TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road),
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377
Email : [email protected]
Web site : www. tneo.gov.in
BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI
Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman
Appeal Petition No.18 of 2011
Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited
Pharmaceuticals Division
SPIC house
88, Mount Road
Chennai – 600 032.
…. Appellant
(Rep. by Thiru. Vaithianathan)
(Senior Manager/Electrical)
Vs.
1.
The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle
Cuddalore.
2.
The Accounts Officer
Central Office
TANGEDCO
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle
Cuddalore.
. . . . Respondents
(Rep. by Thiru.R. Rajaram/
Accounts Officer/Cuddalore EDC)
1
Date of hearing : 21.12.2011
Date of order : 6.3.2012.
The above Appeal Petition No. 18 of 2011 came up for final hearing before
the Electricity Ombudsman on 21-12-2011.
Upon perusing the above petition
and the connected records and after hearing both sides, the following order is
passed by the Electricity Ombudsman: -
ORDER
1.
Prayer of the Appellant in Appeal Petition No.18 of 2011 :
The Appellant prayed for calculating the excess demand charges for
exceeding the quota fixed for the evening peak hour on proportionate hours basis
and not on proportionate day basis as done by the licensee and to direct the
TANGEDCO to refund the excessively collected peak hour MD penalty charges.
2.
Facts of the case :The Appellant is a HT consumer and his Service Connection Number is
HT SC No. 85. The service is situated in the jurisdiction of the Superintending
Engineer / Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle. The licensee has enforced R
& C measures from 1-11-2008. As per the R & C guidelines, the Appellant’s
industry has been permitted to use only 5% of the permitted demand for lighting
and safety purposes during evening peak hours. But the company has exceeded
its demand quota during the evening peak hour and the licensee has levied
excess demand charges of Rs.37,08,612/- for the period from January 2009 to
2
July 2009. The excess demand charges was calculated on proportionate day
basis by the licensee but the Appellant requested the licensee to calculate the
charges on proportionate hours basis. The petition filed by the Appellant in the
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of Cuddalore Electricity Distribution
Circle was rejected. Hence, the Appellant filed the petition before the Electricity
Ombudsman.
3.
Contentions of the appellant :
The Appellant has furnished the following in the petition:-
a.
In SE/CEDC/Cud/PFC/AO/RCS/AS/A4/F Peak/2009, dated 4-1-2010
letter, they have been intimated to remit a sum of Rs.37,08,612/- for
exceeding MD during peak hours from January 2009 to July 2009.
b.
They have raised their objection for calculating the penalty fee for the
whole day instead of four hours (peak hours) and requested to refund the
MD penalty excessively collected but no reply was received from TNEB.
c.
A petition was filed before the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory
Commission. However, they were informed that Tamil Nadu Electricity
Regulatory Commission does not have jurisdiction in the matter. Hence
they have been directed to move the Consumer Grievance Redressal
Forum.
d.
They filed a petition to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,
Cuddalore to refund the excessively collected MD penalty charges based
on proportional day basis. But the petition was not accepted based on the
grounds that this does not come under the powers of the Forum.
3
e.
As per their calculations, the MD penalty charges based on four hours
(i.e.) from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. woks out to Rs.6,18,100/- and
Rs.6,16,778/- on four hour prorata MD charge basis.
f.
It has been already practiced by TNEB, proportionate days shall be
applied in the following situations which require resetting of the MD.
(i)
If the maximum demand is enhanced or reduced based on the consumer’s
application and implemented in between the monthly readings.
(ii)
Power cut imposed in the midway between the monthly readings.
(iii)
Before and after 48 hours notice period.
g.
They are eligible to utilize the allocated / sanctioned demand during the
normal hours other than evening peak hours (6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.) and
more over penalty for the exceeded demand during normal hours has
been already levied on them and paid by them in the monthly CC bill.
Hence for levying the peak hour penalty proportionate hours basis alone
should be considered.
4.
Contentions of the Respondent :The Respondent has contended the following in his counter affidavit:-
a.
The Petitioner being an agreement holder is bound by the terms and
condition of supply of electricity provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Supply Code and Distribution Code.
b.
The penalty is imposed to the consumer for Rs.37,08,612/- towards the
excess demand charges during peak hour for excess over quota
consumption for proportionate day basis.
4
c.
The quota demand during peak hour is 5% of demand quota 3600 KVA. It
was
intimated
to
the
consumer
vide
this
office
Letter
No.SE/CEDC/AO/RCS/AS/A4/F.HT.P.Cut/D./2008, dated 1-11-2008. So
peak hour demand quota 180 KVA plus 1% transformer loss of 18,000
KVA transformer capacity (i.e.) 360 KVA is permitted during peak hour.
d.
The excess over charges calculated with reference to the Circular Memo
No. CFC/Rev/FC/R/D No.362/09, dated 26-11-2009.
5.
Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman :In order to enable the parties to present their cases in person, a hearing
was held by the Electricity Ombudsman on 21-12-2011.
6.
Arguments of the Appellant :The appellant
was represented by Thiru. M. Vaithianathan, Senior
Manager (Elect) . He reiterated the contents of the petition . He further argued
that the excess demand charges for peak hour restriction shall be calculated
based on hourly rate instead of the daily rate adopted by the licensee. He has
stated that the excess demand charges for 24 hours is only Rs.20/- and the
appellant has used excess demand over and above the quota only for 4 hours
and hence it shall be proportionately levied. Further he has argued that for
some
portion of the excess demand he has paid more than 3 times of the
demand charges fixed by the Commission.
5
7.
Respondent’s Arguments :
The respondent was represented by Thiru. R. Rajaram Accounts
Supervisor Cuddalore EDC. He has also reiterated the contents of the counter
and
informed that they have followed the instruction issued by circular dt.
26.11.2001 only in this regard and he was not able to tell anything more to justify
the demand.
8.
Findings of the Electricity Ombudsman :
8.1
I have gone through the appeal and the counter and heard both sides
arguments . On a careful study of the material placed before me , I find that the
only issue here is “whether the excess demand charges could be levied on
proportionate hourly basis ?.
8.2
In this regard the relevant Regulation 5(13) of supply code is reproduced
below :
“ (13) Excess demand charge and excess energy charge during
Restriction and Control of supply :
(i)
The maximum demand charges for HT supply shall be based on
the actual recorded demand at the point of supply or at 90% of the
demand quota as fixed from time to time through restriction and
control measures whichever is higher. In case the maximum
recorded demand is in excess of the quota fixed, the demand in
excess of the quota fixed shall be charged at rates specified by the
Commission from time to time.
(ii)
The energy consumption over and above the energy quota fixed
shall be charged at the rates specified by the Commission from
6
time to time in respect of such class of consumers upon whom the
restriction and control measures apply.
(iii)
The services which draw electricity from TNEB Grid for using
welding sets during the restricted hours shall be charged at the
rates specified by the Commission from time to time. ”
8.3
As per the said Regulation 5(13), of the Supply Code, the demand in
excess of the quota fixed shall be charged at rates specified by the Commission
from time to time.
8.4
The Hon’ble Commission in its order in the Miscellaneous Petition No. 42
of 2008 has ordered as below with
regard to excess demand charges and
excess energy charges.
“29. If the excess demand is charged at a rate thrice the normal rate as at
present and if excess energy consumption is charged thrice the normal rate, the
excess consumption is liable to be charged at a rate equivalent to Rs.13.20 per
unit for HT industrial consumers, if both the demand and energy quota are
exceeded. We believe that this is fair and just to the consumer and the licensee
and therefore the Commission directs that excess demand shall be charged at a
rate thrice the normal rate and excess energy consumption be charged at thrice
the normal rate for both HT industrial and commercial consumers. ”
8.5
As per the above, the excess demand and excess energy consumed over
and above the quota fixed will be charged at thrice the normal rate for both HT
Industrial and Commercial consumer.
7
8.6
On a careful reading of the above, it is seen that the Commission has
ordered only to charge thrice the normal rate for exceeding the quota.
The
normal rate is the rate specified in the tariff order dated 15.3.2003 (i.e) Rs.300/per KVA per month for demand.
8.7
The Commission has also clarified that in its order dt. 4.5.2010 in M.P.
No. 4&7 of 2010 that consumption of demand and energy on excess over quota
is liable to be charged at the rate mentioned in para 29, irrespective of the fact
whether the excess is recorded during non peak hour or evening peak hour.
8.8
However,
the
licensee
has
stated
that
in
its
circular
memo
no.CFC/Rev/FC/R/D.No.362, dt. 26.11.2009 the excess demand charges for
peak hour violation is on proportionate day basis.
The relevant portion is
furnished below :
“Para 10 :
The peak hour excess charges for exceeding the demand may be levied
for proportionate days based on CMRI down loaded data or by 48 hrs notice
and the excess charges may be levied at double the normal charges only (ie) at
Rs.600/- per KVA.”
8.9
Further, in the letter dt.20.12.2010 CMD/TANGEDCO of while giving
clarification to M/s Southern India Mills Association, in para 2 (iii), the following
has been specified.
“(iii)
For the violation of the peak hour, the instruction has also been
issued to the filed to levy the excess charges for the proportionate day basis
8
based on the CMRI down loaded data and not for all the 30 days as in the case
of monthly MD charges”.
8.10 It is also to be pointed out here that the demand charges is the fixed
charges. In a month the demand charges will be calculated for the maximum
demand
reached (ie) the maximum demand may be utilised for a faction of an
hour or through out the month, but charges will be levied for the maximum
demand reached. So normally the fixed charges / demand charges are charged
not in proportionate basis. However, the demand charges will be charged on
proportionate basis when there is a change in sanctioned load as per Regulation
9 (1) of Supply Code . The relevant clause is reproduced below :
“9(1) Whenever there is change in the sanctioned demand, the
change shall be effected, as far as possible, to coincide with the next
meter reading. If , however, it is not possible so to do, the meter shall be
reset and the maximum demand charges shall be billed proportionately for
the respective periods.”
8.11
On a careful reading of the above clause, it is seen that the changes in
demand shall be effected to coincide with the meter reading as for as possible
(ie) to avoid
proportionate charges for demand this has been suggested .
However, when it is not possible, proportionate charges have to be charged.
8.12 In the present case there is no change in the sanctioned demand. They
have only exceeded the quota fixed for evening
peak hour .
Hence, the
proportionate basis does not arise.
9
8.13 The Hon’ble TNERC has observed the following in para 28 of its order
dated 28.11.2008 in M.P. No. 42 of 2008.
“28. The thrust of the scheme for charging excess demand and excess
energy consumption is that the consumer should be discouraged from drawing
power from the grid. At today price of diesel at Rs.32/- litre the generation cost
per unit of Electricity is about Rs.12/- per unit. The Commission believes that it is
reasonable to prescribe a rate a litre above Rs.12/- per unit to dissude the
consumer away from the grid. ”
8.14
It could be seen from the above that the excess demand charges an
levied to dissude the consumer away from the grid.
8.15
If the excess demand charges for exceeding the peak hour quota is
charged on hourly basis, it will work out to Rs.3.33 paise per KVA per4 hours of
evening peak hour. As the above amount is small, the consumer will try to run
the industry by drawing power from the grid which will defeat the very purpose
discouraging the consumer to draw power from the grid which in turn will affect
the grid stability.
8.16
Further, the evening peak hour restriction was enforced so as to give
uninterrupted
power to the common man during the evening (night) hours.
Hence , the industries were permitted to use the lighting load only during the
evening peak hours. If the excess demand charges is small, the industry will try
to run the industry which in turn will affect the availability
of power for the
common man during evening peak hours.
10
8.17
Hence, I am of the opinion that there is no provision
in the Hon’ble
TNERC’s order for charging the excess demand charges proportionately on 4
hours basis for peak hour restriction .
8.18
With regard to the argument of the appellant that he has paid more than 3
times, of normal rate for certain portion of the demand, it is to be noted that the
appellant has utilised more or less the same demand through out the day but
more than the permitted quota. Hence, he has exceeded the quota both at non
peak hours and at evening peak hours. As the load was
constant through out
the day, the excess demand over the non peak hour quota availed during the
non peak hour will definitely be a excess demand during the evening peak hour
also. Hence, he has to pay more than 3 times for such portion (ie) 3 times for
non peak hour and 3 time for evening peak hour .
8.19
The Commission in its order dt. 4.5.2010 in petition M.P. No. 4 of 2010
and M.P. 7 of 2010 in para 11.10 has observed as follows :
“ 11.10. The contention of the Petitioner that penalty was proposed only
for welding operators in the public announcement and that excess
demand and excess energy charges would not apply to evening peak hour
violation as per the public announcement is not correct. The public
announcement did mention that excess demand charges and excess
energy charges would apply for exceeding the quota fixed by the TNEB.
Since separate quotas have been fixed for peak hours and non-peak
hours, it is axiomatic that excess demand charges and excess energy
charges would be attracted, if the quota is exceeded.”
11
In the above para, the Commission has observed that since separate
quota’s have been fixed for peak hour and non peak hours, it is axiomatic that
the excess demand charges and excess energy charges would be attracted if the
quota is exceeded.
8.20
As the Appellant has exceeded the quota in both non peak hours and
evening peak hour, the excess demand charge is to be paid separately for each
violations which is in conformity with the orders.
8.21 The case before the Electricity Ombudsman is to decide
about the
calculation of the excess demand charges for exceeding the evening peak hour
on proportionate hour basis. However it is to be noted that as per Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity order date 11.1.2011 in appeal No. 111,114,119, 120,
127 to 131 and 141 of 2010, the excess demand charges and excess energy
charges for evening peak hour restriction has to be given effect only from
4.5.2010 and it is learnt that the licensee has appealed against the above order
and filed a case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the case is pending .
Hence, the excess demand charges to be levied by the respondent consequent
to this orders shall be subject to the interim / final orders that may be passed by
the Supreme Court of India from time to time in the subject matter on the case
pending.
12
9.
Conclusion :
In view of the findings furnished in the above para I am unable to accept
the request of the appellant to charge the excess demand charges for exceeding
the evening peak hour on proportionate hourly basis.
10.
With the above findings, A.P. No. 18 of 2011 is finally disposed of by the
Electricity Ombudsman. No costs.
(A. Dharmaraj)
Electricity Ombudsman
To
1.
Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited
Pharmaceuticals Division
SPIC house
88, Mount Road
Chennai – 600 032.
2.
The Superintending Engineer
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle
TANGEDCO,
13A . Nethaji Road, Cuddalore – 607 001.
3.
The Accounts Officer
Central Office
TANGEDCO
Cuddalore Electricity Distribution Circle
Cuddalore.
4.
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Ltd.,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
5.
The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
6.
The Assistant Director (Computer)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. - for hosting in the website.
13