Over 15 of MERC’s decisions have been challanged in courts, while 50 power projects are put on hold.
Over 15 of MERC’s decisions have been challanged in courts, while 50 power projects are put on hold
The differences between state power utility, Mahavitaran, and the state regulator, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) are hitting a new high, causing 50 power projects in state to be delayed while consumers remain at the receiving end.
Over 15 decisions of the MERC have been challenged in various courts in the past two years as compared to two in last six years (2000-05). In most of the cases challenged in other courts, the MERC orders have either been stayed or set aside and the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), also known as Mahavitaran, has won.
MERC chairman Pramod Deo said, “MERC and MSEDCL are not at loggerheads. We give orders as a quasi-judicial body. If the orders are challenged, we can’t comment on court decisions.”
On Tuesday, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) in New Delhi set aside MERC’s order to the MSEDCL. The order was related to giving permission to Mahavitaran to procure 4,000MW in view of the power crisis in the state and also setting up of a ‘study group’ to evaluate the demand forecast besides the Electric Power Survey (EPS) prepared by the Central Electricity Authority.
The MERC in 2006 turned down Mahavitaran’s appeal to procure 4,000MW, but gave permission to procure just 50 per cent. Following unscheduled hours of load-shedding and the shortfall between demand and supply rising every day, MERC had directed that power utility of every state draft its demand projection with the help of an expert panel.
“Even a year later MSEDCL has not pooled in a single MW of power in the state grid out of the total sanctioned capacity of 2,000MW,” said an industry source.
In September 2007, the apex court had similarly stayed MERC order, asking Mahavitaran to refund the service line charges (SLC) it had collected from consumers allotted new connections. This is the cost of the infrastructure for the new consumers. The SC intervened and ruled not to refund the SLC worth over Rs200 crore, burdening the consumers.
“As a regulator MERC cannot act as a super board. It’s been found that the regulator is somehow against the state utility as all its judgements are anti-MSEDCL,” said a state electricity department official requesting anonymity.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}