installed the consumer meter at Grid S/s i.e., outside the consumer premises.

8.1.25 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, 2015.


The Petitioner submitted that necessary modification has been made in the billing software

based on MCG revised vide the Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015as has been apprised to the

Commission vide the letter no. 3284/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated June 15, 2015.

8.1.26 Issue of Voltage wise Loss

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the sought information has been submitted vide its letter no.

1797/UPCL/RM/B-16 dated April 29, 2015 as follows:

i. As per Regulation 29(2) of the UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open

Access) Regulations, 2010, Distribution Losses on Open Access Energy are required

to be calculated by applying the formula ‘Average Distribution Loss = Average

Recovery Rate from HT Industry Category ÷ Average Power Purchase Cost x

Applicable Voltage Rebate’.

ii. As per the Tariff Order dated April 10, 2014, average distribution loss on open access

energy for FY 2014-15 is 16%, average recovery rate from HT Industry Category is



Rs. 4.54/kWh, average power purchase cost is Rs. 3.21/kWh and applicable voltage

rebate at 33 kV is 1.5% and at 132 kV & above is 5%. Accordingly, the distribution

loss on open access energy for FY 2014-15 works out to 13.88% for 33 kV voltage level

and 8.92% for 132 kV & above voltage level.

8.1.27 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

The Commission directed 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 Petitioner submitted that the sought information has been submitted vide its letter no.

545/UPCL/DGM(F) dated September 23, 2015.

The Commission has dealt with the prior period adjustment in detail in Chapter 5 of this

Order.

The Petitioner is directed to separately claim the cost of the energy returned under

banking during truing up exercise of FY 2015-16 and not show the same as adjustment from the

provisions.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to put in place a mechanism for recording the

arrears paid in an year for submission along with its claim of truing up for the respective year in

the absence of which the Commission shall take an appropriate view regarding the allowable

power purchase cost while carrying out the truing up exercise.

8.1.28 Cost of Deficit Power

The Commission directed 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.




The Petitioner submitted that the medium term procurement of power could not be finalised

due to cancellation of coal blocks at the Central Government level. The bidders who have entered

into long term agreements for supply of power are eligible for fuel supply agreement under the new

Design, Build, Finance, Own and Operate (DBFOO) model of Ministry of Power, Government of

India for procurement of power. IPPs which have executed the fuel supply agreements with

different agencies of Government of India are not eligible for participating in medium term power

procurement. The tariff of medium term procurement of power is higher in comparison to short

term and day ahead market. The tariff discovered in medium term power procurement conducted

in Andhra Pradesh is in the range of Rs. 4.290/kWh to Rs. 6.989/kWh. The Petitioner submitted on

account of the above, it discontinued the process of medium term power procurement.

In view of persistent deficit scenario, the Petitioner should put its sincere efforts to

procure the deficit energy through a mix of long term arrangements, medium term arrangements

and short term purchases optimizing the cost of power purchase and reliable power. Further, the

procurement should be through transparent process of bidding and not on mutual agreements as

has been the practice of UPCL. UPCL is directed to submit a comprehensive plan as to how it

intends to meet the deficit within one month of the date of Order.

8.1.29 RTS-4 (Private Tubewells)

The Commission directed 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 Petitioner submitted that the study shall be undertaken in the next Financial Year.

The Commission takes a serious note of the non-compliance of the Petitioner.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.



8.1.30 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission directed 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 Tariff Order for FY 2015-16.


The Petitioner submitted that it was directed by the Commission to maintain this percentage

of 3% by March 31, 2016. The Petitioner submitted that vide its letter no. 1827/UPCL/RM/N-39

dated April 30, 2015 it had circulated the Efficiency Plan of the Company for FY 2015-16 to its field

officers which inter-alia includes replacement of all meters lying defective (1,38,331) as on March 31,

2015. The Petitioner submitted that 84,818 defective meters have been replaced till November 2015.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2%

in both Hill & Plain area of the State latest by 31.12.2016.

8.1.31 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that vide its letter no. 1827/UPCL/RM/N-39 dated April 30, 2015

it had circulated the Efficiency Plan of the Company for FY 2015-16 to its field officers which inter-

alia includes replacement of all meters lying defective (1,38,331) as on March 31, 2015. The

Petitioner submitted that 84,818 defective meters have been replaced till November 2015.

The Petitioner is directed to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to 3% in plain areas

upto 31.09.2016 and upto 30.12.2016 in Hill areas of the State, failing which appropriate action

under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be taken against the Petitioner for the continued non-

compliance of the directions of the Commission.



8.1.32 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission directed the Petitioner to replace all the existing electro-mechanical meters

by static/electronic meters by December 31, 2015 and consolidate its complete database for electro-

mechanical meters including R-APDRP covered towns and submit correct reports to the

Commission latest by June 30, 2015.


The Petitioner submitted that vide its letter no. 1827/UPCL/RM/N-39 dated April 30, 2015

it had circulated the Efficiency Plan of the Company for FY 2015-16 to its field officers which inter-

alia includes replacement of all mechanical meters (1,38,331) as on March 31, 2015. The Petitioner

submitted that 23293 mechanical meters have been replaced till November 2015 and the remaining

shall be replaced during FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance status submitted by the Petitioner.

Therefore, the Commission directs Petitioner to replace all the existing mechanical meters by

static/electronic meters by 31st December, 2016 & consolidate its complete database for

mechanical meters including areas not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS Schemes.

8.1.33 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

The Commission directed the Petitioner to write off ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers

from its billing database under a transparent policy framed by the Petitioner latest by September 30,

2015.


The Petitioner submitted that the number of ghost consumers as on June 30, 2015 is 808 as

submitted vide its letter no. 3978/UPCL/RM/UERC-10 dated August 24, 2015. The Petitioner

submitted that these connections shall be settled during FY 2016-17.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance status submitted by the Petitioner. 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, 2016.



8.1.34 NB & SB Cases

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the number of NB & SB cases as on June 30, 2015 is 1,54,134 as

submitted vide its letter no. 3978/UPCL/RM/UERC-10 dated August 24, 2015.The Petitioner

submitted that these connections shall be settled during FY 2016-17.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance status submitted by the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is hereby again directed to liquidate and finalise at least 25% of the

NB/SB cases latest by 30.09.2016, failing which appropriate action under the



8.1.35 Outstanding Arrears

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted the details of Revenue Arrears during FY 2014-15 as follows:

Table 8.3: Details of collection of Revenue Arrears during FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Category KCC Non-KCC Total Domestic 0.56 42.17 42.73 Non-Domestic 13.23 8.18 21.41 Industry 55.73 0.11 55.84 PTW 3.08 3.08 Total 69.52 53.54 123.06

The Petitioner submitted that Rs. 282.63 Crore was collected from the Government

categories during FY 2014-15.The Petitioner submitted that Division wise targets have been fixed for



collection of Revenue Arrears during FY 2015-16 and the arrears collected from Non-Government

categories till November, 2015 was Rs. 83.99 Crore.

The Commission directs Petitioner to make sincere efforts in mobilizing its resources to

continuously make efforts throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a structured

receivable management programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual

defaulters.The Commission also directs the Petitioner to lay down standard procedure for

receivables management and submit to the Commission within one month of issuance of this

Order.

8.1.36 Status of KCC Consumers

The Commission directed 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 directed the Petitioner to check

KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted demand and take

corrective action in such cases.


The Petitioner submitted that the analysis of (i) load factor less than 10%, (ii) load factor of

steel units less than 50%, (iii) load factor of ice factories during season less than 70%, (iv) load factor

of pulp & paper industry less than 50%, (v) load factor of stone crushers less than 40%, (vi)

consumption variation analysis (less than 50% from previous month), (vii) Excess demand for last

three billing cycles,is being carried out at KCC Billing Centre. The Petitioner submitted that the list

of above cases are forwarded to filed units with the direction to check such cases and to take

corrective action in case of any anamoly.

The Commission 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.



8.1.37 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the Division wise and month wise revenue arrear collection

targets totalling to amount of Rs. 150 Crore has been fixed for FY 2015-16 out of which Rs. 83.99

Crore has been collected upto November, 2015. The Petitioner submitted that the daily revenue

collection monitoring at sub division level is being done at Corporate Office. The Petitioner

submitted that the field officers have been instructed to disconnect the supply of defaulting

consumers. The Petitioner submitted that disconnection of all high value consumers is being

ensured in case of non-payment of undisputed electricity dues.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to frame a time-bound programme for

realisation of pending arrears/dues and submit a report on the action taken for realisation of

arrears, amount of arrears realised, arrears remaining outstanding and reasons for non-realisation

of these arrears/dues should be submitted to the Commission within three months of the


8.1.38 Billing and Collection System

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that an agreement has been executed with common service center

E-Governance Services India Ltd. The Petitioner submitted that under this agreement CSC will

collect payment of electricity bills from the consumers in various locations mainly in remote and

rural areas of the State. The Petitioner submitted that presently 1119 collection centres are operative

and the details of collection as follows:



Table 8.4: Details of collection as submitted by the Petitioner Month No. of Consumers Amount deposited

(Rs. Lakh) June, 2015 1988 13.43 July, 2015 3149 23.59 August, 2015 4468 31.82 September, 2015 3781 28.29 October, 2015 5778 40.47 November, 2015 5179 35.64 December, 2015 7443 50.52

The Commission directs the Petitioner to comply with the directions issued in the

Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016 in the matter of Bill Collection System, failing which

appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be taken against the Petitioner for the

continued non-compliance of the directions of the Commission.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite integrating CSCs available in State

with its billing system under the agreement executed between UPCL & Common Service Centre

E-Governance Services India Ltd., New Delhi.

8.1.39 Energy Audit

The Commission 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 submit action

taken report to the Commission on quarterly basis.


The Petitioner submitted that it has identified the all the points where metering is required

at 33 kV voltage level and has submitted a detailed action plan vide its letter no.

2941/D(O)/UPCL/C-4 dated November 1, 2015.

The Petitioner is directed to provide metering at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and

consumers in its distribution network so that effective energy auditing can be done and proper

energy accounting can throw-up several actionable issues which, when addressed, will result in

marked improvement in distribution losses.

Further, the Commission also directs the Petitioner to submit the quarterly progress

report with regard to metering at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its network.



8.1.40 Abnormal Sales in Public Lamps Category

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the matter was examined at Corporate Office and found that

the billing logics in the billing software were found to be correct. The Petitioner submitted that the

field officers have been directed not to repeat such errors in the Commercial Information and it is

being ensured at Corporate Office that such errors are not repeated in the Commercial Diary for the

ensuing months.

8.1.41 Abnormal Sales in Private Tubewell Category


the status of such consumers within 2 months of the date of the Order.






ensuing months.

8.1.42 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 was also directed to give reasons for

such low average billing rate within two months of the date of the Order.



UPCL was 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 was also directed to submit the monthly commercial report (SG-IV).






ensuing months.

8.1.43 Abnormal Sales in LT Industries

The Commission directed 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.






ensuing months.

8.1.44 Abnormal Sales in HT industries (Upto 1000 kVA)



Order.








ensuing months.

8.1.45 Abnormal Sales in Mixed Load Category



Order.






ensuing months.

8.1.46 Transfer of Distribution Business from UJVN Ltd. to UPCL (Reference Para 7.2.22 of

Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014)

The Commission at para 7.2.22 of its Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014 had explicitly directed the

Petitioner to take charge of the distribution business carried out by UJVN Ltd., within 6 months of

this Order and submit bi-monthly status of the compliance on this issue.

However, in absence of significant progress in the matter and indifferent attitude shown by

both the utilities in ensuring the compliance, the matter was further taken up during the 6th Co-

ordination Forum Meeting held on 06.01.2015, in which the Commission had directed Managing

Directors of UJVN Ltd. and UPCL to resolve the matter on top priority.

Further, on reviewing the compliance in this matter, the Commission had taken cognizance

of the slow progress and lackadaisical approach of both the utilities and the matter was taken up

during a joint meeting held with the Petitioner and UJVN Ltd. on 28.10.2015, in which the

Commission had directed that:

“... UJVN Ltd. and UPCL to nominate atleast 02 Officers not below the rank of DGM/SE from their

Organization & submit their joint report for ensuring the compliance of the Commission’s directions

latest by 30.11.2015”



Accordingly, both the utilities nominated its Officers for ensuring the compliance, however,

despite the above steps of the utilities, it has been observed that entire taking over/handing over of

distribution business has not been taken place. The reasons stated by the Petitioner in its submission

that UJVN Ltd. is not providing the documents pertaining to the consumers to be taken over viz.

Application form, Security deposit, verification details etc. while, UJVN Ltd. in its submission has

stated that the Petitioner has never informed for providing such documents. In this regard, the

Commission is of the view that sufficient time has already been given to both the utilities, therefore,

directs the Petitioner and UJVN Ltd. to comply with the directions of the Commission in all

respect by 30.05.2016 and submit compliance report in the matter by 15.06.2016, failing which

appropriate action shall be initiated against both the utilities in accordance with the provisions

of the Act/Regulations.

8.2 Fresh Directives

8.2.1 Departmental Employees

The Commission also directs the Petitioner to install meters at all its offices and sub-

stations, if not installed, within one month of the date of the Order and submit report to the

Commission by May 15, 2016. (Refer Para 2.20.1.3)

The Commission directs the Petitioner to carry out 100% metering of its departmental

employees, to take regular meter readings and to maintain separate energy account of all its

employees on a monthly basis. The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit a compliance

report of the same within one month of the issuance of this Order. (Refer Para 2.32.7.2)

8.2.2 Metering & Billing

The Commission directs the UPCL to consider the suggestions given by the stakeholders

to improve its metering and billing system. The Commission directs UPCL to provide services to

the Consumers namely restoration of power, voltage fluctuation, metering & billing related etc.

as per Orders/Supply Code/SOP Regulations of the Commission. (Refer Para 2.23.1.3)

8.2.3 Distribution Infrastructure

The Commission directs the Petitioner to strengthen its distribution network. (Refer Para

2.26.1.3)



8.2.4 Quality of Power

The Commission directs UPCL to take adequate steps to improve the quality of supply. In

this regard, the Commission would like to clarify that UPCL’s complaint handling procedures

have been approved by the Commission and are available in the website of the Commission. If

the complaints are not resolved by UPCL internally, the consumers can also lodge their

complaints with the “Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum” functional in the respective

Garhwal and Kumaon Zones of Uttarakhand. (Refer Para 2.28.1.3)

8.2.5 Temporary Connections

The Commission directs the Petitioner to issue instructions to its field/ distribution

division officers to properly plan and take caution while releasing such temporary connections

and submit a compliance report within one month of the issuance of this Order. (Refer Para

2.32.3.2)

8.2.6 Location of Installation of meters

The Commission directs Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh, UPCL is directed to

submit a detailed compliance report on action taken for shifting of the meters to a safer location

in or around the premises within one month of the date of Order. Further, the Commission

directs the Chief Engineer, Rudrapur Zone, UPCL and Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh,

UPCL to take necessary action and submit the compliance report within one month of the date of

the Order. (Refer Para 2.32.4.2)

8.2.7 Load Shedding

The Commission directs the concerned Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, EDD

Pithoragarh, UPCL to coordinate with the District Administration/Local authorities and resolve

this issue and submit the compliance report within one month of the date of the Order. (Refer

Para 2.32.5.2)

8.2.8 Transfer of Petitioner’s personnel

The Commission directs the Petitioner to lay down a policy in this regard and submit a

compliance report within two month of the issuance of this Order. (Refer Para 2.32.6.2)



8.2.9 Water Tax

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit all the relevant information along with

supporting documents for substantiating the actual expenses incurred on account of Water Tax,

for FY 2016-17 along with its proposals for True up for FY 2016-17. (Refer Para 5.8)

8.2.10 Prepaid Metering

The Petitioner is directed to submit the data related to the cost of the meter and other

associated equipments to the Commission in the Tafiff proceedings for FY 2017-18. (Refer Para

6.2.3.11)

8.2.11 kVAh Tariffs

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the type of meters installed at Public

Lamps, GIS upto 75 kW, and its action plan for installation of Tri-Vector meters capable of

recording both kWh and kVAh consumption in the above referred categories/sub-categories

where such meters have not been installed within 1 month of the issuance of this Tariff Order.

The Commission also directs the Petitioner to take such measures for installation of Tri-vector

meters in other categories/sub-categories of consumers where power factor is poor and tariff is

on kWh basis. (Refer Para 6.2.4)

8.2.12 Open Access Charges

The Petitioner is hereby directed that the wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharge

recovered from open access customers shall be shown separately under the separate head of

income in its ARR/Tariff filings from next year onwards. Further, the Petitioner is directed that

the amount received from PTCUL, in lieu of transmission charges collected by PTCUL from

long/medium term open access customers be shown separately under non-tariff income in the

ARR/Tariff filings from next year onwards and should not be reduced from the Transmission

charges payable to PTCUL. (Refer Para 6.5)

8.2.13 Power procurement plan

The Petitioner is directed to prepare its power purchase plan for the next three years and

initiate the bidding process to meet the deficit, if any. The Petitioner is directed to submit an

action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of Order. The Petitioner is also directed to



ensure compliance of the Regulations issued by the Commission from time to time, failing

which any consequent liability would be to the account of the Petitioner.

8.3 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 2016-17 annexed hereto as

Annexure-1. These Tariffs will be effective from April 01, 2016.

(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.

The Petitioner shall forward a report on compliance of the directions given in this Order

within the time stipulated for compliance.

(K.P. Singh) Member

(Subhash Kumar) Chairman


9. Annexures

9.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2016

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



In NA/NR cases, the energy consumption shall be assessed and billed as per average

consumption of last one year average consumption (as per 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 Appear defective meter (ADF) Identified defective meter

(IDF) and Reading defect (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 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

9. Annexures


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 the 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 2016

Amount Payable

On or Before 16th May 2016

Rs. 100/-

After 16th May 2016

Rs. 101.25

After 1st June 2016

Rs. 102.50



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. Prepaid Metering

Prepaid metering scheme approved by the Commission in this Order shall be applicable. 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

and for Independent Advertisement Hoardings. Solar water rebate as provided above in the Rate

Schedule shall be applicable on prepaid consumers also subject to fulfillment of conditions

provided therein.

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.

9. Annexures


(v) All voltages mentioned above are nominal rated voltages.

(vi) No rebate or surcharges would be applicable on consumers having pre-paid

connections.

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.

(iii) No surcharge would be applicable on consumers having pre-paid connections.

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. However, no excess load penalty would be applicable on consumers having pre-

paid connections.

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. 50/kW

Fixed Charges for contracted load = 30 x 50=Rs. 1500

Fixed Charges for excess load = 13x (2 x50) =Rs. 1300

Total Fixed Charges = 1500 +1300= Rs. 2800



(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. 320/kVA

Demand Charges for contracted demand =2500 x 320=Rs. 800000

Demand Charges for excess demand = 300x (2 x 320) =Rs. 192000

Total Demand Charges = 800000+192000= Rs. 992000

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). However, no MCG would be applicable on consumers having pre-paid

connections. 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 2017.

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

9. Annexures


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 2016:

The MCG per BHP for bills to be issued in June 2016 would be as under:

a) December 2015 to March 2016 – 60 X 4= 240 units

b) April 2016 and May 2016 – 60 X 2= 120 units

c) Total – 360 units (240+120)

2) For bills to be issued in December 2016 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

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.

9. Annexures


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. 14/ connection/month Rs. 1.50/kWh

1.2) Other Domestic Consumers

Upto 100 units per month Rs. 40 /month Rs. 2.45/kWh

101-200 units per month Rs. 60 /month Rs. 3.10/kWh




Above 500 units per month Rs. 175 /month Rs. 4.50/kWh

2) Single Point Bulk Supply Rs. 50/kW/month Rs. 3.70/kWh *Fixed Charges in case of other domestic consumers for the month shall be charged at the rates equivalent to the total consumption in

the month.



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.14/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. 25/connection/month Rs. 3.40/kWh

3. All other conditions of this Schedule shall be same as those in RTS-1.

9. Annexures


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. 45/ kW Rs. 4.15/ kWh

(b) Above 25 kW Rs. 55/ kVA Rs. 3.85/ 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. 50 /

kW Rs. 4.30/ kWh

(b) Others upto 25 kW not covered in 1.2(a) above Rs. 55 / kW Rs. 5.10/ kWh

(c) Above 25 kW Rs. 55 / kVA

Rs. 5.00/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA /month & 600 kVAh/ kVA/

annum

1.3 Single Point Bulk Supply** Rs. 55 / kVA

Rs. 4.90/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA /month & 600 kVAh/ kVA/

annum 1.4 Independent Advertisement Hoardings Rs. 70/kW Rs. 5.20/kWh

* If consumption exceeds 50 units/month, then on the entire energy consumed tariff as per sub-category 1.2(b) shall be charged

** For loads above 75 kW for shopping complexes/multiplex/malls



3. Other Conditions 3.1 For consumers having contracted load in kW, the contracted load for MCG purposes

shall be calculated by considering a power factor of 0.85.

3.2 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

3.3 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.

3.4 All consumers above 25 kW shall necessarily have ToD Meters.

3.5 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.

3.6 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.

9. Annexures


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. 50/kW Rs. 4.65/ kWh

Rural (Metered) Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.65/ 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.



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 1.55 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.

9. Annexures


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 1.55 60 units /BHP/Month &

720 units /BHP/Annum




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. 50/kW/month Rs. 4.55/kWh

2. More than 75 kW Rs. 50/kVA/month Rs. 4.40/kVAh

9. Annexures


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. 50/kVA/month Rs. 4.45/kVAh Rural Rs. 40/kVA/month Rs. 4.45/kVAh



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.

9. Annexures


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. 4.05/kWh Rs. 130/ 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. 3.70/kVAh Rs. 130/ 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% 3.50 Rs. 255/kVA of the

billable demand* 100 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

month &

1200 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

annum

Above 40% 3.85

2.2 Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.50 Rs. 320/kVA of the billable demand* Above 40% 3.85

$ 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.



(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. 3.70/kVAh Rs. 5.55/kVAh Rs. 3.33/kVAh

For HT Industry

Load Factor* Energy Charge during Normal Hours Peak Hours Off-peak Hours

Upto 40% Rs. 3.50/kVAh Rs. 5.78/kVAh Rs. 3.15/kVAh Above 40% Rs. 3.85/kVAh Rs. 5.78/kVAh Rs. 3.47/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.

9. Annexures


(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 consumer on industrial feeder does not wish to opt for



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 consumers availing continuous supply option shall pay 15% extra energy

charges, in addition to the energy charges given above, with effect from April 01, 2016

or in case of new consumers, from the date of connection, till 31st March 2017,

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 2017, 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, 2016 till March 31, 2017. 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, 2016;

(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, 2016 till March 31, 2017. 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.

9. Annexures


(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, 2016 and they shall continue to pay continuous

supply surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order till April 30, 2016.

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.



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. 60/kW/month Rs. 4.50/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.

9. Annexures


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

225/- Rs. 3.95

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.



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. 1250 per day (2) Temporary shops set up during festivals / melas and having load upto 2 kW Rs. 85 per day

(3) Other Temporary shops/ Jhuggi /Jhopris for load upto 1 kW 3.1) Rural Rs. 115/month/connection 3.2) Urban Rs. 230/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.

9. Annexures


9.2 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



9.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice

9. Annexures




9. Annexures


Annexure 4: List of Respondents Sl.No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Smt. Poonam Uniyal, W/o Sh. B.M. Uniyal - -

236, Nehru Gram Road, Ring Road, Dehradun

2. Dr. V.K. Garg - - A-24/E, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi-110067

3. Sh. Pankaj Gupta President M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

Mohabewala Industrial Area, Dehradun-248110

4. Sh. Pramod Singh Tomar

Director (SPNG Steel Division)

M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar

5. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal

Director & General

Secretary

Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.)

Sanjay Bhawan, Malla Joshi Khola, Almora, Uttarakhand-263601

6. Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui

General Manager

(Commercial- (SPNG Spinning

Division)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd.

5th Km. Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

7. Sh. Pawan Agarwal Vice-President M/s Uttarakhand Steel

Manufacturers Association

C/o Shree Sidhbali Industries Ltd., Kandi Road, Kotdwar, Uttarakhand

8. Sh. Munish Talwar Head-Electrical

and Instrumentation

M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.

Integrated Glass Plant, Village-Latherdeva Hoon, Manglaur-Jhabrera Road, P.O.

Jhabrera, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand

9. Sh. Rajeev Gupta - M/s KVS Infraatech LLP Works: B 20, 29, Industrial Estate, Bazpur

Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

10. Sh. Rajeev Gupta - M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar

11. Sh. P.C. Aggarwal - M/s Kashi Enterprises B-25-29, Industrial Estate, Nainital Road,

Kashipur–244713, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

12. Sh. R.K. Singh Head (CPED & E) M/s Tata Motors Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Sector 11, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL, Pantnagar-263153, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

13. Sh. S.S. Chopra Manager (Electrical)

M/s Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd.

Post Off.-Virbhadra, Rishikesh-249202, Uttarakhand

14. Sh. Vijay Kumar Verma - M/s Shiv Shakti

Electricals Sarrafa Bazaar, Kankhal, Distt. Haridwar,

Uttarakhand

15. Sh. R.S. Yadav Vice President (HR & Admin.) M/s India Glycols Ltd.

A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

16. - - M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Plot 9, Sector 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Rudrapur-263153



Sl.No. Name Designation Organization Address

17. - - M/s Ganesha Ecosphere Ltd.

Plot No. 6, Sector 2, IIE, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

18. Sh. Ashok Bansal President M/s Kumaon Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce & Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

19. Sh. Kuldeep Singh - Bhartiya Kisan Union Village-Kaliya Wala, Post Off.-Jaspur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

20. Sh. Raj Singh Chairman Devbhoomi Dharmshala

Prabhandak Sabha (Regd.)

Narsingh Bhawan, Upper Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

21. Sh. Mukesh Chandra Joshi - - Village-Joshiyana, Post Off.-Parsundakhal,

Patti-Paidalsyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

22. Sh. G.S. Bedi General Manager

M/s Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Virbhadra, Rishikesh-249202, Uttarakhand

23. Sh. Abhinav Singh - M/s Bhilangana Hydro Power Limited

B-37, 3rd Floor, Sector-1, Noida-201301, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

24. Sh. Satvinder - M/s Indus Towers Ltd. H-11, 2nd Floor, Sector-63, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh

25. Sh. Vijay Singh Verma - Bhartiya Kisan Club Village-Delna, P.O.-Jhabrera, Haridwar-

247665, Uttarakhand

26. Sh. Manish Garg - M/s Madhu Gupta & Company

510/51, New Hyderebad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

27. Sh. Rakesh Bhatia President M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

E-8, Govt. Industrial Area, Patel Nagar, Dehradun

28. Sh. Pramod Kumar Chief Electrical

Distribution Engineer

Northern Railway Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001

29. Sh. Mahesh Sharma State General Secretary

M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

Off. G-31, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

30. Sh. Man Singh General Manager (Engg.) M/s Alps Industries Ltd.

Haridwar Unit-II, Plot No. 1 B, Sector-10, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL,

Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand

31. Sh. Harindra Kumar Garg Chairman

M/s SIDCUL Manufacturers

Association-Uttarakhand

Plot No. 1, Sector-2, SIDCUL, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand

32. Sh. Achal Sharma President M/s East West Products Ltd.

Lohia Head Road, Khatima-262308, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

33. Sh. L.S. Chamyal Factory Manager M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd. UPSIDC Industrial Area, Khatima-262308, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

34. Sh. Amar S. Dhunta General Secretary RTI Club-Uttarakhand Off.–827/1, Sirmaur Marg, Kaulagarh

Road, Dehradun

35. Sh. Rajendra Prasad Joshi Secretary

Retired Central Employees Welfare Committee-Almora

Baans Gali, Johri Bazaar, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

9. Annexures


9.4 Annexure 5: List of Participants in Public Hearings

List of Participants in Hearing at Pithoragarh on 16.02.2016

Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. Chandra Bhanu Gupta - M/s Gupta Trading

Company Siltham Road, Distt. Pithoragarh

2. Sh. Manoj Chauhan - M/s Chauhan Medical Store Gandhi Chowk, Distt. Pithoragarh

3. Sh. Harish Kapri - Jila Panchayat Office Gandhi Chowk, Distt. Pithoragarh

4. Sh. Manoj Bisht - - Near Mostamanu, Chandak, Tehsil & Distt. Pithoragarh

5. Sh. Pawan Kumar Joshi District President

Udhyog Vyapaar Mandal Simalgair Bazaar, Distt. Pithoragarh

6. Sh. Pawan Joshi - M/s Satkar Sweets Simalgair Bazaar, Distt. Pithoragarh

7. Sh. Pankaj Kadayat - M/s Pankaj Enterprises Siltham, Distt. Pithoragarh

8. Sh. Mahendra Valdiya,

S/o Sh. Ram Singh Valdiya

- - Near Shiv Temple, Chandrabhaga

(Valdiya Bhawan) P.O. Echoli, Distt. Pithoragarh

9. Sh. Tula Singh - - Village-Talli Saar, P.O.-Khati Gaon, Distt. Pithoragarh

10. Sh. Mahesh Ch. Matholiya - - Simlagair Bazaar, Distt. Pithoragarh

11. Sh. Laxman Singh Vaseda - - Vaseda Colony, Near Nagar Palika,

Distt. Pithoragarh

12. Sh. Naveen Chandra Joshi - - G.I.G. Road, Vrindawan Complex,

Distt. Pithoragarh

13. Sh. Raju Mall - M/s Uttaranchal Gifts

Parwati Bazaar, Siltham, Distt. Pithoragarh



List of Participants in Hearing at Sitarganj on 18.02.2016 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. R.S. Yadav - M/s India Glycols Ltd. A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road,

Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-244713

2. Sh. R.K. Mishra - M/s India Glycols Ltd. A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road,

Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-244713

3. Sh. P.K. Gupta - M/s Innovative Textiles Ltd.

B-8, Phase-1, ESIP, Sitarganj, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

4. Sh. V. K. Aggarwal - M/s Balaji Action

Buildwell

Plot No: C-34 & C-34(a) to (d), ESIP, Sitarganj

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

5. Sh. Rajiv Gupta - M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bajpur Road, Kashipur-244713,


6. Sh. P.C. Aggarwal - M/s Kashi Enterprises

B-25-29, Industrial Estate, Nainital Road, Kashipur–244713,


7. Sh. R.K. Gupta Secretary General (KGCCI)

M/s Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd.

C-50, ELDECO SIDCUL, Industrial Park, Sitarganj-262405, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

8. Sh. R.K. Saxena - M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. D-10, ESIP, Sitarganj, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

9. Sh. Durgesh Mohan -

M/s Sitarganj Sidcul Industries Welfare

Association

B-108, ESIP, Sitarganj, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

10. Sh. S.K. Garg - M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Plot. No. 9, Sector-9, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

11. Sh. J.N. Singh - M/s Ganesha Ecosphere Ltd.

Plot No. 6, Sector-2, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

12. Sh. Jeet Singh Cheema - Bhartiya Kisan Union

Dhakiya No.-2, P.O.-Dhakiya No. 1 Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

13. Sh. Kuldeep Singh Cheema Advisor Member State Council-Uttarakhand

Dhakiya Kalan, P.O.-Dhakiya No.-1, Tehsil Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

14. Sh. Balkar Singh Fauji - -

Village-Raipur Khurd, P.O. Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

9. Annexures


List of Participants in Hearing at Pauri on 23.02.2016 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. Kamal Singh - -

Village-Sarna, P.O.-Chopdiyun, Block - Pabau,

Patti-Ghurdaursyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

2. Sh. Mohan Singh Rawat - - Saraswati Sadan,

Near Police Line, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

3. Smt. Vinita Rawat - - M.I.C. Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

4. Sh. Mukesh Joshi - -

Village- Joshiyada, P.O.-Parsundakhal,


5. Sh. Jagdish Singh - - Village-Rithai, P.O.-Kandara, Patti-Paidalsyun, Distt. Pauri

Garhwal

6. Sh. Ghanshyam Singh Rana - -

Village-Thali, P.O.-Chandola Rai, Patti-Nandalsyun, District Pauri

Garhwal

7. Sh. Ravindra Bhandari - - Village & Post Nisni,


8. Sh. Prem Singh Negi - - Village-Daang, P.O.-Toli,

Patti-Kapolsyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

9. Sh. Vinod Bisht Sabhasad Nagar Palika Pauri, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

10. Sh. Suraj - -

Village-Chaufanda, P.O.-Chaplodi,

Patti-Balikandarsyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

11. Sh. Arvind - - Mamgai Bhawan,

Laxmi Nagar Road, Distt. Pauri Garhwal-246001

12. Sh. Bhagwan Verma - - Kandai Road, Pauri, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

13. Sh. Manoj Singh - - Jhandi Chaur, Uttari Kotdwar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

14. Sh. Sukhdev Badoni - - Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Pauri, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

15. Sh. Mahaveer Singh Negi - -

Rajkiya Allopathic Chikitsalaya, P.O.-Saankarsain, Patti-

Balikandarsyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

16. Sh. Gandhi Singh Negi - - Village-Gandhigram Kadud, Patti-Sitonsyun, Distt. Pauri Garhwal



List of Participants in Hearing at Dehradun on 01.03.2016 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1 Sh. Virat Seth - M/s Tata Motors Ltd.


Nagar-263145, Uttarakhand

2 Sh. Devesh Pant - M/s Tata Motors Ltd.


Nagar-263145, Uttarakhand

3 Sh. Pankaj Gupta President M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

4 Sh. Rajiv Agarwal Sr. Vice-President

M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

5 Sh. K.L. Sundriyal - - 4(4/3), New Road, Near Hotel

Relax, (Amrit Kauri Road), Dehradun

6 Sh. T.S. Bhandari Director M/s Himalayan Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 16-Tagore Villa, Dehradun

7 Sh. Mahesh Sharma General Secretary

M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

Off. G-31, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand

8 Sh. Gulshan Rai Khanduja - Sh. Ganesh Roller

Floor Mills Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Subhash Nagar, Dehradun-248001

9 Sh. Man Singh General Manager (Engg.)

M/s Alps Industries Ltd.

1-A, Sector-10, Integrated Industrial Area,

SIDCUL, Roshnabad Road, Haridwar-249403, Uttarakhand

10 Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui General

Manager (Commercial)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Textile Mill Ltd.

Works : 5th Km. Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713,


11 Sh. Manish Garg - Madhu Gupta & Company

51/510, New Hyderabad, Lucknow

12 Sh. Munish Talwar Head-Electrical

& Instrumentation

M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.

Integrated Glass Plant, Village-Latherdeva Hoon, Manglaur-Jhabrera Road, P.O. Jhabrera,

Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar

13 Sh. Vijay Singh Member Bhartiya Kisan Club

Village-Delna, Post-Jhabreda, Roorkee,

Haridwar-247665, Uttarakhand

14 Sh. Arvind Jain Member Tarun Kranti Manch (Regd.) 6-Ramleela Bazaar, Dehradun

15 Sh. Katar Singh President Bhartiya Kisan Club

Village-Sabatwali, P.O.-Jhabreda, Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar

16 Sh. Gagan Arora - - 89/1/1, Race Course, Near Rose Mount School, Dehradun

17 Sh. Nanda Dutt Madhwal - - 100/25, Ballupur Road, Dehradun

9. Annexures


18 Sh. Biru Bisht - Mohanpur,

Post Off.-Premnagar, Dehradun-248007

19 Sh. Vishwamitra - - 36-Panchsheel Park,

Chakrata Road, P.O.-New Forest, Dehradun-248006

20 Sh. V.S. Bhatnagar - - 98/3, Bell Road, Near Jr. Hiltons School, Clementown, Dehradun



mÙkjk[k.M ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM

ds VSfjQ vkns'k ds

v/;k; & 09

nj vuqlwph ¼jsV 'ksM~;wy½

dk fgUnh :ikUrj.k

9. Annexures


¼uksV%& ;g :ikUrj.k] ek0 vk;ksx }kjk ikfjr VSfjQ vkns'k fnukad 05-04-2016 ds Annexures ¼9-1 ,oa 9-2½ dk

fgUnh :ikUrj.k gS] bl lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fuoZpu@O;k[;k ds fy, vaxzsth laLdj.k gh vfUre :i ls

ekU; gksxkA½

9. layXud

9-1 layXud 1% 01-04-2016 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 kV ;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@igW¡qp 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 vuqlkj½ tks fd okLrfod jhfMax fy;s tkus ij lek;kstu ds

v/khu gksxkA ,slh vuafre 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 izrhr voLFkk

¼ADF½] =qfViw.kZ ehVj ¼IDF½ rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ¼RDF½ ds ekeyksa 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 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;ksftr 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

,y-Vh- m|ksx 150 kWh/kW/ ekg ,p-Vh- m|ksx 150 kVAh/kVA/ ekg

9. Annexures


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 fy;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djuk gksxkA 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 ds 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] 2016

ns; jkf”k

ij ;k iwoZ Ik”pkr~ Ik”pkr~

16 ebZ] 2016 16 ebZ] 2016 1 twu] 2016

:0 100@& :0 101-25 :0 102-50

8- lksyj okWVj ghVj NwV

;fn miHkksDrk lksyj okWVj 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 izkfIr fu"ksf/kr djsxkA



9- izhisM ehVfjax

vk;ksx ds bl vkns'k ds }kjk izhisM ehVfjax ;kstuk vuqeksfnr dh x;h gS tksfd ykxw jgsxhA izhisM

ehVfjax ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ?kjsyw Js.kh ¼vkjVh,l&1 ,oa vkjVh,l&1,½ gsrq fo|qr izHkkj ij 4% rFkk

vU; ,yVh miHkksDrkvksa dks fo|qr izHkkj ij 3% 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 vkSj Lora= foKkiu gksfYMax ds fy, vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ esa NwV vuqeU; ugha gksxhA lksyj

okWVj NwV mijksDr nj vuqlwph ds vuq:i bl gsrq vko';d 'krksaZ dks iw.kZ djus ij izhizsM miHkksDrkvksa

ij Hkh ykxw 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 vi) ftu miHkksDrkvksa ds ikl izhisM dusD'ku gS] mu ij NwV ;k vf/kHkkj ykxw ugha gksxhA

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% ds vf/kHkkj mn~xzghr gksxkA iii) ftu miHkksDrkvksa ds ikl izhisM dusD'ku gS] mu ij vf/kHkkj ykxw ugha gksxkA

9. Annexures


12- vf/kHkkj@ekax naM ¼?kjsyw] fgekPNkfnr o PTW Jsf.k;ksa ij ykxw ugha½

,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] lafonkdr Hkkj ls vf/kd gksxhA ;|fi] ftu

miHkksDrkvksa ds ikl izhisM dusD'ku gS] mu ij vf/kHkkj vfrfjDr Hkkj tqekZuk ykxw ugha gksxkA

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 50@kW

lafonkdr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =30x50= :0 1500/- vfrfjDr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =13 (2x50) = :0 1300/- dqy fLFkj izHkkj =1500+1300= :0 2800/- 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 vfrfjDr ekax 2800&2500=300 kVA, ekax izHkkjksa dh nj =:0 320/kVA lafonkdr ekax gssrq ekax izHkkj = 2500 x 320 = :0 800000/- vfrfjDr ekax gsrq ekax izHkkj = 300 x (2x320) = :0 192000/- dqy ekax izHkkj = 800000 + 192000 = :0 992000/-

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 gS½] esa muds

miHkksx gsrq U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj ykxw gksaxsA ;|fi] izhizsM dusD'ku miHkksDrkvksa ij U;wure~ miHkksx

xkjaVh ¼MCG½ ykxw ugha gksxhA vk;ksx us ekfld vk/kkj ij rFkk okf’kZd vk/kkj ij U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh

fofufnZ’V dh gSA U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj ekfld vk/kkj ij yxk;k tk;sxk] tc ekfld miHkksx ekfld

U;wure~ miHkksx xkajVh ¼MCG½ 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] 2017 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) twu] 2016 esa fcy tkjh djus ds fy;s ,e0lh0th0 izfr ch-,p-ih- fuEukuqlkj jgsxh% a) fnlEcj] 2015 ls ekpZ] 2016 & 60 X 4 = 240 ;wfuV~l b) vizSy] 2016 ,oa ebZ] 2016 & 60 X 2 = 120 ;wfuV~l c) dqy & 360 ;wfuV~l ¼240+120½

ii) fnlEcj] 2016 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

lfefr;ka@dkWyksfu;ksa esa vkxs forj.k gsrq ,dy fcanq ehVfjax ds lkFk ,dy fcanq ij la;kstu izkIr

djuh gSaA rFkkfi O;fDrxr la;kstu gsrq vkosnu djus esa oS/kkfud Lokeh@dCtk/kkjh ds fy;s dksbZ

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

9. Annexures


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 ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ dsoy vkoklh; dkWyksfu;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] ,slh fLFkfr esa mu ij fefJr yksM dk VSfjQ ykxw gksxkA v) v?kjsyw ds vUrxZr ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ 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 ?kjsyw mn~ns”; ¼tSls fy¶V] lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk okWVj ifEaix lsV½ ds fy;s

gksrk gks] lfEefyr gSA

iii) /kkfeZd LFkyksa tSls efUnj] efLtn] xq:}kjk] ppZ bR;kfn ¼tgk¡ ek= iwtk@bcknr dh txg vdsys

esa@vyx ls gks] mu iwtk LFkykas@bcknrxkgksa ds fy, tgk¡ /keZ”kkyk] lkeqnkf;d dsUnz] “k;uxg

bR;kfn lEc) gks] ogk¡ ;g vuqlwph ykxw ugha gksxhA½

¼;g nj lwph mu miHkksDrkvksa ij Hkh ykxw gksxh] ftuds ikl 2 kW rd dk lafonkdr 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 %

*vU; ?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa ds ekeys esa fLFkj izHkkj njsa ekg esa dqy [kir ds cjkcj yh tk;sxhA

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 14@la;kstu@ ekg :0 1-50@ kWh 1-2½ vU; ?kjsyw miHkksDrk 100 ;wfuV~l@ekg rd miHkksx gsrq :0 40@ekg :0 2-45@kWh 101&200 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 60@ekg :0 3-10@kWh 201&300 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 85@ekg :0 4-10@kWh 301&400 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 110@ekg :0 4-10@kWh 401&500 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 150@ekg :0 4-50@kWh 500 ;wfuV~l@ekg ls Åij :0 175@ekg :0 4-50@kWh 2½ ,dy fcUnq Fkksd vkiwfrZ :0 50@kW@ekg :0 3-70@kWh

9. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 1 , % 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

fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

1½ ?kjsyw

:0 14@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 25@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;A

(ii) ljdkjh@ljdkjh lgk;rk izkIr “kSf{kd laLFkkuA

(iii) vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ds v/khu iathd`r ,slh /kekZFkZ 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 45@kW :0 4-15@ kWh

¼ch½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 55@kVA :0 3-85@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 izfr

ekg gksA* :0 50@ kW :0 4-30@kWh

¼ch½ 25 kW rd mijksDr 1-2 ¼,½ esa “kkfey

ugha :0 55@ kW :0 5-10@kWh

¼lh½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 55@ kVA :0 5-00@kVAh 50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o 600 kVAh/ kVA / okf"kZd

1-3 ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ** :0 55@ kVA :0 4-90@kVAh

50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o 600 kVAh/ kVA / okf"kZd

1-4 LorU= foKkiu gksfMZaXl~~ :0 70@ kW :0 5-20@kWh

* ;fn [kir 50 ;wfuV@ekg ls vf/kd gS rks iw.kZ [kir ij fo|qr izHkkj mi&Js.kh 1-2 ¼[k½ ds vuqlkj fy;k tk;sxkA

** “kkfiax dkWEIysDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl ds fy;s 75 kW ls Åij

9. Annexures


3- vU; 'krsZa 3.1 kW esa lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrkvksa ds fy, ,e lh th mn~~ns';ksa gsrq lafonkd`r Hkkj

0-85 ds ikWoj QSDVj ij fopkj djrs gq, ifjHkkf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA 3.2 U;wure miHkksx xkjaVh izHkkj] fLFkj ekax izHkkj ds vfrfjDr gksxk rFkk rc mn~~xzghr fd;k

tk;sxk tc miHkksx ,d ekg esa MCG ls de gksxk ,oa ;g okf"kZd vk/kkj ij lek;ksftr

fd;k tk;sxkA 3.3 Vh vks Mh ehVlZ] dsoy ehVj jhfMax midj.k ¼MRI½ }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;s tk;saxsA 3.4 25 kW Lks Åij ds lHkh miHkksDrkvksa gsrq vko”;d :Ik ls ToD ehVj gksaxsA 3.5 “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 3.6 ,e vkj vkbZ lkjka'k fjiksVZ dh izfr fcy ds lkFk miyC/k djkbZ 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 ySEil

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq ifCyd ySEil 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 50@kW :0 4-65@ kWh xzkeh.k ¼ehVMZ½ :0 40@kW :0 4-65@ 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- iFk izdk'k iz.kkyh ds fy, mica/k

;fn] mijksDrkuqlkj vuqj{k.k izHkkj izHkkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS rks ySEil 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

9. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l & 4% futh uydwi @ifEiax 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@ifEiax lsV~l gsrq vkiwfrZ

izkIr dj jgs gSaA gkykafd izklafxd df’k ds mn~ns”; ds varxZr 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 miHkksx xkjUVh

¼,elhth½

vkjVh,l& 4 %

PTW ¼ehVMZ½ “kwU; 1-55

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 mRiknksa dk izlaLdj.k

u dh tkrh gksA

2- izHkkj dh nj

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj

:0@ch,pih@ekg

fo|qr ewY;

:0@KWh U;wure miHkksx xkjUVh

¼,elhth½

vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ %

df"k lac) lsok;sa

'kwU; 1-55

60 ;wfuV~l@ch,pih@ekg ,oa

720 ;wfuV~l@ch,pih@okf"kZd

9. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l & 5% ljdkjh flapkbZ iz.kkyh

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 50@kW/ekg :0 4-55@kWh 2- 75 kW ls vf/kd :0 50@kVA/ekg :0 4-40@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 ifEiax LVs”kuksa vkSj IykfLVd fjlkbZfdfyax

la;a=ksa ij ykxw gksxhA

2- izHkkj dh nj


'kgjh :0 50@ kVA /ekg :0 4-45@kVAh xzkeh.k :0 40@ kVA /ekg :0 4-45@kVAh

9. 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;saxsA

(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 ls 33 kV ;k blls Åij dh oksYVst ij miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA

psd ehVj rFkk miHkksDrk ehVj ¼jksa½ dh jhfMaXl ds e/; 3% 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 izHkkj fLFkj@ekax

izHkkj izfrekg

U;wure miHkksx xkWj.Vh

¼MCG)** 1- 75 kW ¼100 BHP½ rd

lafonkd`r Hkkj okys ,yVh m|ksx

1-1 lafonkd`r Hkkj 25 kW rd :0 4-05@kWh lafonkd`r Hkkj

dk :0 130@ 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 3-70@ kVAh lafonkd`r Hkkj

dk :0 130@ 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 3-50

* fcy ;ksX;

ekax dk :0

255@ kVA Lakfonkd`r Hkkj/ ekg dk 100 kVAh/ kVA

rFkk

Lakfonkdr Hkkj/ okf"kZd

dk 1200 kVAh/KVA 40% ls Åij 3-85

2-2 lafonkd`r Hkkj 1000 kVA ls

Åij

40% rd 3-50 * fcy ;ksX;

ekax dk :0

320@ kVA 40% ls Åij 3-85

$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 (ii) ToD ehVlZ] dsoy ehVj jhfMax bULVwesaV (MRI) }kjk i<s+ tk;saxsA iw.kZ fo”ys’k.k gsrq Qstj

9. Annexures


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 3-70@kVAh :0 5-55@kVAh :0 3-33@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 3-50@kVAh :0 5-78@kVAh :0 3-15@kVAh 40% ls Åij :0 3-85@kVAh :0 5-78@kVAh :0 3-47@kVAh

*yksM QSDVj Åij [k.M 2 esa ifjHkkf’kr fd;k x;k gSA

4- ekSleh m|ksx

tgk¡ fdlh miHkksDrk ds ikl 18 kW (25 BHP) ls vf/kd dk Hkkj gks rFkk ToD 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 ekSleh 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 ekSleh Hkkj ds

lkFk vU; Hkkj /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] mUgsa 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 fujUrj vkiwfrZ okys miHkksDrk gsrq Åij mYysf[kr fo|qr izHkkj ds

vykok 15 izfr”kr vfrfjDr fo|qr izHkkj pqdk;saxsA 1 vizSy] 2016 ls vFkok fnuakd 31 ekpZ] 2017

rd ds u;s la;kstu dh n”kk esa] fcuk okLrfod vof/k ds fujUrj vkiwfrZ fodYi gsrq Åij fn;s x;s

izHkkj dh nj ds vuqlkj ekax izHkkj rFkk vU; izHkkj ogha jgsaxsA

9. Annexures


;|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] 2017 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%

vkosnu djus dh vko”;drk ugha gSA ,sls miHkksDrkvksa dks fnukad 01-04-2016 ls 31-03-2017 rd

Åij mYysf[kr fo|qr izHkkj dk 15 izfr'kr vfrfjDr fo|qr izHkkj ns; gksxkA ;wihlh,y ls ;fn dksbZ

fookn fdlh QhMj esa gks rks ml QhMj ds miHkksDrkvksa dks 30 vizSy] 2016 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] 2016 ls 31 ekpZ] 2017 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] 2016 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] 2016 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 o`f)] 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

n'kk 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% vuqiz;ksT; gksxkA

9. 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 60@kW@ekg :0 4-50@kWh

3- vU; “krsZa %

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr “kqYd dh vU; “krsZ ogh gksaxh] tks vkj-Vh-,l-&1 ds miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s gSaA

rFkkfi] vf/kHkkj 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 225@& :0 3-95

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

9. 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 1250 izfrfnu

¼2½ 2 kW rd ds Hkkj okyh] mRloksa ds nkSjku LFkkfir vLFkk;h nqdkusaA :0 85 izfrfnu

¼3½ 1 kW rd ds Hkkj ds fy;s vU; vLFkk;h nqdkuas@>qXxh@>ksiM+h

3-1½ xzkeh.k :0 115@ekg@la;kstu

3-2½ “kgjh :0 230@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 Lohd`r Js.kh esa ogh vuqKs; gSA 2- izHkkj dh nj

izHkkj dh nj] mi;qDr vuqlwph esa izHkkj dh rn~uq:Ik nj ds vfrfjDr 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 xkj.Vh izHkkj ykxw ugha gksaxsA



9-2 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 izfr ehVj 50-00

Ckh- rhu Qst ehVlZ izfr ehVj 75-00

Lkh- fjdkfMZax VkbZi okWV&vkoj ehVlZ izfr ehVj 170-00

Mh- vf/kdre ekax ladsrd@,yVh lhVh lapkfyr eksVlZ izfr ehVj 350-00

bZ- VªkbZ osDVj ehVlZ@,pVh ehVlZ lhVh@ihVh ds lkFk izfr ehVj 1000-00

,Q- ,ehVlZ ,aM oksYV ehVlZ izfr ehVj 65-00

Tkh- Lis”ky ehVlZ izfr ehVj 335-00

,p- ehVjksa dk izkFkfed ijh{k.k izfr ehVj “kwU;

2- izkFkfed ijh{k.k ls vU; ckn dk ijh{k.k rFkk laLFkkiu izfr ehVj 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% 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;k¡ 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

Documents

Final Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2016-17 Final Hindiuerc.gov.in/ordersPetitions/orders/Tariff/Tariff Order/2016-17... · Order on Approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff