Final Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2017-18 29.03.17 with ... Order/2017-18/Tariff Orders for...

Order on True up for FY 2015-16,

Annual Performance Review for FY

2016-17

&

ARR for FY 2017-18

For

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

March 29, 2017

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Vidyut Niyamak Bhawan,

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

i

Table of Contents

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

2. Stakeholders’Objections/Suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses and Commission’s Views .... 8

2.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 MYT Framework ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Overall Tariff Increase ............................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Domestic Tariff ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Non-Domestic Tariff .............................................................................................................. 12

2.4.1 Tariff for Residential School/Dharamshalas/Trust/Ashrams ............................................. 12

2.4.2 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 14

2.5 Agricultural Tariff .................................................................................................................. 16

2.6 Mixed Load Tariff ................................................................................................................... 17

2.7 Tariff for Drinking Water Pumping Schemes ....................................................................... 18

2.8 Industrial Tariff ...................................................................................................................... 19

2.8.1 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 19

2.8.2 Time of Day Tariff.................................................................................................................... 21

2.8.3 Rostering and Load Shedding ................................................................................................ 23

2.8.4 Load Factor based Tariff.......................................................................................................... 24

2.9 Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) .......................................................................... 26

2.10 Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) ....................................................................................... 28

2.11 Rebate and Incentives ............................................................................................................ 29

2.12 Energy Sale Forecast............................................................................................................... 33

2.13 Cost of Supply and Cross Subsidy ........................................................................................ 34

2.14 Continuous Supply ................................................................................................................. 35

2.15 Components on ARR and Revenue........................................................................................ 37

2.15.1 Prudence Check of Revised ARR ............................................................................................ 37

2.15.2 Power Purchase Cost ............................................................................................................... 38

2.15.3 PGCIL Charges ........................................................................................................................ 40

2.15.4 Return on Equity ...................................................................................................................... 42

2.15.5 Operation & Maintenance Expenses ...................................................................................... 43

2.15.6 Interest Charges ....................................................................................................................... 44

2.15.7 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................. 45

ii

2.15.8 Interest on Working Capital..................................................................................................... 46

2.15.9 Consumer Security Deposit ..................................................................................................... 47

2.15.10 Sharing of Gains & Losses ........................................................................................................ 48

2.15.11 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts .................................................................................... 49

2.16 Capital Expenditure ................................................................................................................50

2.17 Truing-up for Past Years ........................................................................................................52

2.18 Distribution Losses ................................................................................................................54

2.19 Departmental Employees .......................................................................................................57

2.20 Collection Efficiency ...............................................................................................................60

2.21 Metering and Billing ...............................................................................................................61

2.22 KCC Data ................................................................................................................................63

2.23 Quality of Power ....................................................................................................................63

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

2.25 Promotion of Renewable Energy ...........................................................................................68

2.26 Miscellaneous Comments .......................................................................................................69

2.26.1 NOC for Short Term Open Access .......................................................................................... 69

2.26.2 Reduction/Increase of Load .................................................................................................... 69

2.26.3 Terms and Conditions for Seasonal Industries (RTS-7) ......................................................... 70

2.26.4 Construction of 33/11kV Substation ....................................................................................... 71

2.26.5 LED’s Distribution .................................................................................................................... 71

2.26.6 Defective Metering Correction ................................................................................................ 72

2.26.7 Online Load Survey Reports .................................................................................................... 73

2.26.8 Delay in Fault Rectification ...................................................................................................... 73

2.26.9 Tariff for Cane Crushers........................................................................................................... 74

2.26.10 Recruitments ............................................................................................................................. 74

2.26.11 Proof of Ownership .................................................................................................................. 74

2.27 Views of State Advisory Committee: ....................................................................................75

3. Petitioners’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing-up

for FY 2015-16 ........................................................................................................................................... 79

3.1 Truing-up for FY 2015-16 ........................................................................................................79

3.1.1 Sales ........................................................................................................................................... 79

3.1.2 Distribution Losses ................................................................................................................... 86

3.1.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) .............................................. 87

3.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses ....................................................................... 90

iii

3.2 Cost of Assets & Financing .................................................................................................... 95

3.2.1 Capital cost of Original Assets ................................................................................................ 95

3.2.2 Financing of Capital assets ...................................................................................................... 98

3.2.3 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 101

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

3.2.5 Interest on Working Capital (IoWC) ..................................................................................... 105

3.2.6 Return on Equity ..................................................................................................................... 106

3.2.7 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 109

3.3 Tariff Revenue ....................................................................................................................... 110

3.4 Sharing of gains and losses .................................................................................................. 114

3.5 ARR & Revenue for FY 2015-16 ........................................................................................... 117

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

Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18 ................................................................................................. 119

4.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 119

4.2 Sales ....................................................................................................................................... 121

4.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory ............................................................................................... 125

4.4 Aggregate Revenue Requirement ......................................................................................... 128

4.5 Power Purchase Cost ........................................................................................................... 130

4.5.1 Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd. ........................................................................................... 134

4.5.2 Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. ......................................................................................... 135

4.5.3 Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. ................................................................................ 136

4.5.4 Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. .......................................................................................... 136

4.5.5 Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd............................................................................................. 138

4.5.6 Power Purchase from NPCIL Stations .................................................................................. 139

4.5.7 Power Purchase from existing Renewable Energy Sources ................................................. 139

4.5.8 Free Power from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar as State Royalty Power ............ 140

4.5.9 Power Purchase from Sasan UMPP ....................................................................................... 140

4.5.10 Power purchase from State Gas Generating Station............................................................. 140

4.5.11 Power purchase from Greenko Budhil Hyrdo ...................................................................... 141

4.5.12 Power purchase from upcoming generating stations........................................................... 142

4.5.13 Energy available from Firm Sources...................................................................................... 142

4.5.14 Power Purchase for fulfilling RPO ........................................................................................ 143

4.5.15 Deficit/(Surplus) Energy........................................................................................................ 144

4.5.16 Cost of power purchase .......................................................................................................... 145

iv

4.5.17 Cost of Meeting RPO Target .................................................................................................. 150

4.6 Transmission Charges .......................................................................................................... 151

4.6.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL ........................................................... 151

4.6.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL .......................................................... 151

4.6.3 Transmission Charges ............................................................................................................ 151

4.7 SLDC Charges ....................................................................................................................... 152

4.8 Water Tax .............................................................................................................................. 152

4.9 GFA and Additional Capitalisation ................................................................................... 153

4.9.1 GFA base for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 .............................................................................. 153

4.10 Means of Finance .................................................................................................................. 156

4.11 Interest and Finance Charges ............................................................................................... 157

4.11.1 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 159

4.11.2 Operation and Maintenance expenses .................................................................................. 160

4.11.3 Employee expenses ................................................................................................................ 162

4.11.4 R&M expenses ........................................................................................................................ 165

4.11.5 A&G expenses......................................................................................................................... 166

4.11.6 O&M expenses ........................................................................................................................ 167

4.11.7 Interest on Working Capital................................................................................................... 167

4.11.8 Return on Equity .................................................................................................................... 170

4.11.9 Income Tax .............................................................................................................................. 171

4.11.10 Provision for Bad and doubtful debts ................................................................................... 171

4.11.11 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 173

4.11.12 Treatment of past year adjustments ...................................................................................... 173

4.11.13 Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18 ................................................................................... 173

4.11.14 Revenue at Existing Tariff ...................................................................................................... 174

4.11.15 Revenue Gap for FY 2017-18 at existing Tariff ..................................................................... 175

5. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues ....................................................... 177

5.1 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2017-18 .................................................. 177

5.1.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 177

5.1.2 Petitioner’s Proposals ............................................................................................................. 177

5.1.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures ................................................... 179

5.1.4 Treatment of Revenue Gap .................................................................................................... 201

5.1.5 Cross Subsidy ......................................................................................................................... 201

5.1.6 Category-wise Tariff Design .................................................................................................. 201

v

5.1.7 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff ................................................................................................... 203

5.1.8 RTS-3: Public Lamps ............................................................................................................... 205

5.1.9 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump Sets and Agriculture Allied Activities .......................... 205

5.1.10 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System .................................................................................. 206

5.1.11 RTS-6: Public Water Works .................................................................................................... 206

5.1.12 RTS-7: Industry ....................................................................................................................... 206

5.1.13 RTS-8: Mixed Load ................................................................................................................. 208

5.1.14 RTS-9: Railway Traction ......................................................................................................... 208

5.2 Revenue for FY 2017-18 ........................................................................................................ 209

5.3 Cross Subsidy ........................................................................................................................ 209

5.4 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................ 211

6. Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL ......................................................................... 214

6.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 214

6.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2014-15& FY 2015-16 ................................................................... 215

6.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 ....................................................... 217

6.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 ............................................................... 219

6.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance ............................ 220

6.2.1 Metering .................................................................................................................................. 222

6.2.2 Billing....................................................................................................................................... 229

6.2.3 Billing and Bill Collection System.......................................................................................... 235

6.3 Energy Audit ......................................................................................................................... 237

6.4 AT&C Losses ......................................................................................................................... 238

6.5 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Financial Performance ................................. 242

6.5.1 Liquidity Ratio ........................................................................................................................ 242

6.5.2 Solvency Ratio ......................................................................................................................... 246

6.5.3 Profitability Ratio .................................................................................................................... 248

6.5.4 Operating or Activity Ratio .................................................................................................... 249

6.5.5 Efficiency Ratio ....................................................................................................................... 252

6.5.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 253

7. Commission’s Directives ............................................................................................................ 255

7.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 dated April 5, 2016255

7.1.1 Performance Report ................................................................................................................ 255

7.1.2 Sales ......................................................................................................................................... 256

7.1.3 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 257

vi

7.1.4 AT&C Losses........................................................................................................................... 258

7.1.5 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost ..................................................................................... 259

7.1.6 Fixed Assets Register .............................................................................................................. 260

7.1.7 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 261

7.1.8 Return on Equity .................................................................................................................... 262

7.1.9 Employee Expenses ................................................................................................................ 263

7.1.10 Bad &Doubtful Debts ............................................................................................................. 264

7.1.11 Reliability Indices ................................................................................................................... 265

7.1.12 Voltage wise Cost of Supply .................................................................................................. 265

7.1.13 Demand Side Management Measures ................................................................................... 266

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

Orders ...................................................................................................................................... 266

7.1.15 Metering of unmetered connections ...................................................................................... 267

7.1.16 Interest on GPF Trust ............................................................................................................. 268

7.1.17 Treatment of Assets sent for repairs ...................................................................................... 268

7.1.18 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) ............................................ 269

7.1.19 Deficit/Surplus Power ........................................................................................................... 270

7.1.20 RTS-4 (Private Tubewells) ...................................................................................................... 270

7.1.21 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF ....................................................................................... 271

7.1.22 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters ....... 272

7.1.23 Replacement of Mechanical Meters ....................................................................................... 273

7.1.24 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers ................................................................................................. 273

7.1.25 NB & SB Cases ........................................................................................................................ 274

7.1.26 Outstanding Arrears............................................................................................................... 274

7.1.27 Status of KCC Consumers ...................................................................................................... 275

7.1.28 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold .......................................................................... 276

7.1.29 Billing and Collection System ................................................................................................ 276

7.1.30 Energy Audit .......................................................................................................................... 277

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

Order dated 10.04.2014) ......................................................................................................... 278

7.1.32 Departmental Employees ....................................................................................................... 279

7.1.33 Metering & Billing .................................................................................................................. 280

7.1.34 Distribution Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 280

7.1.35 Quality of Power ..................................................................................................................... 280

7.1.36 Temporary Connections ......................................................................................................... 281

vii

7.1.37 Location of Installation of Meters .......................................................................................... 281

7.1.38 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 282

7.1.39 Transfer of Petitioner’s Personnel .......................................................................................... 283

7.1.40 Water Tax ................................................................................................................................ 283

7.1.41 Prepaid Metering .................................................................................................................... 284

7.1.42 kVAh Tariffs ............................................................................................................................ 284

7.1.43 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................. 285

7.1.44 Power Procurement Plan ........................................................................................................ 286

7.2 Fresh Directives .................................................................................................................... 286

7.2.1 Tariff Hike ............................................................................................................................... 286

7.2.2 Collection Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 286

7.2.3 Metering & Billing .................................................................................................................. 287

7.2.4 Construction of 33/11 kV Sub-station ................................................................................... 287

7.2.5 LED Distribution..................................................................................................................... 287

7.2.6 Defective Metering Correction ............................................................................................... 287

7.2.7 Online Load Survey Reports .................................................................................................. 287

7.2.8 Delay in Fault Rectification .................................................................................................... 287

7.2.9 Proof of Ownership ................................................................................................................ 288

7.2.10 View of Advisory Committee ................................................................................................ 288

7.2.11 Tariff Revenue ......................................................................................................................... 288

7.2.12 Distribution Loss Trajectory ................................................................................................... 288

7.2.13 Impact of Seventh Pay Commission ...................................................................................... 288

7.2.14 Prepaid Metering .................................................................................................................... 288

7.2.15 Current Ratio........................................................................................................................... 288

7.2.16 Repair & Maintenance to Inventory Ratio ............................................................................ 289

7.2.17 Average Collection Period ..................................................................................................... 289

7.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 289

8. Annexures ..................................................................................................................................... 291

8.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2017 ........................................................ 291

8.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges ................................................................ 317

8.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice .................................................................................................... 318

8.4 Annexure 4: List of Respondents ......................................................................................... 320

8.5 Annexure 5: List of Participants in Public Hearings ......................................................... 323

viii

List of Tables

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

Table 1.2: Schedule of Hearing .................................................................................................................. 5

Table 2.1: Details of Variation in ARR for FY 2017-18 ........................................................................... 10

Table 2.2: Details of DPS in various States .............................................................................................. 29

Table 2.3: Details of Variation in ARR for FY 2017-18 ........................................................................... 37

Table 2.4: Details of PGCIL Charges for FY 2017-18 .............................................................................. 41

Table 2.5: Details of Approved & Claimed O&M Costs ........................................................................ 43

Table 2.6: Details of Approved Interest and Financing Charges ........................................................... 44

Table 2.7: Details of Year-wise Capital Expenditure .............................................................................. 51

Table 2.8: Details of Year-wise Capex and Improvement of Collection ............................................... 51

Table 3.1: Break up of Actual Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2015-16 (MU) ....................... 80

Table 3.2: Re-casted Sales for Domestic Category for FY 2015-16 (MU) ............................................... 84

Table 3.3: Re-casted sales for PTW Category for FY 2015-16 (MU)....................................................... 85

Table 3.4: Re-casted sales for Other Categories for FY 2015-16 (MU) ................................................... 85

Table 3.5: Category-wise Sales for FY 2015-16 (MU) .............................................................................. 86

Table 3.6: Assessed Distribution losses for FY 2015-16 (MU) ................................................................ 87

Table 3.7: Power Purchase Cost approved in the Tariff Order Vs Actual Power Purchase Cost for

FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)....................................................................................................................... 88

Table 3.8: Power Purchase Cost claimed by UPCL and approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16

(Rs. Crore) .......................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 3.9: Revised Employee Expenses Trajectory for MYT Control Period as submitted by the

Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................................ 92

Table 3.10: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)................................................. 93

Table 3.11: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 94

Table 3.12: Approved A&G expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ......................................................... 95

Table 3.13: Approved O&M expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 95

Table 3.14: Assets base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 97

Table 3.15: Assets base approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ... 97

Table 3.16: Approved Means of Finance for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)..................................................... 98

Table 3.17: Means of Finance for FY 2015-16 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore).................... 98

ix

Table 3.18: GFA & Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ................................ 99

Table 3.19: Guarantee Fees claimed for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ......................................................... 101

Table 3.20: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ................................................ 101

Table 3.21: Depreciation approved for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................... 102

Table 3.22: Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Actual Bad Debts Write off (Rs. Crore)...... 104

Table 3.23: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ................................................... 106

Table 3.24: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .................. 109

Table 3.25: Non-tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ................. 110

Table 3.26: Revenue loss due to higher distribution loss for FY 2015-16 claimed by the Petitioner 111

Table 3.27: Revenue for FY 2015-16 Corresponding to Assessed Sales .............................................. 112

Table 3.28: Revenue from Sale of Power for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .................................................. 113

Table 3.29: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) ............... 113

Table 3.30: Sharing of Gains and Losses for FY 2015-16 claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)........ 114

Table 3.31: Sharing of Gains and Losses on account of IoWC for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 (Rs.

Crore) ............................................................................................................................................... 114

Table 3.32: Sharing of Loss on account of IoWC for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .............. 116

Table 3.33: Impact of Sharing of Loss of IoWC for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) ............. 117

Table 3.34: Sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY

2015-16 (Rs. Crore) .......................................................................................................................... 117

Table 3.35: Summary of true up for FY 2015-16 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............. 118

Table 3.36: Summary of Revenue Gap/Surplus to be carried forward to FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ... 118

Table 4.1: Actual Energy sales for consumer categories during FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16 (MU) .... 121

Table 4.2: CAGR calculated for Energy Sales to each consumer category ......................................... 122

Table 4.3: Sales projected by the Petitoner for FY 2017-18 (MU) ........................................................ 124

Table 4.4: Consumer Category wise sales approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (MU) ..... 125

Table 4.5: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission for the second Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ....................................................................................................... 125

Table 4.6: Distribution Loss for FY 2015-16 to FY 2018-19 ................................................................... 126

Table 4.7: High Distribution Loss Divisions as on 31.03.2016 ............................................................. 127

Table 4.8: Distribution Losses for FY 2017-18 ....................................................................................... 128

Table 4.9: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 ........................ 128

x

Table 4.10: Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd......................................................................................... 134

Table 4.11: Summary of Energy Availability from UJVNL for FY 2017-18 (MU) .............................. 134

Table 4.12: Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. ...................................................................................... 135

Table 4.13: Energy Availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 (MU) ............................................. 135

Table 4.14: Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. ............................................................................. 136

Table 4.15: Energy Availability at State periphery from THDC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 (MU) .............. 136

Table 4.16: Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. ....................................................................................... 137

Table 4.17: Energy Availability from NTPC Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU) ............... 138

Table 4.18: Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd.......................................................................................... 138

Table 4.19: Energy Availability from SJVN Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)................. 139

Table 4.20: Energy Availability from NPCIL at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU) ...................... 139

Table 4.21: Energy Availability from existing Renewable Energy Sources for FY 2017-18 (MU) ..... 139

Table 4.22: Energy Availability from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar at State Periphery (Free

Power) for FY 2017-18 (MU) ........................................................................................................... 140

Table 4.23: Energy Availability from Sasan UMPP at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU) ............ 140

Table 4.24: Energy Availability from State Gas Generating Stations at State periphery for FY 2017-18

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 141

Table 4.25: Energy Availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

.......................................................................................................................................................... 141

Table 4.26: Energy Availability from Upcoming Stations at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU) . 142

Table 4.27: Energy Availability from Firm Sources at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU) ........... 143

Table 4.28: Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO .............................................................................. 144

Table 4.29: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase ....................... 147

Table 4.30: Summary of power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 ............................................................. 148

Table 4.31: Quarterly Power Purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 ...................... 150

Table 4.32: Energy Charges of thermal generating stations for FY 2017-18 ....................................... 150

Table 4.33: Transmission Charges for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................. 152

Table 4.34: Proposed Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 (Rs.

Crore) ............................................................................................................................................... 155

Table 4.35: Actual GFA addition of UPCL (Rs. Crore) ......................................................................... 155

Table 4.36: GFA base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 156

xi

Table 4.37: Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ........................................... 157

Table 4.38: Interest on Loan approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .................... 158

Table 4.39: Depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................... 160

Table 4.40: Employee expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .............. 165

Table 4.41: R&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...................... 166

Table 4.42: A&G expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...................... 167

Table 4.43: O&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)...................... 167

Table 4.44: Capital required to finance the shortfall in collection of current dues approved by the

Commission..................................................................................................................................... 169

Table 4.45: Interest on working capital approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .. 169

Table 4.46: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .................. 171

Table 4.47: Past Year Adjustment approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ........................................... 173

Table 4.48: Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .......... 174

Table 4.49: Revenue for FY 2017-18 at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 175

Table 4.50: Revenue Gap for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)............................................................................ 176

Table 5.1: Effective Tariff & Cross-subsidy for HT Industry having contracted load 1 kVA ........... 191

Table 5.2 : Tariff for Domestic Consumers ........................................................................................... 203

Table 5.3 : Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas ......................................................................... 203

Table 5.4: Tariff for Non-domestic consumers ..................................................................................... 204

Table 5.5: Tariff for Public Lamps ......................................................................................................... 205

Table 5.6: Tariff for Private tube Wells/ Pump Sets ............................................................................ 205

Table 5.7: Tariff for Government Irrigation System ............................................................................. 206

Table 5.8 : Tariff for Public Water Works ............................................................................................. 206

Table 5.9: Tariff for LT Industries .......................................................................................................... 207

Table 5.10: Existing and Proposed Tariff for HT Industries ................................................................ 207

Table 5.11: Approved Tariff for HT Industry ....................................................................................... 208

Table 5.12: Tariff for Mixed Load .......................................................................................................... 208

Table 5.13: Tariff for Railway Traction.................................................................................................. 208

Table 5.14: Revenue at approved Tariffs for FY 2017-18 ..................................................................... 209

Table 5.15 : Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply ........................................................................ 210

Table 5.16 : Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 ................................. 210

xii

Table 5.17 :Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2017-18 ..................................................................... 212

Table 6.1 : Detail of Substations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2016 ................................... 214

Table 6.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2016 ........................................................ 215

Table 6.3: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access ............................................................. 218

Table 6.4: Revised Formats prescribed by the Commission vide letter dated 27.11.2014 ................ 221

Table 6.5: Status of Provisional Billing viz. NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF ............................................... 223

Table 6.6: Status of Defective Meters .................................................................................................... 225

Table 6.7: Status of Unmetered Consumers ......................................................................................... 226

Table 6.8: Status of Mechanical Meters ................................................................................................ 227

Table 6.9: Status of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers ................................................................................ 228

Table 6.10: Status of NB & SB Cases ..................................................................................................... 230

Table 6.11: Status of Outstanding Arrears. .......................................................................................... 231

Table 6.12: Comparison of Outstanding Arrears. ................................................................................ 232

Table 6.13: Status of KCC Consumers .................................................................................................. 233

Table 6.14: Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold....................................................................... 234

Table 6.15: Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL ........................................................................................ 239

Table 7.1: Month-wise Distribution Loss Targets as submitted by the Petitioner ............................. 258

Table 7.2: Power Purchased for 1st Quarter of FY 2016-17 as submitted by the Petitioner ............... 259

Table 7.3: Recruitment Status as submitted by the Petitioner ............................................................. 263

Table 7.4: Posts Under-Process as submitted by the Petitioner ........................................................... 264

Table 7.5: PTW Assessment as submitted by the Petitioner ................................................................ 271

Table 7.6: Outstanding Arrears as submitted by the Petitioner .......................................................... 275

Table 7.7: Collection through CSC Wallet as submitted by the Petitioner ......................................... 277

Table 7.8: Cost of Prepaid Meter Components as submitted by the Petitioner.................................. 284

Table 7.9: New Heads in Open Access Accounting as submitted by the Petitioner .......................... 285

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission 1

Before

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Petition No. 64 of 2016

In the Matter of: Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited for True up for FY 2015-16, Annual

Performance Review for FY 2016-17 and Aggregate Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18

AND

In the Matter of:

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited ……… Petitioner

Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun

Coram

Shri Subhash Kumar Chairman

Date of Order: March 29, 2017

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

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 relevant provisions of the Act, the Commission had notified Uttarakhand

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

2011 (hereinafter referred to 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

Order on approval of True-up for FY 2015-16, APR for FY 2016-17 & ARR for FY 2017-18

2 Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission

dated May 6, 2013 for the Control Period 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, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 vide its Orders dated April 10, 2014,

April 11, 2015 and April 5, 2016 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 to 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. The Commission had issued the

Order on approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff dated April 5, 2016 for the Control Period

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. As per the provisions of Regulation 12 of the UERC Tariff Regulations,

2015, UPCL filed a Petition (Petition No. 64 of 2016 and hereinafter referred to as the “Petition”),

giving details of its revised projections of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2017-18,

based on the true up for FY 2015-16 and Annual Performance Review for FY 2016-17 on November

30, 2016.

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

accordingly, vide its letter no. UERC/6/TF-356/2016-17/2016/1359 dated December 2, 2016

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. 4143/UPCL/RM/B-18 dated

December 07/08, 2016 submitted most of the information sought by the Commission. Based on the

submission dated December 07/08, 2016 by UPCL, the Commission vide its Order dated December

8, 2016 provisionally admitted the APR 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 APR Petition filed by UPCL for true up for FY 2015-

16, APR for FY 2016-17 and ARR for FY 2017-18 and is based on the original as well as all the

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 by it 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 - Stakeholders’ Objections/suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses & Commission’s

Views

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

Truing up for FY 2015-16

Chapter 4 - Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on

Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18

Chapter 5 –

Chapter 6 -

Chapter 7 -

Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL

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

became 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, April 11, 2015. The Commission, thereafter, vide its Order dated April 5, 2016

issued the Order on approval of Business Plan for UPCL for the second Control Period from FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and Tariff for FY 2016-17.

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

Regulation 12 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, UPCL is required to submit the APR Petition

for determination of its ARR by November 30, 2016. UPCL in compliance to the Regulations



submitted APR Petition for True up for FY 2015-16, Annual Performance Review for FY 2016-17 and

Aggregate Revenue Requirement FY 2017-18 on November 30, 2016.

The APR Petition was provisionally admitted by the Commission vide its Order dated

December 8, 2016. The Commission, through its above Admittance Order dated December 8, 2016,

to provide transparency to the process of tariff determination and give all 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 proposals in the leading

newspapers. The salient points of the proposal were published by the Petitioner in the following

newspapers:

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

1. Amar Ujala 18.02.2017 2. Dainik Jagran 18.02.2017 3. Hindustan 18.02.2017 4. Rashtriya Sahara 18.02.2017 5. Times of India 18.02.2017 6. Hindustan Times 18.02.2017

Through above notice, the stakeholders were requested to submit their

objections/suggestions/comments latest by 28.02.2017 (copy of the notice is enclosed as Annexure

3). The Commission received in all 51 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. Almora February 21, 2017 2. Rudrapur February 22, 2017 3. Dehradun March 02, 2017 4. New Tehri March 03, 2017

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

Committee on March 08, 2017, wherein, detailed deliberations were held with the Members of the

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

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

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

All the issues raised by the stakeholders and Petitioner’s response 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 Petition submitted by UPCL, the Commission vide

its letter no. UERC/6/TF-356/2016-17/2016/1359 dated December 2, 2016 and letter no.

UERC/6/TF-356/2016-17/2016/1416 dated December 15, 2016, pointed out certain data gaps in the

Petition and sought following additional information/clarifications from the Petitioner:

• Audited accounts for FY 2015-16 along with the Statutory Auditor’s and CAG’s

Report.

• Submission of duly filled excel formats along with the break-up of actuals for H1

(April -September) and estimated for H2 (October – March) for FY 2016-17.

• Basis of arriving at the average depreciation rate of 5.22%.

• Capitalization Policy of UPCL.

• Details of Bad Debts written off by it.

• Category-wise revenue billed during FY 2015-16

• Actual sales data for FY 2016-17 till September, 2016.

• Status of works/capital expenditure (both physical and financial) which has been

proposed in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18.

• Actual number of new employees employed, employees promoted and employees

retired in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17.

• Segregated additions of fixed assets into HT and LT works and clearance from the

Electrical Inspector for capitalization of various HT/EHT schemes for FY 2015-16.

• Detailed workings in soft copy (MS Excel) for computing the scheme wise IDC.



• Month wise category wise load shedding data for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16.

• Existing and proposed category wise cross subsidy.

• Actual interest on Consumer Security Deposit paid to consumers/adjusted in

Consumer’s bills in FY 2015-16.

• Basis of considering expected COD for new generating stations.

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 10, 2017, for further deliberations on certain issues related to the Petition filed by UPCL.

Minutes of above Technical Validation Session were sent to the Petitioner vide Commission’s letter

no. UERC/6/TF-356/2016-17/2017/1569 dated January 11, 2017 for its response.

The Petitioner submitted the replies to the data gaps vide its letter dated December 07/08,

2016, December 21, 2016 & December 24, 2016. The submissions made by UPCL in the Petition as

well as additional submissions have been discussed by the Commission at appropriate places in the

Tariff Order along with the Commission’s views on the same.


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

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

FY 2015-16, Annual Performance Review of FY 2016-17 and Determination of Annual Revenue

Requirement for FY 2017-18. 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

suggestions/responses/comments have been clubbed issue-wise and summarized below.

2.1 General

2.1.1 MYT Framework

2.1.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Pawan Agarwal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association and Shri Ram Kumar

of Mussoorie Hotels Association submitted that Multi Year Tariff should be fixed once in three

years rather than determining every year as the consumers are burdened by tariff hike every year.

Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the format summary of UPCL, UJVNL, PTCUL and SLDC do

not match and hence the objective analysis could not be carried out. He suggested that the format

summary should contain:

MU purchased from UJVNL+ MU purchased from outside= Total MU Received

Of this, the MU billed, Average Cost per unit billed, the Revenue Received per unit billed and the Gap thereof

should be calculated.

Gap*MU paid for = Effective Gap

2.1.1.2 Petitioner’s Reply

As regards the periodicity of tariff fixation, the Petitioner submitted that the Commission

vide its Tariff Order dated April 5, 2016 had fixed the base lines for Multi Year Tariff period from

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. However, with a view to estimate the price closer to the actual cost of

supply it is necessary to determine the tariff every year



As regards the format for submission, the Petitioner submitted that a detailed summary of

the Petition was enclosed for the kind perusal of the Commission.

2.1.1.3 Commission’s Views

As per the provisions of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Multi Year

Tariff) Regulations, 2015, the tariff is determined every year based on the latest audited accounts

available.

2.2 Overall Tariff Increase


Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd., Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd., Shri

Achal Sharma of East West Products Ltd., Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd., Shri Girish Joshi,

Shri Pratap Singh Satyal, Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari, Shri R.S. Shahi, Shri P.C. Tiwari, Smt. Rekha

Dhasmana, Shri Indra Sen Yadav, Shri Tushar Agrawal, Shri Vijay Mishra and Shri G.S. Bedi of

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. submitted that an increase proposed by UPCL in categories

like Public Water Works, LT and HT Industry and Mixed load along with the hikes proposed by

UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL is exorbitant and unjustified.

Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the 22% increase in the consumer tariff will have serious

implications for the industrial development, economic development, development of services sector

and employment in the State as the industries would either move out of the State or opt for open

access causing serious financial dent in the revenue of UPCL as they are high revenue pay masters.

Shri Bachchi Ram Kaunswal of Uttarakhand Kisan Sabha submitted that the electricity tariffs

should be fixed as per the tariff prevalent in November 2000. He submitted that any gaps in

revenue should be paid by the Government of Uttarakhand.


As regards increase in Tariff, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff Petition of UPCL,

the Commission had conducted Technical Validation Session and pointed out various deficiencies.

As per direction of the Commission, revised submissions were made by UPCL vide its letter no.

211/UPCL/RM/B-18, dated January 19, 2017. The details of variation due to revision in ARR is

shown as follows:-



Table 2.1: Details of Variation in ARR for FY 2017-18 S.

No. Particulars Rs. Crore

1. Power Purchase Cost 287.28 1.1 Gas based power plant (PLF 70% to 85%) 256.23 1.2 Upcoming Stations not considered in revised submission -65.71 1.3 Escalation on Tariff for CGS (2% to 4%) 33.67 1.4 Additional Procurement of Short Term Purchase 63.09 2. Revision in PGCIL Cost as per revised power purchase 56.46 3. Impact of revision in capitalization 67.96 4. Previous years adjustments 133.37 5. Profit sharing on working capital 17.60 6. Total 562.67 7. Gap as shown in the Petition 186.32 8. Revised Gap 748.99

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 2017-18 has been estimated at Rs. 748.99 Crore for which tariff

hike of 13.48% is required. This average tariff hike has been proposed for all the categories.


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

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

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

out the detailed scrutiny of APR for FY 2016-17, Revised ARR for FY 2017-18 and truing up for FY

2015-16 in accordance with the provisions of relevant Regulations as discussed in the subsequent

Chapters of the Order. Based on the approved ARR for FY 2017-18 including impact of truing up for

FY 2015-16, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue gap

as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order. Further, as mentioned by the Petitioner, it is a

commercial organization and need not be funded by GoU for its operations.

2.3 Domestic Tariff


Shri P.S. Mahra, Shri Trilok Singh, Dr. Ganesh Upadhyay, Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari, Shri

G.L. Verma and some others submitted that the fixed costs, electricity duty and regulatory asset



charges levied on domestic consumers should be waived/ reduced. Other initiatives and measures

to control tariff hike should be considered.

Shri Naveen Chandra Joshi, Shri Puran Chandra, Shri Amar Singh, Shri Shyam Lal Shah and

some others submitted that for residents in the hilly regions of the State, the power consumption is

minimal and as most of them do not have any fixed occupation, a separate electricity schedule

should be made for the hilly regions which should be subsidised. Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari

further submitted that Kedarnath affected people should be provided free electricity.

Brig. K.G. Behl submitted that the domestic users should be charged at the rates at which

electricity is produced in the State and the industries should be charged, accordingly, when more

electricity has to be imported.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Kisan Club submitted that the fixed charges may be increased

instead of increasing the energy charges till 200 units to reduce theft.


The Petitioner submitted that the total cost of UPCL may be segregated into power purchase

cost and other cost. The other cost is about 10% to 15% of the total cost and fixed in nature. This cost

has necessarily to be incurred by UPCL and is not related to the energy consumed, but is related to

the contracted load of the consumers. Thus, this cost needs to be recovered through fixed/demand

charges.

The Petitioner also submitted that the tariff of electricity is determined as per the provisions

of Electricity Act 2003. The Tariff of BPL Consumers has been proposed at about 50% of Average

Cost of Supply. The tariff of Other Domestic Consumers has been proposed at about 73% 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 also 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 January 25, 2016 has fixed

these rates applicable w.e.f. January 1, 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.






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

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

impact of truing up for FY 2015-16, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the

projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order.

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

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

elaborated in Chapter 5 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

consumer with consumption upto 30 units/month as a sub-category with a much lower tariff.

Further, within the 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.

The Commission informs that the issue of Electricity Duty does not fall under the purview of

the Commission.

2.4 Non-Domestic Tariff

2.4.1 Tariff for Residential School/Dharamshalas/Trust/Ashrams


Shri Gunmeet Bindra of Welham Boys’ High School submitted that Welham Boys’ High

School Society is a non-profit institution and is running a fully residential school. The society in



campus houses all the students and teachers. The connections CDK000076 and CDK000075 are

presently billed as per RTS-2 (Non Domestic connection). Since, the prime motive of the institution

is to impart education and it is incidental that the housing is in campus, he requested to grant relief

to the Welham Boys’ School Society by charging Domestic tariff.

Shri Raj Singh of Devbhoomi Dharamshala Prabandhak Sabha submitted that the

Dharamshalas, Trusts or Ashrams are presently charged as Commercial connections. He submitted

that these entities perform only charitable functions and the power purchased should be billed as

per Domestic tariff. He also requested that the fuel charge, cess and fixed charges should not be

levied.


The Petitioner also submitted there are two sub categories in the Rate Schedule RTS-2: (Non-

Domestic). First sub category has lower Tariff as compared to the second sub category. In first sub

category Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions and Charitable Institutions

registered under the Income Tax Act whose income is exempted from tax are covered.

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

Schools/Dharamshalas/ Trusts/ Ashrams fall under the category of RTS-2 (Non-domestic). The

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

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

residential multi-storied buildings where energy is exclusively used for such purpose. Non-

domestic category is a subsidizing category whereas the domestic category is a subsidized category.

As per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and National Tariff Policy, the cross subsidy should be

reduced. In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, consumers covered under subsidizing

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

Schools/Dharamshalas/ Trusts/ Ashrams are rightly categorized under Rate Schedule RTS-2 (Non-

domestic).

The Petitioner also submitted that the total cost of UPCL may be segregated into power

purchase cost and other cost. The other cost is about 10% to 15% of total cost and are fixed in nature.

This cost has necessarily to be incurred by UPCL and is not related to the energy consumed, but is

related to the contracted load of the consumers. Thus, this cost needs to be recovered through

fixed/demand charges. 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 2017-18 has been estimated at Rs. 748.99 Crore for which tariff hike of

13.48% is required. This average tariff hike has been proposed for all the categories.


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

categorization of consumers, Residential Schools/Dharamshalas/ Trusts/ Ashrams fall under the

category of RTS-2 (Non-domestic). The domestic category applies only on the residential premises

for light, fan and power and other domestic purposes including single point bulk supply above 50

kW for residential colonies, residential multi-storied buildings where energy is exclusively used for

domestic purpose. Hence, it will not be appropriate to categorise Residential

Schools/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 5 of the Order. Further, the issue of Duty and Cess do not fall under the purview of the

Commission.

2.4.2 Tariff Hike


Shri Ram Kumar of Mussoorie Hotels Association submitted that the proposed tariff

increase in RTS-2 category for consumers having contracted demand above 25 kW from Rs.

5.00/kVAh to Rs. 5.70/kVAh is exorbitant. He also submitted that the inefficiency of UPCL is

passed on to the honest customers. He further added that the charges (fixed and energy), electricity

duty and green cess brings the gross cost up to Rs. 6.00/kWh and further increase of the charges

would increase this landed cost to Rs. 7.00/kWh.

Shri (Col) SPS Rawat of Lansdowne Hotel Association and Shri Deepak Gupta of Hotels and

Restaurants Association of Uttaranchal submitted that due to the floods of 2013 and

demonetization, the tourism industry has been hit badly. They submitted that the proposed tariff

hike shall adversely affect the tourism of the State and requested the Commission not to approve

the tariff hike in RTS-2 (Non- Domestic) Tariff.



Shri (Col) SPS Rawat of Lansdowne Hotel Association also submitted that the CM had

earlier announced the exemption of electricity and water bills for hotels, but after three years, the

bills have been handed over for this period.






As regards the issue of passing on the inefficiency, the Petitioner submitted that it is true

that the Commission has fixed the Distribution Losses at 14.75% for FY 2017-18 but these losses

have not been fixed keeping in view the existing level of Distribution Losses of the Company. The

actual Distribution Losses for FY 2015-16 are 18.39%, hence, it is practically not possible to achieve

the loss level of 14.75% in FY 2017-18 and, therefore, UPCL has proposed a realistic level of

Distribution Losses at 16.39% for FY 2017-18 considering 1% reduction in losses in each year.

As regards waiver of electricity bills to hotels, the Petitioner submitted that as per direction

received from the Government of Uttarakhand vide its above letter dated May 25, 2014, UPCL vide

its O. M. No. 1261/UPCL/N.P/No.30] dated June 7, 2014 ordered that the Electricity Bills of the

Commercial establishments (Hotel, Restaurant, Lodge, Dhaba, Sarai and Dharamshala) of the above

mentioned areas for the period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017 shall be waived off by the

concerned Executive Engineer (Distribution) of UPCL on the recommendation of the concerned

District Magistrate. The electricity bills for the above period have been waived off.


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

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

for FY 2017-18 including impact of truing up for FY 2015-16, the Commission has marginally

increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the

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

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

elaborated in Chapter 5 of the Order. UPCL is directed to submit the details of the category-wise

energy consumed & amount thereon of those areas where bills have been waived off & also the



details if any subsidy in this regard has been received from GoU, within one month of the date

of the Order.

Further, the Commission is of the view that the impact of demonetization is temporary and

the economy shall recover from it completely.

2.5 Agricultural Tariff


Shri Teeka Singh Saini, Shri Kuldeep Singh, Shri Jagdish Singh and some Respondents

submitted that the tariff hike proposed by UPCL is very high and it shall affect the livelihood of

farmers and other poor population of the state. They requested the Commission not to allow the

hike in tariffs. They also submitted that the losses incurred by UPCL should not be passed on to the

general population.

Shri R.P. Singh of Tarai Foods Ltd. submitted that mushroom growing is included in RTS-

4A; “Agriculture and Allied” rate schedule. He also submitted that it is yet to be implemented for

the present tariff inspite of several representations to concerned authorities. He requested the

Commission to allow them to be billed under RTS-4A.

Some stakeholders requested the Commission to abolish minimum charges for agricultural

consumers.






UPCL further, submitted that the tariff of PTW Category has been proposed at only 36% of

average cost of supply.

As regards tariff for mushroom cultivation, the Petitioner submitted that as per the

provisions of Tariff Order for FY 2016-17, the Rate Schedule RTS – 4A is applicable to supply of

power for use in nurseries growing plants/saplings, poly-houses growing flowers/vegetables and

fruits which doesn’t involve any kind of processing of product except for storing and preservation.




As discussed earlier, based on APR for FY 2016-17 and Revised ARR for FY 2017-18

including impact of truing up for FY 2015-16, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to

meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order. Further, continuing

with the approach adopted in previous years, the Commission has attempted to reduce the cross-

subsidy while designing the tariffs for various categories as elaborated in Chapter 5 of the Order.

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 process and hence, the tariff

applicable for mushroom cultivation should not be covered under commercial tariff and the tariff

for Agriculture Allied Activities should be applicable. Further, the Commission in Rate schedule

has specifically included “mushroom cultivation” in RTS 4A Category.

2.6 Mixed Load Tariff


Shri G.S. Bedi of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. requested that the tariff 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 have no commercial activity

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

Shri Bedi also pointed out that domestic consumers having contracted load up to 2 kW and

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 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 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 replies of 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.

2.7 Tariff for Drinking Water Pumping Schemes


Dr. Umakant Panwar, Principal Secretary (Energy), Govt. Of Uttarakhand and Shri Vijay

Singh Verma of Kisan Club submitted that the Drinking Water Pumping Schemes, used to supply

drinking water to the domestic consumers are billed under the RTS-6 category applicable for Public

Water Works. Since, this is an essential service and is used for pumping drinking water for

domestic consumption; RTS-1 tariff for Domestic consumption may be applied for the same.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission may take a view in the matter considering the

total ARR of UPCL and in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.


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 electrically

operated water pumps by Public Water Works and other rural groups by no means qualifies under

consumption for residential purposes or places of worship. Hence, the Commission does not find

any appropriate reason to accept the suggestion of stakeholder.



2.8 Industrial Tariff

2.8.1 Tariff Hike


Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia of Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. submitted that

the fixed charges should not be increased as it is already higher when compared to the

neighbouring States. He also submitted that the proposed hike of 16% is much higher as compared

to the tariff hikes of the previous three years. He also submitted that duty and green energy cess

makes the power too costly.

Shri Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. and Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia of

Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. requested that the tariffs should be reduced as the solar

tariff has decreased over the past 4-5 years. They also submitted that the electricity duty and green

energy cess make the power too costly.

Shri Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. submitted that demand charges should

not be increased further as it is already high.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that it is not viable to run industry

due to high cost of doing business and any tariff hike would put the industry into further

hardships. He also submitted that the inefficiencies of UPCL should not be passed on as tariff hikes

to the consumers.

Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd. submitted that the recent tariff hikes have affected

the operation of the textile sector and requested the Commission to ease their tariff burden by

charging them Rs. 1.00/ unit less than the tariff rate and exempt them from electricity duty for the

next 7 years as per Order No. 791/VII-1/40-SIDCUL/2014 Dehradun dated December 11, 2014.

Shri Pawan Agarwal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association and Shri V.K.

Aggarwal of Balaji Action Buildwell submitted that the green energy cess levied at Rs. 0.10/unit is

an additional burden to electricity duty and should be removed.






tariffs. Justification has been provided in the Petition in respect of each claim of expenditure by

UPCL. Further, additional information have also been provided/is being provided to the

Commission as per their direction.

The Petitioner further submitted that the revenue deficit for FY 2017-18 has been estimated

at Rs. 748.99 Crore for which tariff hike of 13.48% is required. This average tariff hike has been

proposed for all the categories.

As regards levy of cross-subsidy, the Petitioner submitted that it has maintained the same

level of cross subsidy as was approved by the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 in its

Petition.

As regards levy of fixed charges, the Petitioner submitted that the total cost of UPCL may be

segregated into power purchase cost and other cost. The other cost is about 10% to 15% of total cost

and is fixed in nature. This cost has necessarily to be incurred by UPCL and is not related to the

energy consumed, but is related to the contracted load of the consumers. Thus, this cost needs to be

recovered through fixed/demand charges.

As regards levy of electricity duty and green cess, the Petitioner submitted that

a) As per Section 4 of the Uttarakhand Green Energy Cess Act, 2014, Government of

Uttarakhand has levied the cess w.e.f. July 1, 2015 at 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.

b) 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 January 25, 2016 has fixed these

rates applicable w.e.f. January 1, 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.




As discussed earlier, based on APR for FY 2016-17 and Revised ARR for FY 2017-18

including impact of truing up for FY 2015-16, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to

meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order. Further, continuing

with the approach adopted in previous years, the Commission has attempted to reduce the cross-

subsidy while designing the tariffs for various categories as elaborated in Chapter 5 of the Order.

Further, the issues of Green Cess and Electricity Duty do not fall under the purview of the

Commission.

2.8.2 Time of Day Tariff


Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted as follows

a) Morning peak hours of 06:00 to 09:30 hrs in winter season should be discontinued as

most of the industries start production from 22.00 to 07.00 every day. Hence, it should be

from 07:00-09:30 hours.

b) In the existing tariff, peak-hour charge is more than sufficient for all types of load factors.

He suggested that it should remain same for the next financial year 2017-18.

c) In winter season, load during off–peak hours, i.e. 22:00-07:00 hrs remains much lesser in

comparison with the day time and, hence, existing rebate at 10% on nominal energy

charge during off-peak hours should be increased to 25% for encouraging utilization of

maximum load during off-peak hours. He, further suggested that the difference between

normal hour’s rate per unit and off-peak hour’s rate per unit should be maintained at

10% accurately.

Shri Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. submitted that the time of day tariff

should change. He suggested that in winter, Morning Peak- 06:00 to 09:00 hrs, Normal Hours- 09:00

to 18:00 hrs, Evening Peak- 18:00 to 22:00 hrs and Off Peak Hours- 22:00 to 06:00 hrs should be

adopted. In summer, Normal Hours- 06:00 to 18:00 hrs, Evening Peak- 18:00 to 22:00 hrs and Off

Peak Hours- 22:00 to 06:00 hrs should be adopted.



Shri G.S. Bedi of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. submitted that morning peak hours

beyond 08:00 hrs is to be reduced as it is not leaving space for eight hours general shift working at

normal rates in the industry.

Shri Pawan Agarwal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association submitted that the

overall peak hours per day is five in case of summer and eight in case of winter. He submitted that

all other States have peak hours of only 4 hours per day charged at 20% higher than the normal

tariff, while UPCL charges 50% higher during peak hours. This has led to purchase of economic

power through open access by 75% of Steel Industries during morning peak hours and the power of

UPCL is sold in UI market at lower prices.


The Petitioner 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 hrs to 09:30 hrs. Morning peak hours have been imposed 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 hrs to 09:30 hrs is negligible. Therefore, morning peak hours in

winter are required to be continued.

The Petitioner also 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, 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 make 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 presently, the peak hours have been fixed keeping in

view the trend of increased demand during the period.




The Commission has analysed the actual daily hourly load curves in the State of

Uttarakhand and has found that apparent morning peak demand exist in the State during winter

months. The Commission feels the need for DSM and having ToD tariff as a measure for ensuring

curtailment of morning as well as evening peaks. 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.

2.8.3 Rostering and Load Shedding


Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Kisan

Club submitted that in Uttarakhand there is the problem of un-schedule power rostering, resulting

in huge hidden losses which need special attention.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal of Shree Karuna Kalyan Samithi submitted that the consumers

are facing a lot of losses as the day-to-day activities are affected due to the unavailability of power

throughout the day. He requested the Commission to ensure that continuous power is available for

everyone.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL during FY 2015-16 met more than 98% of its demand of

electricity. Less than 2% unmet demand was due to gap of demand and availability of energy/

transmission network/distribution network. The Petitioner also submitted that UPCL has also

prepared its power cut policy which provides the conditions for power rostering in Uttarakhand.


In this regard, the Commission in its MYT Order dated May 6, 2013 observed that any

outage which is continuously been imposed 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 are charged only 80% of the applicable demand charges as per rate schedule.

2.8.4 Load Factor based Tariff


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that in

Uttarakhand, HT industries are consumer of more than 53% of electricity. Most of the prominent

industrial active states have defined tariff slab load wise, the cost of service to HT consumer

connected at high voltage is much less than the average cost of supply, since the distribution losses

are very much less in comparison to low voltage consumers. He proposed that tariff rates should be

reversed with lower tariffs for consumption above 40% load factor to promote energy consumption

by HT industries who are the maximum contributor of revenue to UPCL.

Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce & Industry and Shri LS

Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd. submitted that the existing load factor based tariff, applicable for

industries is not rational and deprives the consumer from using power upto his contracted demand

at the basic energy rate. The existing load factor based tariff penalizes the industry with incremental

consumption within its contracted demand by way of high energy rates on whole of the

consumption for load factor below 40% and further higher energy rates for load factor above 40%.

Such approach completely ignores the interest of the consumers.

They also submitted that the basic calculation for load factor has to be corrected as it takes

the billed maximum demand instead of contracted demand. This anomaly can be rectified by

revising the formula for calculation of load factor as follows:

Load factor= Consumption during billing period x 100

Billable demand or contracted demand if billable demand is higher than

Contracted demand X No. of hrs. in billing period.

Shri Nikhil Tyagi of BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that load factor based tariff should

be abolished.

Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. and Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that

the Central Government has recommended lower tariffs for heavy users to encourage electricity



consumption as the country is moving from power deficit to power surplus situation, while load

factor based tariff was designed for power shortage scenario. They requested the Commission to

change this framework.

Shri Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. submitted that the first slab of load factor

should increase upto 50% in place of the current 40%.

Shri Pawan Agarwal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association submitted that the

load factor based tariff should be levied till 40% at the lower rate and the costlier tariff should be

levied only for the units consumed at load factor greater than 40%. He also submitted that the 40%

should be increased to 70% to encourage more power consumption by the industrial consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that as per Section 62(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, tariff may be

differentiated on the basis of consumers load factor.

The Petitioner submitted that higher energy charges are levied for higher consumption due

to the fact that procurement of additional firm power (marginal power) has higher cost. At higher

load factor, demand charges per unit is reduced which is the incentive to the consumer for having

higher load factor and average tariff per unit for the consumers having load factor upto 40% and

above 40% is maintained at the same level. In case telescopic energy charges are imposed, the rate

of higher load factor shall increase, accordingly, with a view to have a uniform average effective

tariff at both the levels of load factors.

The Petitioner also 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.


This issue has been dealt in detail by the Commission in the in-house paper issued during

the previous tariff proceedings. Thus, to have cost reflective tariffs, the energy charges should

increase with load factor. Further, the Commission has deliberated on this issue in detail in Chapter

5 of the Order.



2.9 Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG)


Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Shri Rajiv

Agrawal, M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand and Shri LS Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd.

submitted that the Commission had abolished MCG in the Tariff Order for FY 2005-06. In the Tariff

Order dated March 18, 2008, the Commission had again introduced monthly minimum

consumption charge over and above the fixed charges/demand charges for the industrial

consumers. This clearly indicates that the industrial consumers are being burdened with an

additional charge to compensate the inefficiency of UPCL in ensuring proper meter reading and

billing of its consumers. They requested that the Commission has to safeguard the interest of the

consumers and not pass on the inefficiencies of the distribution utility to the consumers. They

submitted that the Commission has been increasing fixed charge/demand charge also almost in its

every tariff order and additionally continuing with the provision of minimum consumption

guarantee in the tariff to the industries on the plea of recovery of fixed cost of the licensee which

burdens the consumers and is not justified.

They also submitted that 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. By allowing the MCG, the Commission provided an avenue to the utility to continue with

its lacklustre functioning rather than ensuring that the utility improves its internal practices and

commercial functioning.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of 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. They

requested that the MCG be removed in the current Tariff fixation.




The Petitioner submitted that the total cost of UPCL may be segregated into power purchase

cost and other cost. The other cost is about 10% to 15% of total cost and fixed in nature. This cost

should be recovered through fixed/demand charges.

About 40% of total Power Purchase Cost of UPCL is also fixed cost and is borne by UPCL

whether or not it draws power from the respective generating station. UPCL has made its

arrangement to supply sufficient power to the consumers but in case the consumer does not

consume power even at very low load factor, UPCL is required not to draw some power having

fixed cost. This fixed cost needs to be recovered from the consumers through Minimum

Consumption Guarantee Charges.

Minimum Consumption Guarantee has been proposed at very low level of consumption, i.e.

at 6.85% load factor for non-domestic category and LT industry category and at 13.70% for HT

industry category. In case during certain months, actual consumption is less than MCG, MCG is

charged in those months. Any excess of billed consumption over actual consumption or minimum

consumption, whichever is higher is adjusted at the end of the financial year.

As regards receipt of revenue on account of MCG, the Petitioner submitted that in its

Petition, while computing the revenue for FY 2017-18, UPCL has also considered revenue from

MCG as follows:-

RTS – 2 : Rs. 9.40 Crore

RTS – 4 : Rs. 5.52 Crore

LT Industry : Rs. 9.29 Crore

HT Industry : Rs. 35.10 Crore

The details are available in the UPCL’s submission made vide letter no. 4143/UPCL/RM/B-

18, dated December 8, 2016 at page no. 231.


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.

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 along with 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%.

2.10 Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS)


Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the DPS at present is

levied at 1.25% p.m. on the amount of electricity bill unpaid even if the payment is made 1 day after

the due date which appears quite unreasonable. It was suggested that the same should be charged

on pro-rata basis at 0.75% if the payment is made within 15 days after the due date and at 1% if the

payment is made after 15 days from the due date. He submitted that the interest on delayed

payment is paid on the basis of number of delayed days for other tax authorities. He requested the

Commission to adopt similar policy for UPCL also.


The Petitioner submitted that 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. As per the provisions of Income Tax Act, interest for the full month

is paid in case of delay in payment of tax even for a single day. In this connection, Rule 119 A (b) of

the Income Tax Act is as follows:-



“where the interest is to be calculated for every month or part of a month comprised in a period, any

fraction of a month shall be deemed to be a full month and the interest shall be so calculated”

The Petitioner also submitted that Delayed Payment Surcharge in Uttarakhand is lower than

that charged by other utilities in other States. In the Table below DPS charged by different States are

given:

Table 2.2: Details of DPS in various States State Delayed Payment Surcharge

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 1.25% upto first three months and subsequently 2% of per month on unpaid amount

Delhi 1.5% per month on unpaid amount Himachal Pradesh 2% per month on unpaid amount Uttarakhand 1.25% 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.

2.11 Rebate and Incentives


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that since

many HT consumers are required to pay their monthly bill in advance every month, an incentive of

1% per month on the amount which remains with the licensee at the end of calendar month

(excluding security deposit) may be credited to the account of the consumer after adjusting any

amount payable to the licensee. He also requested that an incentive for prompt payment at 0.25% of

bill amount (excluding arrears, security deposit, meter rent and Government levies, viz. Electricity

Duty and Cess) may be given in case the payment is made at least 7 days in advance of the due date

of payment where the current month billing amount is equal to or greater than Rs. One Lakh.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Nikhil Tyagi of

BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that it is more relevant that losses at higher voltages are less,

however, the rebates offered for availing supply at higher voltages that the base voltage is not



commensurate with the benefit the licensees derives for supply at higher voltages in terms of

reduction in distribution losses. Accordingly, they have proposed to either determine the cost to

severe to various consumer categories or increase the voltage rebate from 2.5% to 5% for supply at

33 kV and from 7.5% to 12% for supply at 132 kV.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. also submitted that most

SERCs provide incentives on higher load factor to HT consumers. If the consumer draws maximum

power in the same contract demand, licensee’s average power purchase cost and consumer’s

average tariff will automatically get reduced and, therefore, the gain on account of reduction on

average power purchase cost can be passed on 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. He, therefore, proposed a rebate of 5% on normal

energy charge for monthly load factor between 65-70% and rebate of 10% on normal energy charge

for monthly load factor of 70% and above.

Shri R.S.Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that the present High Voltage Rebate for 132

kV should be increased from 7.5% to 10% as the line losses in these categories are not more than 2%

when compared to the average losses of 14.75%. In addition, he also claimed that high voltage

rebate should also be given on power purchase through open access. He suggested that

alternatively, Open Access consumers at high voltage should be charged only transmission loss in

place of average distribution loss.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the HT Tariff

Rebates does not reflect the Cost of Supply. He commented that the landed cost of supply is

calculated based on the average distribution loss in the State while the losses are much lower in HT

connection and should reflect the cost of supply for industrial consumers or the rebate should be

increased.

Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that independent feeders

give huge benefit to the distribution licensee on account of distribution losses as losses come out

less than 1% in comparison with the average losses of 15-16% in case of H.T Industries which are

not connected with an Independent feeder. Hence, a uniform rebate of 10% on Rate of charges

should be given to Industries connected with Independent feeder at 33 kV/132 kV/220 kV supply.

The rebate on “rate of charge” for very high voltage consumers for the last 5 years was only allowed



as rebate on energy charges not on demand charges. Consumers should be benefitted by a rebate on

demand charges along with energy charges.

Shri LS Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd. and Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce & Industry submitted that tariff to the consumers is fixed at average billing

rate which consists of demand and energy charges while, rebate is being allowed presently for

energy charges only. A few years back, the Commission had been allowing HV rebates in the tariff

on rate of charge, i.e. demand and energy charge. They requested to consider the mechanism for

allowing HV rebate on rate of charge, i.e. on demand and energy charges in the Tariff Order.

Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. submitted that the voltage supply rebate for 220 kV

consumers should be differentiated from 132 kV consumers as they have negligible transmission

/distribution losses and a rebate of 12.5% should be granted for such consumers.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia of Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. and Shri

Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. submitted that the voltage rebate should increase to

5% for 33 kV and 10% for 132 kV and above. They also submitted that voltage rebate should also be

given on power purchase through open access.

Shri G.S. Bedi of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals 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.


The Petitioner submitted that presently, no consumer is required to make advance payment

of his electricity dues. The Petitioner also submitted that the rebate for prompt payment may be

considered by the Commission at the rate of 0.19% of bill amount (10% annual rate/365 days x 7

days).

The Petitioner further 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 as per Regulation 91 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The



Petitioner apprised the Commission that UPCL is in the process of calculating the voltage wise cost

of supply as per the direction of the Commission.

UPCL submitted that in the absence of availability of voltage wise losses, which is mix of

Technical Losses and Commercial Losses, the Distribution Losses are required to be charged on

average basis from all the categories of consumers.

In response to the comment on rebate on Open Access, the Petitioner submitted that High

Voltage Rebate is admissible on the Energy Charges. As no energy charges is payable on the Open

Access Energy, the question does not arise for allowing rebate on Open Access Energy.

The Petitioner also 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% to 2.5% and from 5% to 7.5% for

taking supply at 33 kV and 132 kV and above respectively. Thus, presently there is no justification

for increasing the existing level of High Voltage Rebates.

The Petitioner submitted that there is no relation of Distribution Losses with Contracted

Load and Demand Charges and, therefore, voltage rebate should not be admissible on demand

charges.

As regards rebate on RTS-8 category, 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 and 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.

As regards the voltage rebate for open access, the Commission agrees with the Petitioner’s

views that as no energy charges are payable by open access consumers to UPCL and hence, the

issue of rebate is not applicable.

As regards load factor based tariff for HT industry consumers, the Commission has dealt

with this issue in detail in Chapter-5 of the Order.

2.12 Energy Sale Forecast


Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce & Industry and Shri Achal

Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of

4.43% over the past 5 years from FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16 had been considered by UPCL and it had

been assumed that energy consumption in future would continue to grow based on the past trends

of consumption. The CAGR of past 5 years may not be a good approach for energy sales during FY

2017-18 due to recent demonetization and consequent recession in the market.

They also submitted that UPCL has adopted the similar method for projection of category-

wise connected load and no. of consumers for the energy sales, i.e. adjusted trend analysis method.

The assumed growth rate in load of HT industries as 5.83%, LT as 13.09% and for non-domestic as

9.47% for FY 2017-18 cannot be achieved due to recent demonetisation factor. They requested the

Commission to consider this aspect also while doing its exercise.




The Petitioner submitted that impact of demonetization is for short term and will not affect

the economy in future. In this connection, the Petitioner submitted that the extract of Economic

Survey 2016-17 which is reproduced hereunder:

“We expect real GDP growth to be in the 63/4 to 71/2 percent range in FY 2018. Even under this

forecast, India would remain the fastest growing major economy in the world.”


The Commission has duly scrutinised and analysed the sales projected by the Petitioner 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 previous MYT Order. The Commission is of the view that for planning purposes, the sales

projections should be based on unrestricted sales and, accordingly, the Commission had projected

the unrestricted sales. Further, the Commission is of the view that the impact of demonetization is

temporary and the economy shall recover from it completely.

2.13 Cost of Supply and Cross Subsidy


Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the industrial

consumers are inherently cross-subsidising some other categories which is against the provisions of

the Electricity Act, 2003 and UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.


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, which is as per Regulation 91 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.


The issue of level of cross-subsidy across various categories of consumers and increase in

tariffs has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 5 of the Order and is in accordance with

the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Tariff Policy notified thereunder.



2.14 Continuous Supply


Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that the 15% surcharge for continuous

supply is very high and should be reduced to 5% as adequate power is available now in the State.

He also submitted that no other State charges any additional amount for continuous supply except

Punjab where charges are 10 paise per unit. He also submitted that the Licensee (UPCL) should not

be allowed to charge any continuous supply charges for the power purchased through open access

and other bilateral contracts.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Shri V.K. Aggarwal

of Balaji Action Buildwell submitted that the industries availing continuous power supply are

beneficial for the licensee as the utility may enter into a long-term PPA with a power producer. This

leads to better power purchase planning and reduction in cost of power purchased for such

consumers. Charging premium for continuous power is unjustifiable on account of poor power

purchase planning by the utility and requested to completely remove or reduce the continuous

supply charge from the existing level of 15% to 5%.

Shri Puneet Jain of Air Liquide India and Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia of Hindustan

National Glass & Industries Ltd. submitted that the continuous supply charge should be reduced to

8-10%.

Shri LS Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd. submitted that the industries opting for continuous

supply have to pay 15% extra energy charges for the whole year. He requested the Hon’ble

Commission to fix standards for continuous supply based on number of interruptions in a month

and devise a compensation mechanism for the consumers for power loss opting for continuous

supply.

Shri Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. submitted that continuous supply

surcharge should be eliminated or should be exempted during load shedding.


The Petitioner submitted that Para-8.2.1 (1) of Tariff Policy provides that the consumers

willing to avail continuous and quality power supply are required to pay a tariff which reflects

efficient costs. This is an additional charge (premium) payable by the consumer to have the facility



of getting continuous supply of power. 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 situation

arises. For the purpose of ensuring continuous supply, UPCL is required to incur extra

infrastructure cost as well as arrangement of energy availability at higher cost which cannot be kept

below 15% of energy charges and this cost is required to be recovered from the consumers having

the facility of getting continuous supply.

The Petitioner further submitted that for the purpose of ensuring continuous supply, UPCL

is required to incur extra infrastructure cost as well as arrangement of energy availability at higher

cost. Even in case the consumer purchase power through Open Access, UPCL is required to incur

this cost and, therefore, recovery of the same is also required on the Open Access Energy consumed.


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. 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.

The Commission agrees with the stakeholder comments that UPCL should not charge

continuous supply surcharge on power purchase through open access under collective or bilateral

transactions. Accordingly, the Commission has included the aforesaid provision in the Rate

Schedule to exempt the application of continuous supply surcharge on the power purchased by the

consumers through open access under collective/bilateral transaction and not from UPCL.



2.15 Components on ARR and Revenue

2.15.1 Prudence Check of Revised ARR


Shri Amit Joshi submitted that for FY- 2017-18, the revised ARR submission seeks a gap of

Rs. (748) Crore in comparison to the earlier gap of Rs. 168 Crore. He requested the Commission to

perform prudence check of the revised ARR submission as the difference is very high.

Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that UPCL has proposed a

gross expenditure of Rs. 6150 Crore but the actual expenses for the year 2015-16 is Rs. 5908 Crore,

hence, UPCL has demanded Rs. 242 Crore extra in comparison to the actual expenses in 2015-16. He

suggested that there is no need to approve extra expenses/ tariff hike.


As regards increase in ARR, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff Petition of UPCL, the

Commission held a Technical Validation Session and pointed out various deficiencies. As per

direction of Commission, revised submission was made by UPCL vide its letter no.

211/UPCL/RM/B-18, dated January 19, 2017. The details of variation due to revision in ARR may

be shown as follows:

Table 2.3: Details of Variation in ARR for FY 2017-18 S.

No. Particulars Rs. Crore

1. Power Purchase Cost 287.28 1.1 Gas based power plant (PLF 70% to 85%) 256.23 1.2 Upcoming Stations not considered in revised submission -65.71 1.3 Escalation on Tariff for CGS (2% to 4%) 33.67 1.4 Additional Procurement of Short Term Purchase 63.09 2. Revision in PGCIL Cost as per revised power purchase 56.46 3. Impact of revision in capitalization 67.96 4. Previous years adjustments 133.37 5. Profit sharing on working capital 17.60 6. Total 562.67 7. Gap as shown in the Petition 186.32 8. Revised Gap 748.99




The Commission is of the view that the overall gap 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 APR for FY 2016-17, Revised ARR for FY 2017-18 and truing up for FY 2015-16

in accordance with the provisions of relevant Regulations as discussed in the subsequent Chapters

of the Order. Based on the actual ARR for FY 2017-18 including impact of truing up for FY 2015-16,

the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue gap as discussed

in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order.

2.15.2 Power Purchase Cost



Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that the objections are sometimes on purchase of

power from external sources through mutual discussions and trading and there have been instances

of allegations in the past on UPCL for purchase of power from outside at higher rates with mutual

discussion.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. submitted that CERC in Tariff

Regulations 2014 changed the methodology for determining the energy charges with GCV of coal to

be considered “as receipt basis” instead of “as fired basis” CERC in its Order dated January 25, 2016

in Petition No. 283/GT/2014 decided this issue. He submitted on account of this Order, the variable

cost is likely to reduce by at least 25-30%. He further submitted that based on anticipated 20%

savings in variable cost, there will be a saving of Rs. 363.16 Crore for three year period. Thus, the

power purchase expenses have to be re-determined accordingly.

Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that UPCL has projected

power purchase from many generating stations of Central Sector at Rs. 5/kWh to Rs. 12/kWh,

which is very high. UPCL should search alternate sources of power supply at cheaper price.

Shri Amit Joshi submitted that there is a sudden increase of approximately Rs. 300 Crore in

the revised power purchase cost on account of water tax. As per Uttarakhand Water Tax on

Electricity Generation Act, 2012, water tax is applicable from the date of notification of the above



Act and is allowed to be passed through in tariff of generating station. He requested the

Commission to kindly verify the earlier submission regarding inclusion of water tax.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that long term contracts/

agreements should be finalized with corporations such as NTPC, NHPC, THDC, UJVNL and

SJVNL to control the power purchase cost with the rise in power demand within the State.

Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the increase in power purchase cost in 2017-18 needs clarity

and the break-up of cost from own GENCOs vis-a-vis power purchased from outside and the

increase on account of quantity and price per unit (assumed) needs to be examined.

Shri Pawan Agarwal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association submitted that inspite

of thermal power generation from Central Generating Stations becoming cheaper, the reduction in

power purchase cost is not reflected in the power tariffs. He also submitted that UPCL buys costly

power from gas based power plant in the Kumaon region and compensates it with levies such as

cess at Rs. 0.40/unit.


The Petitioner submitted that all purchases of power are made through a transparent

process as specified in the Act and teh Regulations and all power purchase agreements are

approved by the Commission by an Order.

The Petitioner further submitted that the overall rate of power of NTPC for FY 2015-16 was

Rs. 3.19/unit whereas the rate of power in FY 2016-17 (upto December) is Rs. 3.38/unit. The

Petitioner submitted that there is no reduction in the power purchase rate of NTPC.

The Petitioner also submitted that it is very important for a distribution utility to have a

right mix of short and long term power. 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 always remains 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 of power are the best option. 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 for the purpose of energy security.



The Petitioner further submitted that while taking assumptions for projecting the power

purchase cost from new stations, UPCL has tried to be as realistic as possible. The rate considered is

based on the industry trends observed in the past few years.

As regards increase in Power Purchase Charges, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff

Petition of UPCL, the Commission during the Technical Validation Session pointed out various

deficiencies. As per direction of the Commission, revised submission was made by UPCL vide its

letter no. 211/UPCL/RM/B-18, dated January 19, 2017. The details of variation due to revision in

ARR are submitted to the Commission.

The Petitioner further submitted that all information with respect to power purchase cost for

FY 2015-16 as specified in the Regulations and as desired by the Commission during this tariff

determination exercise has been/is being provided to the Commission for examination at their

level.

As regards comment on costly power from gas based plants, the Petitioner submitted that it

executed power purchase agreement for 428 MW Gas based generating stations situated in the State

with a view to provide quality and uninterrupted power supply to the consumers of the State. The

tariff of these generating stations is Rs. 4.70 per unit. The power of these generating stations is

available round the year and no PGCIL charges and losses are payable on this energy. Therefore,

the cost of this power is not more than the power as procured from outside the State. Further, UPCL

has also executed a power purchase agreement for 70 MW hydro generating station situated in

Himachal.


The issues related to power purchase quantum and costs have been deliberated by the

Commission in Chapter 3 and 4 of the Order.

2.15.3 PGCIL Charges


Shri Amit Joshi submitted that the PGCIL charges claimed by UPCL have increased in the

revised submission of ARR proposal. He requested that reason for this increase in charges needs to

be clarified.



Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the PGCIL charges have to be minutely examined based on the

number of units wheeled over the distance and PoC as the increase from Rs. 226 Crore to Rs. 741

Crore in two years is atrocious.


As regards increase in PGCIL Charges, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff Petition of

UPCL, the Commission held a Technical Validation Session and pointed out various deficiencies. As

per directions of the Commission, revised submissions were made by UPCL vide its letter no.

211/UPCL/RM/B-18, dated January 19, 2017. The details of variation due to revision in ARR have

been submitted to the Commission.

As regards detailed analysis of PGCIL charges, the Petitioner submitted that PGCIL charges

have been calculated in the following manner. During the first six months of FY 2016-17, the

Petitioner had received bills of Rs. 350.28 Crore (against 3581.28 MU on PGCIL network) on account

of revised POC Charges starting from May 2015 as per various CERC amendments notified during

January to July 2015.

Subsequently, for estimating PGCIL transmission charges for FY 2016-17, the Petitioner has

assumed the same amount for remaining six months. The per MU PGCIL Charge for FY 2016-17

has been calculated using the estimated charges and energy coming from outside Uttarakhand

during FY 2017-18. The per MU rate thus calculated is escalated by 2% 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 details of PGCIL charges for FY 2017-18 is as follows:

Table 2.4: Details of PGCIL Charges for FY 2017-18 S. No. Particulars MU Rs/unit Rs. Crore

1. Power imported through PGCIL network 6411.70 1.00 639.66

2. Additional Procurement of Short term purchase 173.33 1.00 17.29

3. Banking of power 851.48 1.00 84.95 Total 6585.02 741.89


The issue of PGCIL charges has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 of the

Order.



2.15.4 Return on Equity


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that the evaluation criteria to

compute calculation of Return on Equity has to be explained as the difference in the values of FY

2016-17 and FY 2017-18 is coming around Rs. 10 Crore.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of 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.

Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the sudden increase in Return of Equity needs to be examined

with respect to the Capital Expenses and the Capital Employed.


As regards increase in Return on Equity claimed, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff

Petition of UPCL, the Commission held a Technical Validation Session and pointed out various

deficiencies. As per directions of the Commission, revised submissions were made by UPCL vide its


ARR have been submitted to the Commission.

The Petitioner also submitted that the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2016-17

approved Return on Equity at 16.50% on the opening equity of Rs. 285.58 Crore. The Commission

computed the value of equity for each year equivalent to 30% of (capitalization as reduced by grant

and loans). Remaining 70% of capitalization has been considered as normative loan. Accordingly,

Return on Equity allowed for FY 2016-17 is Rs. 47.12 Crore.

As regards comment on RoE on assets created out of grants, the Petitioner submitted that it

has computed return on equity at 16% on the opening equity of Rs. 535.27 Crore for FY 2015-16.

Year wise addition to 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.

Detailed computation of return on equity is given in the Petition.




The issue of Return on Equity has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 3 and 4 of

the Order.

2.15.5 Operation & Maintenance Expenses


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that the Repair and Maintenance

Cost is escalated by almost 20% with respect to the previous year, which is very high compared to

the present market scenario and inflation index.

Brig. K.G. Behl submitted that the O&M expenses have gone up in comparison to previous

years and needs to be reviewed and reduced.


As regards increase in O&M Expenses claimed, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff




ARR have submitted to the Commission.

The Petitioner also submitted that as against the O&M expenses of Rs. 644.25 Crore for FY

2017-18 approved in MYT Order, UPCL has claimed only Rs. 552.47 Crore.

As regards detailed analysis of O&M Expenses, the Petitioner submitted that the details of

approved O&M expenses for FY 2016-17 and claimed for FY 2017-18 are as follows:

Table 2.5: Details of Approved & Claimed O&M Costs Particulars

Approved for FY

2016-17 (Rs. Crore) Claimed for FY 2017-18

(Rs. Crore) O&M 574.73 552.47 Employee 435.95 361.88 A&G 22.05 27.13 R&M 116.74 163.46

Hence, it is clear that the claimed expenses for FY 2017-18 are less than the approved

expenses for FY 2016-17.




The issue of the O&M expenses has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 3 and 4

of the Order.

2.15.6 Interest Charges


Shri Amit Joshi submitted that the interest charge claimed by UPCL has increased by

approximately Rs. 28 Crore in the revised submission of ARR proposal. He requested that reason

for this increase in the charges needs to be clarified. He also requested the Commission not to allow

the pass through of any late payment surcharge of the Discom.

Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the interest charges have increased from Rs. 79 Crore in FY

2015-16 to Rs. 218 Crore in FY 2017-18. He requested the Commission to direct UPCL to report

about the source of borrowing, rate at which it was borrowed and its deployment.


As regards increase in Interest Charges claimed, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff




ARR have been submitted to the Commission.

As regards detailed analysis of Interest charges, the Petitioner submitted that the details of

approved Interest and Finance charges for FY 2016-17 and claimed for FY 2017-18 are as follows:

Table 2.6: Details of Approved Interest and Financing Charges S.

No Particulars Approved for FY 2016-17 (Rs. Crore)

Claimed for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

1. Interest on Loan 79.83 158.40 2. Interest on Security Deposits 52.56 46.11 3. Government Guarantee Fee 3.40 13.62

Total 135.79 218.13

The difference of Interest on Loan is mainly because of the reason that in the claim for FY

2017-18 capitalization of Rs. 1236.27 Crore is also included.




The issue of the interest charges has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 3 and 4

of the Order.

2.15.7 Depreciation



Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that UPCL has calculated depreciation on opening

and closing values of gross fixed assets (GFA) in the provisional accounts for FY 2015-16 and

claimed depreciation of Rs. 114.12 Crore against the approved depreciation of Rs. 94.54 Crore by the

Commission for FY 2015- 16. The matter of finalization of transfer scheme is still sub-judice before

Hon’ble APTEL. Accordingly, till the final decision of Hon’ble APTEL in the matter, the impact of

above excess depreciation claims of Rs. 19.58 Crore is not to be allowed.

Brig. K.G. Behl submitted that the percentage of depreciation charged has gone up many-

fold in comparison to the previous years. He requested the Commission to direct UPCL to follow

the rules for working out depreciation and review the high adjustments claimed by them.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that the Depreciation

should be allowed considering the opening value of GFA as on November 8, 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 calculation of depreciation has been done considering the

opening (as on November 8, 2001) GFA of Rs. 508 Crore. This is in line with the approach adopted

by the Commission. The Petitioner further submitted that the value of GFA and its financing from

FY 2001-02 to FY 2013-14 has been considered the same which has been considered by the

Commission in its Tariff Orders. There is little difference in the financing of FY 2014-15 and FY

2015-16. UPCL considered Audited values for FY 2014-15 whereas the Commission did not consider

the values of assets other than plant and machinery for FY 2014-15. Further, the Commission

considered estimated values for FY 2015-16 in the absence of actuals at that time.



The Petitioner also submitted that Depreciation has been claimed at 5.22% which is similar

to the rate approved by the Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 5, 2016.

The Petitioner further submitted that the Commission had approved depreciation on the

opening balance of GFA as on March 31, 2015. However, UPCL claimed the same on the average

balance of GFA for FY 2015-16 keeping in view the fact that assets were capitalized during all the

months of the year.

As regards increase in Depreciation claimed, the Petitioner submitted that on the Tariff


deficiencies. As per directions of Hon’ble Commission, revised submissions were made by UPCL

vide its letter no. 211/UPCL/RM/B-18, dated January 19, 2017. The details of variation due to

revision in ARR have been submitted to the Commission.

As regards depreciation on assets created out of grants, the Petitioner submitted that it has

not claimed any Deprecation and Interest on the assets created out of Grant in its Petition.


The issue of depreciation has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 3 and 4 of the

Order.

2.15.8 Interest on Working Capital


Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that the interest on working capital increased from Rs. 8.38 Crore in

FY 2015-16 to Rs. 23 Crore in FY 2016-17. This increase means that the turnover of UPCL should

have doubled which is not visible in the figures presented in the public notice.


As regards increase in Interest on Working Capital claimed, the Petitioner submitted that on

the Tariff Petition of UPCL, the Commission held a Technical Validation Session and pointed out

various deficiencies. As per direction of the Commission, revised submissions were made by UPCL

vide its letter no. 211/UPCL/RM/B-18, dated January 19, 2017. The details of variation due to

revision in ARR have been submitted to the Commission.



As regards detailed analysis of Interest on Working Capital, the Petitioner submitted that

the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 had approved Interest on working Capital at Rs.

23.48 Crore and as against the same, UPCL has claimed Interest on Working Capital of Rs. 19.50

Crore for FY 2017-18 in its Petition. Thus, it is clear that the claim of UPCL is much less than the

amount approved by the Commission. Further, it also submitted that Interest on Working Capital is

computed as per the norms specified in the Regulations.


The issue of the interest on working capital has been deliberated by the Commission in

Chapter 3 and 4 of the Order.

2.15.9 Consumer Security Deposit


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that for HT

consumers the security amount is in Crores, which is provided by obtaining credit facilities from the

banks with the interest rate of around 11.5% to 12.5%, whereas UPCL provides interest on security

deposit at much lesser rates. UCPL in the ARR has itself shown rate of interest on loans at 11.86%.

He requested the Commission to increase the rate of interest on consumer security deposit from

8.5% to 11.5%.

Shri Nikhil Tyagi of BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the security deposit rule of

two months should be changed to maximum of one and a half months at least for timely bill paying

consumers.

Shri V.K. Aggarwal of Balaji Action Buildwell submitted that the current industry security

deposit of two months has to be reduced to one month and converted into bank guarantee.


The Petitioner submitted that interest on security deposit is being paid as per the provision

of Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The rate of interest on security deposit for FY 2016-17 is

7.75 % p.a. and while computing the working capital, consumer security deposit is reduced.

The Petitioner further submitted that security deposits are 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 adjusted from the

security deposit of the consumer. Thus, the rate of interest on loans and working capital cannot be

compared with interest on security deposits.

The Petitioner submitted that once the supply is drawn by a consumer, the bill is generated

after a one month period. In 15 days, the bill is received by the consumer and again after 15 days the

time period is given for payment. Thus, a two month period is justifiable and is also in accordance

with the UERC Supply Code, 2007.

As regards comment on conversion of security deposit into bank guarantee, 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 security deposits should only be in the form of cash / bank

draft.


The Commission agrees with the replies submitted by the Petitioner in this regard.

2.15.10Sharing of Gains & Losses



Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that UPCL has claimed loss-sharing against under-

achievement of target for distribution losses as revenue from additional sales. They requested the

Commission to allow the sharing strictly for controllable factors for which the trajectory has been

provided by the Commission in line with the Regulations.


The Petitioner submitted that sharing of gains and losses has been claimed on the basis of

the provisions of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Petitioner also submitted that the Commission

in its Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 also considered the same basis for allowing sharing of gains and

losses (refer para – 4.4 of the Tariff Order).




The issue of the sharing of gains and losses have been deliberated by the Commission in

Chapter 3 of the Order where truing up of expenses for FY 2015-16 have been dealt.

2.15.11Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts


Shri Achal Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that the Commission had

disallowed provisions for bad debts claimed by UPCL in previous ARRs due to non-utilization and

submission of accounts of previously allowed provisions to UPCL and directed for formulation of

policy for identifying and writing off such debts. UPCL has claimed an amount of Rs. 56.11 Crore

for bad debts to be written off, which actually is the late payment surcharge. He requested the

Commission to disallow the claim and direct the licensee to notify the draft policy for general

information of the consumers.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of 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.


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 at 1% of the estimated

Annual Revenue subject to the (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. November 9, 2011 and the



Commission so far allowed a provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts of Rs. 103.74 Crore to UPCL for

the period upto FY 2015-16. The bad debts actually written off amounts to Rs. 195.26 Crore.

Accordingly, no provision for Bad Debts has been included in the ARR of FY 2015-16 and 2017-18.

However, keeping in view the actual Bad Debts Written Off amounting to Rs. 195.26 Crore, UPCL

has requested the Commission to allow the Bad Debts Written Off.


The issue of the provision for Bad & Doubtful debts has been deliberated by the Commission

in Chapter 3 and 4 of the Order.

2.16 Capital Expenditure


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vikas Jindal of

Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd.

and Shri Achal Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that every year UPCL proposes capital

expenditure on various measures for controlling losses, but UPCL does not provide the target and

actual work executed. These measures directly affect the consumers, in way of capital expenditure

(loans thereon and interest payment). They requested that comparison of such work undertaken

and accomplishment figures be shared with the consumers. Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce & Industry and Shri Achal Sharma of East West Products Ltd. also

mentioned certain examples of capital expenditures made by UPCL in the past against which result

has been dismal.

Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. submitted that major amount of the projected capital

expenditure for the two years (FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18) is related to LV consumers or LT

Industries. Hence, the impact of this expenditure should not impact tariff plan of EHV/HV

consumers. Shri Pankaj Gupta of 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 Petitioner submitted that all details with respect to the Capital Expenditure as per

requirement of Regulations has been provided in the ARR and Tariff Petition and all desired



available information has been/is being provided to the Commission on the subject. The Petitioner

also submitted the details of year wise Capital Expenditure as follows:

Table 2.7: Details of Year-wise Capital Expenditure Year Capital Expenditure (Rs. Crore)

2011-12 301.94 2012-13 256.97 2013-14 298.67 2014-15 464.17 2015-16 531.92

The Petitioner further submitted that in this connection, the details of year wise capital

expenditure and improvement in collection (productivity) is mentioned herein below:

Table 2.8: Details of Year-wise Capex and Improvement of Collection

Year

Cumulative Capital Investments

Increase in per unit

Collection Input Energy Improvement

in Productivity Rate of Return

Rs. Crore Rs. MU Rs. Crore % A B C D (B*C) E (D/A)

2008-09 252.97 0.10 7,631.44 73.48 29.04% 2009-10 503.68 0.21 8,280.09 170.67 33.88% 2010-11 768.67 0.26 9,249.42 238.99 31.09% 2011-12 1,070.61 0.30 10,310.64 311.38 29.08% 2012-13 1,327.58 0.39 10,789.11 417.91 31.48% 2013-14 1,626.25 0.45 11,216.31 505.90 31.11% 2014-15 2,090.42 0.49 11,888.23 577.12 27.61% 2015-16 2,622.34 0.65 12,559.60 822.21 31.35%

Total 10262.52 3117.66 30.38% Average Rate of Return on Investments- 3117.66/10262.52= 30.38%

The Petitioner also submitted that it is clear from the above details that UPCL earned a

healthy return on its investments. The benefit of all the improvement as mentioned herein above

have been passed on to the consumers of the State.

As regards the comment on capital expenditure towards LT consumer burdening the HT

consumers, 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.

It further apprised the Commission that UPCL is in the process of calculating the voltage wise cost

of supply as per the directions of the Commission.



As regards the increase in capital expenses over the years, the Petitioner submitted that the

need for capital expenditure in UPCL is for two primary reasons:

a) 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.

b) 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 capitalization of assets only after certificates of the Electrical Inspector are issued,

the Petitioner submitted that UPCL has provided the Commission certificates of Electrical Inspector

in respect of all HT assets capitalized for the period from FY 2007-08 to 2015-16.


The Commission has duly scrutinised each and every element of APR for FY 2016-17 and

Revised ARR for FY 2017-18 in accordance with the provisions of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015

and the same has been discussed in Chapter 3 and 4 of the Order.

2.17 Truing-up for Past Years



Sharma of East West Products Ltd. submitted that in UPCL’s Petition, expenses and revenue for FY

2015-16 have been submitted on the basis of accounts against approved power purchase expenses,

as Rs. 3513.30 Crore, i.e. an excess of Rs. 83.80 Crore in power purchase. They requested the

Commission to scrutinize the actual power purchase cost in line with the MYT Order and allow

only the legitimate variations.

They further submitted that during FY 2015-16, UPCL has billed actual revenue of Rs.

4667.68 Crore which is higher by Rs. 75.89 Crore than the approved revenue of Rs. 4591.99 Crore by

the Commission. The actual distribution loss of UPCL for 2013-14 is 21.70% as against 17%



considered by the Commission in the MYT order. This has resulted in revenue loss of Rs. 155.52

Crore which shall burden the consumers if allowed to pass through.

They also submitted that UPCL has claimed ROE of Rs. 85.64 Crore against the approved

ROE of Rs. 48.88 Crore for FY 2015-16. The variation of Rs. 36.76 Crore, which is 75% higher, is

alarming and needs thorough scrutiny by the Commission.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that the shortfall in

revenue as against the revenue projected by the Commission during FY 2015-16 is mainly due to

load shedding on industrial consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that all the information with respect to power purchase cost for FY

2015-16 as specified in the Regulations and as desired by the Commission during the tariff

determination exercise has been/is being provided to the Commission for examination at their

level.

The Petitioner also submitted that the Commission, in its Tariff Order for FY 2015-16 had

approved Return on Equity at 16% on the opening equity of Rs. 305.49 Crore. The Commission

computed the value of equity for each year equivalent to 30% of (capitalization as reduced by grant

and loans). Remaining 70% of capitalization has been considered as normative loan. UPCL in the

Petition has computed return on equity at 16% on the opening equity of Rs. 535.27 Crore for FY

2015-16. Year wise addition of equity has been considered at a 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. Detailed computation of return on equity is mentioned at page 19 and 20 of the

Petition submitted to the Commission.

The Petitioner submitted that on truing up the expenses and revenue for FY 2015-16, it had

computed a surplus of Rs. 21.31 Crore which has been proposed to be adjusted from the ARR for FY

2017-18 along with the carrying cost on the same i.e. Rs. 21.31 Crore + Rs. 6.59 Crore = Rs. 27.90

Crore.




The Commission has duly scrutinised each and every element of Truing up for FY 2015-16 in

accordance with the provisions of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011 and the same has been discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order.

2.18 Distribution Losses


Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that the voltage-wise losses to arrive at the

HT tariff have not been furnished by UPCL till date even after the repeated direction by UERC for

the past four years.

Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Shri Shakeel A

Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd., Shri Puneet Jain of Air Liquide India and Shri

LS Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd. submitted that in almost all its Tariff Orders, the Commission

has been directing the licensee to workout actual voltage- wise, category- wise losses and cost of

supply for fixation of category-wise tariffs. However, UPCL has failed to comply with the direction.

On this account in the Tariff Orders issued so far, the Commission had been assuming losses at HT

level to arrive at the cost of power purchase at HT level for each category getting supply at HT

based on the pooled average system losses of the licensee approved by the Commission for the

concerned financial year. They requested the Commission to take a serious note of such non-

compliance on the part of the UPCL on a repeated basis and fix the tariff for consumers taking HT

level losses on a rational basis.

Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Pawan Agarwal of Uttarakhand

Steel Manufacturers Association and Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce

& Industry submitted that the Commission had specified a trajectory of loss reduction every year

for the utility, but the licensee has failed to achieve the targets on year to year basis. Any

underachievement by the distribution utility cannot be passed on to the consumers in the tariff.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. submitted that pending

detailed determination of distribution losses for different category of consumers, the Commission

may determine distribution losses for industrial consumers separately and, accordingly, the tariff be

determined for different category of consumers. He also submitted that the distribution losses of



industrial consumers are not likely to exceed 1.5-2% and thus, either, rebate should be increased or

tariff be reduced to progressively reflect the cost of supply to industrial consumers.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the

distribution losses projected by UPCL is 16.39% against the Commission approved losses of 14.75%.

He requested the Commission to fix the target of 13.5% distribution losses and a meagre 2% loss

reduction for the coming year. He also requested the Commission to reduce the tariff by 10% and

demand charges to Rs. 280/kVA considering the above request.

Shri Girish Joshi, Brig. K.G. Behl, and some of the Respondents submitted that the theft of

power has to be reduced to meet the ARR and refrain from hiking tariff due to high losses. They

suggested the usage of underground cables, flying squads, skewed tariff slabs for all domestic

consumers and improved metering practices including temporary connections to reduce the theft of

electricity.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted the following:

a) UPCL had been claiming in its Petition 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 are 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 carryout

Energy Audit at sub-station 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 sub-stations into cost centres and any sub-station found to be

losing money should be subjected to penalties.

Brig. K.G. Behl also submitted that the transmission losses and power theft has been on the

rise inspite of the new equipments fitted by UPCL to check the losses.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Kisan Club submitted that AT&C losses should be reduced by

implementing necessary measures to reduce the burden on the consumers. He also requested UPCL

to submit the loss reduction after R-APDRP to the Commission.



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. Further,

the Petitioner apprised the Commission that UPCL is in the process of calculating the voltage wise

cost of supply as per the direction of the Commission.

The Petitioner also submitted that UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access)

Regulations, 2015 were issued on January 13, 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.

The Petitioner also submitted that in the absence of availability of voltage wise losses, which

is mix of Technical Losses and Commercial Losses, the Distribution Losses are required to be

charged on average basis from all categories of consumers.

The Petitioner also submitted that it is true that the Commission has fixed Distribution

Losses at 14.75% for FY 2017-18 but, these losses have not been fixed keeping in view the existing

level of distribution losses of the company. The actual distribution losses for FY 2015-16 are 18.39%,

hence, it is practically not possible to achieve the loss level of 14.75% in FY 2017-18 and, therefore,

UPCL has proposed a realistic level of distribution losses at 16.39% for FY 2017-18 considering 1%

reduction in losses in each year.



The Petitioner submitted that in order to curb theft of energy, the following measures have

been taken up by UPCL:

• 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.

• All defective meters are being replaced.

• AB cable is being laid in theft prone areas. 700 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 Commission has taken note of the concerns raised by the stakeholders 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 at the target level approved by the Commission and the same

approach has been continued while approving the true-up for FY 2015-16 as discussed in Chapter 3

of the Order. Further, the Commission had considered the loss reduction target for FY 2017-18 as

approved in MYT Order while approving the Revised ARR for FY 2017-18.

2.19 Departmental Employees


Brig. K.G. Behl, Shri Girish Joshi, Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari and some Respondents

submitted that the free power provided to the employees of the Electricity Department leads to

reduced recovery of the cost of power, leading to hikes in tariff. Brig. K.G. Behl and Shri S.K.

Agarwal also submitted that some of the employees of the electricity department are subletting

their free power. Some stakeholders also submitted that there should be no free power sales to

improve the revenue realized. Dr. R.S. Shahi submitted that metered power should be provided to



the departmental employees in order to get knowledge of the power consumption by the electricity

department.


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 favourable to the terms

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

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

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

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

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

for this category are strictly in adherence to 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). Meters have been installed on the connections of the Departmental

Employees/Pensioners.


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.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 08.09.2003 had directed the Petitioner to meter all

the consumers and submit a detailed metering plan to the Commission by December 31, 2003 for

metering of all unmetered connections of Domestic, Commercial and Public lamps in urban areas,



and of Departmental employees, State Tubewells, Public Institutions and Government bodies in all

areas by March 31, 2005.

The Commission gave repetitive directions in its Tariff Orders issued for 2007-08 ,2008-09,

2009-10 and 2010-11 to UPCL to take appropriate steps on the issues raised by the respondents to

avoid the misuse of electricity by UPCL staff.

Further the Commission in its Tariff Order for 2011-12 directed UPCL to submit one sample

energy reading (opening & closing) for past one month for each scale of departmental employees,

both serving and pensioners within one month of the issue of the Order, so that the Commission

can deal with the issue adequately after receiving the information from the Petitioner.

Further, the Commission in its Tariff Order for 2012-13 again directed UPCL to submit one

sample energy reading (opening & closing) for past one month for each scale of departmental

employees, both serving and pensioners latest by May 31, 2012 to the Commission. The

Commission also directed the Petitioner to evolve a mechanism for reimbursement of expenses

against electricity consumed by the departmental employees of UPCL and submit the same to the

Commission latest by May 31, 2012.

Further, the Commission in its Tariff Order for 2013-14 directed UPCL to ensure appropriate

modification in its billing software so that revenue for sale to the departmental employees is

recognized at the slab wise rate prescribed for domestic consumers. The difference between revenue

so recognized and actual amount recovered from its employees be shown as subsidy in its annual

accounts.

The Petitioner submitted that UPCL vide its letter no. 1319/UPCL/RM/C-10 dated 17-06-

2014 directed its field officers to record the consumption of Departmental employees and

Pensioners on the basis of actual meter reading. Further, the Petitioner has incorporated the logic in

its billing software for billing of the departmental employees and pensioners. The basic information

required for start of billing is being collected in respect of departmental employees and pensioners,

thereafter; billing shall be started as per the direction of the Commission.

Thereafter, the Commission has taken note of the compliance made by Petitioner in this

regard. The Commission in its Tariff Order for 2015-16 directed the Petitioner to expedite the

process for collection of information and start the billing as per Commission’s directive in this

regard.



The Commission again in its Order for 2016-17 directed 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.

However, no compliances in this regard have been reported by UPCL so far. In this regard,

the Commission has taken a strong view and directs UPCL to take immediate action on the

directions of the Commission and report compliance to the Commission within one month of the

date of Order, failing which action will be initiated under Section 142 of the Act against all officers

responsible.

2.20 Collection Efficiency


Shri Balkar Singh of Bharatiya Kisan Union submitted that the arrears from the Industrial

consumers have to be collected before any increase in the tariff structure. Dr. R.S. Shahi also

submitted that in case of payment of electricity bill via debit card or net banking, 1% of the total bill

is charged as service charge which should be abolished.


The Petitioner submitted that continuous efforts are being made for recovery of arrears from

all categories of consumers. The Collection Efficiency in respect of Industrial Consumers is more

than 100%.


The Commission agrees with the concern raised by the stakeholder regarding electricity

dues on various Government departments and private consumers. 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. However, in this regard, the Commission would like to clarify that

since UPCL is recognizing sales in its accounts on accrual basis which is also considered by the

Commission during truing up exercise, realisation of arrears would not reduce the tariffs of UPCL,

as has been submitted by many stakeholders. It will only improve its financial health. Payment of

bills using payment gateway assists UPCL in getting paymens credited to its accounts quickly and it



also saves it towards holding and carrying cost of cash. Hence, UPCL is required to explore the

possibility of waiving the service charges being recovered from the consumers on payment of

bills using its payment gateway & submit the compliance on the same to the Commission within

one month of the date of the Order. Further, as elaborated in Chapter 3 and 4 of the Order, the

Commission in this Tariff Order also is not allowing any provision for bad and doubtful debts.

2.21 Metering and Billing


Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. submitted that the Commission should direct UPCL to

conduct timely MRI and generate bills before 5th of the month as presently; the bills are generated

on 11th, 12th or 13th and are to be paid by 19th or 20th. He also submitted that the Open Access

Adjustment should also be marked in the same month.

Shri Naveen Chandra Joshi, Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, Shri Vijay Singh Verma and some

stakeholders submitted that the metering and billing practices of UPCL has to improve to reduce

the losses incurred by them, which in turn leads to hike in tariffs.

Dr. Ganesh Upadhyay of Uttarakhand Pradesh Congress Committee submitted that the

farmers should be billed based on the connected load (HP) as they are suffering a lot of losses due

to high tariffs. He also submitted that they suffered from penalties when the meter fails.

Shri G.D. Mandhok submitted that the meters should not be installed outside the premises

and metering should be done in front of the customer as per Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He also

submitted that according to the Allahabad High Court judgement in 1977, UPCL has not supplied

meter reading books to the consumer for record purposes. He further submitted that the demand

bill and disconnection notice should be separate from the general bill as it is illegal according to the

Supreme Court.


The Petitioner submitted that Meter reading and bill generation activity is being done in

time, however, UPCL is in process to update its billing software to adjust the Open Access Energy

in the consumer bills. Improved metering and bill generation shall be implemented in due course of

time.



The Petitioner submitted that Electricity Charges should be based on consumption made by

the consumer. Any consumer who consume more electricity should pay more and vice-versa.

Therefore, per unit energy charges-based tariff is necessary.

The Petitioner also 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

• An agreement has been signed with M/s CSC to collect the payment of bills in various

locations of the State.


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 following services to the consumers namely restoration of

power, voltage fluctuation, metering and billing related etc. as per Orders/Supply Code/SOP

Regulations of the Commission. The Commission has deliberated on technical and commercial

performance of the Petitioner in Chapter 6 of the Order. With regard to adjustment of Open Access

energy in the consumer bills, the Commission has taken a serious view on the inability of the

Petitioner to make adjustment in the same month and the delayed adjustment is continuing even

after passage of almost 7 years when the open access mechanism was introduced in the State in the

right earnest. Hence, the Commission directs the Petitioner to start adjusting the Open Access

energy in the consumer bill in the same month/billing cycle within one month of issue of this

Order.

The Commission also directs UPCL to submit an action plan for compliances of the

Judgments referred by Shri Mandok of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court & Hon’ble Supreme

Court within one month of the date of the Order.



2.22 KCC Data


Shri Pankaj Gupta of 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 on various parameters including KCC data of the

Petitioner is being done at the Commission’s office on regular basis based on the monthly report

submitted by the Petitioner in the prescribed format.

2.23 Quality of Power


Shri Puneet Jain of Air Liquide India submitted that in 2016, there were close to 50

unscheduled load shedding/voltage fluctuations over the course of the year and it affected the

reliability to supply to critical customers. He also submitted that even after being connected to 132

kV express feeder, such issues were felt. He requested the Commission to direct UPCL to improve

power quality.

Shri Nikhil Tyagi of BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that during night shift

breakdowns in power should be attended in night itself in minimum possible time.



M/s. Sanjay Plast Pvt. Ltd. submitted that it is facing power tripping and fluctuations for

four to six times and three to five hours a day due to which they are facing daily losses of about Rs.

40,000 to Rs. 50,000.

Shri Sandeep Sharma of Cavendish Industries Ltd. submitted that in spite of paying

continuous supply surcharge, power is not being provided continuously and the quality of power is

also very poor leading to huge losses on production and machine failure.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that the 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.

Shri Bachchi Ram Kauswal of Uttarakhand Kisan Sabha submitted that electricity should be

available for the complete 24 hours without any voltage fluctuations.


As regards the power fluctuations persisting in the system, the Petitioner submitted that

instructions have been issued to the field officers.

As regards comment on poor quality of power, the Petitioner submitted that it is always

committed to supply quality and reliable power to consumers. UPCL during FY 2015-16 met its

more than 98% demand of Electricity. Less than 2% unmet demand was due to gap of demand and

availability of energy/transmission network/distribution network.

The Petitioner also submitted that efforts are regularly made by UPCL for improvement in

quality of power. The demand of electricity has increased to about four times from the date of

creation of the State and UPCL is meeting the demand of electricity to the satisfaction of the

consumers. In the whole State, average supply of electricity in a day is between 22-24 hours.


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 on the website of the UPCL/Commission which, interalia, provides computerised logging

of complaints followed by status feedback to the complainant in his mobile/phone. 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.

2.24 Open Access


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Munish Talwar

of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that in spite of demand exceeding supply of power in

Uttarakhand, the open access power purchase is not supported in the State. Open Access consumers

are heavily charged with 15% distribution losses and 15% additional surcharge for continuous

power. The overall charges applicable for open access make it unviable to purchase power under

open access.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. also submitted that,

a) There is no system for adjustments of open access units consumed at the time of billing.

Consumers have to follow up for rectification of the same. There are no clear cut

guidelines to the staff for adjustment of the same which creates the confusion.

b) Compensation is allowed by UERC in case open access is not availed due to

breakdowns. But the consumers are not getting compensation inspite of repetitive

reminders on account of UPCL.

c) SLDC normally gives NOC on last date to procure open access power. There needs to be

a schedule by which NOC is to be given, e.g. latest by 10th of every month.

d) Load survey reports should be available to all HT consumers by 5th of next month so that

they are able to monitor their consumption of electricity slab wise.

He also requested the Commission to reduce the cross subsidy by 25%, reduce transmission

losses by 25% and reduce distribution losses by 75%, since line losses in HT consumers is hardly 1-

2%.

Shri Rajeev Gupta of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd. submitted that cross subsidies,

transmission losses and charges and distribution losses for HT consumers should be reduced to

promote open access.



Shri Nikhil Tyagi of BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that wheeling charges on open

access power purchased should be removed as it is already paying the demand charges. He also

submitted that the adjustment of power purchased through open access is done manually by UPCL

in the monthly bill. He also submitted that the direction “to frame a mechanism and exclude the

energy received by a consumer through open access” by the Commission in the UPCL tariff order

for FY 2014-15 has not been implemented. He further submitted that UPCL software is not

calculating the security amount correctly.

Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. and Shri Puneet Jain of Air Liquide India submitted that

there should be some mechanism to compensate the losses occurred by the consumer due to

breakdown/unplanned shutdown as a result of poor maintenance/negligence of UPCL for open

access consumers. Shri R.K. Singh also requested the Commission to reconsider the STU charges

and keep it as Rs. 73.25/MWh irrespective of trading time period as the power situation in the State

has improved.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. submitted that UPCL is

charging additional surcharge at 15% on open access power purchased. The additional surcharge is

nowhere been defined in the Tariff Orders of the Commission issued from time-to-time. He

requested UPCL to stop charging additional surcharge on power purchased through open access

and refund the amount paid so far.

He also requested the Commission to direct UPCL to pay the compensation of losses for

non-receipt of power purchased through open access as per UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-

State Open Access) Regulations, 2015, Chapter 7, Clause 30(2)(b)(iii).



and distribution loss for all the consumers including open access consumers is considered at the

same level. The Petitioner further submitted that UPCL is in the process to calculate the voltage

wise cost of supply.

The Petitioner also submitted that UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access)

Regulations, 2015 were issued on January 13, 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 2016-17, Regulations, 2015 was applicable and the



Commission in the said Order approved the pooled average system distribution losses for FY 2016-

17 at 15%. The Petitioner also submitted that as per section 42(2), of the Electricity Act, 2003 open

access may be allowed only on payment of existing level of cross subsidy by the consumer.

The Petitioner submitted that Wheeling Charges is the sum of all the 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. As

regards the comment on generating net bill within the same month, the Petitioner submitted that it

is working on the mechanism and shall implement it in the due course.

The Petitioner further submitted that for the purpose of ensuring continuous supply, UPCL

is required to incur extra infrastructure cost as well as arrangement of energy availability at higher

cost. Even in case the consumer purchase power through Open Access, UPCL is required to incur

this cost and, therefore, recovery of the same is also required on the Open Access Energy consumed.

As regards the losses incurred due to breakdown during open access period, the Petitioner

submitted that it has been dealt in UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra – State Open Access)

Regulations, 2015.


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. Principles for calculating

Transmission/Wheeling charges, cross-subsidy surcharges & losses have been specified in the

Regulations. 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. On the issue of

issuance of NOC to open access consumers by SLDC, the Commission is separately dealing with

this issue in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18 of SLDC.

However, with regard to continuous supply surcharge on open access energy, the

Commission in this Order has directed the Petitioner to stop charging continuous supply surcharge

on such energy.



2.25 Promotion of Renewable Energy


Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. submitted that the Commission should encourage the

UJVN Ltd. to install more solar power generating infrastructure to reduce power cost as the solar

power costs have been reduced to Rs. 2.97/unit and ensure the availability of quality power to the

consumers.

Shri Ram Kumar of Mussoorie Hotels Association submitted that UPCL should use non-

conventional energy sources like solar energy for generation and encourage its consumers to install

such plants in their premises by giving them concessions. He submitted that it would reduce the

demand for purchasing electricity at high costs.


The Petitioner submitted that procurement of Solar Energy is being done as per the

directions of the Commission and provisions of Regulations issued in this regard.

The Petitioner also submitted that with a view to promote generation and consumption of

solar power, the Commission has issued Regulations for the same. UPCL is taking action as per the

provisions of these Regulations. Further, UPCL is also giving Solar Water Heating System Rebate as

per the provisions of Tariff Order issued by the Commission.


The Commission had specified the RPO Target 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. Accordingly, UPCL is

required to buy energy from renewable energy sources to meet the RPO Target. The State Nodal

Agency UREDA is actively pursuing development of Solar Park in the State under MNRE/State

Government policies in this regard.



2.26 Miscellaneous Comments

2.26.1 NOC for Short Term Open Access


Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that the NOC for Short Term Open Access

should for a minimum period of one year/quarter and in case of bilateral power; it should be for

the bilateral power purchase period.


The Petitioner submitted that this subject has been dealt in UERC (Terms and Conditions of

Intra – State Open Access) Regulations, 2015.


Inter-State/Intra-State Open Access transactions are governed by CERC (Open Access in

inter-State Transmission) Regulations, 2008/UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open

Access) Regulations, 2015 respectively. Hence, the application, procedure, duration, fee and charges

and other terms & conditions are in accordance with the aforesaid Regulations based on the nature

of open access transaction. The issue has already been dealt with in the SoR for the Open Access

Regulations, 2015

2.26.2 Reduction/Increase of Load


Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that the increase/ reduction in load should

be allowed once in a quarter against the present permission for once in a year to facilitate the open

access consumer to plan open access.


The Petitioner submitted that as per Regulation 9 (1) of the UERC (Release of new HT &

EHT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2008 as amended from time

to time, consumer can enhance his contracted load any time, however, reduction of contracted load

is permitted only once in a financial year. This provision was finalized by the Commission

considering the suggestions of all the stakeholders. Further, facility for reducing the contracted load



more frequently will lead to the hardship to UPCL in its planning and, hence, this should not be

changed.


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.

2.26.3 Terms and Conditions for Seasonal Industries (RTS-7)


Shri LS Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd. and Shri Vikas Jindal of Kumaun Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce & Industry submitted that there is a stiff condition in RTS-7 for seasonal

industries that if during the off-season period, the actual demand of a consumer exceeds 30% of the

contracted demand, the consumer will be denied benefit of reduced contracted demand for that

season and an additional surcharge of 10% of demand charge is levied for the entire off-season

months on the billable demand. They submitted that this condition is too harsh in penalizing the

industry. They pleaded for relief to casual unintentional increase in demand beyond 30% in any one

month of the season.


The Petitioner submitted that with a view to provide the benefit of the seasonal industry in

right manner, the terms & conditions specified by the Commission may be complied with

completely.


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.



2.26.4 Construction of 33/11kV Substation


Shri A.K. Singh of Rudrapur submitted that it has been more than one and a half year since

the sanction of land at Gangapur for 33/11kV 2x5 MVA substation to UPCL. He submitted that this

delay has to be taken care of and the substation has to be constructed and commissioned as soon as

possible.


The Petitioner submitted that instructions have been issued to the field officers in the matter

of construction of the 33/11 kV substation.


The Commission directs UPCL to speed-up the construction process and submit the

update on its status to the Commission within one month of this Order.

2.26.5 LED’s Distribution


Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal of Shree Karuna Kalyan Samiti submitted that the distribution

of CFLs and LEDs by UPCL has to be informed to all consumers in the Citizen’s Charter for better

awareness of these useful schemes to all consumers.

Shri Naveen Chandra Joshi also submitted that schemes like distribution of CFLs and LEDs

should be implemented by UPCL to reduce the power consumption and reduce the tariff hikes.

Brig. K.G. Behl submitted that LED bulbs should be distributed to the consumers at no

profit- no loss basis. He also submitted that the damaged bulb should be accepted by the electricity

department within the warranty period.

Shri Vishwamitra Gogia submitted that LED bulbs of different units should be made

available.




As regards LED distribution to consumers, the Petitioner submitted that as on March 9,

2017 UPCL has distributed more than 35,54,878 LED bulb to the consumer. Currently LED bulb cost

has come down to Rs. 65 per LED.


The Commission informs 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. 65/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. The Commission directs UPCL

to submit status report on the LED distribution scheme alongwith the future course of action

planned by the Petitioner in this regard within one month of issuance of this Order.

2.26.6 Defective Metering Correction


Shri LS Chamyal of Khatema Fibres Ltd. submitted that as per Electricity Supply Code

Regulations defective meters, CT and/or PT should be bypassed and connection restored within six

hours of receiving the complaint by the licensee. However, UPCL disconnects the supply till the

defect is corrected, which causes loss to both the licensee and the consumer.

He also submitted that any defect in CT or PT connection is not considered as defect in

metering and the licensee (UPCL) installs check meters giving inconsistent results, leading to

disputes in bill assessment. He requested the Commission to direct UPCL to connect check meters

only when they suspect the accuracy of the meter and not when the connections are defective.

Shri Viru Bisht submitted that a suggestion box should be made available for people at

different places in the State so as to ensure maximum participation during the tariff proceedings.


The Commission directs UPCL to submit a report on the factual position alongwith its

comments on the issues raised by the above stakeholders within one month of issuance of this

Order. Further, the Commission appreciates the suggestions made by Shri Bisht and assures that



necessary steps in this regard will be taken during the next tariff proceedings. UPCL is also required

to start preparation in this regard.

2.26.7 Online Load Survey Reports


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that for better

understanding and tracking of monthly consumption of electricity UPCL should be directed by the

Commission to arrange load survey reports online. He also requested that the complaints data in

summary and the time schedule of their rectification should be available online to help the

consumers keep track of their complaints and for follow-up purposes.


The Commission directs UPCL to take up this suggestion and submit the factual position

and also Action Plan for implementation of the above suggestions of the stakeholders with one

month of the issuance of this Order.

2.26.8 Delay in Fault Rectification


Shri Teeka Singh Saini of Kisan Congress submitted that the farmers are affected by the

delay of UPCL in fixing faulty transformers, cables and meters. He also submitted that there is a

huge time delay for new installation of new connection, causing a lot of losses to the farmers who

are already debt-ridden. Some other stakeholder’s also submitted that at some places even the

material cost incurred for supply of electricity was borne by the consumer.


The Commission directs UPCL to follow the Electricity Supply Code Regulations for its

fault rectifications. 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.



2.26.9 Tariff for Cane Crushers


Shri Vijay Singh Verma of Kisan Club submitted that the temporary connection for cane-

crushers should be provided to the consumers for a minimum of three years. He also submitted that

they should be given a separate tariff schedule.


The conditions of temporary connection shall be as specified in Rate Schedule enclosed at

Annexure-1 of the Order.Issues Raised during Meeting of State Advisory Committee.

2.26.10Recruitments


Shri P.C Tewari, Dr. R.S. Shahi and some others stakeholders submitted that to increase

efficiency in operations, UPCL should recruit more staff at all levels. However, UPCL is not

carrying out the recruitment of the employees, although the same has been approved by the

Commission.


The Commission appreciates the concerns voiced by the stakeholders that recruiting more

staff will bring more efficiency in work. Further, recognizing the need of recruitment, the

Commission has approved charges for recruitment of 500 employees in the F.Y. 2016-17 and F.Y.

2017-18.

The Petitioner is directed to submit a plan of action regarding the recruitment process

within one month of the issue of Tariff Order.

2.26.11Proof of Ownership


Shri P.C Tewari submitted that Petitioner is not taking proof of ownership before giving

connections to the applicants. In this regard, he mentioned that the connection was released to the

under construction Nainisar International School, Almora being constructed under the Himanshu

Eduction Society without any proof of ownership.




The Commission appreciates the objection raised by the stakeholder and directs the

Petitioner to submit the details regarding the process of releasing of connection alongwith the

status of the connections released in Almora within one month of the date of Order.

2.27 Views of State Advisory Committee:

During the Advisory Committee meeting held on March 8, 2017, the Members made the following

suggestions on the APR Petitions for FY 2016-17.

a) The PGCIL transmission charges applicable for UPCL are very much on the higher side

as compared to the transmission charges of PTCUL. This issue needs to be examined

properly. UPCL should approach CERC and Hon’ble APTEL, if required, and raise the

issue of higher PGCIL transmission charges payable by UPCL.

b) There is substantial increase in Return on Equity claimed by UPCL. RoE of Rs. 4.8 Crore

requires total investment of Rs. 100 Crore considering 70:30 Debt:Equity ratio. Hence, the

RoE claimed by UPCL needs examination.

c) The capex proposed by UPCL is very much on a higher side and the same needs to be

examined.

d) For industrial consumers having more than 40% load factor, the distribution losses are

lower and, hence, the tariff for HT Industrial consumers with load factor above 40%

should be lower than the tariff for HT Industrial consumers with load factor below 40%.

Adequate measures needs to be taken for industrial consumers so that the large

industrial consumers does not migrate from the State of Uttarakhand to other States or

start availing power under Open Access.

e) As per UPCL proposal, revenue from existing tariff is Rs. 5556 Crore, whereas the power

purchase cost works out to Rs. 4556 Crore, which means a surplus of 22% in what is

paid for power purchase and what is realised from consumers. This 22% expenses needs

examination and improvement in efficiency to reduce these expenses.

f) The Commission should direct UPCL to publish the list of consumers having long

outstanding dues in newspapers.



g) UPCL has raised the issues on distribution loss reduction trajectory approved by the

Commission and has claimed higher distribution loss. This aspect needs to be examined

by the Commission.

h) The average power purchase cost projected by UPCL for FY 2017-18 is Rs. 3.10/kWh. As

the tariffs for LT Industry consumers are higher than the average cost of supply and this

category is cross-subsiding other categories, the tariff increase for LT Industry should be

limited to 1 to 2%.

i) As per the MYT Regulations of the Commission, UPCL has to compute the voltage wise

cost of supply and submit the same to the Commission. The Commission should direct

UPCL to conduct a study on voltage wise cost of supply and submit the same to the

Commission.

j) Currently, Non Domestic Tariff is being charged for growing mushrooms. As growing

Mushrooms is Agriculture Allied Activity, the tariff may be fixed at a rate slightly higher

than the tariff applicable for Agriculture category.

k) UPCL is charging Late Payment Surcharge on the payments made online and the same

needs to be corrected.

l) UPCL is delaying the issue of TDS certificates and the TDS certificates do not contain the

PAN number of the consumer and the same needs to be expedited.

m) UPCL has not shown interest on security deposit in its ARR. The interest on security

deposit needs to be paid by UPCL to consumers.

n) The tariff increase proposed by UPCL is very high and tariff increase should be limited

to maximum 10%.

o) Any increase in Fixed Charges component of Tariff should not be allowed.

p) The impact of massive electrification under various Govt. of India schemes needs to be

considered while projecting the demand.

q) The tariff proposed by UPCL for Railways category is very high and the tariff for this

category should not be increased. On a specific query by Commission regarding

comparison of tariff applicable in Uttarakhand for Railways with other States, the reply

was that the tariff for Railways in other States is higher than that in Uttarakhand.

r) The industry and tourism will get affected with substantial increase in tariffs and hence

the Commission may approve the reasonable increase in tariff.



s) For HT Industrial category, slabs linked to load factor should be changed to 3 slabs

instead of existing 2 slabs as follows:

§ Upto 40% Load Factor

§ Load Factor between 40 to 70%

§ Above 70% Load Factor


The Petitioner submitted the following replies:

a) PGCIL Transmission charges have been considered based on actual charges applicable as

per CERC Orders. UPCL in the past has also represented on this issue before CERC.

b) The interest on security deposit is considered as part of ARR and the same is included in

overall interest expenses claimed & is paid to the consumers by adjustment in their bills.

c) Village Electrification Schemes will not have any substantial impact on demand as 97%

village electrification has already been achieved.

d) UPCL agreed to publish the list of consumers having outstanding dues as per the earlier

directions of the Commission.

e) As regards voltage wise cost of supply, UPCL submitted that it has taken up this exercise

which will take some time to complete.

f) As regards higher additional capitalisation proposed by UPCL, UPCL submitted that

UPCL is targeting to complete all GoI Capital Expenditure schemes during FY 2017-18

and, hence, additional capitalisation proposed during FY 2017-18 is on a higher side.

g) As regards, tariff for Mushroom, UPCL submitted that UPCL is charging tariff

applicable for Agriculture Allied Activities for Mushroom cultivation in poly-houses.

2.27.1.2 Observations of Principal Secretary, Energy, Government of Uttarakhand:

a) Advised UPCL to include one section in its ARR and Tariff Petitions for measures taken

and being taken for the benefit of industrial consumers.

b) Suggested that the Commission may consider the UPCL request of re-visiting the

distribution loss levels and targets.

c) Suggested that UPCL may explore the possibility of entering into banking arrangement

with Railways.



d) Citing example of European countries, he suggested that the tariff for domestic

consumers for higher slabs say more than 400 units per month may be set at higher level

to avoid wastage of electricity.


The Commission informed the Members that there will be power surplus situation in the

State in summer months and power deficit situation in winter months and, hence, UPCL should

bank power during summer months with power to be returned in winter months. Further, it

informed the Members that though the average power purchase cost of Uttarakhand during FY

2016-17 was much higher than that of Himachal Pradesh, still the retails tariffs applicable in

Uttarakhand during FY 2016-17 are lower than the Himachal Pradesh.

The Commission directs UPCL to address the concerns raised by the Members of the

Advisory Committee & submit an Action Taken Report within one month of the date of Order.

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 APR for FY 2016-17, Revised ARR for FY 2017-18 and truing up for FY

2015-16 in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Regulations as discussed in the

subsequent Chapters of the Order. Based on the Actual ARR for FY 2017-18 including impact of

truing up for FY 2015-16, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected

revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the Order.


3. Petitioners’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny

and Conclusion on Truing-up for FY 2015-16

3.1 Truing-up for FY 2015-16

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 had

determined the expenses and revenues of the Petitioner for FY 2015-16 based on the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2011, the historical trends and the revised projections of the Petitioner.

The Commission has analysed the head-wise elements of ARR and revenue for FY 2015-16 in

the succeeding paragraphs. The head-wise details of variations in expenses and revenues are

enumerated below.

3.1.1 Sales

The Commission had approved the energy sales for FY 2015-16 in the Tariff Order dated

April 11, 2015 as 10,421.94 MU. The Petitioner in the current Petition has submitted the actual sales



for FY 2015-16 as 10298.14 MU and further submitted the actual re-casted sales of 10249.87 MU.

The Commission continuing with its approach adopted in its Tariff Order for FY 2015-16

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 2015-16 during the current proceedings. In reply to the

Commission’s direction, the Petitioner submitted the following:

Table 3.1: Break up of Actual Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2015-16 (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 310944 310494 188.14 23476 23873 14.62 - - - 334420 334367 202.76

(ii) Other Domestic Consumers

1312349 1978731 1949.80 83775 127654 128.48 132 128 0.32 1396256 2106513 2078.60

(iii)

UPCL Employees and Pensioners

1901 4822 6.44 6041 20752 62.33 - - - 7942 25574 68.77

(iv)

UJVNL Employees and Pensioners

702 1799 3.13 86 122 0.57 - - - 788 1921 3.70

(v)

PTCUL Employees and Pensioners

215 630 1.25 163 587 0.43 - - - 378 1217 1.68

(vi) Single Point Bulk Supply 95 21659 35.65 - - - - - - 95 21659 35.65

Total Domestic 1626206 2318135 2184.40 113541 172988 206.43 132 128 0 1739879 2491251 2391.15 2. Non-domestic 193603 837170 1085.87 11876 24914 32.65 205479 862084 1118.52 3. PTW 26899 132946 265.71 1716 7584 16.00 228 1096 50 28843 141626 331.98 4. LT Industry 8970 188939 276.56 373 3855 5.76 9343 192794 282.32 5. Public Lamps 875 12445 39.99 46 568 2.12 18 362 3.26 939 13375 45.37

6. Govt. Irrigation System

1533 54818 136.09 64 1939 4.94 - - - 1597 56757 141.03

7. Public Water Works 1274 71884 338.24 39 1779 8.80 - - - 1313 73663 347.04

8. HT Industry 1914 1564647 5437.27 1914 1564647 5437.27 9. Mixed Load 76 61539 186.78 - - - - - - 76 61539 186.78

10. Railway Traction 1 6800 14.16 - - - - - - 1 6800 14.16

11. Other State Supply 6 985 2.52 - - - - - - 6 985 2.52

Total 1861357 5250308 9967.59 127655 213627 276.70 378 1586 53.84 1989390 5465521 10298.14

3. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing-up for FY 2015-16


The Commission in its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016 for the second Control Period had

observed that the average billing rate (ABR) in some divisions for various categories was even less

than the energy charges approved for the category. The Commission on this issue on lower ABR in

the MYT Order stated as follows:

“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.”

The Commission further held as follows:

“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.”

UPCL in compliance to the above submitted that it has taken following steps to rectify the

anomalities as pointed out by the Commission.

(i) It had directed its field officers to record the sales of departmental employees based on

meter reading. 4613 Departmental Employees/Pensioners have been ledgrised so far.

(ii) Field officers have been directed to take action as per the direction of the Commission

with regard to deficiencies pointed out in the commercial data for FY 2014-15. They

have also been directed to submit the compliance report as per the direction of the

Commission.

UPCL further submitted that it is in the process of getting its billing information, i.e. Input

Energy, Billed Energy, Assessment and Collection for FY 2015-16 verified. UPCL further submitted



that it has appointed a consultant on 21-11-2016 and the work has been targeted to be completed

within six months from the date of the issue of work order.

The Commission has again analysed the division wise commercial statement and it is

observed from the division wise commercial statement for FY 2015-16 that such anomalies still

exists. The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the reasons for the same. The Petitioner in

its reply submitted that the matter was discussed with the field officers and prima-facie it was

observed that the ABR of some divisions and some categories was low on account of the reason that

the previous billing was withdrawn. However, UPCL submitted that these divisions have been

asked to submit the detailed explanantion.

The Commission in the MYT Order dated April 05, 2016, had not carried out adjustment

towards such anomalies and had directed UPCL to rectify such errors. The Commission re-iterates

its direction and provides final opportunity to UPCL to rectify such errors and, accordingly,

directs UPCL to rectify such anomalies else the Commission would examine the matter and if

required necessary corrections to this extent would be made in the subsequent years. Further, the

Zonal Chiefs, the Circle Chiefs and the concerned Executive Engineers are hereby directed to

examine the data with reference to their Divisions for FY 2014-15 and for FY 2015-16 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 and also against the Directors of the

Petitioner Company.

The Commission further directs UPCL to submit the findings of the study being carried

out on sales, average load factor, average billing rate for FY 2015-16 within six months from the

date of this Order along with the detailed action plan to rectify such errors.

The category wise sales of UPCL for FY 2015-16 are being discussed hereunder:

a) Domestic Consumers:-

Based on the detailed analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted by the Petitioner for FY

2015-16, 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. Further, it is observed from the data submitted by UPCL that

around 132 consumers are still unmetered for which tariff has already been discontinued. The

Commission directs UPCL to meter all these consumers and submit compliance report within

one month from the date of this Order and also submit the bills for these 132 consumers raised

during FY 2015-16 within 30 days of the date of Order.

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 2015-16, the Commission considering the abnormalities observed while carrying out the

sales analysis for FY 2015-16 has continued with the approach adopted by it in the previous Orders

and has recasted the sales for FY 2015-16 of unmetered consumers and consumers billed on

assessment basis. For recasting of sales in 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 as the load factor for these employees are

substantially higher than the other domestic consumers which indicates that though UPCL has

submitted that these consumers have been metered, recording of consumption of these consumers

is not on the basis of actual consumption as the departmental employees are availing electricity on a

fixed charge basis.

UPCL is directed to complete the ledgerisation of all the departmental employees

including retired employees availing the facilities within one month of the date of Order.

Thereafter, UPCL is required to take meter readings of all the departmental employees including

retired employees on monthly basis and issue bills to them. UPCL is required to submit the

copies of the bills issued by the end of each month to the Commission.

Accordingly, based on the above, the total recasted sales for Domestic Category for FY 2015-

16 works out to 2342.26 MU against 2390.95 MU claimed by UPCL and the same is summarised in

the Table below:



Table 3.2: Re-casted Sales for Domestic Category for FY 2015-16 (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

310944 310494 188.14 50 23476 23873 14.62 14.47 - - - - 202.61

2. Other Domestic Consumers

1312349 1978731 1949.80 82 83775 127654 128.48 125.79 132 128 0.32 0.13 2075.51

3. UPCL Employees and Pensioners - - - - 7942 25574 68.77 25.20 - - - - 25.20

4. UJVNL Employees and Pensioners - - - - 788 1921 3.70 1.89 - - - - 1.89

5. PTCUL Employees and Pensioners - - - - 378 1217 1.68 1.20 - - - - 1.20

6. Single Point Bulk Supply 95 21659 35.65 137 - - - - - - - - 35.65

Total Domestic 1623388 2310884 2173.59 - 116359 180239 279.58 168.55 132 128 0.32 0.13 2342.26

b) PTW Consumers

Based on the detailed analysis of the breakup of sales data submitted for FY 2015-16, it is

observed that for PTW consumers also, the load factor of unmetered consumers and consumers

whose consumption was assessed 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.

From the data submitted by UPCL, it is observed that around 228 consumers are still

unmetered for which tariff has already been discontinued. The Commission directs UPCL to meter

all these consumers and submit compliance report within one month from the date of this Order

and also submit the bills for these 228 consumers raised during FY 2015-16 within 30 days of the

date of Order.

For carrying out the Truing Up of sales for FY 2015-16, the Commission has continued with

the approach adopted by it in the previous Orders and has recasted the sales for FY 2015-16 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 2015-16



works out to 283.06 MU against 283.91 MU submitted by UPCL and the same is summarised in the

Table below:

Table 3.3: Re-casted sales for PTW Category for FY 2015-16 (MU) Su

b-C

ateg

ory 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 26899 132946 265.71 167 1716 7584 16.00 15.16 228 1096 50.27 2.19 283.06

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 2015-16, 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 3.4: Re-casted sales for Other Categories for FY 2015-16 (MU)

S. N

o

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 193603 837170 1085.87 108 11876 24914 32.65 32.32 - - - - 1118.19 2. PWW 1274 71884 338.24 392 39 1779 8.80 8.37 - - - - 346.61 3. GIS 1533 54818 136.09 207 64 1939 4.94 4.81 - - - - 140.90 4. Public Lamps 875 12445 39.99 268 46 568 2.12 1.83 18 362 3.26 1.16 42.98

5. LT Industry 8970 188939 276.56 122 373 3855 5.76 5.64 - - - - 282.20

d) HT Industries

The Petitioner submitted the sales to HT Industry of 5437.27 MU for FY 2015-16. 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 2015-16 as re-worked by the

Commission is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.5: Category-wise Sales for FY 2015-16 (MU)

Categories Approved in the

Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015

Claimed in the Petition

Approved after Truing Up

Domestic (RTS - 1) 2476.84 2390.95 2342.26 Non-domestic, incl Commercial (RTS - 2) 1213.64 1118.52 1118.19 Public Lamps (RTS - 3) 44.33 45.37 42.98 Private Tubewell/Pump Sets (RTS - 4) 225.93 283.91 283.06 Government Irrigation System (RTS - 5) 117.36 141.03 140.90 Public Water Works (RTS - 6) 316.95 347.04 346.61 Industrial Consumers (RTS - 7) 5734.07 5719.58 5719.47 Mixed Load (RTS - 8) 219.47 186.78 186.78 Railway Traction (RTS - 9) 12.05 14.16 14.16 Extra State Supply - 2.52 2.52 Total 10360.63 10249.87 10196.93

3.1.2 Distribution Losses

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted its distribution losses for FY 2015-16 at 18.39%.

The Commission for FY 2015-16 had approved distribution losses of 15.00% 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 2015-16 works out to 18.81%.

The Commission, in accordance with the approach adopted in its previous Orders, has

allowed the actual quantum of power purchase made by the Petitioner. Considering the actual

energy input of 12,559.60 MU at distribution periphery (T&D interface) for FY 2015-16 and applying

the approved loss level of 15.00% for the year, the Commission has re-estimated the sales of

10675.66 MU for FY 2015-16. As against this sale of 10675.66 MU, the actual recasted sale approved

by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is 10196.93 MU. Therefore, there is a loss of sales to the tune of



478.73 MU on account of commercial inefficiencies of the Petitioner resulting from its failure to

achieve distribution loss target approved by the Commission. The Petitioner has submitted the

average billing rate of Rs. 4.55/kWh worked out on the sales claimed of 10249.87 MU. It is observed

that for computing ABR for FY 2015-16, the Petitioner has also considered revenue from delayed

payement surcharge which should not be included while computing the ABR for the year. The

Commission has, accordingly, computed the additional revenue on account of loss in sales due to

higher distribution loss considering the revenue excluding the revenue from delayed payment

surcharge and on the recasted sale of 10196.93 MU. The average billing rate thus computed works

out to Rs. 4.21/kWh and, accordingly, the Commission has worked out additional revenue of Rs.

201.61 Crore at an average billing rate of Rs. 4.21/kWh for the sales lost during FY 2015-16. The

following Table shows actual distribution loss and approved distribution loss along with efficiency

loss for FY 2015-16 as explained above.

Table 3.6: Assessed Distribution losses for FY 2015-16 (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) 12261.10 12559.60 12559.60

Actual/ Recasted Sales (MU) 10360.63 10249.87 10196.93 Actual Distribution Loss (MU) 1900.47 2309.73 2362.67 Distribution Loss Level (%) 15.50% 18.39% 18.81% Commercial Loss Reduction (%) 0.50% - - (Loss)/Gain of sales due to inefficiency/efficiency (MU) (Normative Sales-Actual Re-casted Sales)

62.68 (425.79) (478.73)

Approved Distribution Loss (%) 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% Total Normative Sales (MU) 10421.94 10675.66 10675.66 PTCUL Losses (%) 1.80% 1.78% 1.78% Energy Input at State Periphery 12485.85 12787.21 12787.21

Further, since 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.

3.1.3 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 2015-16 and actual as claimed by UPCL for FY 2015-16 is as



shown in the Table below:

Table 3.7: Power Purchase Cost approved in the Tariff Order Vs Actual Power Purchase Cost for FY 2015-16 (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. 4395.13 497.28 1.13 4453.65 770.60* 1.73 NHPC 755.69 212.59 2.81 736.36 285.67 3.88 THDC 707.60 166.73 2.36 667.87 235.40 3.52 NTPC 3174.88 1063.50 3.35 2677.62 854.65 3.19 NPCIL 282.67 92.55 3.27 293.11 92.26 3.15 Vishnu Prayag 192.58 30.87 1.60 130.52 30.44 2.33 GVK Free Power - - - 91.94 21.44 2.33 SJVNL 254.75 96.44 3.79 248.82 89.60 3.60 Other IPPs 1312.20 434.65 3.31 1174.55 339.42 2.89 Open Market Purchases 1,700.46 659.78 3.88 2099.24 794.16 3.78

Banking Received/(Paid) 290.08 0.00 0.00 54.74 - -

UI Received (23.15) (0.34) 0.15 PTCUL & SLDC - 302.75 - - 318.50 - PGCIL - 226.72 - - 414.80 - Water charges - 20.00 - - - - Total 12485.85 3803.86 3.05 12605.26 4246.60 3.37

*Includes past dues of Rs. 155.10 Crore paid to UJVN Ltd.

Based on the above comparative statement, the Commission sought the following

clarifications from UPCL:

• Reasons for claiming higher PTCUL charges than that approved by the Commission.

In reply, the Petitioner submitted the following:

• UPCL submitted that an amount of Rs. 15.75 Crore was towards incentive paid to

PTCUL and submitted the incentive bills in support of the same.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 for FY 2016-17 had directed UPCL to

claim the cost of energy returned under banking of Rs. 299.38 Crore during truing up exercise of FY

2015-16. However, the cost as reflected in note no. 19 of the Balance Sheet showed the cost of

banked power as Rs. 50.88 Crore. UPCL was asked to give the justification alongwith the manner in

which cost of Rs. 50.88 Crore had been booked and how Rs. 299.38 Crore relating to the provisions

for FY 2014-15 was adjusted. In reply UPCL submitted that in accordance with the directions of the

Commission, the cost of inward banking, i.e. Rs. 299.38 Crore was claimed in FY 2015-16, i.e. the



year in which the said banking was returned as the same was reflected in the power purchase

procured from various generators. UPCL further submitted that in FY 2015-16 the provision was

reversed and the power purchase was again debited by crediting the respective generator. Further,

UPCL submitted that during FY 2015-16 there were also inward banking for which provision was

made amounting to Rs. 350.26 Crore and, therefore, resultant provision of Rs. 50.88 Crore was being

reflected in accounts.

After scrutiny of the submissions of the Petitioner, the Commission observed that the

Petitioner had again booked the provision of inward banking of Rs. 50.88 Crore during FY 2015-16.

The Commission in its Order dated April 05, 2016 had not allowed any cost towards provisioning

for banked energy to be returned in FY 2015-16 and held as follows:

“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.

...

...

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.”

The Commisison, accordingly, did not allow the cost towards banking of power in FY

2014-15. In line with its earlier approach, the Commission has not considered provisioning

amount of Rs. 50.88 Crore towards banked power and directs UPCL to include the amount in

the Petition for truing up of FY 2016-17. Further, in consonance with the Petitioner’s

submissions that the cost of returned banking was reflected in the power purchase procured

from various generators, the Commission has allowed the actual power procurement cost

incurred during FY 2015-16.



Further, the Petitioner has also shown Rs. 155.10 Crore paid to UJVN Ltd. towards its past

dues against the gap allowed to UJVN Ltd. for previous years. Since, the Commission has been

allowing power purchase cost on the basis of audited accounts, accordingly, the Commission has

considered Rs. 155.10 Crore paid to UJVN Ltd. towards its past dues during FY 2015-16 on the basis

of the audited accounts. Further, with regard to the arrears paid during FY 2015-16, as the Petitioner

has not submitted the source wise break-up for the same, the Commission has approved the source-

wise power purchase cost as reflected in the audited accounts.

Further, the Commission sought the details of deemed generation charges paid by UPCL for

FY 2015-16. In reply the Petitioner submitted that no deemed charges have been paid in FY 2015-16.

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 11, 2015 for FY 2015-16. Based

on the above approach, the rate of free power works out to Rs. 2.33/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

2015-16 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.8: Power Purchase Cost claimed by UPCL and approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved by the Commission Power Purchase Expenses 3358.20 3307.31 UJVN Ltd. Arrear 155.10 155.10 Transmission Charges-PGCIL 414.80 414.80 Transmission Charges- PTCUL 318.50 318.50 Total Power Purchase Cost 4246.60 4195.71

3.1.4 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.”

3.1.4.1 Employee Expenses

The Petitioner submitted that the normative employee expenses for FY 2015-16 have been

arrived at as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011.

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 the 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 2015-16 was Rs.

7.69 Crore. Since enhanced pension was not part of the base employee expenses, this has been

considered additionally in FY 2015-16. The Petitioner has claimed the normative gross employee

expenses for FY 2015-16 of Rs. 319.07 Crore as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.9: Revised Employee Expenses Trajectory for MYT Control Period as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Inflation Factor 8.80% 7.21% Growth Factor 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Gross Employee Expenses 261.99 279.22 312.79 Impact of enhanced pension 17.23 11.23 7.69 Gross Employee Expenses 279.22 290.45 319.07

The Petitioner in the Petition has submitted that the net employee expenses for FY 2015-16

have been considered as Rs. 312.79 Crore. The Petitioner has further added the impact of enhanced

pension as Rs. 7.69 Crore. Hence, the normative net employee expenses for FY 2015-16 has been

estimated as Rs. 319.07 Crore by the Petitioner as against the actual net employee expenses of Rs.



246.94 Crore. The Petitioner, however, in its revised submission considered the normative employee

expenses as Rs. 329.63 Crore as approved in the Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 for the purpose of

sharing.

The Commission has re-worked the normative employee expenses for FY 2015-16 in

accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Commission had approved the trued up

normative gross employee expenses of Rs. 286.89 Crore for FY 2014-15. Considering the same as the

base and in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 the Commission has computed the

normative employee expenses for FY 2015-16. Regarding the growth factor, the Commission

observed that the number of employees of UPCL has reduced from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 as the

number of 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 8.80% which is the average of CPI inflation for the preceding three years of FY

2015-16 as against the inflation factor of 9.50% approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order

based on the CPI inflation for FY 2011-12 to FY 2013-14. 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

2014-15, 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 2015-16 is as shown in the

Table below:

Table 3.10: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in

the Tariff Order

Actual as per Audited

Accounts

Normative Claimed by

UPCL Approved

Employee expenses 329.63 246.94 329.63 256.84



3.1.4.2 Repair and Maintenance

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. As against the same, the actual R&M expenses for FY 2015-16 as

per the audited accounts, is Rs. 115.51 Crore. The Petitioner has claimed the normative R&M

expenses of Rs. 134.39 Crore.

The Commission has re-worked the normative R&M expenses for FY 2015-16 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 5.11% which is the average of WPI inflation

for the preceding three years of FY 2015-16. The normative R&M expenses approved by the

Commission for FY 2015-16 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.11: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)


the Tariff Order


Accounts


UPCL Approved

R&M Expenses 134.39 115.51 134.39 110.33

3.1.4.3 A&G Expenses

The Commission had approved the A&G expenses of Rs. 27.50 Crore for FY 2015-16 in its

Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015. As against the same, the actual A&G expenses as per the audited

accounts is Rs. 17.62 Crore. The Petitioner has claimed the normative A&G expenses of Rs. 27.50

Crore for FY 2015-16.

The Commission has re-worked the normative A&G expenses for FY 2015-16 in accordance

with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011. The Commission has considered the inflation factor of 5.11%

which is average of WPI inflation for the preceding three years of FY 2015-16. The Commission had

further allowed additional A&G expenses for Rs. 4.61 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. 3.24 Crore. The Commission has, therefore, allowed Rs. 3.24 Crore

towards such expenses as against Rs. 4.61 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. 13.40 Crore at the same percentage as considered by the Petitioner. The

A&G expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.12: Approved A&G expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)


the Tariff Order


Accounts


UPCL Approved

A&G expenses 27.50 17.62 27.50 19.83

Accordingly, the Commission has allowed net O&M expenses as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.13: Approved O&M expenses for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars

Approved in the Tariff

Order


Accounts


UPCL Approved

1. Employee expenses 329.63 246.94 329.63 256.84 2. R&M expenses 134.39 115.51 134.39 110.33 3. A&G expenses 27.50 17.62 27.50 19.83

Total 491.52 380.07 491.52 387.00

3.2 Cost of Assets & Financing

3.2.1 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 in its Tariff Order dated

05.04.2016 did 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…”

Accordingly, the Commission vide its Order dated 11.04.2015 had carried out provisional

truing up of FY 2013-14 considering the capitalisation of all the assets as per the audited accounts

till FY 2013-14. The capitalisation allowed was provisional and was subject to submission of EI

certificates by the Petitioner. Moreover, since the capitalisation of assets was considered on the

provisional basis, the Commission did not carry out the truing up for FY 2007-08 to FY 2012-13 for

capital related expenses. Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted the approval of the Electrical

Inspector for the entire HT works capitalised till FY 2014-15. The Commission, accordingly, vide its

Order dated 05.04.2016 had carried out the final truing up for FY 2007-08 to FY 2014-15. The GFA

approved by the Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 05, 2016 is given in the Table below:



Table 3.14: 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 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15

Opening Balance 1227.76 1540.46 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2787.04 3017.55 3202.56

Net additions 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50 185.01 472.76 Closing Balance 1540.46 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2787.04 3017.55 3202.56 3675.32

The Petitioner in the present Petition however, submitted that the capitalisation for FY 2014-

15 as Rs. 493.22 Crore instead of Rs. 472.76 Crore. The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit

necessary justification for claiming the same. The Petitioner in response submitted that during the

previous tariff proceedings the capitalisation of Rs. 472.76 Crore was submitted against lines and

cables and plant and machinery, however, the total addition was Rs. 493.22 Crore as submitted in

the Petition. The Commission has gone through the submissions made by the Petitioner and has

revised the capitalisation for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 493.22 Crore.

With regard to FY 2015-16, the Petitioner has claimed capitalisation of Rs. 284.78 Crore. The

Petitioner was directed to submit the addition of fixed assets into HT and LT works and to submit

the Electrical Inspector clearance for HT works. The Petitioner in response submitted that out of the

total capitalisation claimed, HT works comprises of Rs. 179.28 Crore. The Petitioner further

submitted the Electrical Inspector clearance certificate for the entire HT works claimed for FY 2015-

16. The Commission has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has

submitted the Electrical Inspector Certificates for the HT works capitalised in FY 2015-16.

Considering the fact that the Petitioner has submitted the Electrical Inspector Certificates for entire

HT works and balance works are LT works, the Commission has considered the net GFA addition

of Rs. 284.78 Crore for FY 2015-16. The Commission approves the capitalisation for FY 2014-15 and

FY 2015-16 as follows:

Table 3.15: Assets base approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Opening Balance 3202.56 3695.78 Net additions 493.22 284.78 Closing Balance 3695.78 3980.56



3.2.2 Financing of Capital assets

3.2.2.1 Truing up of Capital Related Expense for FY 2015-16

The Commission vide its Order dated April 05, 2016 had carried out the true up for FY 2014-

15 and had approved the net GFA addition of Rs. 472.76 Crore for FY 2014-15. As discussed above,

the actual capitalisation for the year stands revised to Rs. 493.22 Crore. The means of finance

approved earlier and now trued up is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.16: Approved Means of Finance for FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2014-15 Approved Previously Now Approved

RGVVY Loan 9.62 9.62 AREP Loan - - State/District Plan - - APDRP Loan - - R-APDRP Part A 16.59 16.59 REC Loan 189.89 189.89 PMGY/MNP - - PTW Loan - - Deposit Works 181.84 181.84 Grant Internal resources 74.82* 95.28* Total 472.76 493.22

*30% has been considered as equity & balance 70% has been treated as mormative loan

The means of finance for the capitalisation of Rs. 284.78 Crore for FY 2015-16 as submitted

by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.17: Means of Finance for FY 2015-16 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2015-16 RGVVY Loan 0.00 R-APDRP Part A 2.43 REC Loan 139.81 Deposit Works 105.22 Grant Internal resources 37.32* Total 284.78

* 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 and FY 2015-16 is as




Table 3.18: GFA & Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Grants* Loan Equity Total Grants Loan Equity Total

Opening Value 1394.67 1329.08 478.80 3202.56 1593.10 1595.29 507.39 3695.78 Total Addition during the year 198.43 266.21 28.58 493.22 107.65 165.93 11.20 284.78

Closing Value of GFA 1593.10 1595.29 507.39 3695.78 1700.75 1761.22 518.58 3980.56 * Financing out of R-APDRP Part A has been considered as grant

3.2.2.1.1 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner has claimed Interest and Finance Charges of Rs. 136.67 Crore for FY 2015-16

against the amount of Rs. 139.44 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated April

11, 2015.

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 2015-16 dated April 11,

2015.

d) Government Guarantee fees has been considered on actual basis.

e) The Petitioner has not considered the interest on GPF. However, 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.



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. The Petitioner

has ignored 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 2015-16 considering the loan amounts

corresponding to assets capitalised in the year based on the approved means of finance, and the

interest rate of 11.86% 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

2015-16 as Rs. 51.04 Crore. In reply to the Commission’s query, the Petitioner submitted that the

actual interest on CSD paid/adjusted in the bills for FY 2015-16 was Rs. 57.88 Crore. The

Commission has approved the interest on CSD for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 57.88 Crore.

Further, the interest on REC Old Loan has been allowed as claimed by UPCL. The

Commission observed that the Petitioner has claimed substantially higher guarantee fee of Rs. 13.62

Crore as compared to Rs. 2.03 Crore approved in the Tariff Order for FY 2015-16. The Commission,

accordingly, directed the Petitioner to submit the details of the guarantee fees paid. The Petitioner

in response submitted the break up of guarantee fees claimed by it which is as shown in the Table

below:



Table 3.19: Guarantee Fees claimed for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed

Provision for Guarantee Fees for FY 2015-16 3.42 Provision for penalty due to non-payment of Guarantee Fees for FY 2015-16 3.41

Provision for penalty due to non-payment of Guarantee fees on Outstanding Guarantee Fees as on 31.03.2015

6.79

Total 13.62

The Commission has only considered the guarantee fee of Rs. 3.42 Crore due for FY 2015-16

and has not considered the provisions made for payment of penalty on non-payment of guarantee

fee as the Commission has been allowing guarantee fee to UPCL in its previous Tariff Orders.

Further, 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 considered by

the Petitioner.

The Commission has worked out the Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2015-16

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 3.20: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Tariff Order

Claimed by UPCL Approved

Interest on Loan corresponding to assets capitalised 66.68 69.19 73.06 Guarantee Fee 2.03 13.62 3.42 Interest on Security Deposit 46.76 51.04 57.88 REC Old Loan 23.97 23.97 23.97 Financing Charges 0.00 1.06 1.06 Total Interest Charges 139.44 158.89 159.39 Capitalisation 0.00 (22.22) 0.00 Net Interest and Finance Charges 139.44 136.67 159.39

3.2.3 Depreciation

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that it has calculated depreciation considering

the opening and closing GFA for FY 2015-16 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 5.22% for FY 2015-16. The Petitioner has, accordingly, claimed total

depreciation of Rs. 114.12 Crore as against Rs. 94.54 Crore approved by the Commission in the



Tariff Order for FY 2015-16.

The Commission has allowed depreciation at a weighted average rate of 5.21% based on the

audited balance sheet for FY 2015-16. 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 directs the Petitioner to

claim depreciation in line with its practice followed in the accounts.

The Commission in its data gaps sent to the Petitioner required it to confirm that the

depreciation claimed is not in excess of 90% of its assets. The Petitioner in its reply confirmed that

depreciation in FY 2015-16 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 2015-16 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.21: Depreciation approved for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

Opening GFA - 3695.78 Grants - 1593.10 Depreciable opening GFA 2187.56 2102.68 Net addition during the year 179.56 177.13* Closing GFA 2367.12 2279.81 Depreciation rate 5.22% 5.21% Depreciation 114.12 109.63

*Addtions less grants

3.2.4 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 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 the 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. 56.11 Crore which is the actual write off of bad debts in FY 2015-16.

Regulation 32 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 specifies as follows:

“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:

• Nature of bad debt written off.

• Division wise bad debt written off and consumer category wise bad debt written off.

It is observed that 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 bad debts



written off by the Petitioner are as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.22: Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Actual Bad Debts Write off (Rs. Crore)

Year Provision allowed by the Commission Actual written off 09.11.2001 230.01 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 FY 2015-16 56.11 Total 333.75 195.26

UPCL in response to the above queries has submitted that the bad debt pertains to bills

raised against ghost consumers and fictitious billing adjustments and further submitted the

category wise details of the bad debts written off.

The Commission in its MYT Order dated 05.04.2016 with regard to writing off bad debt has

stated as follows;

“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.”

The Commission observed that the Petitioner is yet to finalise its bad debt policy as per the

above directions. The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the current status towards

compliance of the said directions. The Petitioner in response submitted that the same shall be

submitted by March 2017. The Petitioner has, however, not submitted the same. The Petitioner is

directed to submit the bad debt policy within three month from the date of this Order.

Further, 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.

The Commission has already allowed the Petitioner a total provision of Rs. 333.75 Crore till

FY 2008-09 which also includes the opening balance of the provision inherited from UPPCL. Even

considering the actual debt written off of Rs. 195.26 Crore till FY 2015-16, the Petitioner is still left

with a provision of about Rs. 138.49 Crore. The closing debtors of UPCL as on 31.03.2015 were to the

tune of Rs. 2147.25 Crore as per the Commercial Diary of UPCL. Hence, the provision available with

UPCL is to the extent of 6.45% for FY 2015-16 of the existing debtors and any additional provision is

not allowable in accordance with the Regulations as referred above.

3.2.5 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. -43.67 Crore. The Petitioner has submitted that it has not

claimed any IoWC.

The computation of interest on working capital as submitted by the Petitioner is detailed in

the Table below:



Table 3.23: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Operation and Maintenance Expenses (one month) 31.67 Maintenance @ 15% of O&M Expenses 57.01 Receivables (2 months) 810.26 Sub-total 898.95 Less: Adjustment for security deposits & Credit available for Power Purchase 942.61 Net working capital -43.67 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 2015-16.


The Petitioner submitted that it has computed Return on Equity (RoE) for FY 2015-16 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 2014-15 has been considered as the opening equity for FY 2015-

16.

• The capitalisation for FY 2015-16 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.

Further, in this regard it is also to be pointed towards the mismatch in the amount of equity

being allowed by the Commission and the amount of equity being claimed by the Petitioner. The

Commission has been considering the means of finance since FY 2001-02 as submitted by the

Petitioner based on the audited accounts for carrying out the truing up for the respective years. It

now appears that the Petitioner has revised its own submissions without assigning any reasons for

the same. It would be relevant to refer to Para 3.3.12 of the Order dated April 10, 2014 for FY 2014-

15 wherein the Commission had dealt with the issue in detail. The relevant extracts are reproduced

hereunder:

”…The Commission in its Order dated March 18, 2008, had accepted UPCL’s claim that the amount

of Rs. 46.48 Crore incurred towards funding of interest during construction and Rs. 49.57 Crore

incurred for creating fixed assets was funded out of its internal resources till FY 2006-07, from the



total approved surplus of Rs. 333.82 Crore for the period FY 2001-02 to FY 2006-07. Further, the

Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2011-12, dated May 24, 2011 had observed as follows:

“…Thus, from the above reading, it is amply clear that the Commission had identified the total

surplus earned by the Petitioner upto 31.03.2007 as Rs. 333.82 Crore out of which Rs. 46.48 Crore

was treated as utilisation from the surplus towards funding of interest during construction and Rs.

49.57 Crore was treated as utilized by the Petitioner for creating fixed assets out of its internal

resources. Thus, the Petitioner has wrongly claimed RoE on the internal resources as the same has

already been financed out of the surplus generated from the consumers and it cannot be treated as

equity of the Petitioner in line with the Commission‘s approach in the Order dated March 18, 2008.”

Accordingly, the Commission did not consider the equity/internal resources of Rs. 96.05 Crore

utilized towards creation of assets out of the internal resources, to be eligible for return purposes. The

Commission had considered the write-offs in the asset base of the Petitioner during FY 2004-05, FY

2005-06 and FY 2006-07 and assets worth Rs. 3.57 Crore were written off from the equity employed

in the assets hence, balance assets of Rs. 92.48 Crore created out of the surplus remained in the books

of the Petitioner. Since, the Petitioner had utilised the net surplus earned by it, thus, continuing the

previous approach of the Commission, the Petitioner is not entitled for RoE on the same.

The Petitioner has created assets through internal resources also. The opening value of internal

resources for FY 2012-13 as shown in Table 3.51 is Rs. 623.49 Crore. After reducing Rs. 92.48 Crore

from the same, the internal resources left for allowing the servicing cost is Rs. 531.01 Crore. Since,

the assets worth Rs. 531.01 Crore have been created out of internal resources, the Commission has

applied the debt-equity ratio of 70:30 in accordance with the Tariff Regulations and, accordingly,

opening equity eligible for return for FY 2012-13 works out to Rs. 159.30 Crore and the balance

amount has been considered as normative loan and interest on the same has been allowed in

accordance with the Regulations...”

Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to take note of the findings of the Commission in

the above referred Order and claim RoE strictly in accordance with the same and not cling to its

own set of figures without assigning any reasons for the difference in the two set of figures

submitted before the Commission.

Hence, the Commission has considered the closing equity for FY 2014-15 as the opening

equity for FY 2015-16. 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

Commission for FY 2015-16 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.24: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

Return on Equity 48.88 85.64 40.94

3.2.7 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. 174.71 Crore as against the actual Non-Tariff Income as per the

audited accounts of Rs. 228.16 Crore.

The Petitioner submitted that since UERC MYT Regulations, 2011 allows normative working

capital only, any additional rebate earned by the Petitioner by making early payment should be

allowed to be retained by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, accordingly, proposed to share only up to

1% of the rebate earned on account of timely payment of the power purchase bills as non-tariff

income which has been proposed as Rs. 28.77 Crore. The Commission does not accept this

contention of the Petitioner as the Commission in the past has also considered the total rebate

earned by the Petitioner as non-tariff income. In this regard, Hon’ble ATE in its Judgment dated

May 18, 2015 on the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has already given its findings contrary to the

claim of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Commission has considered the entire rebate as part of

non-tariff income.

The Petitioner was directed to submit justification for not considering the total material cost

variance, transitory reserves as a part of NTI. The Petitioner in response submitted that the same

was in line with the approach followed by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016

wherein the Petitioner has considered the amount after excluding the grant portion. Further with

regard to transitory reserves the Petitioner has submitted that the transitory reserve of Rs. 0.96

Crore pertains to write back off the provisions of FY 2003-04 and Rs. 0.065 Crore is write back off

the provisions of FY 2006-07 which were not allowed by the Commission and, therefore, the same

has not been considered as a part of NTI. The Commission agrees with the submissions made by the

Petitioner in this regard as the Commission also had not allowed the material cost variance on the



value of grants and also the transitory reserves.

The audited accounts for FY 2015-16, shows interest on loans for previous years written back

of Rs. 20.23 Crore. In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that the Commission did not allow

interest on UPPCL dues and interest on AERP loans, as expenses in the ARR of the Petitioner, the

said amount of interest has not been considered as Non-tariff income and the remaining amount of

Rs. 6.27 Crore towards State Government loans and APDRP loans has been considered under Non-

Tariff Income for FY 2015-16. This contention of the Petitioner is not accepted by the Commission as

the Commission has been allowing the interest on only those loans which have been capitalized by

the Petitioner and not based on the interest booked by it in its accounts. The Commission has also

not been allowing interest on UPPCL dues and on AREP loans, thus, the same has also not been

considered. Hence, the Commission has not considered the amount of interest written back by the

Petitioner.

Accordingly, the non-tariff income claimed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission for the purpose of truing up for FY 2015-16 is as given in the Table below:

Table 3.25: Non-tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order

Claimed by UPCL Approved

Interest on deposits

73.54

65.59 65.59 Income from staff welfare activities 0.15 0.15 Rebate/Incentive 28.77 45.69 Miscellaneous receipts 37.14 37.14 Material Cost Variance 36.78 36.78 Transitory Reserve Written Back 0.00 0.00 Interest on Institutional/Liabilities for previous years written back 6.27 0.00

Total 73.54 174.71 185.35

3.3 Tariff Revenue

The Petitioner submitted the revenue at existing tariff as Rs. 4667.68 Crore as against the

revenue of Rs. 4591.79 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2015-16.

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. 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 3.60% 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. The Petitioner has further

prayed not to consider any additional revenue on account of not meeting the norms and revisit and

adjust the revenue that have been considered in the past. 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 2015-16 and is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.26: Revenue loss due to higher distribution loss for FY 2015-16 claimed by the Petitioner

Particulars Formula Amount Actual/recasted sales (MU) A 10249.87 Actual energy input at distribution periphery (MU) B 12559.60 Approved distribution losses (%) C 15% Sales at approved distribution loss level (MU) D = B*(1-C) 10675.66 Loss of sale due to inefficiency in distribution loss (MU) E=D-A 425.79 Revenue for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) F 4667.68 ABR (Rs./kWh) G= F/A 4.55 Revenue from additional sale (Rs. Crore) F=E*G 193.90

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 2015-16.

The Commission has considered the distribution loss for FY 2015-16 as approved by it in its

MYT Order and, accordingly, has computed the loss of sales as 478.73 MU due to commercial

inefficiencies of UPCL. As has been dealt elsewhere in the Order, despite huge capitalisation carried



out by the Petitioner, its losses at LT levels are not reducing. Further, no concrete steps have been

carried out by the Petitioner to reduce its losses. The meter exceptions of the Petitioner are on a

higher side. This issue has also been settled by Hon’ble ATE in its Judgment dated May 18, 2015 on

the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. The relevant extracts of the Judgment are reproduced hereunder:

“...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...”

Thus, the Commission finds no reason to revisit the loss reduction trajectory fixed by it.

While approving the category wise sales for FY 2015-16, the Commission has recasted the

sales of Domestic, PTW, Non-Domestic, PWW, Public Lamps 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 3.27: Revenue for FY 2015-16 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 2.41 0.04 Other Domestic Consumers 2.89 3.08 0.89 Non Domestic 0.33 4.87 0.16 PTW 48.92 1.36 6.67 PWW 0.43 4.64 0.20 Public Lamps 2.39 4.31 1.03 Total 55.12 8.99

With regards the revenue from departmental employees, both in service and retired, it is

observed that based on the recasted sales for departmental employees, their average billing rate is

almost equal to the average billing rate of other domestic consumers and, accordingly, no

adjustment on this account has been carried out towards the Revenue for FY 2015-16.

Based on the above, the revenue from the sale of power, as worked out by the Commission



is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.28: Revenue from Sale of Power for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Actual Revenue 4667.68 Less: Revenue corresponding to reduction in Sales 8.99 Total Revenue 4658.69

Further, it observed that the Petitioner has also considered a revenue of Rs. 364.40 Crore

towards delayed payment surcharge while deriving ABR for computing revenue from additional

sales which is incorrect and should be excluded. The Commission for the computation of ABR has

not included the revenue received on account of delayed payment surcharge and has considered an

amount of Rs. 4294.29 Crore for computation of ABR. This reflects towards the callous approach of

the Petitioner in managing its day to day affairs where no differentiation is made between tariff as

well as non-tariff income. The Petitioner is directed to properly account for the revenues from

tariff as well as non-tariff income.

Further, as discussed above there is a loss of 478.73 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. 201.61 Crore at an average billing

rate of Rs. 4.2114 kWh for this additional loss of sale on account of higher distribution losses while

truing up the ARR for FY 2015-16 as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.29: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Sr. No. Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Actual/ Re-casted Sales (MU) 10249.87 10196.94 2. Approved Distribution Loss Level (%) 15.00% 15.00% 3. Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface (MU) 12559.60 12559.60 4. Sales at Actual Energy Input with 15.00% Loss (MU) 10675.66 10675.66 5. Loss of Sales due to Inefficiency (MU) 425.79 478.73 6. Revenue at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) 4667.68 4295.05 7. ABR (Rs./kWh) 4.55 4.2114 8. Additional Revenue due to higher distribution losses (Rs. Crore) 193.90 201.61 9. Losses to borne by Petitioner Rs Crore) (75% of (8)) 145.53 151.21

Accordingly, the Commission has considered tariff revenue of Rs. 4809.09 Crore including

Rs. 151.21 Crore as deemed revenue on account of excess loss for FY 2015-16 as against total

revenue of Rs. 4667.68 Crore claimed by the Petitioner.



3.4 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 2015-16 is as shown in the

Table below:

Table 3.30: Sharing of Gains and Losses for FY 2015-16 claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount Consumer Share UPCL Share

A. Gain 20% 80% Employee Expenses 82.69 16.54 66.15 A&G Expenses 9.88 1.98 7.90 R&M Expenses 18.88 3.78 15.11 Subtotal (A) 111.45 22.30 89.16 B. Loss 25% 75% Revenue from Additional Sales 193.90 48.48 145.43 Subtotal (B) 193.90 48.48 145.43 Grand Total – (Loss)/ profit to be borne (26.18) (56.26)

In addition to above, the Petitioner in its subsequent submissions claimed sharing on

account of savings on IoWC from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 as shown below.

Table 3.31: Sharing of Gains and Losses on account of IoWC for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Year Approved in the

Tariff Order (Rs. Crore)

Actual (Rs. Crore)

Saving (Rs. Crore)

UPCL Share 80%

(Rs. Crore) 2013-14 7.26 0.00 7.26 5.81 2014-15 6.36 0.00 6.36 5.09 2015-16 8.38 0.00 8.38 6.70 Total 22.00 0.00 22.00 17.60

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.

With regard to the Petitioner’s claim on account of sharing of interest on working capital for

previous years, the Commission is of the view that the same was not carried out in the previous

Orders and, therefore, the same has now been considered. The Commission has worked out the loss

on account of IoWC considering the actual IoWC as per the audited accounts of the Petitioner and

has compared it with the normative Interest on Working capital expenses as shown below:

Table 3.32: Sharing of Loss on account of IoWC for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore) Particulars 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 As per Audited Accounts 20.46 10.27 20.56 Normative 0.00 0.00 0.00 Loss 20.46 10.27 20.56 Consumer Share (25%) 5.12 2.57 5.14



The Commission has considered the impact of sharing of loss on account of IoWC for FY

2013-14 and FY 2014-15 along with the carrying cost, to be recovered alongwith the ARR of FY 2017-

18, as shown below:

Table 3.33: Impact of Sharing of Loss of IoWC for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17

Opening Gap/(Surplus) 0.00 5.49 9.05 10.39 Addition 5.12 2.57 0.00 0.00 Closing 5.12 8.05 9.05 10.39 Interest Rate 14.45% 14.75% 14.75% 14.05% Carrying/(Holding) Cost 0.37 0.99 1.33 1.46 Closing Balance 5.49 9.05 10.39 11.84

In addition to above, the sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the

Commission for FY 2015-16 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 3.34: Sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY 2015-16 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Actual Normative as

Trued up Aggregate gain/(loss)

Consumer’s Share

Petitioner’s Share of

Gain/(Loss)

A B C=B-A Gain: D=20% x C Loss D=25% x C E=C-D

O&M expenses 380.00 387.00 7.00 1.40 5.60 Distribution Loss 18.81% 15.00% (201. 61) (50.40) (151.21) IoWC 20.56 0.00 (20.56) (5.14) (15.42)

3.5 ARR & Revenue for FY 2015-16

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015 had approved the Net Revenue

Requirement for FY 2015-16 as Rs. 4590.88 Crore. The Petitioner has now claimed an ARR of Rs.

4711.09 Crore for FY 2015-16. 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 2015-16 is given in

the Table below:



Table 3.35: Summary of true up for FY 2015-16 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) S.

No. Particulars Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Total Power Purchase Cost 4114.06 4246.60 4195.71 2. Interest on Loan 139.44 136.67 159.39 3. Guarantee Fee 4. Depreciation 94.54 114.12 109.63 5. O&M expenses after sharing of gains and losses 491.52 380.07 385.60 6. Interest on Working Capital 8.38 0.00 0.00 7. Impact of IoWC sharing 5.14 8. Return on Equity 48.88 85.64 40.94 9. Aggregate Revenue Requirement 4741.72 4963.10 4896.41

10. Less: Non-Tariff Income 73.54 174.71 185.35 11. Gap/(Surplus) of previous year -77.30 -77.30 -77.30 12. Net ARR 4590.88 4711.09 4633.76 13. Revenue

Revenue at Existing Tariff 4591.79 4667.68 4658.69

Revenue from Addl Sales. (after sharing) 151.21 14. Total Revenue 4591.79 4667.68 4809.90 15. Sharing of Gains and Losses - 64.71 16. Adjusted Revenue (Surplus)/Gap 0.91 -21.31 -176.14

The Petitioner in its Petition had requested the Commission to approve the Surplus of Rs.

21.31 Crore. However, the Commission has approved a surplus of Rs. 176.14 Crore for FY 2015-16.

The surplus for FY 2015-16 with carrying cost along with the sharing of loss on account of IoWC for

FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 works out to Rs. -203.85 Crore as shown in the Table below which has

been adjusted by the Commission in ARR of FY 2017-18.

Table 3.36: Summary of Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2015-16 to be carried forward to FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 Opening Gap/(Surplus) 0.00 -189.13 Addition -176.14 0.00 Closing -176.14 -189.13 Interest Rate 14.75% 14.05% Carrying/(Holding) Cost -12.99 -26.57 Closing Balance -189.126 -215.70 Add: Impact of Sharing of IoWC - 11.84 Net Impact - -203.85


4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny

and Conclusion on Annual Revenue Requirement for FY

2017-18

4.1 Background

As regard the MYT Framework and determination of ARR, 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) Review of control period ending on 31.03.2016 shall also be taken up alongwith the

ARR/Tariff petition for the first year of ensuing control period.

d) 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;

e) 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;

f) 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 and shall be 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.”

In accordance with the above provisions of the Regulations, the Commission had approved

the Aggregate Revenue Requirement of the Petitioner for all the years of the second Control Period,

i.e. from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 excluding the power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19

vide its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016.

As regards the Annual Performance Review, Regulations 12(3) of the UERC (Terms and

Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2015 specifies as follows:

“The scope of the Annual Performance Review shall be a comparison of the actual performance of the

Applicant with the approved forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and expected revenue from

tariff and charges and shall comprise of following:

a) A comparison of the audited performance of the applicant for the previous financial year with the

approved forecast for such previous financial year and truing up of expenses and revenue subject to

prudence check including pass through of impact of uncontrollable factors;

b) Categorisation of variations in performance with reference to approved forecast into factors within

the control of the applicant (controllable factors) and those caused by factors beyond the control of the

applicant (un-controllable factors).

c) Revision of estimates for the ensuing financial year, if required, based on audited financial results

for the previous financial year;

d) Computation of the sharing of gains and losses on account of controllable factors for the previous

year.”

The Petitioner in the present APR Petition has requested the Commission to approve the

revised estimates for FY 2017-18 based on the revised submissions in the APR Petition. The

Commission had already approved most of the ARR components for the Second Control Period FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19 after detailed analysis, scrutiny and prudence check of the Petitioner’s

submission vide its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016. As the Commission had not approved the

power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 in its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016, hence, in the present

Order the Commission has approved the power purchase quantum and cost associated therewith

based on the analysis and scrutiny of Petitioner’s projections in the Petition and considering the

subsequent submissions including actual audited data available for FY 2015-16. As discussed in the

previous Chapter, the Commission in this Order has carried out the Truing up for FY 2015-16 in

accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011 wherein the Commission has allowed

4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Annual Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18


capitalisation of assets for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16. In accordance with Regulation 12(3) of the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 the scope of annual performance review is limited to the revision of

estimates for the ensuing year, if required, based on the audited financial results for the previous

year and give resultant effect on this account in the estimates of the said current year.

4.2 Sales

The Petitioner submitted that the State of Uttarakhand, is operating under an energy deficit

scenario, i.e. the demand exceeds the supply of power. The Petitioner further submitted that the

energy for retail supply depends on the availability of power in the State and the projection for the

total energy available for sale is based on the total energy input from all Central and State

Generating stations, as Uttarakhand is mainly dependent on Central and State-owned generation.

The Petitioner also submitted that based on the actual sales data, the State energy consumption has

witnessed 4.43% Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the past five years, i.e. from FY

2011-12 to FY 2015-16 as shown in the Table below.

Table 4.1: Actual Energy sales for consumer categories during FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16 (MU)

Consumer Category 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 RTS-1: Domestic 1676.7 1795.06 2105.05 2272.98 2390.95 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 885.42 953.94 995.76 1069.93 1120.82 RTS-3: Public Lamps 66.89 87.2 44.06 46.84 45.37 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 188.46 244.8 222.76 268.89 283.91 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 136.56 130.2 104.23 107.64 141.03 RTS-6: Public Water Works 324.52 302.68 293.37 316.64 347.04 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 4805.52 4884.88 5092.57 5371.28 5719.58 Total LT 269.78 289.42 287.66 304.79 282.32 Total HT 4535.74 4595.46 4804.91 5066.49 5437.27 RTS-8: Mixed Load 160.26 167.55 177.6 185.68 186.78 RTS-9: Railway Traction 8.39 7.83 11.49 14.7 14.16 Total 8252.72 8574.15 9046.89 9654.58 10249.65

The Petitioner submitted that it has assumed that energy consumption in the future will

continue to grow based on the past growth trends in electricity consumption. The Petitioner

submitted that it has considered unrestricted sales of last five years for projecting category-wise

energy sales for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner further submitted that it has considered the Adjusted

Trend Analysis Method in line with the approach followed by the Commission in the MYT Order

dated April 05, 2016.



Projection of Energy Sales – Adjusted Trend Analysis (CAGR) Method

The Petitioner submitted that for projecting the category-wise energy sales, it has considered

past growth trends in each consumer category, as explained below:

a) The Petitioner has adopted an Adjusted Trend Analysis Method for projecting the

sales for all consumer categories. The Petitioner submitted that this method assumes

that the underlying factors which drive the demand for electricity are expected to

follow the same trend as in the past, however, this approach also discounts any out-

lier (relative to the trend) observed in the growth rates over the period of 5 years and

excludes them while projecting energy sales for FY 2017-18.

b) The Petitioner submitted that this method makes use of a statistical tool, namely the

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) and, accordingly, Compound Annual

Growth Rates (CAGRs) were calculated from the past figures for each category,

corresponding to different lengths of time in the past five years, along with the year

on year growth rates from FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16.

c) CAGR has been computed for each consumer category for the past 5-year period

from FY 2010-11 to FY 2015-16, the 4-year period from FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16, the

3-year period from FY 2012-13 to FY 2015-16, and the 2-year period from FY 2013-14

to FY 2015-16, along with the 1-year growth rate of FY 2014-15 over FY 2015-16, as

summarised in the Table below:

Table 4.2: CAGR calculated for Energy Sales to each consumer category S.

No. Consumer Category 5 year 4 year 3 year 2 year 1 year

1. RTS-1: Domestic 9.12% 8.99% 3.58% 5.42% 3.81% 2. RTS-2: Non-Domestic 5.79% 5.78% 3.34% 5.05% 3.41% 3. RTS-3: Public Lamps -4.14% -9.50% 0.25% 0.38% -4.39%

4. RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 8.36% 10.56% 7.63% 11.66% 4.16%

5. RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 3.70% 0.53% 9.80% 15.06% 29.31%

6. RTS-6: Public Water Works 3.82% 1.41% 4.99% 7.58% 8.17% 7. RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 5.53% 4.16% 3.19% 4.83% 5.09% 8. Total LT 2.91% 0.86% -1.34% -2.01% -8.58% 9. Total HT 5.68% 4.35% 3.45% 5.22% 5.92%

10. RTS-8: Mixed Load 8.22% 3.62% 0.96% 1.44% -0.72% 11. RTS-9: Railway Traction 11.76% 13.67% 6.46% 9.84% -4.90%

Total 5.17% 5.28% 3.49% 5.29% 4.78%



The Petititioner further projected the methodology for projecting the category wise sales for

FY 2017-18 as stated below:

a) Sales for RTS-1: Domestic, RTS 4: Private Tube Wells and RTS-6: Public Water Works has

been projected based upon 5 year CAGR.

b) Sales for RTS-2: Non-Domestic and RTS-5: Government Irrigation System has been

projected based upon Y-o-Y average increase in sales for last 5 years excluding the

outliers.

c) Sales for RTS-3: Public Lamps and RTS-9: Railway Traction has been projected to increase

at a subjective rate of 2% and 5% respectively each year as the year on year sales increase

and CAGR method do not show any pattern.

d) Sales for RTS-7: LT Industries have been projected based upon Y-o-Y average increase in

sales for last 5 years excluding the outliers and HT Industries have been projected based

upon 5 year CAGR.

e) Sales for RTS-8: Mixed Load Consumers has been projected based upon 4 year CAGR.

The Petitioner has estimated the sales for FY 2016-17 and considering the base year as FY

2016-17, it has projected the sales for FY 2017-18 based on the methodology as stated below:

a) Sales for FY 2016-17 has been estimated based on category wise actual sales in FY 2016-17

in Apr- July, comparing the same with category wise actual sales for Apr-July for FY 2013-

14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 and total sales for respective years.

b) For forecasting the expected sales for FY 2017-18, projected sales for FY 2016-17 have been

considered as base and the chosen growth rate is applied over the sales for FY 2016-17 to

finally arrive upon the sales for FY 2017-18.

c) However, energy sales to un-metered consumers under domestic and private tube wells in

FY 2015-16 have been re-casted as per methodology specified by the Commission before

considering them for projections.

The Petitioner has, accordingly, projected the energy sales for FY 2017-18 as shown in the

Table below:



Table 4.3: Sales projected by the Petitoner for FY 2017-18 (MU)

S. No. Category Wise Sales FY 2016-17 (RE)

Growth Rate Method Adopted FY 2017-

18 1. RTS-1: Domestic 2666.51 9.12% 5 year CAGR 2908.48 2. RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1249.94 6.65% Avg. less outliers 1333.10 3. RTS-3: Public Lamps 44.39 2.00% Subjective Rate 45.28

4. RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 329.73 8.36% 5 year CAGR 357.32

5. RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 138.32 5.16% Avg. less outliers 145.47

6. RTS-6: Public Water Works 364.07 3.82% 5 year CAGR 377.98 7. RTS-7: LT & HT Industry Total LT 307.34 4.35% Avg. Less outliers 320.70 Total HT 5618.17 5.68% 5 year CAGR 5937.16

8. RTS-8: Mixed Load 196.26 3.62% 4 year CAGR 203.36 9. RTS-9: Railway Traction 21.65 5.00% Subjective Rate 35.13

Total 10935.40 11663.98

The Commission observed that though the Petitioner has submitted that it is projecting

unrestricted sales, however, it has projected the restricted sales to the consumers using CAGR

method instead of unrestricted sales. The Commission has gone through the submissions of the

Petitioner. The Commission observes that the sales of 11663.98 MU projected by the Petitioner is less

than 11849 MU projected by the Commission for FY 2017-18 primarily because the Petitioner has

projected restricted sales.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Commission has carried out the truing up of sales for FY

2015-16. Considering the actual recasted sales as trued up in Chapter 3, the Commission has re-

worked the sales of FY 2017-18 as discussed below.

a) Base year has been considered as FY 2015-16 as the actual sales data are available. The

Commission has considered the re-casted sales for FY 2015-16 and has added the

category wise load shedding carried out during FY 2015-16 as submitted by the

Petitioner to derive the un-restricted sales for FY 2015-16.

b) The Commission has applied the same growth rate as considered in the Business Plan for

Public Lamps, PTW, GIS, LT Industry, Mixed Load, Railway Traction.

c) With regard to the remaining categories, i.e. Domestic, Non-Domestic and HT Industry,

the Commission has considered 5 year CAGR.

Based on the above, the total sales works out to 11755 MU which is not in much variance



with the sales of 11849 MU as approved in the MYT Order dated 05.04.2016. The Commission,

therefore, does not find any ground to revise the sales approved in the MYT Order and thus,

approves a total sales of 11849 MU as approved in the MYT Order dated 05.04.2016 which is as

shown below.

Table 4.4: Consumer Category wise sales approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (MU)

S. No. Category Claimed Approved 1. Domestic 2908 3069 2. Non Domestic 1333 1338 3. Public Lamps 45 52 4. Private Tube Wells (PTW) 357 341 5. Government Irrigation System (GIS) 145 129 6. Public Water Works (PWW) 378 380 7. Industrial Consumers

LT Industries 321 360

HT Industries 5937 5936 Total 6258 6296

8. Mixed Load 203 225 9. Railway Traction 35 19

Grand Total 11664 11849

4.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory

The Commission had approved the Distribution Loss Trajectory for the Second Control

Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 in its MYT Order dated 05.04.2016. 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 4.5: 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 Distribution Losses 15.00% 14.75% 14.50%

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that the estimated distribution losses for UPCL

for FY 2002-03 were 44.32%. The distribution loss level achieved by the Petitioner in FY 2015-16 was

18.39%, implying a reduction of 25.93% in 13 years and an average reduction of 1.99% p.a. The

Petitioner further submitted that even after such significant reduction in distribution losses, the

Commission while determining the ARR and Tariffs of UPCL considered deemed revenue due to

non-achievement of unrealistic trajectory of distribution losses determined by the Commission. It



also submitted that out of the total accumulated loss of Rs. 1955.08 Crore as on 31.03.2015, Rs.

1152.73 Crore is on account of higher distribution loss target fixed by the Commission. The

Petitioner also submitted that below 20% distribution loss level, reduction of distribution losses is

extremely difficult and slows down considerably. The Petitioner has, accordingly, proposed to

reduce the distribution losses by 1.00% during FY 2016-17 and further 1.00% per annum during FY

2017-18.

The Petitioner also submitted that the following initiatives have been taken for loss

reduction.

a) Installation of Capacitor Bank at 33/11 KV substations

b) Implementation of R-APDRP Part A scheme

c) Implementation of R-APDRP Part B scheme

d) Installation of Double metering in selected 11 KV & 33 KV consumers

e) Implementation of AMR

f) Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters and Installation of

Electronic meters in un-metered connections

g) Laying of LT ABC

h) DT Metering

i) Replacement of defective meters

j) Procurement of High value consumer management system (HVCMS)

The Petitioner has, accordingly, proposed the following distribution loss trajectory.

Table 4.6: Distribution Loss for FY 2015-16 to FY 2018-19

Year FY 2015-16 (Re-casted)

FY 2016-17 (Projected)

FY 2017-18 (Projected)

Distribution Loss 18.39% 17.39% 16.39%

As regards the distribution loss trajectory of UPCL, the Commission has already dealt with

the issue in detail in its Order dated April 05, 2016 on Approval of Business Plan and Multi Year

Tariff of UPCL for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and finds no reason to revisit the same again. However,

in this regard, the Commission would like to point out that if these loss reduction initiatives

proposed by the Petitioner would have been implemented in the right earnest over the past years

than the appreciable results in terms of increase in its operating income should have started

accruing by now. However, from the commercial diary of March, 2016 submitted by UPCL and

presented in the Table given below, it emerges that there are 7 distribution divisions out of 35



distribution divisions of UPCL which still have distribution losses in excess of 30%. Out of these

divisions, EDD (U) Roorkee is an urban division with a distribution loss of 36.28%, which is

unacceptable considering the fact that urban divisions are covered under R-APDRP Scheme.

Table 4.7: High Distribution Loss Divisions as on 31.03.2016 S. No. Distribution Division Loss (%)

1. EDD, Narayanbagar 50.656 2. EDD, Rudraprayag 37.373 3. EDD (U), Roorkee 36.278 4. EDD, Gopeshwar 35.416 5. EDD Vikasnagar 32.658 6. EDD, Laksar 31.876 7. EDD, Dharchula 31.593

As has been held by the Commission in its Tariff Order dated April 05, 2016, losses in LT

categories of consumers (excluding HT consumers) as on March 31, 2015 were about 30%.

Moreover, the Commission in the said Order had also held that for past 3 years virtually there had

been no reduction in losses of LT category of consumers which clearly suggested that the Petitioner

did not put in serious efforts in reducing AT&C losses for such consumers, 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 was required to take up certain works, like

replacement of all mechanical meters in a time-bound manner in all the divisions, removal of all

ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its billing database, ensuring that all the meters of

the consumers are read and their bills prepared and distributed within time and also 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, etc. However, UPCL has not made any

substantial progress in ensuring compliances.

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 as held by the Commission in its previous Orders.

Further, as already dealt by the Commission in Chapter 3 of this Order, Hon’ble ATE in its

Judgment dated May 18, 2015 in Appeal no. 180 of 2013 has also held that it did not find any

infirmity in fixing up of loss reduction targets by the State Commission as no instances were

produced where funds for capital works for strengthening of distribution system had been denied



by the State Commission in ARR. Hence, the issue was decided against UPCL by Hon’ble ATE.

Hence, 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

2017-18. UPCL’s inaction and continuous high level of inefficiency does not allow it to seek revision

of the loss trajectory approved by the Commission, which if allowed would defeat the intent of the

MYT framework. Accordingly, the Commission decides to retain the distribution loss for FY 2017-

18 at 14.75% and the Petitioner is directed to abstain from seeking relaxation in this regard in

every ensuing Tariff Petition once the issue has been settled by the Commission. The distribution

loss trajectory proposed by the Petitioner and approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 is shown

in the Table below:

Table 4.8: Distribution Losses for FY 2017-18 Particulars Proposed Approved Distribution Losses 16.39% 14.75%

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in its MYT Order, 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 FY 2017-18 is given in the Table below:

Table 4.9: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 Particulars Quantum

Distribution Sales (MU) 11,849 Loss level for Energy Input (MU) 15.00% Energy Input required at T-D interface (MU) 13,940 Commercial Loss reduction (%) 0.25% Commercial Loss reduction (Additional sales due to efficiency improvement) (MU) 34.85 Total sales with efficiency improvement (MU) 11,884 Overall Distribution Loss (%) 14.75% PTCUL Loss (%) 1.60% Energy Input at State periphery (MU) 14,167

4.4 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 FY 2017-18

as detailed in the subsequent Paras of this Chapter.

4.5 Power Purchase Cost

The power requirement of UPCL is met from various sources which includes the following

generating stations:

• State Generating Stations of UJVN Ltd.

• NTPC Ltd.

• NHPC Ltd.

• NPCIL

• SJVN Ltd.

• THDC Ltd.

• Independent Power Producers (IPPs)

• State Gas Generating Stations

• SHPs and Solar Power Generators

• Deficit in power purchases met through Banking arrangements, open market

purchases etc.

The Petitioner in its Petition submitted the source wise power purchase from various

sources along with the cost of power purchase. The Petitioner, however, revised its power purchase

quantum and cost through its revised Petition dated 19.01.2017. The Commission has considered

the revised submissions of the Petitioner for projection of power purchase quantum and cost.

For projecting the availability of power for FY 2017-18, the Petitioner has 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 and SHPs, the average of actual monthly energy generation

during the past 2 years, i.e. FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 has been considered. The



Petitioner has submitted that since these plants were not operational for most of the part

of FY 2013-14 due to floods, two year average has been considered.

• NTPC – For all the stations of NTPC except for Koldam, the average of actual monthly

energy generation during the past 3 years from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 has been

considered. For Koldam HPS, the energy availability for April 2017 to September 2017

and October 2017 to March 2018 has been projected on the basis of actual monthly

generation from April 2016 to September 2016 and from October 2015 to March 2016

respectively as the plant came in full operation from August 2015.

Further, the share in monthly generation has been considered by considering the total

allocation from each station to Uttarakhand.

• NHPC – For Salal, Tanakpur, Chamera I, II & III, Dulhasti, Uri and Sewa-II, the average

of actual monthly energy generation during the past 3 years from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-

16 has been considered. For Dhauliganga the average of actual monthly energy

generation for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 has been considered because of non-

functioning of the plant during major part of FY 2013-14. For Uri II and Parbati III, the

monthly energy availability has been projected based on the actual generation for two

years, i.e. FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 as these stations achieved COD in the later half of

FY 2013-14.

Further, the share in monthly generation has been considered by considering the total

allocation from each station to Uttarakhand.

• NPCIL – For NAPP and RAPP, the average of actual monthly generation during the past

3 years from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 has been considered.

• SJVNL – For Nathpa Jhakri, the average of actual monthly generation during the past 3

years from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 has been considered. For Rampur HEP, the energy

availability has been projected based on the Design Energy of the station and the share

allocation to UPCL.

• THDC – For Tehri and Koteshwar, the average of actual monthly energy generation

during the past 3 years from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 has been considered.

• Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar – For Vishnu Prayag HEP, the average of actual



monthly energy generation during FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 has been considered. As

the station was not operational for most of the part of FY 2013-14 only two year has been

considered for projection. The monthly availability from GVK Srinagar station has been

projected based on the monthly generation of FY 2015-16 as the plant came into

operation in FY 2015-16.

• UREDA stations and IPPs – The Petitioner has estimated the monthly availability from

UREDA and IPP stations (except for Sasan, Greenko Budhil, Sarju II and III, Gangani,

Badiyar, solar roof top, Madhav Infra, Small Solar IPP, Gama & Shravanti generators)

based on previous three years’ average of monthly generation depending upon

operations & information provided by the developers. The availability from Sasan

UMPP has been calculated considering 85% PLF for FY 2017-18 in line with the approach

adopted by the Commission in the Tariff Order of FY 2015-16. Monthly estimation from

Greenko Budhil Station has been considered by the Petitioner on the basis of Design

Energy, auxiliary consumption & Uttarakhand’s share in power generated. Monthly

estimation for Sarju II and Sarju III Station has been estimated by the Petitioner on the

basis of Design Energy, auxiliary consumption & Uttarakhand’s share in power

generated. For estimating the availability from IPP’s Gangani and Badiyar, the actual

energy received from the plant during FY 2015-16 has been considered as the project had

stable generation from FY 2015-16. The availability from solar rooftop generators,

Madhav Infra, Small Solar IPP has been estimated by the Petitioner on the basis of

capacity, normative PLF and normative auxiliary consumption of solar power stations.

• State Gas Station: The availability from Gama, Beta and Shravanti Gas Plant has been

calculated considering 85% PLF for FY 2017-18.

• Upcoming stations – The energy availability from hydro stations expected to be

commissioned during the year has been projected considering the likely COD of such

generating stations from various sources like CEA reports, PPA signed and as per the

information made available by the generators. Power availability has been computed

considering the normative performance parameters and share allocation to UPCL.

• Forward banking of power – The Petitioner has proposed a forward banking of 851.48

MU in FY 2017-18 from the month April 2017 to September 2017 which shall be received

under reverse banking during October 2017 to January 2018.



• Transmission Losses – The Petitioner has considered the POC losses of 4.55% 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 a

shortfall of 173.33 MU in FY 2017-18.

• The Petitioner has proposed the total power purchase of 14203.28 MU in FY 2017-18.

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/surplus quantum of power which the Petitioner would be required to purchase/bank

depending on its requirement. The Commission for projecting power purchase has considered both

existing generating stations and upcoming stations to be commissioned during FY 2017-18 in which

UPCL has firm allocation. The detailed approach for approving the power purchase quantum has

been discussed below.

For projecting the energy availability quantum from various sources, the Commission

sought the following information from the Petitioner:

• Likely COD of the upcoming generating stations along with the source on which the

Petitioner has relied upon.

• Station wise POC Losses for projecting energy availability.

• Basis for considering PLF of 70% for State gas generating stations instead of normative

PLF of 85%.

In reply, UPCL submitted the following:

• Copies of PPAs for the upcoming generating stations.

• Likely COD of the upcoming generating stations along with the source data.

• Revised energy availability from the State based gas generating stations.

• Revised projection on the basis of POC Losses.



The Commission while projecting the quantum of energy available from various sources for

FY 2017-18 has made the assumptions as detailed below.

4.5.1 Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of UJVN Ltd. as

under:

Table 4.10: 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 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 10 months, projections for 2 months);

FY 2013-14 has not been considered as the hydro generation in the State was adversely affected due to natural calamity. Further, FY 2014-15 has not been considered as the generation in the year was below par. Maneri Bhali-II

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 10 months, projections for 2 months);

SHPs, viz. Pathri, Mohammadpur & Galogi

For Pathri and Mohammadpur energy availability considered as per the project specific tariff order issued by the Commission. For Galogi, average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17 (actual for 10 months, projections for 2 months)

In Pathri and Mohammadpur, RMU works have been completed and the Commission has determined the tariff considering the improved generation from the projects.

The Commission has estimated the energy availability from these generating stations to

UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary consumption and excluding the

share allocation to Himachal Pradesh. The summary of energy availability from UJVN Ltd. for FY

2017-18 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.11: Summary of Energy Availability from UJVNL for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Particulars Claimed Approved UJVN Ltd.-Main Stations 2925.77 3046.18 Maneri Bhali-II 974.45 1217.73 Small Hydro Pathri

144.41 154.04

Mohammadpur 64.27 Galogi 6.02 Total 4044.63 4488.24



4.5.2 Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of NHPC Ltd. as

under:

Table 4.12: Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. Stations of

NHPC Basis Rationale

Salal

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 & FY

2016-17 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Three Year’s Average as per the Commission’s earlier approach

Chamera I Chamera II Chamera III Uri Dulhasti Sewa II Uri II Prabati III Tanakpur Average of actual month wise gross

generation in FY 2012-13, FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 9 months, projections for

3 months)

FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 not considered as the generation for those years were affected due to force majeure events. Dhauliganga


UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary consumption, station wise POC

losses approved by CERC for the Quarter January 2017 to March 2017 and considering share

allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 as

estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.13: Energy Availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 (MU) Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

Salal 38.73 40.25 Tanakpur 10.21 16.40 Chamera I 80.89 82.56 Chamera II 19.19 19.99 Chamera III 48.99 51.00 Uri 96.48 98.77 Dhauliganga 39.14 52.81 Dulhasti 109.46 112.27 Sewa II 27.39 27.49 Uri II 55.43 58.64 Parbati III 30.81 32.90 Free Power-Tanakpur 38.39 51.88 Free Power-Dhauliganga 103.45 120.85 Total 698.56 765.80



4.5.3 Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of THDC Ltd. as

under:

Table 4.14: Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. Stations of THDCIL Basis Rationale

Tehri HEP Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Three year average considered as per the standard approach followed by the Commission in past.

Koteshwar HEP



losses approved by CERC for the Quarter January 2017 to March 2017 and considering the share

allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from THDC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 at

State periphery as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.15: Energy Availability at State periphery from THDC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 (MU)

State Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

Tehri HEP 109.68 102.04 Free Power-Tehri HEP 386.46 352.25 Koteshwar HEP 61.18 67.18 Free Power-Koteshwar HEP 150.53 138.29 Total 707.85 659.77

4.5.4 Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of NTPC Ltd. as

under:



Table 4.16: Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. Stations of

NTPC Basis Rationale

Singrauli STPS

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 9 months,

projections for 3 months)

Actual monthly generation of past 3 years as per the

standard approach

followed by the Commission

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 Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 9 months, projections

for 3 months)

Station generation

started from April 2015.




allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from NTPC Ltd. for FY 2017-18 at

State periphery as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.17: Energy Availability from NTPC Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission Singrauli STPS 757.83 702.51 Rihand STPS Rihand I 299.08 270.49 Rihand II 276.53 245.22 Rihand III 231.97 281.92 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 258.70 218.23 Unchahar II 132.82 103.01 Unchahar III 98.92 83.65 Anta CCPP 79.93 53.22 Auraiya CCPP 79.27 57.28 Dadri CCPP 123.41 100.68 Dadri (NCTPP) 33.47 46.27 Jhajjar 18.04 33.00 Kahalgaon TPS 196.35 265.45 Koldam 200.59 197.78 Total 2786.91

2658.71

4.5.5 Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of SJVN Ltd. as

under:

Table 4.18: Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd. Stations of

SJVNL Basis Rationale

Nathpa Jhakri HEP

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Actual monthly generation of past 3 years as per the standard approach followed by the Commission Rampur

HPS




allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from SJVN Ltd. for FY 2017-18 as

estimated by the Commission is shown in the Table below:



Table 4.19: Energy Availability from SJVN Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL

Estimated by Commission

Nathpa Jhakri HEP 51.29 52.24 Rampur HPS 184.19 186.05 Total 235.48 238.29

4.5.6 Power Purchase from NPCIL Stations

For estimating the energy availability from these stations the Commission has considered

the monthly average generation for the last three years, i.e. FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17 (9 months

actual and 3 months projection). The Commission has estimated the energy availability from these

generating stations to UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary

consumption, station wise POC losses approved by CERC for the Quarter January 2017 to March

2017 and considering the share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from

NPCIL for FY 2017-18 as estimated by the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.20: Energy Availability from NPCIL at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission NAPP 123.66 133.12 RAPP 148.85 137.52 Total 272.51 270.64

4.5.7 Power Purchase from existing Renewable Energy Sources

The existing renewable energy sources include the hydro power stations of UREDA, IPPs,

co-generation plants, and existing as well as upcoming solar power plants within the State and solar

power to be received from outside the State. For SHPs of UREDA, the Commission has considered

the projected generation as received from UREDA. For other 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 2017-18

as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.21: Energy Availability from existing Renewable Energy Sources for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission Existing renewable energy sources 828.53 836.01



4.5.8 Free Power from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar as 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 2015-16 and FY

2016-17 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months) as the generation from the station was

affected during FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15 due to force majeure event. With regard to GVK

Srinagar, the Commission has considered the projections as submitted by the Petitioner. The

Commission has estimated the energy availability from these generating stations to UPCL at State

Periphery, after considering the normative auxiliary consumption, POC losses approved by CERC

for the Quarter January 2017 to March 2017 and considering the free power share of 12% to

Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from these stations as estimated by the Petitioner

and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.22: Energy Availability from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar at State Periphery (Free Power) for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL

Estimated by Commission

Vishnu Prayag HEP (State Royalty Power) 161.93 216.75 GVK Srinagar 109.40 108.38

4.5.9 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 and for first 10 months of FY 2016-17. The Commission

has estimated the energy available from Sasan UMPP to UPCL at State Periphery after considering

the normative auxiliary consumption, station wise POC losses approved by CERC for the Quarter

January 2017 to March 2017 and considering share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of

energy availability from Sasan UMPP for FY 2017-18 as estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.23: Energy Availability from Sasan UMPP at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Approved Sasan UMPP 649.08 681.26

4.5.10 Power purchase from State Gas Generating Station

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. Further, the Commission vide Order dated July 20, 2016 had approved the PPA

between UPCL and Sravanthi Energy Pvt. Ltd. for sale of power corresponding to 214 MW (gross

capacity) to UPCL. Further, the Commission vide Order dated February 17, 2017 has also approved

the PPA between Beta Infrapop (P) Ltd. for sale of power corresponding to 107 MW (gross capacity)

to UPCL. The Commission, accordingly, has considered the energy availability from these stations

considering the normative performance parameters in accordance with the Regulations. The

summary of energy availability from these stations for FY 2017-18 as estimated by the Petitioner

and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.24: Energy Availability from State Gas Generating Stations at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

Kashipur CCPP 788.75 776.80 Sravanthi 1577.51 1553.61 Beta CCPP 723.03 776.80 Total 3089.29 3107.22

4.5.11 Power purchase from Greenko Budhil Hyrdo

The Commission vide its Order dated December 26, 2016 had approved the PPA between

UPCL and Greenko Budhil Hydro for sale of power corresponding to 70 MW (gross capacity). 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, POC losses approved by CERC for the Quarter January 2017 to

March 2017 and also excluding the free share of Himachal Pradesh. The summary of energy

availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro for FY 2017-18 as estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.25: Energy Availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Approved

Greenko Budhil Hydro 203.97 231.91



4.5.12 Power purchase from upcoming generating stations

The upcoming generating stations include upcoming solar generating stations, Unchahar IV,

Meja Thermal and Kishanganga Hydro Stations. The upcoming solar generating stations have

already been considered in the energy projections from renewable sources as discussed earlier in

this Section. With regard to Unchahar IV station, it is expected to be commissioned in June 2017

and, therefore, power availability has been considered from July 2017 as against the entire year

projected by the Petitioner. The quantum of power has been considered as that projected by the

Petitioner from July 2017 to March 2018. With regard to Meja Thermal, it is expected that the

generating station may not achieve COD in FY 2017-18 and hence, the same has not been considered

in the power purchase projections for FY 2017-18. With regard to Kishanganga station, it is expected

to achieve COD in August 2017 and hence, energy availability from the station has been considered

from September 2017. The quantum of power has been considered as that projected by the

Petitioner from September 2017 to March 2018. The Commission has estimated the energy available

from the generating station to UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary

consumption, POC losses approved by CERC for the Quarter January 2017 to March 2017.

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 4.26: Energy Availability from Upcoming Stations at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Approved

Unchahar IV 131.88 98.17 Meja Thermal 86.54 0.00 Kishanganga 24.13 24.29 Total 242.55 122.46

4.5.13 Energy available from Firm Sources

The total energy available from firm sources estimated by the Petitioner and approved by

the Commission is as shown in the Table given below:



Table 4.27: Energy Availability from Firm Sources at State periphery for FY 2017-18 (MU) Generating Stations UPCL Approved

UJVN Ltd. 4044.63 4488.24 NHPC^ 722.69 790.09 THDC 707.85 659.77 NTPC* 2918.79 2756.88 NPCIL 272.51 270.64 SJVNL 235.48 238.29 Existing Renewable Sources 828.53 836.01 Free Power-Vishnu Prayag 161.93 216.75 Sasan UMPP 649.08 681.26 Kashipur CCPP 788.75 776.80 Shravanti gas plant 1577.51 1553.61 Beta gas plant 723.03 776.80 Meja Power Plant 86.54 0.00 Greenko Budhil Hydro 203.97 231.91 GVK Srinagar 109.40 108.38 Total Firm Sources 14030.69 14385.45

^Includes Kishanganga *Includes Unchahar IV

4.5.14 Power Purchase for fulfilling RPO

UPCL in its Petition has submitted that based on the Ministry of Power, GoI Order dated

July 22, 2016, it was meeting the RPO obligations, for both Solar and Non-Solar category from the

existing procurement from the renewable sources and has, therefore, not projected any cost towards

meeting RPO. It is, however, observed that the Petitioner has erroneously computed the RPO target

in MU by excluding the consumption from hydro generating stations which is not as per the UERC

(Compliance of Renewable Purchase Obligation) Regulations, 2010 and subsequent amendment

thereafter.

The Commission had specified the RPO 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 renewable purchase required is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.28: Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO Particulars Units FY 2017-18

Total Power Purchase at State Periphery MU 14166.67 RPO

Solar % 2.50% Non-Solar % 8.00%

RPO Solar MU 354.17 Non-Solar MU 1133.33 Total MU 1487.50

Purchase from Renewable Sources Solar MU 374.62 Non-Solar MU 685.72 Total MU 1060.34

Additional Energy to be purchased for fulfilment of RPO Solar MU 0.00 Non-Solar MU 447.61 Total MU 447.61

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 2017-18 is

447.61 MU for FY 2017-18.

4.5.15 Deficit/(Surplus) Energy

The Petitioner in its Petition has proposed forward banking, i.e. advance banking of 851.48

MU power in FY 2017-18 from the month of April 2017 to September 2017 and has proposed to

withdraw the power from the month of October 2017 to January 2018 through return banking. In

addition to the above, the Petitioner has estimated a deficit of 173.33 MU to be procured from short

term market.

However, as per the Commission’s projection as against the energy requirement of 14166.67

MU, the total estimated energy available from firm sources is 14385.45 MU leaving an overall

surplus of 218.78 MU. However, as per month wise requirement and energy availability the

monthly deficit works out to 899.35 MU during winter months and the total monthly surplus works

out to 1118.12 MU for summer months. The Commission directs the Petitioner to bank the surplus

energy during the month of April 2017 to September 2017 and withdraw the same in the month

of October 2017 to March 2017. The balance 218.78 MU of power can be banked for the next

financial year FY 2018-19.



The Petitioner should put in sincere efforts to suffice its requirement of power during

deficit period/lean hydro generation period from the surplus energy available during the high

hydro generation period through appropriate banking arrangements/agreements.

4.5.16 Cost of power purchase

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase has been projected based on the

following assumptions.

• UJVN Ltd. - For procurement of power from 10 LHPs and SHPs of UJVN Ltd., the

Petitioner has considered the Net AFC and Energy charges for UJVN Ltd.’s Large

stations and MB II. For small SHPs, the Petitioner has considered the cost as per

power purchase bills for FY 2016-17 with no escalation.

• NTPC: The annual fixed charges and variable charges have been derived (in

proportion to UPCL’s share) from the tariff order approved by the CERC for

Singrauli, Rihand I, and Anta Gas. The Fixed and Variable cost for the remaining

plants were not available, therefore, the Fixed cost and Variable cost of FY 2016-17

has been increased by 4%. For Koldam Station the AFC for FY 2016-17 as approved

by CERC and as per allocation to UPCL has been escalated by 4%.

• NHPC: Annual fixed charges (AFC) for Salal, Tanakpur, Chamera II, Uri,

Dhauliganga, Dulhasti and Uri II has been derived from the tariff order issued for FY

2014-19 by CERC in FY 2015-16. Annual fixed charges (AFC) for the remaining

stations were not available, and, therefore, the cost of power purchase for FY 2016-17

has been increased by 4%.

• SJVNL: For Naptha Jakhri HEP station, since CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff)

Regulations, 2014 was applicable from FY 2014-19 and fixed cost for FY 2017-19 was

not available, therefore, the AFC of FY 2013-14 has been escalated by 5% to arrive at

the AFC for FY 2014-15 which has again been escalated by 5% to arrive at the AFC

for FY 2015-16 which has been escalated by 4% to arrive at the fixed cost for FY 2016-

17 which was again escalated by 4% to arrive at the AFC for FY 2017-18.

For Rampur HEP, since the Annual fixed charges (AFC) for the station was not

available, therefore, the cost of power purchase for FY 2015-16 has been escalated by

5% twice to determine the fixed cost for FY 2017-18.



• THDC: Since CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 is applicable

from FY 2014-19, and the fixed cost for FY 2017-19 was not available, therefore, UPCL

has escalated the AFC of FY 2013-14 by 5% to arrive at the AFC for FY 2014-15 which

has again been escalated by 5% to arrive at the AFC for FY 2015-16 which has been

escalated by 4% to arrive at the fixed cost for FY 2016-17 which was again escalated

by 4% to arrive at the AFC for FY 2017-18.

• NPCIL: For NPCIL plants, power purchase bills for FY 2016-17 has been increased by

4% to arrive at the cost for FY 2017-18.

• IPPs and Private Projects: The cost of power available from IPPs and other private

stations are as per the tariff determined by UERC and for Sasan as per the tariff bid

by the developer for each year. The tariff for the small solar power plants has been

considered as per the tariff bid by the developer.

• Cost of Power from new stations: For projects, which are under development by the

private developers, the rate has been projected based on the PPA/relevant

regulations and as per tariff determined by UERC.

• Cost of Free Power: The cost of free power has been calculated for FY 2017-18 based

on the approach adopted by the Commission in its earlier Tariff orders. The rate of

state royalty/free power has been considered equal to the average rate of power

procured by the Petitioner from large hydel stations.

• Short Term Purchase for deficit power: The Petitioner has proposed to procure the

net deficit of 173.33 MU through short term purchase at the rate of Rs. 3.64 per unit

as approved by the Commission in the MYT Order dated April 05, 2016 for the

second Control Period and Rs. 0.99/kWh has been considered under open access

charges.

• Cost of Injection and Withdrawal Charges of Banking: The Petitioner has

submitted that it has considered Rs. 0.99/kWh towards such charges.

The Petitioner has projected the average power purchase cost of Rs. 3.10/kWh for FY 2017-

18.

The Commission has estimated the cost of power purchase from various sources as detailed

below:



Table 4.29: 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 2017-18. 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 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 tariff is more than Rs. 0.80/kWh for all the 10 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 2017-18 has been issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, the approved Tariff for FY 2017-18 has been considered. For other stations, the latest approved Tariff has been considered with annual escalation of 3%.

NTPC Ltd.

For the generating stations for which the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18 has been issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, the approved AFC for FY 2017-18 has been considered. For other stations, the latest approved AFC in the CERC Tariff Orders has been considered with annual escalation of 3%. For estimating the Energy Charges for FY 2017-18, the weighted average rate of actual Energy Charges for the months of September 2016 to November 2016 has been considered with an escalation of 4%.

NPCIL The tariff for NPCIL stations has been considered based on the actual billing during FY 2016-17 which have been escalated by 3% to determine the costs for FY 2017-18.

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 2017-18 as per the PPA has been considered.

State Gas Stations

The tariff has been considered as Rs. 4.70/kWh as provisionally approved by the Commission.

Greenko Budhil Hydro

The approved tariff of Rs. 3.80/kWh has been considered.

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



Table 4.29: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase Source Approach of the Commission in estimating the cost of power purchase

commissioned by April 2017, the tariff of Rs. 5.77/kWh has been considered and for NTPC solar generating capacity the tariff of Rs. 3.50/kWh has been considered. For Kishanganga and Unchahar IV, a tariff of Rs. 4/kWh has been considered.

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) 3046.18 317.54 1.04 Maneri Bhali II 1217.73 228.49 1.88 NHPC 617.36 212.42 3.44 THDC 169.23 90.17 5.33 SJVNL 238.29 88.75 3.72 Greenko 231.91 88.08 3.80 Koldam- NHPC 197.78 87.80 4.44 Average 5718.48 1113.24 1.95

Open Access for Banked Energy

Rs. 1/kWh has been considered towards open access charges for banking of surplus Energy.

Water Tax Water tax of Rs. 153.82 Crore has been considered as approved in MYT Order dated 05.04.2016 for FY 2016-17.

The summary of estimated power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table

given below:

Table 4.30: Summary of power purchase cost for FY 2017-18

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) 2925.77 328.13 1.12 3046.18 317.54 1.04 Maneri Bali II 974.45 200.65 2.06 1217.73 228.49 1.88 Small Hydro 144.41 16.85 1.17 224.33 33.75 1.50 Total UJVN Ltd. 4044.63 545.62 1.35 4488.24 579.78 1.29 NHPC Salal 38.73 4.46 1.15 40.25 5.26 1.31 Tanakpur 10.21 7.63 7.47 16.40 5.78 3.52 Chamera I 80.89 15.29 1.89 82.56 15.70 1.90 Chamera II 19.19 3.82 1.99 19.99 4.23 2.12 Chamera III 48.99 24.26 4.95 51.00 23.19 4.55 Uri 96.48 15.16 1.57 98.77 17.02 1.72 Dhauliganga 39.14 14.78 3.78 52.81 16.20 3.07 Dulhasti 109.46 58.31 5.33 112.27 56.44 5.03 Sewa II 27.39 12.88 4.70 27.49 13.75 5.00 Uri II 55.43 27.37 4.94 58.64 26.30 4.49 Parbati III 30.81 22.90 7.43 32.90 18.84 5.73 Kishanganga 24.13 12.07 5.00 24.29 9.71 4.00 Free Power-Tanakpur 38.39 7.63 1.99 51.88 10.12 1.95



Table 4.30: Summary of power purchase cost for FY 2017-18

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 Free Power-Dhauliganga 103.45 20.58 1.99 120.85 23.56 1.95 Total NHPC 722.69 247.14 3.42 790.09 246.11 3.11 THDC Tehri HEP 109.68 73.58 6.71 102.04 63.10 6.18 Free Power-Tehri HEP 386.46 76.86 1.99 352.25 68.69 1.95 Koteshwar HEP 61.18 25.93 4.24 67.18 27.06 4.03 Free Power-Koteshwar HEP 150.53 29.94 1.99 138.29 26.97 1.95 Total THDC 707.85 206.31 2.91 659.77 185.82 2.82 NTPC Singrauli STPS 757.83 178.56 2.36 702.51 162.48 2.31 Rihand STPS Rihand I 299.08 75.40 2.52 270.49 75.63 2.80 Rihand II 276.53 74.52 2.69 245.22 69.29 2.83 Rihand III 231.97 81.26 3.50 281.92 98.43 3.49 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 258.70 105.93 4.09 218.23 91.21 4.18 Unchahar II 132.82 53.43 4.02 103.01 43.20 4.19 Unchahar III 98.92 53.67 5.43 83.65 40.30 4.82 Anta CCPP 79.93 42.76 5.35 53.22 24.90 4.68 Auraiya CCPP 79.27 42.31 5.34 57.28 33.53 5.85 Dadri CCPP 123.41 51.36 4.16 100.68 42.16 4.19 Dadri (NCTPP) 33.47 17.76 5.31 46.27 24.42 5.28 Jhajjar 18.04 15.33 8.50 33.00 24.02 7.28 Kahalgaon TPS 196.35 77.18 3.93 265.45 90.62 3.41 Koldam 200.59 94.10 4.69 197.78 87.80 4.44 Unchahar IV 131.88 65.94 5.00 98.17 39.27 4.00 Total NTPC 2918.79 1029.51 3.53 2756.88 947.25 3.44 NPCIL Narora APP 123.66 35.12 2.84 133.12 36.69 2.76 Rajasthan APP 148.85 58.42 3.92 137.52 54.97 4.00 Total NPCIL 272.51 93.54 3.43 270.64 91.65 3.39 SJVNL Nathpa Jhakri HEP 51.29 15.86 3.09 52.24 16.98 3.25 Rampur HPS 184.19 65.33 3.55 186.05 71.77 3.86 Total SJVNL 235.48 81.19 3.45 238.29 88.75 3.72 Existing Renewable Sources 828.53 423.85 5.12 836.01 423.12 5.06 Free Power-Vishnu Prayag 161.93 32.21 1.99 216.75 42.27 1.95 Sasan UMPP 649.08 85.61 1.32 681.26 89.93 1.32 Kashipur CCPP 788.75 370.71 4.70 776.80 365.10 4.70 Shravanti gas plant 1577.51 741.43 4.70 1553.61 730.20 4.70 Beta gas plant 723.03 339.82 4.70 776.80 365.10 4.70 Total Gas 3089.29 1451.96 4.70 3107.22 1460.39 4.70 Meja Power Plant 86.54 43.27 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Greenko Budhil Hydro 203.97 81.59 4.00 231.91 88.08 3.80 GVK Srinagar 109.40 21.76 1.99 108.38 21.13 1.95 Short Term Purchase 173.33 63.09 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 Open Access Charges for banked energy 111.81 Total 14204.02 4403.02 3.10 14385.45 4376.09 3.04

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 2017-18 as

indicated in the Table below, failing which, the Commission may disallow power purchases so

made while Truing up the ARR for FY 2017-18.

Table 4.31: Quarterly Power Purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 Quarter Power Purchase Quantum

(MU) Power Purchase Cost

(Rs. Crore) April – June 3726.23 1133.53 July – September 4433.18 1348.59 October – December 3110.92 946.35 January – March 3115.11 947.63 Total 14385.45 4376.09

The base Energy Charges of thermal stations (base fuel cost) for the purpose of computation

of FCA is given in the Table below:

Table 4.32: Energy Charges of thermal generating stations for FY 2017-18 Generating Station Energy Charges

(Rs./kWh) Singrauli STPS 1.566 Rihand STPS Rihand I 1.770 Rihand II 1.775 Rihand III 1.755 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 2.909 Unchahar II 2.894 Unchahar III 2.897 Anta CCPP 2.537 Auraiya CCPP 3.303 Dadri CCPP 2.752 Dadri (NCTPP) 3.162 Jhajjar 3.879 Kahalgaon TPS 2.475 Gama Infraprop 3.20 Shravanthi Energy 3.20 Beta Power 3.20

4.5.17 Cost of Meeting RPO Target

As discussed earlier, the Petitioner, in order to meet its RPO Targets has to additionally

procure 447.61 MU of power from non-Solar generating stations. The Commisison has factored in

the cost towards meeting the RPO targets at the rate of Rs. 4.75/kWh at the State Periphery, i.e.



inclusive of PoC charges & losses, as approved by the Commission in its MYT Order dated

05.04.2016. The cost, thus, works out to Rs. 212.61 Crore. The Commission has not factored the same

in power purchase requirement as additional non-solar renewable power has not been available to

UPCL in the past. However, if the same is available it will not only be available to meet the RPO

requirement of the Petitioner but also can be utilized by the Petitioner for banking of power to be

utilized to meet the deficit in its requirement during winter months.

4.6 Transmission Charges

4.6.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges payable to PGCIL

The Petitioner submitted that during the first six months of FY 2016-17, it has received bills

of Rs. 350.28 Crore towards Inter-State Transmission Charges. The per kWh PGCIL charge for FY

2016-17 has been calculated using the amount paid and energy coming from outside the State

during the same period. The per kWh rate calculated has been escalated by 2% per annum and then

multiplied by the projected power purchase quantum for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner has proposed

the Inter-State Transmission Charges of Rs. 741.90 Crore for FY 2017-18. The Commisison has

considered the energy received from outside the State during April 2016 to January 2017 of FY 2016-

17 and the amount billed by PGCIL after excluding the arrear amount billed by PGCIL for

computing per kWh rate. The Commisison has then considerd 5% escalation on the rate derived for

FY 2016-17 for FY 2017-18. Accordingly, the Inter-State Transmission charges approved for FY 2017-

18 is Rs. 506.40 Crore.

4.6.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL

The Petitioner submitted that the Intra-State Transmission Charges for FY 2017-18 have been

projected by considering the ARR approved by the Commission vide its MYT Order dated

05.04.2016 for PTCUL.

The Commission has approved the Annual Transmission Charges for PTCUL of Rs. 237.63

Crore for FY 2017-18. Hence, the Commission has considered the same in the approval of ARR for

FY 2017-18 for the Petitioner.

4.6.3 Transmission Charges

The Transmission Charges claimed by the Petitioner and approved by the Commission for



FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 4.33: Transmission Charges for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

Inter-State Transmission Charges 741.90 506.40 Intra-State Transmission Charges 296.02 237.63 Total 1037.92 744.03

4.7 SLDC Charges

The Petitioner has claimed SLDC charges of Rs. 13.72 Crore for FY 2017-18 as approved by

the Commission in its Order dated April 05, 2016 for the Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2017-

18.

The Commission has considered the SLDC Charges of Rs. 15.15 Crore as approved by it for

FY 2017-18.

4.8 Water Tax

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 Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that the impact of water tax is Rs. 153.82 Crore.

The Commission in its MYT Order dated 05.04.2016 had 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 2017-18 for the Petitioner. The same shall be trued up based on the

actual amount paid by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 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 and FY 2017-18 along with its proposals for True

up for FY 2017-18.

4.9 GFA and Additional Capitalisation

4.9.1 GFA base for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18

The Commission vide its Order dated April 05, 2016 on approval of ARR for the second

Control Period had approved the capitalisation of Rs. 523.44 Crore for FY 2016-17 and Rs. 546.02

Crore for FY 2017-18. As against the same, the Petitioner, in its Petition has proposed the

capitalisation of Rs. 594.62 Crore and Rs. 958.41 Crore for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 respectively.

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that in order to achieve the anticipated load

growth and target loss reduction, it has carried out detailed analysis of capital investment required

for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. The Petitioner further submitted that the investment plan has been

projected based on various technical and physical requirements carried out at senior management

level. The Petitioner with regard to cost submitted that the same has been projected based on the

historical trends of UPCL for FY 2016-17 with suitable escalations for the Control Period. The

Petitioner projected capital expenditure for the 2 years as Rs. 2462.92 Crore. Out of this, Rs. 1222.62

Crore are proposed for Central schemes like R-APDRP, DDUGJY and IPDS while the remaining Rs.

1240.29 Crore are proposed for the internal schemes proposed by UPCL. The Petitioner further

submitted that the capital investment is proposed under the following benefit centres:

a) Growth development plan to meet the load growth b) Loss reduction c) System reliability and safety improvement d) Creation of Infrastructure Facilities & other misc. works

The Petitioner has further submitted various schemes to achieve the above targets as shown

below:

a) Growth Development Plan to meet the load growth:

i. Construction of 33/11 kV Substation & associated 33 kV and 11 kV Lines for strengthening of Distribution System

ii. Increasing Capacity of 33/11 kV substations iii. Release of New PTW Connections



iv. Installation of meters for giving new connections v. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Grameen Vidyut Yojana

b) Loss reduction

i. Installation of Capacitor Bank at 33/11 kV substations ii. Implementation of R-APDRP Part A scheme

iii. Implementation of R-APDRP Part B scheme iv. Installation of Double metering in selected 11 kV & 33 kV consumers v. Implementation of AMR

vi. Integrated Power Development Scheme vii. Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters and Installation of

Electronic meters in un-metered connections viii. 11 kV covered cable for forest

ix. 11kV ABC cable x. Laying of LT ABC

xi. Replacement of defective meters xii. Smart Metering

xiii. Laying of 33 kV underground cables

c) System reliability & safety improvement:

i. Additional Transformers installation with associated 11 kV ii. Installation of LT protection system on the transformers, fencing of

transformers, installation of poles and guard wires, reconductoring of lines, etc.

iii. Safety Measures iv. Installation of 11 kV underground cables v. Smart Grid projects for industrial areas

vi. Laying of LT ABC

d) Creation of infrastructure facilities & other misc. works:

i. Video conferencing services and integrating it with all the divisions/ sub-divisions

ii. Procurement of Sub-station and consumer meter testing equipment iii. Consumer care centres, E-payment of bills and Cash collection centres iv. New and emerging technologies and miscellaneous works like, new vehicles,

office infrastructure, IT infrastructure, etc.



The Petitioner in its Petition estimated that the expenditure incurred towards central

schemes would be capitalized into 35%, 35% and 30% over three years based on the historical trend

from the year in which the expenditure has been incurred, while the balance capital expenditure

shall be capitalised as 25%, 25% and 50% over three years starting from FY 2016-17 based on the

historical trend.

The Petitioner in its revised Petition revised the capitalisation rate and submitted that it has

estimated that the expenditure incurred towards Central Government schemes will be capitalized

within two years (50% each year) and the balance capital expenditure (other than central schemes)

will be capitalised into 25%, 25% and 50% over three years. The Petitioner has, accordingly, revised

the additional capitalisation to Rs. 795.04 Crore and Rs. 1236.27 Crore for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18

respectively. The capital expenditure and additional capitalisation as proposed in the Petition and

revised Petition is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.34: Proposed Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Proposed Capital

expenditure Capitalization

As per Tariff Petition Revised Estimate

Capitalization Rs. Crore Rs. Crore Rs. Crore

FY 2016-17 1214.32 594.63 795.04 FY 2017-18 1248.60 958.41 1236.27 Total 2462.92 1553.04 2031.31

The Commission has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner. It is observed that the

Petitioner has projected higher capitalisation in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 than that approved in

the MYT Order dated 05.04.2016. The Commisison in its MYT Order had observed that the

Petitioner in the past had projected higher capitalisation at the time of tariff determination,

however, the actual capitalisation historically achieved by the Petitioner is considerably lower. The

actual GFA addition carried out by UPCL in the last four years is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.35: Actual GFA addition of UPCL (Rs. Crore) Year Amount

FY 2012-13 369.76 FY 2013-14 265.17 FY 2014-15 595.03 FY 2015-16 370.76

In comparison to the capitalisation achieved during the last four years, the capitalisation

proposed for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 is considerably higher. The Commission asked UPCL to



submit the status of capital works (both physical and financial) which has been proposed in FY

2016-17 and FY 2017-18. In response UPCL again submitted the details of capital expenditure

proposed by it without giving the status of the proposed work.

The Commission in its MYT Order had already taken a view on the capital expenditure after

detailed analysis and, therefore, the Commission finds no reason to revise the same considering the

historical performance/achievement with regard to the capitalisation of the Petitioner.

The Commission has, therefore, considered the capitalisation for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18

as approved in MYT Order dated 05.04.2016. 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 in its respective Investment Approval Orders. The Commission has, accordingly,

approved the following capitalization and GFA for FY 2017-18.

Table 4.36: GFA base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Claimed by UPCL Approved Claimed by UPCL Approved

Opening GFA 3980.57 3980.56 4775.61 4504.00 GFA addition during the year 795.04 523.44 1236.27 546.02 Closing GFA 4775.61 4504.00 6011.88 5050.02

4.10 Means of Finance

The Commission has approved the funding of the approved capitalisation for FY 2016-17

and FY 2017-18 by considering the average of the actual funding pattern of the Petitioner’s

capitalisation during FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15. The Commission, as discussed above, has

considered the capitalisation as approved in the MYT Order for the second Control Period and,

therefore, the financing of the approved capitalisation has also been considered as same as

considered in the MYT Order dated 05.04.2016 which is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.37: Means of Finance approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Capitalisation 523.44 546.02 Financing Debt 296.32 309.11 Equity-State Government 39.27 40.96 Grant-Central Government 187.85 195.95 Total 523.44 546.02

4.11 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. For schemes covered

under RAPDRP, Part-A and B the funding would be from PFC and for all other schemes, loans from

REC has been considered. The new loans have been considered with 3 years’ moratorium, 10 years’

repayment period and 11.86% rate of interest. The same is in line with existing arrangement of

loans with REC and PFC. 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. 158.40 Crore for FY 2017-18. The

Petitioner has claimed the interest on consumer security deposit of Rs. 46.11 Crore for FY 2017-18.

The Petitioner has claimed the guarantee fee of Rs. 13.62 Crore for FY 2017-18 equivalent to the

actual fees paid by the Petitioner to the State Government in FY 2015-16.


“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 for FY 2015-16 as opening loan

balance for FY 2016-17. Thereafter, the Commission has considered the loan addition during FY

2016-17 as per the approved means of finance for FY 2016-17. The Commission has considered the

depreciation for FY 2016-17 as the normative repayment for the year. The Commission has

considered the closing loan balance for FY 2016-17 as the opening loan balance for FY 2017-18. The

Commission has considered the loan addition during FY 2017-18 as per the means of finance

approved above. The Commission has considered the normative repayment equivalent to the

approved depreciation for the year. The Commission has considered the interest rate of 11.86%

which is the actual weighted average rate of interest for FY 2015-16. The Commission has

determined the interest on loan by applying the interest rate of 11.86% on the amount of average of

the opening loan & closing loan excluding the loan additions corresponding to the assets capitalised

during the year. 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 FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 4.38: Interest on Loan approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed Allowable

Opening Loan balance 1109.83 904.63 Drawal during the year 605.10 309.11 Repayment during the year 153.58 136.36 Closing Loan balance 1561.35 1077.38 Interest Rate 11.86% 11.86% Interest on Loan 158.40 99.20 Interest on Consumer Security Deposit (CSD) 46.11 46.11 Total Interest 204.51 145.31

In addition to the above, the Commission has considered interest on account of REC Old

Loan of Rs. 17.28 Crore. With regard to guarantee fee, the Commission has considered the same



amount as approved for FY 2015-16, i.e. Rs. 3.42 Crore. The guarantee fee considered by the

Petitioner for FY 2017-18 of Rs. 13.62 Crore is equivalent to the guarantee fee for FY 2015-16.

However, it also includes the provisions for penalty to be paid to the State Government on account

of non-payment of Guarantee Fee which cannot be allowed for the reasons already dealt in the

previous section.

The financing charges of Rs. 1.06 Crore as considered for FY 2015-16 has also been

considered for FY 2017-18. Thus, the total interest expenses approved for FY 2017-18 works out to

be Rs. 167.07 Crore as against the claim of Rs. 218.31 Crore.

4.11.1 Depreciation

The Petitioner submitted that the asset class wise depreciation has been computed

considering the projected capitalisation for each year and as per the rates of depreciation specified

in the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the depreciation of

Rs. 153.58 Crore for FY 2017-18.


“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 2015-16 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. Infact the Petitioner in its accounts also calculates depreciation on

the straight line method on opening GFA. 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.

The Petitioner in the current proceedings has submitted that Fixed Assets Registers of UPCL

were prepared by M/S L. B. Jha & Co, Chartered Accountants for the FY 2001-02 to 2012-13 which

were also submitted to the Commission. Thereafter, M/s RSA & Co. Chartered Accountants was

entrusted with the task of preparation of Fixed Assets Register of Urban Distribution Division

(South) Dehradun for FY 2013-14 & 2014-15 on a pilot/sample basis. Now RFP has been finalized

for floating of open tender for updating and preparation of Fixed Assets Registers of UPCL for the

FY 2013-14 to 2015-16. The Petitioner further submitted that due to imposition of Model Code of

Conduct in State of Uttarakhand, new tenders cannot be invited during this period. The Petitioner

further submitted that the agreement with the consultant firms shall be executed in between March-

April 2017. The consultant firm shall be required to prepare unit-wise registers of all the three FY

2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, duly matching the same with Annual Financial Statement of UPCL.

This work is expected to be completed by October, 2017.

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 2015-16 and has applied the same on the

opening depreciable GFA for FY 2017-18.

The depreciation approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table given

below:

Table 4.39: Depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed Allowable

Opening GFA - 4504.00 Grants - 1888.60 Depreciable opening GFA 2943.92 2615.40 Net addition during the year 864.42 350.07 Closing GFA 3808.34 2965.47 Depreciation rate 5.22% 5.21% Depreciation 153.58 136.36

4.11.2 Operation and Maintenance expenses

Regulation 84 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, with regard to the Operation and



Maintenance expenses, 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, i.e. FY 2017-18 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 submission of the Petitioner and the Commission’s analysis on

the O&M expenses for FY 2017-18 is detailed below.

4.11.3 Employee expenses

The Commission had approved the employee expenses of Rs. 489.62 Crore for FY 2017-18 in

its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016. As against the same, the Petitioner in its Petition has proposed

employee expenses of Rs. 361.88 Crore as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The Petitioner had submitted that power sector in general requires augmentation of capacity

across the value chain including manufacturing, project planning and implementation, financial

management, operations and, maintenance management. Rapid growth in the power sector

requires additional capacity building for the power utilities across the country. Also, the power

sector employs highly skilled personnel with specialisation in related areas. Hence, the severe

shortage calls for recruitment of such skilled employees and increase in training and development

initiatives. It has a total of 3274 regular employees as on 31-03-2016 against total sanctioned post of

6158. Owing to the shortage of staff UPCL has recruited personnel from the Uttarakhand Purv



Sainik Kalyan Limited (UPNL) on contractual basis to fill a major portion of the vacant posts which

are within the total number of sanctioned posts. The Petitioner further submitted that as there is an

acute shortage of staff in UPCL till date, hence, it is imperative to fill the vacancies within the

sanctioned posts and recruit new employees based on the additional manpower requirement by the

end of FY 2016-17. New recruitment costs have been calculated considering vacant posts within the

sanctioned posts. While projecting new employee costs, UPCL has considered the recruitment of

150 employees during FY 2016-17 and 350 employees during FY 2017-18.

UPCL also submitted that its employee expenses are likely to go up due to increase in salary

of the employee based on the recommendations of the seventh pay commission, which will be

applicable from January 1, 2016. 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 had considered the impact of Seventh Pay Commission

to the tune of 20% of the approved net employee expenses in its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016 for

the Second Control Period. Hence, based on the methodology of the Commission to derive the

impact of seventh pay commission, the Petitioner has also estimated the employee expense for FY

2016-17 and FY 2017-18.

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, based on the approved

HR Plan computed the Gn factors of 12.53% and 3.23% for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 respectively

based on the recruitment of 661 employees and 338 employees approved for FY 2016-17 and FY

2017-18 respectively. The Commission during the Technical Validation Session asked UPCL to

submit the status of recruitment proposed by it for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. UPCL submitted

that against the vacancy of 120 employees advertised for FY 2016-17, 44 candidates have been

issued the appointment letters and out of it, 24 selected candidates have joined the service. The

Commission has considered that 44 employees would be joining the services in UPCL by 31.03.2017

and the balance recruitment proposed by UPCL, i.e. 106 employees for FY 2016-17, has been

estimated to be carried out during FY 2017-18 alongwith the recruitment proposed of 350

employees for FY 2017-18. Thus, the Commission has considered the addition in manpower as 44

and 456 during FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 respectively. Against the same, the number of employees



retiring during FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 has been shown as 241 and 212 respectively. Thus, the

Gn factors based on the recruitment and retirement details submitted by the Petitioner works out to

be 0% for FY 2016-17 and 7.93% for FY 2017-18. However, if the actual addition to the number of

employees is lower than the number of employees addition considered in this Order, the impact of

the same shall be adjusted while carrying out the truing up and will not be considered as

reduction in Employee expenses on account of controllable factors.

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 values of CPI (overall) based on the average of

preceding three full years upto FY 2015-16 as 7.21%.

The Commission has considered the gross normative employee expenses approved in the

true up for FY 2015-16 for projecting the employee expense for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in

accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Further, the Commission has considered the

capitalisation rate of employee expenses as 20.18% based on the actual rate of capitalisation for FY

2015-16.

In its MYT Order, the Commission had considered the impact of Seventh Pay Commission

to the tune of 20% of the approved net employee expenses and had allowed certain provision to the

Petitioner for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. However, since the Pay Commission has not yet been

approved by the State Government for the Petitioner, it is likely that the same would be approved

during FY 2017-18. The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the impact of the Seventh Pay

Commission considering the Orders of the State Government. The Petitioner has submitted detailed

computations of the impact of Seventh Pay Commission which works out to Rs. 33.85 Crore. As per

the computations submitted by the Petitioner the impact works out to around 13% as against 20%

considered earlier. However, the impact considered by the Petitioner does not appear adequate to

meet the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission. Accordingly, while projecting the

employee expenses for FY 2017-18, the Commission has considered Rs. 51.43 Crore (15%) as impact

towards the VII Pay Commission for FY 2016-17, as has been allowed to other utilities, viz. PTCUL

SLDC & UJVN Ltd. The same has been escalated in accordance with the Regulations considering the

growth factor and CPI inflation to arrive at the employee expenses for FY 2017-18. The Commission

had already allowed Rs. 72.66 Crore to the Petitioner for FY 2016-17 in MYT Order dated April 05,



2016 which would be available with the Petitioner and the same can be utilised for payment of

arrears to the employees. However, the Petitioner is directed to maintain separate details of the

amount paid as arrears to its employees on account of implementation of the recommendations

of VII Pay Commission. The Commission would carry out the truing up for FY 2016-17 and FY

2017-18 based on the actual impact of VII Pay Commission including arrears and no sharing of

gains and losses on this account would be allowed. The normative employee expenses approved by

the Commission for FY 2017-18 are as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.40: Employee expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved EMPn-1* 386.92 394.32 Gn 4.34% 7.93% CPIinflation 7.21% 7.21% EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (1+CPIinflation) 432.79 456.27 Capitalisation rate 16.38% 20.18% Less: Employee expenses capitalised 70.91 92.06 Net Employee expenses 361.88 364.21

*includes pay revision impact

4.11.4 R&M expenses

The Commission had approved the R&M expenses of Rs. 131.45 Crore for FY 2017-18 in its

MYT Order dated April 5, 2016. As against the same, the Petitioner has proposed R&M expenses of

Rs. 163.46 Crore. The Petitioner submitted that R&M expenses have been computed as per UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2015. However, it is observed that the Petitioner has considered closing GFA of

FY 2017-18 instead of opening GFA.

The Commission has determined the R&M expenses in accordance with UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015. The Commission has considered the K factor of 2.67% as approved in the MYT

Order dated April 5, 2016. The Commission has considered the opening GFA for FY 2017-18. The

Commission has considered the WPIinflation of 1.83% which is the average increase in the

Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16.

The R&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 are as shown in the Table

below:



Table 4.41: R&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

K 2.67% 2.67% GFAn-1 6011.88 4504.00 WPIinflation 1.83% 1.83% R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) 163.46 122.46

4.11.5 A&G expenses

The Commission had approved the A&G expenses of Rs. 23.17 Crore for FY 2017-18 in its

MYT Order dated April 5, 2016. The Petitioner, in its Petition, has proposed the A&G expenses for

FY 2017-18 as Rs. 27.13 Crore as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The Commission has considered the approved normative A&G expenses in the true up for

FY 2015-16 for projecting the A&G expenses for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. The Commission has

considered the WPI inflation of 1.83% which is the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index

(WPI) for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. The Commission has considered the capitalisation rate of

47.84% based on the actual capitalisation rate of FY 2015-16.

The Commission in addition has also considered the License Fee of Rs. 2.50 Crore as per the

license fee specified by the Commission. Further, the Commission has approved provision towards

data centre cost as the Petitioner has incurred expenses of Rs. 3.24 Crore in FY 2015-16 and the same

was also allowed by the Commission during truing up for FY 2015-16. The Commission has

projected the same for FY 2017-18 based on the WPI inflation for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 which

works out to Rs. 3.36 Crore. The Petitioner has again claimed a provision (data centre) of Rs. 3.00

Crore for FY 2017-18. However, this amount as dealt in above is already included in the actual for

FY 2015-16, and, accordingly, the same has been escalated for projecting expenditure on this

account for FY 2017-18.

In this regard, it is pointed out that O&M expenses and in particular A&G expenses is a

controllable expense and the endeavour of the Petitioner should be to keep it to a bare minimum.

The normative A&G expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 are as shown in

the Table below:



Table 4.42: A&G expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed Allowable

A&Gn-1 34.28* 28.52 WPIinflation 1.83% 1.83% Gross A&G expenses 34.91 29.04 Capitalisation rate 30.88% 47.84% Less: A&G expenses capitalised 10.78 13.89 Net A&G expenses 24.13 15.15 Provision (Data Centre) 3.00 3.36 License Fee 0.00 2.50 A&Gn = A&Gn-1 x (1+WPIinflation) + Provision 27.13 21.01

*Inclusive of License Fees & provisions for data centre

4.11.6 O&M expenses

The O&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 are as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.43: O&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2017-18 Claimed by UPCL Approved

Employee expenses 361.88 364.21 R&M expenses 163.46 122.46 A&G expenses 27.13 21.01 Total O&M expenses 552.47 507.67

4.11.7 Interest on Working Capital

The Petitioner has submitted that the interest on working capital for FY 2017-18 has been

proposed in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the Petitioner has

proposed the IWC of Rs. 19.50 Crore for FY 2017-18.

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 FY 2017-18 in

accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

4.11.7.1 One Month O&M Expenses

The annual O&M expenses approved by the Commission are Rs. 507.67 Crore for FY 2017-

18. Based on the approved O&M expenses, one month’s O&M expenses work out to Rs. 42.31 Crore

for FY 2017-18.

4.11.7.2 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. 76.15 Crore for FY 2017-18.

4.11.7.3 Receivables

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. 5840.98 Crore for FY 2017-

18, which works out to Rs. 973.50 Crore for FY 2017-18.

4.11.7.4 Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues

The Petitioner has claimed Rs. 79.28 Crore towards the capital required to finance the

shortfall in collection of current dues.

The Commission has approved the collection efficiency of 98.75% for FY 2017-18 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 4.44: Capital required to finance the shortfall in collection of current dues approved by the Commission

Particulars Legend FY 2017-18 Net Revenue Requirement (Rs. Crore) A 5840.98 Collection efficiency approved B 98.75% Difference C=100%-B 1.25% Short fall in current dues (Rs. Crore) CxA 73.01

4.11.7.5 Adjustment for security deposits and credit by power suppliers

The Petitioner has proposed the amount held as security deposit as Rs. 683.12 Crore and one

month of power purchase cost as Rs. 467.92 Crore totalling to Rs. 1151.04 Crore for FY 2017-18.

The Commission has allowed fortnightly billing to the gas generators in the State as they

have to make the payment to GAIL on fortnightly basis. Hence, the Commission has relaxed the

requirement of adjustment of power purchase cost of one month to 15 days in case of the three gas

generators in the State to facilitate UPCL in meeting the power purchase payments to them. For

other generators the adjustment of one month would continue. The Commission has also

considered the same amount of security deposit as proposed by the Petitioner and, accordingly, the

Commission has approved the total amount of Rs. 1077.32 Crore for FY 2017-18 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 2017-18,

works out to Rs. 87.64 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. 12.31 Crore for

FY 2017-18. The interest on working capital for FY 2017-18 approved by the Commission is as


Table 4.45: Interest on working capital approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved O&M expenses for 1 month 46.04 42.31 Maintenance Spares 82.87 76.15 2 months of expected revenue at prevailing tariffs 1081.57 973.50 Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues 78.82 73.01 Minus: Amount held as security deposits and credit by power suppliers 1150.50 1077.32

Net Working Capital 138.80 87.64 Rate of Interest on Working Capital 14.05% 14.05% Interest on Working Capital 19.50 12.31




The Petitioner has considered the opening Equity for FY 2017-18 as Rs. 745.63 Crore. The

Petitioner has considered the equity addition during the year as per the proposed financing plan for

the 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. 123.03

Crore for FY 2017-18.

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 FY

2017-18 considering the eligible opening equity for return purposes.

The Commission has considered the closing eligible equity for return purposes approved for

FY 2015-16 as the opening balance for FY 2016-17. Thereafter, the Commission has considered the

equity addition during FY 2016-17 as per the approved means of finance for FY 2016-17. The

Commission has considered the closing balance for FY 2016-17 as the opening balance for FY 2017-

18.

The Commission with regard to the mismatch of equity considered by the Petitioner for

return puposes has already discussed the issue in Chapter 3 of this Order. The Petitioner must

adhere to the directions given therein. The Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY

2017-18 is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.46: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved Opening Equity 745.63 306.32 Addition during the year 259.33 40.96 Closing Equity 1004.96 347.29 Rate of Return 16.50% 16.50% Return on Equity 123.03 50.54

4.11.9 Income Tax

The Petitioner has not claimed any Income Tax in its ARR proposals for FY 2017-18.


“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 FY 2017-18.

4.11.10 Provision for Bad and doubtful debts

The Petitioner has proposed collection efficiency as approved by the Commission in its MYT

Order dated 05.04.2016. 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. 57.42 Crore for

FY 2017-18. The Petitioner has, however, not considered the same as the part of ARR.


“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.”

As discussed in Chapter 3 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 the previous Tariff Order had directed the Petitioner to carry out an

audit of receivables and also identify and classify the same and come up with a bad debt write off

policy 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 2017-18 in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.



4.11.11Non-Tariff Income

The Petitioner has proposed non-tariff income of Rs. 185.70 Crore for FY 2017-18. In absence

of any yardstick for estimating the non-tariff income of the Petitioner, the Commission

provisionally accepts the same for the FY 2017-18. The same shall, however, be Trued up based on

the actual audited accounts for the year.

4.11.12 Treatment of past year adjustments

The Commisison in its MYT Order dated 05.04.2016 had approved the recovery of past year

provisioned amount on account of material cost variance and write off of liabilities towards cost of

power purchase. The Commission had determined the past year adjustments of Rs. 522.91 Crore

with carrying cost to be returned by the Petitioner. The Commission further adjusted the true up of

capital related rexpenses of the past years leaving behing Rs. 366.04 Crore to be refunded in three

equal installements out of which an amount of Rs. 122.01 Crore was adjusted in the MYT Order in

FY 2016-17 and balance Rs. 244.02 Crore have to be passed on in the next two years. The amount to

be adjusted on account of the same is as shown in the table below.

Table 4.47: Past Year Adjustment approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Past Year Adjustments Revised Estimate FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Opening 366.04 278.32 Addition (Adjustment) -122.01 -139.16 Closing 244.03 139.16 Average 305.03 Interest rate (as approved for WC borrowings) 14.05% 14.05% Carrying Cost 34.29 19.55 Adjusted during the year -122.01 -139.16 Final Closing Gap 278.32 158.71

4.11.13Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18

Based on the above, the Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18

is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.48: Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Power Purchase Cost 4403.02 4588.71 2. UJVN Ltd. Arrears -5.98 3. Transmission Charges

PGCIL 741.90 506.40

PTCUL 309.74 237.63 4. SLDC Charges 15.15 5. Water Tax 153.82 153.82 6. Interest on Loan 218.13 167.07 7. Depreciation 153.58 136.36 8. O&M expenses 552.47 507.67 9. Interest on Working Capital 19.50 12.31

10. Return on Equity 123.03 50.54 11. Aggregate Revenue Requirement 6675.18 6369.69 12. Less: Non-Tariff Income 185.70 185.70 13. Add: Gap/(Surplus) on truing up for FY 2015-16 -10.30 -203.85 14. Previous year adjustment 173.67 139.16 15. Net Revenue Requirement 6305.51 5840.98

4.11.14 Revenue at Existing Tariff

The Petitioner has projected the revenue of Rs. 5556.52 Crore for FY 2017-18 at the approved

Tariff for FY 2016-17.

By applying the approved Tariff for FY 2017-18 the Commission has estimated the total

consumer category wise revenue for FY 2017-18 as Rs. 5524.71 Crore.

The revenue at existing Tariff as proposed by the Petitioner and estimated by the

Commission is shown in the Table given below:



Table 4.49: Revenue for FY 2017-18 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 2,908.48 1,014.32 3.49 3069.00 1091.78 3.56

2. RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1,333.10 761.27 5.71 1338.00 731.92 5.47

3. RTS-3: Public Lamps 45.28 21.93 4.84 52.00 24.94 4.80

4. RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 357.32 60.90 1.70 341.00 52.77 1.55

5. RTS-5: Government Irrigation Systems

145.47 70.27 4.83 129.00 62.76 4.87

6. RTS-6: Public Water Works 377.98 182.59 4.83 380.00 181.20 4.77

7. RTS-7: Industry LT Industry 320.70 171.94 5.36 360.00 185.02 5.14 HT Industry 5,937.16 3,158.68 5.32 5936.00 3062.83 5.16

8. RTS-8: Mixed Load 203.36 95.95 4.72 225.00 105.97 4.71

9. RTS-9: Railway Traction 35.13 18.66 5.31 19.00 9.32 4.91

Revenue from Incremental Sales 34.85 16.20 4.65

Total 11,663.98 5,556.52 4.76 11883.85 5524.71 4.65

4.11.15Revenue Gap for FY 2017-18 at existing Tariff

Based on the net revenue requirement of Rs. 6305.51 Crore (including the proposed True up

amount for FY 2015-16) and revenue at existing Tariff of Rs. 5556.52 Crore, the Petitioner has

proposed the revenue gap of Rs. 748.99 Crore to be recovered by way of proposed Tariff for FY

2017-18.

Considering the net revenue requirement of Rs. 5840.98 Crore and revenue at existing Tariff

of Rs. 5524.71 Crore, the Commission has approved the revenue gap of Rs. 316.27 Crore for FY 2017-

18. The Commission has approved the Retail Tariff for FY 2017-18 to cover the approved revenue

gap of Rs. 316.27 Crore.



The revenue gap for FY 2017-18 proposed by the Petitioner and approved by the

Commission is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 4.50: Revenue Gap for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Proposed by the Petitioner Approved

Net Revenue Requirement 6305.51 5840.98 Revenue at existing Tariff 5556.52 5524.71 Revenue Gap 748.99 316.27


5. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

5.1 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2017-18

5.1.1 General

In Chapter 5 of the Order, it has been concluded that the revenue projected to be earned by

UPCL during FY 2017-18 at currently prevailing tariffs will be Rs. 5524.71 Crore. Against this, the

ARR approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 including gap and surplus on account of truing

up of previous years works out to Rs. 5840.98 Crore, leaving a total gap of Rs. 316.27 Crore. In view

of the objections received and the Petitioner’s submission, the Commission considers it appropriate

to first take a view on the tariff rationalisation measures suggested by the Petitioner and the

concerns voiced by other stakeholders.

5.1.2 Petitioner’s Proposals

The Petitioner submitted that the tariff proposal has been formulated with an attempt to

keep the impact on the consumers to the minimum possible extent and at the same time not defer a

large portion of recovery on the tariff for the coming years. The Petitioner further submitted that

Section 61(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003 states that the appropriate Commission should 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 2017-18 are

as follows:

5.1.2.1 Change in tariff for RTS-3: Public Lamp and RTS-5:Government Irrigation System

The Petitioner requested the Commission to change the tariff from kW to kVA for fixed

charges and kWh to kVAh for energy charges under RTS-3: Public Lamp and RTS-5: Government

Irrigation System.

5.1.2.2 Prepaid metering

The Petitioner submitted the Tariff proposal for prepaid metering. The salient features of

Prepaid Metering proposed by Petitioner are as follows:



1. 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, for Advertisements/Hoardings and for Government connections upto 25 kW.

2. There shall be a minimum recharge of Rs. 100 and the maximum limit of recharge shall be

Rs. 15,000 for both single phase and three phase connections. Validity of the recharge shall

be continued till the amount is available in the account of the consumer. Any recharge shall

be allowed only when the 20 digit special meter reading code shall be made available by the

consumer.

3. Meter testing fee shall be charged by UPCL under Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges

directly from such prepaid consumers as is done for post-paid consumers and shall not be

charged from the recharge amount.

4. In case, the consumer opting for Prepaid Metering has 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 a minimum recharge of more than 20% of the outstanding arrears.

5. 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 consumers 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.

6. All the Prepaid meters will be provided with an alarm to indicate low credit.

7. 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. the cost of the meter and associated equipment’s 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.

5. Tariff Rationalsation, Tariff Design and Related Issues


8. The consumer shall be allowed only one transfer from post-paid to prepaid or otherwise in a

financial year.

9. Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG), voltage rebate/surcharge, low power factor

surcharge and excess load penalty shall not be applicable for prepaid connections.

10. A rebate of 4% of Energy Charges for Domestic Category and 3% of Energy Charges for

other categories shall be applicable as per tariff schedule for the consumers availing this

scheme and the rebate shall only be applicable after installation and operationalization of

Prepaid meters.

Provided that no rebate shall be applicable on Part (A) of RTS-10, i.e. Temporary Supply for

Illumination & Public Address Needs.

Provided further that the fixed charge in respect of other domestic consumers (para 2 (1.2) of

the RTS -1) shall be Rs. 45/kW /month.

11. The solar water heater rebate shall be adjusted as follows:-

i. The rebate for first month of implementation of prepaid metering scheme shall be

credited immediately on the first recharge. Thereafter, rebate shall be credited on

monthly basis if recharge is done every month.

ii. In case recharge is not being done on monthly basis, then based on the capacity of Solar

Water Heater installed by the consumer, solar water heater rebate would be credited for

all the past months for which the rebate was due either at the time of recharge or when

the consumer approaches UPCL.

5.1.3 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.

5.1.3.1 Change in tariff for RTS-3: Public Lamp and RTS-5: Government Irrigation System

As discussed earlier, the Petitioner has proposed to change the tariff from kW to kVA for

fixed charges and kWh to kVAh for energy charges under RTS-3: Public Lamp and RTS-5:



Government Irrigation System. In response to query sought by the Commission with regard to

UPCL’s preparedness to implement kVAh billing for public lamps, UPCL submitted that it is in a

position to do so with effect from April 1, 2017. Considering the UPCL’s preparedness and inherent

benefits of kVAh based tariff, the Commission has approved the fixed charges in kVA and Energy

Charges in kVAh for RTS-3 and RTS-5 Category.

5.1.3.2 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:

“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;

...”

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 the cost structure. Further, in its subsequent Tariff Orders for FY 2009-10 to FY

2016-17, 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 had 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 contracted load in fractions (<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 2017-18

is estimated to be around 13% against the total fixed cost incidence on the Petitioner of about 66% of

the licensee’s ARR for FY 2017-18.

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. For

seasonal industry the contracted demand/sanctioned load in ‘offseason’period is reduced to 30%.

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.

Considering the suggestions received from various stakeholders that MCG unnecessarily

burdens the small PTW consumers, the Commission has decided to abolish MCG 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%.

5.1.3.3 Continuous Supply Surcharge

The Petitioner has proposed to continue 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 an 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 on the mixed feeder was required to be cut

during rostering, the supply of continuous supply consumer also got 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, 2013 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 2017-18,

the Commission has estimated a deficit of about 899.35 MU in winter months during November to

March 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. The Commission will review the same once the

aforesaid deficit in UPCL’s requirement is bridged or wiped off.

Further, some of the stakeholders submitted that UPCL charging continuous supply

surcharge also on power availed through open access and has requested the Commission to exempt

continuous supply surcharge on the same. In this regard, the Commission had approved

continuous supply surcharge in its Tariff Order dated October 23, 2009 for making available

continuous supply to the industrial consumers, who had opted for it by contracting the capacity

with the generating stations or through procurement through short term trading or through UI

route. However, when an industry sources power under open-access, UPCL is free from its

obligations to provide uninterrupted power by procuring the same on short term basis. Hence,

there is a merit on the representatives of the stakeholders. Accordingly, the Commission makes it

explicitly clear not to charge continuous supply surcharge on power sourced by an industrial

consumers under open access.

The option of continuous supply shall 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, 2017 or in case of new consumers from the date of connection, till March 31, 2018

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, 2018, 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, 2017 till March 31, 2018. 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, 2017.

• 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, 2017 till March 31, 2018. 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 and the

continuous supply surcharge on such consumers shall be applicable from the date of

energisation of aforesaid independent feeder till March 31, 2018, irrespective of actual

period of continuous supply option.

• 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, 2017 and they shall continue to pay continuous supply

surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order till April 30, 2017. 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 in 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.

• Continuous supply surcharge shall not be applicable on power procured by industrial

consumers through open access.

5.1.3.4 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 92(2) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, 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 had modified the slabs for load factor based tariff from three slabs to two slabs.



Further, as discussed in Chapter 2 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 more 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 more power from generating companies than it would be able

to sell to the consumers and in this process may suffer loss. Some stakeholders also opined that

instead of 2 slabs, load factor based tariff shall be specified for 3 slabs.

The Commission does not agree with the views of the stakeholders that higher load factor

implies that the Utility stands to benefit from selling more electricity which it has arranged for

meeting the demand of the consumer and load incidence on the system matches with the contracted

demand/load of the consumers of the State. 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 is the basis for contracting power from different sources by the licensee rather than the

contracted load/load factor of the consumers. 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 achieve this, demand and energy charges will 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-off 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 average Cost of Supply and the consumer

instead of being subsidising consumer becomes subsidised consumer. Thus, this structure apart

from leading to the above said anomaly is highly inequitable amongst the consumers of same

category with consumers having low load factor being loaded with much higher effective tariff and

making up for loss on account of lower effective tariff even below the average 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 is also highly undesirable.

Some of the stakeholders represented that the tariff structure for HT Industries should also

be telescopic. In Uttarakhand, as the cross-subsidies are very low, the tariff needs to be corrected at

different load factors to ensure that steepness of the effective tariff curve does not reduce the cross-

subsidies to very low level or make them negative (subsidised). Further, there is a practical

difficulty in implementing slabs of tariffs for excess consumption only, due to ToD tariffs in vogue.

Apportionment of various slabs of consumption for different time slots would be very complicated

and would result in disputes between licensee and consumers as consumer would like to book

cheapest load factor slab (1st slab) against peak hour consumption and highest load factor slab (last

slab) against off-peak hour consumption. The licensee, on the other hand, would like to book first

load factor slab against off-peak consumption and the last load factor slab under peak hour

consumption. Thus, this structure would unnecessarily complicate the billing process and would

also lead to disputes. Due to these reasons, the Commission is not implementing telescopic slab

based tariff for HT industrial consumers.



The above reasoning can be easily explained by taking an example with the figures of

approved tariff (Demand Charges Rs. 320/kVA/month and Energy Charges in two slabs of Rs. 3.50

and 3.85/kVAh in current Tariff Order for FY 2016-17, where Average Cost of Supply has been

taken as Rs. 4.70/kWh and average tariff from HT industrial consumers including ToD surcharge

and rebate has been designed to be Rs. 5.17/kWh. It is evident that in case of single energy charge

of Rs. 3.60/kVAh and demand charge of Rs. 320/kVA/month, 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 average 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 the same category with consumers having low load factor

being loaded with much higher effective tariff and making up for loss on account of lower effective

tariff even below average Cost of Supply paid by high load factor consumers. The same applies to

the condition if telescopic slab energy charges for HT industries [Demand Charges: Rs.

320/kVA/monthly, Energy Charges: for consumption upto LF 40%: Rs. 3.50/kVAh & for

consumption exceeding LF 40%: Rs. 3.85 kVAh] are considered the reduction in effective tariffs is

almost similar to the case where single energy charges are approved without any slab. The Table &

Graph below shows these anomalies of consumers getting cross-subsidised falling below average

cost of supply after a particular load factor and wide range of tariffs over different load factors with

the single energy charge without any slab and telescopic slabs. Increase of cross-subsidisation of HT

industry with increasing load factor (particularly > 45%) is not only incorrect but also highly

undesirable.



Table 5.1: Effective Tariff & Cross-subsidy for HT Industry having contracted load 1 kVA

Load

Fac

tor

Con

sum

ptio

n (k

VA

h)

Dem

and

Cha

rge

(Rs.

/ kV

A)

Ener

gy

Cha

rge

(Rs.

/kV

ah)

Tota

l A

mou

nt

Effe

ctiv

e Ta

riff

(R

s.kW

h)

Cos

t of

Supp

ly

Cro

ss

Subs

idy

%

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60 /k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60/ k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60/k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

Rs.

/ kW

h

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60 /k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

(7)=

(3)+

(4)

(8)=

(3)+

(5)

(9)=

(3)+

(6)

(10)

=(7)

/(2x

0.95

75)

(11)

=(8)

/(2x

0.95

75)

(12)

=(9)

/(2x

0.95

75)

-13

(14)

=(10

/13)

-1

(15)

=(11

/13)

-1

(16)

=(12

/13)

-1

25% 180 320 648 630 630 968 950 950 5.62 5.51 5.51 4.70 19.50% 17.28% 17.28%

30% 216 320 778 756 756 1098 1076 1076 5.31 5.20 5.20 4.70 12.92% 10.69% 10.69%

35% 252 320 907 882 882 1227 1202 1202 5.09 4.98 4.98 4.70 8.21% 5.99% 5.99%

40% 288 320 1037 1008 1008 1357 1328 1328 4.92 4.82 4.82 4.70 4.69% 2.46% 2.46%

45% 324 320 1166 1147 1247 1486 1467 1567 4.79 4.73 5.05 4.70 1.94% 0.58% 7.50%

50% 360 320 1296 1285 1386 1616 1605 1706 4.69 4.66 4.95 4.70 -0.25% -0.92% 5.30%

55% 396 320 1426 1424 1525 1746 1744 1845 4.60 4.60 4.86 4.70 -2.05% -2.15% 3.51%

60% 432 320 1555 1562 1663 1875 1882 1983 4.53 4.55 4.79 4.70 -3.54% -3.17% 2.01%

65% 468 320 1685 1701 1802 2005 2021 2122 4.47 4.51 4.73 4.70 -4.81% -4.04% 0.74%

70% 504 320 1814 1840 1940 2134 2160 2260 4.42 4.48 4.68 4.70 -5.90% -4.78% -0.34%

75% 540 320 1944 1978 2079 2264 2298 2399 4.38 4.44 4.64 4.70 -6.84% -5.43% -1.28%

80% 576 320 2074 2117 2218 2394 2437 2538 4.34 4.42 4.60 4.70 -7.66% -5.99% -2.10%

85% 612 320 2203 2255 2356 2523 2575 2676 4.31 4.39 4.57 4.70 -8.39% -6.49% -2.83%

90% 648 320 2333 2394 2495 2653 2714 2814 4.28 4.37 4.54 4.70 -9.03% -6.93% -3.48%

95% 684 320 2462 2533 2633 2782 2853 2953 4.25 4.36 4.51 4.70 -9.61% -7.33% -4.05%

100% 720 320 2592 2671 2772 2912 2991 3092 4.22 4.34 4.49 4.70 -10.13% -7.68% -4.57%



Graph 1 : Effective HT Industrial Tariff

Hence, in view of the above, the Commission is continuing with the existing load factor

based tariff structure for HT Industry.

5.1.3.5 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 20th January 2017 (MW) [Winter Month]

Morning Peak Demand – 2037 MW at 8.00 AM

Evening Peak Demand - 1867 MW at 7.00PM

Chart 2: Load Curve for 4th Feb 2017 (MW) [Winter Month]

Morning Peak Demand – 1973 MW at 8.00 AM

Evening Peak Demand – 1820 at 7.00 PM



Chart 3: Load Curve for 19th May, 2016 (MW) [Summer Month]

Peak Demand – 2013 MW at 9.00 PM

No Morning Peak

Chart 4: Load Curve for 27th June, 2016 (MW) [Summer Month]

Peak Demand – 1974 MW at 8.00 PM

No Morning Peak

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. From Chart 1 & 2 illustrating the load curve for January 20, 2017 & February

04, 2017 respectively, it can be observed that the demand starts increasing from 6.00 a.m. till it



reaches the peak at about 8.00 a.m. & then start falling around 9.00 a.m. in the morning & flattens by

around 11.00 a.m. Hence, the demand regarding change in morning peak hours cannot be accepted.

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 off-peak hour

rebate as approved in the earlier Tariff Order dated April 05, 2016.

5.1.3.6 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 the

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 Sanctioned/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.

5.1.3.7 Prepaid metering

The Petitioner has proposed some amendments to the Prepaid Metering Scheme approved

by the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2016-17. 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, for Advertisements/Hoardings and for Government connections upto 25 kW.

b) There shall be a minimum recharge of Rs. 100 and the maximum limit of recharge shall be

Rs. 15,000 for both single phase and three phase connections. Validity of the recharge shall

be continued till the amount is available in the account of the consumer. Any recharge shall

be allowed only when the 20 digit special meter reading code shall be made available by the

consumer.

c) As regards the charging for testing of meter, the Petitioner shall recover the amount as

approved by the Commission under Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges directly from such

prepaid consumers as is done for postpaid consumers and shall not be charged from the

recharge amount.

d) 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, 2017.

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.

e) 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, 2017 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

h) All the Prepaid meters will be provided with an alarm to indicate low credit.

i) 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 equipment’s shall be charged

as material security which shall be returned after adjusting for the depreciation at the time of

permanent disconnection. The approved material security deposit for FY 2017-18 is Rs.

5000/- for single phase connection and Rs 10,000/- for three phase connection.

j) The consumer shall be allowed only one transfer from postpaid to prepaid or otherwise in a

financial year.

k) Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG), voltage rebate/surcharge, low power factor

surcharge and excess load penalty shall not be applicable for prepaid connections.



l) A rebate of 4% of Energy Charges for Domestic Category and 3% of Energy Charges for

other categories shall be applicable as per tariff schedule for the consumers availing this

scheme and the rebate shall only be applicable after installation and operationalization of

Prepaid meters.

Provided that no rebate shall be applicable on Part (A) of RTS-10, i.e. Temporary Supply for

Illumination & Public Address Needs.

Provided further that the fixed charge in respect of other domestic consumers (para 2 (1.2) of

the RTS -1) shall be Rs. 55/kW/month.

m) The solar water heater rebate shall be adjusted as follows:-

i. The rebate for first month of implementation of prepaid metering scheme shall be

credited immediately on the first recharge. Thereafter, rebate shall be credited on

monthly basis if recharge is done every month.

ii. In case recharge is not being done on monthly basis, then based on the capacity of

Solar Water Heater installed by the consumer, solar water heater rebate would be

credited for all the past months for which the rebate was due either at the time of

recharge or when the consumer approaches UPCL.

In this regard, the Commission vide its Order dated November 09, 2016 on the Petition filed

by UPCL seeking removal of difficulty in implementing the Prepaid Metering Scheme provided in

Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 dated 5th April, 2016 had directed that the prepaid metering scheme

shall be effective from 1st December, 2016 which would be mandatory for new Temporary LT

connections, for Advertisements/Hoardings and for Government connections upto 25 kW. In this

regard, UPCL is directed to submit the details of such new connections issued from December 01,

2016 and the number of prepaid connections thereon. UPCL is also required to submit the

number of prepaid meters available with it within one month of the date of Order.

5.1.3.8 Tariff for Temporary Supply

In the existing Rate Schedule, the tariff for temporary supply of light and fan upto 10 kW,

public address system and illumination loads during functions, ceremonies and festivities,

temporary shops not exceeding three months is specified on per day basis without any linkage to

actual consumption. Considering the suggestions of stakeholders and in order to avoid wastage of



electricity, the Commission has decided to specify the tariff for all temporary supply on metered

basis linked to the actual consumption.

5.1.3.9 Abolition of Grace Period for Computing Delayed Payment Surcharge

The Petitioner requested the Abolition of Grace Period for Computing Delayed Payment

Surcharge and submitted as follows:

1. As per Regulation 3.3.1 (3) of the UERC (The Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 as

amended from time to time, delivery of electricity bill to the consumer should be effected at

least 15 days before the due date for payment of the bill.

2. On the representation of the consumers regarding delay in delivery of electricity bills by the

Petitioner, the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 12-07-2006 ordered that till such time

UPCL is able to streamline its bill making and distribution system to Commission’s

satisfaction, grace period of 15 days beyond the last date payment printed on the bill will be

available to all the consumers without any Delayed Payment Surcharge.

3. As per directions of the Commission, the Petitioner was regularly allowing 15 days grace

period beyond the due date to the consumers. In this connection, UPCL submitted that it

has improved its billing and distribution system tremendously, the details of which are as

follows:-

A. 100% In-house Billing

At the time of passing of Order by the Commission allowing the grace period, the

entire billing of the Petitioner was outsourced to the agencies situated in Meerut &

New Delhi. Now the entire billing is done in-house and the billing system is

established at Corporate Office.

B. Direct feeding of Meter Reading in SBM:

Meter readings of the consumers are being directly fed in the Spot Billing Machines

(SBM) by the meter reader. This eliminates the possibility of wrong posting of meter

readings in consumers’ accounts. In other words, this ensures correct posting of meter

readings.

C. Generation and Delivery of Bills at the time of Meter Readings:



Earlier bills of Domestic Category were being generated and served about 2 months

after the date of reading. Now bills of all domestic, non-domestic (having load below

10 kW) and LT Industry (having load below 5 kW) categories are being generated

exactly at the time of meter reading and delivered to the consumers by the meter

reading staff. Thus, there is no delay in delivery of bills and no possibility of non-

delivery of the bills to the consumers. This category of consumers covers about 99% of

total consumers. Further, billing of high value consumers is being done in Key

Consumer Cell at Corporate Office and consumers are being allowed clear 15 days

time to pay their bills.

D. Bill and Payment details through SMS:

The consumers who have provided their mobile numbers, are being given bill

payment details through Short Message Service (SMS).

E. Bill and Payment details at the website of UPCL:

The billing and payment details of consumers are being regularly posted at the

website of UPCL. Now the consumer can see the said details by creating login under

UPCL’s website.

F. Customer Care Centre:

UPCL has developed 24 x 7 Hrs Customer Care Centre at its registered office i.e. at

VCV Gabar Singh Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun to attend consumer

complaints inter-alia relating to no reading and providing reply to the consumers to

their satisfaction.

UPCL keeping in view the improvement in the billing and bill distribution system,

requested the Commission to abolish the grace period and provide in the Rate Schedule that the

Delayed Payment Surcharge shall be levied after the due date of the bill.

In this regard, during the public hearings held during the tariff proceedings, there were

representations from the consumers that they were not receiving the bills on time. Further, the

improvements suggested by UPCL are not reflected in its Commercial Performance Report

submitted before the Commission. Besides, the measures submitted by UPCL are implemented in

urban areas. In rural and hilly areas of the State, the problem still persists w.r.t. timely meter



reading and distribution of bills to the consumers on account of acute shortages of staff in the

field/distribution divisions of UPCL. Any rules or regulations or orders will apply in the entire

State of Uttarakhand and not just urban notified areas. Accordingly, the Commission does not

consider reasons forwarded by UPCL as justifiable to modify the conditions relating to grace

period.

5.1.4 Treatment of Revenue Gap

As concluded in Chapter 4 of the Order, the revenue at existing tariffs leaves a revenue gap

of Rs. 316.27 Crore to meet the Net Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18, post adjustment of the

revenue surplus and gap determined after truing up of expenses and revenue based on the audited

accounts for FY 2015-16.

The Commission in order to recover the gap has revised the tariffs for FY 2017-18. The

approved tariff will be applicable from April 1, 2017 and will be effective till revised by the

Commission.

5.1.5 Cross Subsidy

As per the provisions of Tariff Policy, the Regulatory Commission has to reduce the cross

subsidies with respect to the cost of supply in a gradual manner. The Commission in its MYT Order

for FY 2016-17 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.

5.1.6 Category-wise Tariff Design

The Commission has designed the category-wise tariffs for full recovery of approved Net

Revenue Requirement for FY 2017-18. 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, 2017 and shall continue to be applicable till further revised by

the Commission.



5.1.6.1 RTS-1: Domestic Tariff

The Commission, recognising the fact that BPL/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 BPL/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 every year.

Since the average cost of supply has increased further, therefore, with a view to reduce the

cross-subsidy, the fixed charges of BPL/lifeline consumer have now been increased from Rs.

14/connection /month to Rs. 18/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. 2.45/kWh to Rs.

2.55/kWh. The energy charges for the second slab, i.e. for consumption between 101-200

units/month have been fixed as Rs. 3.30/kWh. The energy charges for the third slab, i.e. for

consumption between 201-400 units/month have been fixed as Rs. 4.50/kWh and for consumers

having consumption above 400 units/month, the energy charges have been fixed at Rs. 5.10/kWh.

For single point bulk supply connections, the energy charges have been increased to Rs.

4.05/kWh from Rs. 3.70/kWh and fixed charges have been increased to Rs. 60/kW/month from Rs.

50/kW/month.

A comparison of the tariff, i.e. existing, proposed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission, is given in the Table below:



Table 5.2 : 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. 14/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 14/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs.

1.50/kWh 1.2 Other Domestic Consumers

(i) 0-100 Units/Month Rs. 40 Rs. 2.45/kWh Rs. 45/ Rs.

2.80/kWh Rs. 45 Rs. 2.55/kWh

(ii) 101-200 Units/Month Rs. 60 Rs. 3.10/kWh Rs. 75 Rs.

3.50/kWh Rs. 70 Rs. 3.30/kWh

(iii) 201-300 Units/Month Rs. 85 Rs. 4.10/kWh Rs. 95 Rs.

4.65/kWh Rs. 110 Rs. 4.50/kWh

(iv) 301-400 Units/Month Rs. 110 Rs. 4.10/kWh Rs. 125 Rs.

4.65/kWh Rs. 135 Rs. 4.50/kWh

(v) 401-500 Units/Month Rs. 150 Rs. 4.50/kWh Rs. 170 Rs.

5.15/kWh Rs. 180 Rs. 5.10/kWh

(vi) Above 500 Units/Month Rs. 175 Rs. 4.50/kWh Rs. 200 Rs.

5.15/kWh Rs. 210 Rs. 5.10/kWh

2 Single point bulk supply Rs. 50/kW Rs. 3.70/kWh Rs. 55/kW Rs.

4.20/kWh Rs. 60/kW Rs. 4.05/kWh

5.1.6.2 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 5.3 : 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. 14/ Connection Rs. 1.50/kWh Rs. 15/

Connection Rs.

1.70/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs. 1.50/kWh

2 Non-Domestic upto 1 kW

Rs. 14/ Connection Rs. 1.50/kWh Rs. 15/

Connection Rs.

1.70/kWh Rs. 18/


3 Non-Domestic above 1 kW & upto 4 kW


Connection Rs.

2.56/kWh Rs. 18/


4 Non-Domestic above 4 kW


Connection Rs.

3.85/kWh Rs. 30/


5.1.7 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff

For Non-domestic consumers, the Commission has increased the energy charges and fixed

charges to enable the licenses to recover its fixed cost and revenue gap. The Commission has



separately specified the tariff for concessional sub-category of educational institutions, hospitals

and charitable institutions, which shall include:

• Government/Municipal Hospitals;

• Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions; and

• Charitable Institutions registered under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and

whose income is exempted from tax under this Act.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Table below:

Table 5.4: 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. 45/ kW

Rs. 4.15/ kWh Rs. 50/

kW Rs 4.70/

kWh Rs. 55/ kW

Rs. 4.30/ kWh

1.2 Above 25 kW Rs. 55/ kVA

Rs. 3.85/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/annum

Rs. 60/ kVA

Rs. 4.35/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/annum

Rs. 65/ kVA

Rs. 4.00/ 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. 50 / kW

Rs. 4.30/ kWh Rs. 55 /

kW Rs. 4.85/

kWh Rs. 60 / kW

Rs. 4.45/ kWh

2.2

Others upto 25 kW not

covered in 2.1 above

Rs. 55 / kW

Rs. 5.10/ kWh Rs. 65 /

kW Rs. 5.75/

kWh Rs. 65 / kW

Rs. 5.25/ kWh

2.3 Above 25 kW Rs. 55 / kVA

Rs. 5.00/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 65 / kVA

Rs. 5.70/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 65 / kVA

Rs. 5.15/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

3 Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW

Rs. 55 / kVA

Rs. 4.90/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 65 / kVA

Rs. 5.60/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

Rs. 65 / kVA

Rs. 5.05/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA

/month & 600 kVAh/

kVA/ annum

4 Independent

Advertisement Hoardings

Rs. 70/ kW

Rs. 5.20/kWh Rs. 80/

kW Rs.

5.90/kWh Rs. 80/ kW

Rs. 5.50/kWh



5.1.8 RTS-3: Public Lamps

The tariff for this category has been approved in such a manner so that the average billing

rate for this category is close to average cost of supply. As discussed earlier, the Commission

considering the Petitioner’s proposal has approved the tariff for this category based on kVAh based

billing. The fixed charges for Public Lamps in rural areas have been fixed at Rs. 10/kVA 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 5.5: Tariff for Public Lamps

Description


Fixed / Demand Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges


Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand Charges (Per

Month) Energy Charges

RTS-3: Public Lamps

Urban (Metered) Rs. 50/kW Rs. 4.65/ kWh Rs. 55/kVA Rs. 5.30/

kVAh Rs. 55/kVA Rs. 4.75/ kVAh

Rural (Metered ) Rs. 40/kW Rs. 4.65/

kWh Rs. 45/kVA Rs. 5.30/ kVAh Rs. 45/kVA Rs. 4.75/ kVAh

5.1.9 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump Sets and Agriculture Allied Activities

The Commission in order to gradually reduce the cross subsidy in this category has

increased the tariff for this category of consumers. However, the Commission has abolished the

Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges from this category.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission are

given in the Table below:

Table 5.6: 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

RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets

Metered Nil Rs. 1.55/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month & 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.80/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month &. 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.75/ kWh -

RTS-4A: Agriculture Allied Activities

Metered Nil Rs. 1.55/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month & 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.80/ kWh

60 units/ BHP/

month &. 720 units /BHP/ annum

Nil Rs. 1.75/ kWh -



5.1.10 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System

The tariff for this category has been approved in such a manner so that the average billing

rate for this category is close to the average cost of supply without any element of cross-subsidy.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in

the Table below:

Table 5.7: 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. 50/kW Rs. 4.55/ kWh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 5.20/ kVAh Rs. 55/kVA Rs. 4.60/

kVAh

Above 75 kW Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 4.40/ kVAh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 5.10/


5.1.11 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 the average cost of supply. The fixed charges for Public Water Works in rural

areas have been fixed at Rs. 10/kVA 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 5.8 : Tariff for Public Water Works

Description



Month)

Energy Charges


Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

Urban Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 4.45/ kVAh Rs. 55/kVA Rs. 5.05/


Rural Rs. 40/kVA Rs. 4.45/

kVAh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 5.05/ kVAh Rs. 45/kVA Rs. 4.70/

kVAh

5.1.12 RTS-7: Industry

The Commission while determining the tariff of HT and LT Industries have taken into

consideration average cost of supply and cross subsidy.

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

only on energy supply made by UPCL, i.e. the surcharge will not be applicable if power is sourced

by any through open access.

Further, as discussed above in tariff rationalisation measures, the Commission has retained

MCG on monthly basis with adjustment as detailed out in Tariff Schedule. The existing tariff, tariff

proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission for LT Industry is given in the

Table below:

Table 5.9: 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. 130/ kW

Rs. 4.05/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

Rs. 150/ kW

Rs. 4.50/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

Rs. 140/ kW

Rs. 4.20/ kWh

*50 kWh/ kW/month &

600 kWh /kW/annum

2. LT Industries (above 25kW & upto 75 kW)

Rs. 130/ kVA

Rs. 3.70/ kVAh

50 kVAh/ kVA/month &

600 kVAh /kVA/ annum

Rs. 150/ kVA

Rs. 4.20/ kVAh



Rs. 140/ kVA

Rs. 3.85/ kVAh



*30 kWh/kW/month and 360 kWh/kW/annum for Atta Chakkis.

The existing tariff and tariff proposed by the licensee for HT Industry is given in the Table

below:

Table 5.10: Existing and Proposed Tariff for HT Industries

Sl. No. Category Load Factor

Existing Tariff Proposed Tariff

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)

Fixed /Demand Charges

(Rs./kVA)

MCG Charges

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)

Fixed /Demand Charges

(Rs./kVA)

MCG Charges

1 HT Industry having contracted load above 88kVA/75 kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.50 Rs. 255/kVA of the billable

demand

100 kVAh/kVA/month

& 1200 kVAh

/kVA/annum

3.85 Rs. 290/kVA of the billable

demand

100 kVAh/kVA/month &1200

kVAh /kVA/ annum

Above 40% 3.85 4.40

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA


demand

3.85 Rs. 350/kVA of the billable

demand Above 40% 3.85 4.40



The approved tariff for HT Industry is given in Table below:

Table 5.11: Approved Tariff for HT Industry

S. No Category Load Factor

Energy Charges

Fixed Charges MCG

Rs./kVAh Rs./kVA/ month

kVAh/kVA of contracted load

1 HT Industry having contracted load above 88kVA/75 kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA


demand 100 kVAh/kVA/month

& 1200 kVAh /kVA/annum

Above 40% 4.00

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA


demand Above 40% 4.00

5.1.13 RTS-8: Mixed Load

The Commission has increased the tariff for this category to reduce the level of cross

subsidy. The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in the Table below:

Table 5.12: Tariff for Mixed Load

Description

Existing Proposed Approved 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. 60/kW Rs. 4.50/kWh Rs. 70/kW Rs. 5.15/kWh Rs. 70/kW Rs. 4.75/kWh

5.1.14 RTS-9: Railway Traction

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Table below:

Table 5.13: Tariff for Railway Traction

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Tariff Design


Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-9: Railway Traction Rs. 225/kVA Rs. 3.95/

kVAh Rs. 240/kVA Rs. 4.65/ kVAh Rs. 240/kVA Rs. 4.25/

kVAh



5.2 Revenue for FY 2017-18

Considering the revised tariffs, the Commission has computed the projected revenue at the

approved tariffs from each category for FY 2017-18. The summary of category-wise projected

revenue for FY 2017-18 is given in the following Table:

Table 5.14: Revenue at approved Tariffs for FY 2017-18

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 3069.00 1192.42 3.89 9.22% 2. RTS-2: Non Domestic 1338.00 761.96 5.69 4.10% 3. RTS-3: Public Lamps 52.00 26.33 5.06 5.58% 4. RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 341.00 59.58 1.75 12.90% 5. RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 129.00 65.75 5.10 4.76% 6. RTS-6: Public Water Works 380.00 191.54 5.04 5.71% 7. RTS-7: Industry LT Industry 360.00 193.55 5.38 4.61% HT Industry 5936.00 3210.99 5.41 4.84%

8. RTS-8: Mixed Load 225.00 112.38 4.99 6.05% 9. RTS-9: Railway Traction 19.00 10.02 5.27 7.45% 10. Additional Sales (Efficiency improvement) 34.85 17.13 4.92 11. Total 11883.85 5841.64 4.92

The estimated revenue for FY 2017-18 at approved tariffs works out to Rs. 5841.64 Crore, as

against the net ARR of Rs. 5840.98 Crore worked out after adjusting trued-up surplus/gaps of

previous years leaving a surplus of Rs. 0.66 Crore with UPCL.

As observed from the above Table, the percentage tariff increase for most of the subsidized

categories, i.e. Domestic, PTW and Mixed Load is higher than the percentage tariff increase for most

of the subsidizing categories, i.e. Non-Domestic, LT Industries and HT Industries. 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.

5.3 Cross Subsidy

As discussed above, the Commission has designed the tariffs for various categories with an

objective of gradually reducing the cross subsidy with respect to average cost of supply. The extent

of category-wise cross-subsidy at approved tariffs computed at average cost of supply is given in

the Table below:



Table 5.15 : Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply

Category Approved Average Billing Rate (ABR)

Average Cost of Supply (ACoS) ABR / ACoS Cross

Subsidy

Rs./kWh Rs./kWh % % Domestic 3.89 4.92 78.97% -21.03% Non Domestic 5.69 4.92 115.75% 15.75% Public Lamps 5.06 4.92 102.91% 2.91% PTW 1.75 4.92 35.51% -64.49% GIS 5.10 4.92 103.59% 3.59% PWW 5.04 4.92 102.45% 2.45% LT Industrial 5.38 4.92 109.28% 9.28% HT Industrial 5.41 4.92 109.95% 9.95% Mixed Load 4.99 4.92 101.52% 1.52% Railways 5.27 4.92 107.15% 7.15%

The comparison of Cross Subsidy at approved tariffs with respect to the average cost of

supply in Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 and as approved in this Tariff Order for FY 2017-18 is given

below:

Table 5.16 : Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 Category Cross Subsidy at Approved

Tariff for FY 2016-17 Cross Subsidy at Approved

Tariff for FY 2017-18 Domestic -24.19% -21.03% Non Domestic 15.76% 15.75% PTW -67.02% -64.49% GIS 3.07% 3.59% Public Lamps 1.84% 2.91% PWW 2.30% 2.45% LT Industrial 9.68% 9.28% HT Industrial 9.95% 9.95% Mixed Load 7.30% 1.52% Railways 0.78% 7.15%

The Commission while designing the tariffs for FY 2017-18 has reduced the cross subsidies

for all the category with respect to approved tariffs for FY 2016-17 and has ensured to bring the

cross-subsidy levels within the range specified in the National Tariff Policy.

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.”

5.4 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 where Open Access is allowed up to contracted load, 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.

Provided that wheeling charges shall be payable on the basis of Approved Capacity.

Provided where open access is allowed beyond the contracted load, embedded open access

consumer shall pay wheeling charges for the excess load as determined by the Commission in the

following manner:

WC For excess load allowed= (ARR–PPC–TC) /(PLSD X365) ( Rs./MW/Day)

The PLSD during FY 2016-17 is 2037 MW. Hence, in accordance with the methodology

provided in the aforesaid Regulations, the wheeling charges payable by customers seeking open

access for FY 2017-18 (applicable upto 31st March, 2018) shall be:

Table 5.17 :Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2017-18 Description Rs./MW/day

Wheeling Charges 10234

“Embedded open access consumers” who have been allowed open access up to the

contracted load 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. 593/MW/day for HT industry consumers having contracted load above 1000 kVA

and Rs. 2270/MW/day for HT industry consumers having contracted load upto 1000 kVA. Non-



Domestic consumers shall pay wheeling charges of Rs. 8418/MW/day. Moreover, “embedded open

access consumers” who have been allowed open access beyond the contracted load shall pay

wheeling charges for the excess load equal to Rs. 10234/MW/day. 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 2017-18

shall be the pooled average system distribution losses, i.e. 14.75% considered in this Order. Cross

subsidy surcharge applicable, in accordance with the Regulations, to open access customers for FY

2017-18 have been determined as Rs. 0.49/kWh for HT industrial consumers and Rs. 0.77/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. 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 and should not

be reduced from the Transmission charges payable to PTCUL.


6. Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL

6.1 General

Uttarakhand, the 27th State of India was created on 9th November 2000 as the 10th

Himalayan State of the country blessed with abundant natural resources with an approx. 53,483 sq.

km area and presently having a population of approximately 102 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 Sector

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 in the State 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 6.1 & 6.2.

Table 6.1 : Detail of Substations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2016

S. No. Name of District 66/11 kV S/s 33/11 kV S/s 11/0.415 kV S/s

Nos. No. of Transformers

Total MVA capacity Nos. No. of

Transformers Total MVA

capacity Nos. Total MVA capacity

Garhwal Zone 1. Dehradun 56 108 774 6406 730.78 2. Uttarkhashi 10 16 58 1588 71.82 3. Pauri 31 50 211 5549 242.85 4. Tehri 14 23 104 3504 128.64 5. Chamoli 3 5 38 13 18 66 2048 75.81 6. Rudraprayag 6 7 33 1728 54.32

Haridwar Zone 7. Haridwar 56 117 984 15530 991.52

Kumaon Zone 8. Nainital 28 49 321 4876 507.04

9. U.S.Nagar (Kashipur, Bazpur, Jaspur)

20 43 279 5323 327.92

10. Almora 25 40 132 4064 151.46 11. Bageshwar 9 13 40.5 1719 56.12

Rudrapur Zone

12. U.S.Nagar (Rudrapur, Sitarganj) 30 63 554 7216 449.70

13. Pithoragarh 17 27 106 3317 110.32 14. Champawat 7 11 45 1311 47.71

Total UPCL 3 5 38 322 585 3707 64179 3946.00



Table 6.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2016

S. No. Name of District 66 kV Line (In Km.)

33 kV Line (In Km.)

11kV Line (In Km.)

LT Line (In Km.)

Garhwal Zone 1. Dehradun 751.63 4471.33 10176.49 2. Uttarkhashi 247.6 1918.34 2082.24 3. Pauri 606.44 5167.62 7986.57 4. Tehri 364.38 3824.45 3967.43 5. Chamoli 121 185.33 2337.81 3038.12 6. Rudraprayag 136.19 1250.15 1748.76

Total Garhwal Zone 121 2291.57 18969.7 28999.61 Haridwar Zone

1. Haridwar 413.82 3689.53 4314.53 Total Garhwal Zone 0 413.82 3689.53 4314.53 Kumaon Zone

1. Nainital 375 2761.84 4392.61

2. U.S.Nagar (Kashipur, Bazpur Jaspur) 261.37 1558.77 1768.85

3. Almora 432 3794.25 6746.37 4. Bageshwar 185.6 1635.89 2205.26

Total Kumaon Zone 0 1253.974 9750.75 15113.08 Rudrapur Zone

1. U.S.Nagar (Rudrapur, Sitarganj) 268.73 2210.81 2643.80

2. Pithoragarh 68.5 (charged at 33 kV) 269.02 2840.36 3361.13

3. Champawat 165.87 1661.79 2156.00 Total Rudrapur Zone 68.5 703.62 6712.96 8160.93 Total UPCL 189.5 4662.984 39122.941 56588.153

The Distribution network of UPCL as on 31st December 2016 contains four Zones namely

Garhwal, Haridwar, Kumaon & Rudrapur 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 18.91

Lakh consumers as on March 2015 and 19.89 Lakh consumers as on March 2016. This increase of

total 98,698 consumers during the year was primarily in Domestic category (84%). The Consumer

Mix, Consumption pattern & Revenue pattern for FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 are elaborated below:

6.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2014-15& FY 2015-16

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 the

Petitioner’s revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumers mix in the State during FY 2014-15.



CHART 1: Consumer Mix (FY 2014-15)

In FY 2015-16, out of the total approximately 19.89 Lakh consumers in the State, there were

87.46%-Domestic consumers, 10.33%-Non-Domestic consumers and only 0.57% consumers of the

Industrial category. It is seen that these industrial (HT+LT Industries) consumers account for

around 55.54% of the total consumption of the State and contribute to about 60.67% of Petitioner’s

revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumers mix in the State during FY 2015-16.

CHART 2: Consumer Mix (FY 2015-16)

Besides above, it has been observed that despite Commission’s specific directions at Para

7.2.4 in its Tariff Order dated 11.04.2015 that “the Commission intends to discontinue prescribing norms

of billing and tariff for unmetered consumers from ensuing years. Failure to provide meters to unmetered

consumers within the time frame mentioned above may result in licensee having no avenue to raise bills to

such consumers”, the Petitioner in its Commercial Diary i.e. CS 3 and CS 4 is still booking



Energy/Revenue in the consumer categories, viz. RTS-1 (Unmetered), RTS-3 (Unmetered) and RTS-

4 (Unmetered). This act of distribution licensee is a blatant act of violation of the Commission’s

directions. Hence, the Commission directs UPCL not to indicate any un-metered category details

in its commercial diaryand should ensure that no energy should be booked in this account.

6.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16

In FY 2014-15, it was observed that with respect to the total consumption in 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 3: Consumption Pattern during FY 2014-15

In FY 2015-16, it was observed that with respect to total consumption of the State, the

consumption of Industrial consumers (HT+LT Industries) was 55.54% and for Domestic & Non-

Domestic consumers the consumption was 23.22% & 10.86% respectively. The following Chart

shows the consumption pattern in the State during FY 2015-16.



CHART 4: Consumption Pattern during FY 2015-16

Comparison of consumption pattern in FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16 depicts that %age share of

Industrial consumption has slightly increased by 0.08%, whereas, %age share of domestic

consumption has decreased by 0.26% and the %age share of non-domestic consumption has

decreased by 0.17%.

With regard to the negligible increase in energy consumption of Industrial consumers, the

Commission is of the opinion that the flexibility to the consumers to source its power requirements

from any of the generating sources within or outside the State under open access which provides

reliable and cost effective power, is the main reason for the same. The volume of power being sold

by the Petitioner to this category of consumers may get reduced progressively in case the Petitioner

does not improve its performance and ensure quality and reliable supply of power at competitive

rates for its consumers. Moreover, as 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 6.3: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access Year Quantum (MU)

FY 2011-12 10.34 FY 2012-13 100.93 FY 2013-14 281.03 FY 2014-15 181.37 FY 2015-16 274.52



6.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2014-15 & FY 2015-16

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%] whereas Domestic consumers were contributing around 16.32%. The following Chart

shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer categories in the State.

CHART 5: Revenue Mix in FY 2014-15

With regard to the revenue from sale of energy during FY 2015-16, the contribution of

Industrial consumers was 60.67% [HT Industrial consumers was 57.62%, LT industrial consumers

was 3.05%] whereas Domestic consumers were contributing around 16.42%. The following Chart

shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer categories in the State.

CHART 6: Revenue Mix in FY 2015-16



On comparing the revenue pattern of FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16, it is noticed that the %age

revenue share of Industrial Consumers & non-domestic consumers with respect to the total revenue

had decreased by 1.39% & 0.57% respectively and for domestic consumers, it had increased by

0.10%. The decrease in revenue share of the industrial consumers is mainly due to them opting for

power through open access.

6.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance

The Commission has been monitoring & reviewing the performance of the Petitioner based

on the information/reports submitted by it. 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 the 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 manner 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.

Considering the fact that the Petitioner encompasses 35 number of Distribution Divisions in

the State, the Commission felt the need to monitor UPCL on Distribution Divisional basis. In order

to quantify the improvement on month on month basis on any of the performance indicators, it is

necessary that Division-wise targets on each parameter be provided by the licensee which would

make the whole monitoring process more meaningful. Hence, the Commission vide its letter no.

UERC/5/Tech/112/2014-15/1622 dated 27.11.2014 issued following revised Commercial

Performance Monitoring formats directing UPCL to submit information on these formats in hard as

well as in soft copy (MS-excel file in CD) on regular basis latest by 25th day of the next month from

January, 2015 onwards.



Table 6.4: 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 Not Billed (NB)/Stop Billed (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 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 in accordance with the directions, i.e.

latest by 25th day of the next month.

The Commission has observed that the Petitioner has not only been inconsistent in

furnishing the Commercial Performance Monitoring reports within the stipulated time frame but

also has failed to submit Format - 2 & Format- 3 alongwith the report of the first month of the

Financial Year, i.e. alongwith the report of April 2016. The Commission has observed that despite

categorically mentioning in the guidelines of the prescribed Formats regarding submission of

Quarterly Targets in the first month of the Financial Year i.e. April 2016, the Petitioner submitted

the Quarterly Targets in Format-2 & Format-3 to the Commission as late as November 2016.

The Commission is of the view that the basic purpose of advance target setting for each

quarter is to enable analysis of actual performance vis-a-vis target performance of the licensee. In

the absence of advance target setting, comparative analysis is rendered impossible which clearly

shows a lackadaisical approach of the Petitioner towards compliance of the provisions of the

Act/Regulations and directions of the Commission.



Therefore, the Commission 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 and without fail furnish the Quarterly

Targets as per prescribed Format - 2 & 3 alongwith the Commercial Performance Monitoring

report for the month of April, 2017.

The Commission’s analysis on the information submitted by the Petitioner for the period

April 2016 to December 2016 through its various submissions is being discussed in the following

paragraphs:

6.2.1 Metering

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been repeatedly giving directions to the

Petitioner to energise new connections (including metering of unmetered connections) with the

static/electronic meters and to replace all old mechanical meters with new electronic/static meters

in accordance with CEA Regulations.

However, the Commission has observed that the Petitioner has a lackadaisical approach in

furnishing correct report in this regard 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:

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

The Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016, had issued directions to 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.

The Petitioner vide its letter No. 2481/UPCL/RM/C-12 dated 13.07.2016 submitted that an

efficiency plan has been prepared and circulated to the field officers in which NA/NR cases have

been targeted below 2% in both Hill & Plain areas by 31.12.2016.

On examination of the Quarterly Targets submitted by UPCL in Format-2, it is observed that

the targeted NA/NR cases at the end of 3rd quarter of FY 2016-17 in 23 divisions out of total 35

divisions were exceeding 2% which shows that the Petitioner is bound to fail in achieving its own

targets set besides failing to comply with the directions of the Commission issued in the Tariff



Order dated 05.04.2016. Taking a strong exception, the Commission is of the view that the Petitioner

indeed requires improvement at division level in order to reduce provisional billing cases and

achieve overall target set for NA/NR cases in the State. Hence, UPCL is required to diligently

monitor & pursue each Distribution Division rigorously so as to align its actual percentage of

NA/NR billing with the targets in accordance with the Commission’s directions.

The Commission has observed that the percentage of provisional billing cases namely

NA/NR, RDF/ADF/IDF, furnished in prescribed formats 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 2(D) & 2(E) for FY 2016-

17 are still at alarmingly high levels vis-a-vis total number of consumers as shown in the Table

given below:

Table 6.5: 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 2016

NA (%) 2.5 3.3 4.09 3.19 3.45 NR (%) 6.6 5.7 4.79 2.85 2.42 IDF (%) 11.9 8.6 7.59 6.22 5.27 ADF (%) 0.7 0.5 0.35 0.00 0.00 RDF (%) 0.8 1.0 1.62 1.34 1.07 Total (%) 22.5 19.2 18.44 13.6 12.21 Total Billed Consumers (Nos.) 1647224 1664159 1742507 1815454 1895146

From the above Table, it is observed that there has been a nominal reduction in total

percentage of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF cases in FY 2016-17 (upto 31st December 2016) which is not

at all close to the directions/provisions of the SOP Regulations issued by the Commission. Wherein,

the total provisional billing cases should be within 3% of the total number of consumers of the

licensee, whereas as per the Table above, the IDF cases itself are more than 5% which is one of the

constituents of provisional billing basis and constitute only a portion of such billing basis, therefore,

it can be said that the Petitioner has to put in concerted efforts to bring the overall provisional

billing percentage to within 3% of the total number of consumers in plain as well as hill areas of the

State.

On further examination of Quarterly Targets furnished by UPCL vis-a-vis actual progress

made in the field as on 31.12.2016, it has been observed that UPCL was not able to comply with the

directions of the Commission to bring NA/NR cases below 2% in majority of the divisions of Hill &

Plain areas by 31.12.2016, but has also failed to comply with its own Quarterly Targets by the end of



3rd Quarter of FY 2016-17. In only 3 divisions namely Ramnagar, Dehradun (Central) and Rishikesh,

the Petitioner was able to comply with the directions of the Commission for bringing NA/NR cases

below 2% by 31.12.2016. Whereas, as on 31.12.2016 the overall situation of NA/NR cases remains

grim as 16 divisions still have NA/NR cases more than 5% which shows that the Petitioner has

shown lackadaisical approach in reducing NA/NR cases.

The Commission is of the view that despite numerous directions issued to the Petitioner for

reducing and bringing the provisional billing cases within 3%, the Provisional billing cases are still

12.21% as on 31.12.2016. Moreover, NA/NR cases alone are around 6% which reflects abysmal

performance of the Petitioner in bringing down the provisional billing percentage in the State.

Therefore, giving final opportunity to the licensee, the Commission directs the Petitioner to reduce

the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2% in the entire State latest by 31.09.2017, failing which the

concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive

Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-

compliance of the Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/

Regulations may be initiated.

6.2.1.2 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 05.04.2016 had directed the

Petitioner to restrict the percentage of defective meter cases (IDF) to 3% in plain areas upto

30.09.2016 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.

The Petitioner vide its letter No. 2481/UPCL/RM/C-12 dated 13.07.2016 submitted that an

efficiency plan has been prepared and circulated to the field officers in which it has been targeted to

bring IDF cases at the level of 3% in plain area up to 30.09.2016 and up to 30.12.2016 in hill areas of

the State.

Circle-wise number of defective meters reported by the Petitioner in the prescribed format

3(A) is shown in the Table given below:



Table 6.6: Status of Defective Meters

S. No. Name of Circle

No. of Defective Meters as

on 31.03.2013


on 31.03.2014


on 31.03.2015


on 31.03.2016


on 31.12.2016

% of Defective Meters as

on 31.12.2016

1. EDC Dehradun (R) 23166 19278 17263 5868 5753 2.68 2. EDC Roorkee 12127 13182 11048 7366 8437 5.06 3. EDC Haridwar 16715 9705 7217 4552 4708 3.16 4. EDC Srinagar 36515 40586 43236 34056 28687 10.16 5. EDC Dehradun 9162 4250 551 770 1055 0.60 6. EDC Kashipur 9984 4017 1947 996 1214 1.07 7. EDC Rudrapur 27221 16950 12293 7290 6575 3.87 8. EDC Ranikhet 36056 24320 30095 12434 10685 6.20 9. EDC Haldwani 25260 10430 8641 6246 4474 2.31

10. EDC Tehri - - - 16366 14158 11.47 11. EDC Pithoragarh - - - 16963 14177 10.55 Total 196206 142718 132291 112907 99923 5.27

From the above Table, it can be seen that the Petitioner had managed to reduce only 12,984

number of defective meters in FY 2016-17 (upto December, 2016) which shows that the activity of

replacement of defective meters was not taken seriously at the Petitioner’s end due to which as on

31.12.2016 the percentage defective meters in UPCL’s network were 5.27% of the total number of

billed consumers, i.e. 18,95,146 as on the aforesaid date.

It is observed that the Petitioner has blatantly failed to comply with the directions of the

Commission as the total percentage of defective meters as on 31.12.2016 was 5.27% which is more

than the targeted 3% IDF cases as directed by the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated

05.04.2016.

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 control

this menace but will also comply with the provisions of SOP Regulations.

Moreover, on examination of Quarterly Targets furnished by UPCL in Format-3 vis-a-vis

actual progress made in the field as on 31.12.2016, it has been observed that in only 16 nos. divisions

out of 35 divisions in the State as on 30.09.2016, the Petitioner was able to reach actual IDF cases

percentage below the target level of 3% IDF cases. However, instead of improving in other divisions

IDF percentage below 3% existed in only 15 divisions as on 31.12.2016. This clearly shows

arbitrariness in the meter replacement programme of the Petitioner.



The Commission is of the view that although there has been an improvement in IDF cases,

but still the overall progress made by the Petitioner does not comply with the directions of the

Commission. Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to

3% in plain as well as in hilly areas of the State upto 30.09.2017, failing which the concerned

Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive Engineer

(Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-compliance of the

Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations may be

initiated.

6.2.1.3 Un-metered Consumers

The Commission in its previous Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016, had taken a view that the

presence of 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. Besides these views of the Commission, the

unmetered connections are in violation of the provisions of Section 55 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The status of Un-metered consumers as furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed format

3(B) is given below:

Table 6.7: Status of Unmetered Consumers Status As on

3/14 As on 3/15

As on 3/16

As on 4/16

As on 5/16

As on 6/16

As on 7/16

As on 8/16

As on 9/16

As on 10/16

As on 11/16

As on 12/16

Nos. of Un-metered Consumers

6542 4691 45 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 0 0

From the above Table, it is inferred that the Petitioner has been able to reduce the number of

the un-metered consumers to Nil in the month of November 2016.

Since the number of unmetered consumers has been reduced to Nil in the month of

November 2016, therefore, from December 2016 onwards any un-metered consumer, if found, in

any of the Petitioner’s record or billing ledger shall be treated as mis-declaration/wrong

reporting by the Petitioner in its monthly Commercial Performance Monitoring reports and

appropriate action under Act/Regulations may be initiated against the concerned officers of the

Petitioner including Executive Engineer (Distribution) of the concerned Division.



6.2.1.4 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission vide its Order dated 05.04.2016 had directed the Petitioner to replace all the

existing mechanical meters by static/electronic meters by 31.12.2016 and consolidate its complete

database for mechanical meters including areas not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS Schemes.

The Petitioner in its instant Tariff Petition under the status of compliance of directives of the

Commission has submitted that an ‘efficiency plan’ has been prepared and circulated to the field

officers for replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Static Meters by 31.12.2016.

The status of mechanical meters furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed format 3(C) is

given below:-

Table 6.8: Status of Mechanical Meters

Status As on 31st

March 2012



As on31st March 2015


As on 31st December

2016 Balance Mechanical Meters to be replaced by Electronic Meters 214693 199730 183005 152560 127074 117637

From the above Table, it is observed that only 9437 mechanical meters were replaced in FY

2016-17 (upto 31.12.2016) while as per direction of the Commission issued in its tariff order dated

05.04.2016, the Petitioner was required to replace all 1,27,074 mechanical meters by 31.12.2016.

However, the Petitioner set its own target of replacing 28,230 meters by 31.12.2016 submitted in

Format-3 of Commercial Performance Monitoring Report, whereas, the Petitioner was able to

replace only 9437 mechanical meters by the end of 31.12.2016 which is only 33.42% of its own target.

With this pace of replacement of Mechanical Meters, the Petitioner is likely to complete the

exercise of replacement of Mechanical Meters by Electronic Static Meters in next 10 years which is

not acceptable at all.

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. It has been observed that the Petitioner has invariably failed to comply

with the directions of the Commission with regard to replacement of Mechanical Meters by

Electronic Static Meters and has also failed in accomplishing its own targets which is clearly visible

from the progress made in FY 2016-17 (upto 31.12.2016).



It is an established fact that by replacing the mechanical meters with electronic meters, the

Petitioner will not only comply with the prevailing SOP Regulations but will be able to more

accurately/precisely record its energy supplied and, thus, billed energy. Therefore, the Petitioner

will have an incentive in terms of increase in 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 and time-bound program.

Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to consolidate its complete database for Mechanical

Meters including areas not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS Schemes. Further, the Commission

directs the Petitioner to prepare a division-wise firm plan for replacement of all the existing

Mechanical Meters by Electronic/Static Meters within next 2 years and submit the same along-

with the prescribed Format-3 of Commercial Performance Monitoring report for the month of

April 2017 and ensure that 50% of the existing mechanical meters are replaced by

Electronic/Static meters latest by 31.03.2018.

6.2.1.5 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

The Commission in its previous Tariff Order, had 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 30.09.2016.

The Petitioner in its instant Tariff Petition under status of compliance of directives of the

Commission has submitted that it had prepared an efficiency plan and circulated to the field officers

for deleting the ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its database by 30.09.2016.

The status of Ghost/Fictitious consumers furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed

format 3(D) is given below:

Table 6.9: Status of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

Status As on

31st March 2013

As on 31st March

2014

As on 31st March

2015

As on 31st March

2016

As on 31st December

2016 Nos. of Ghost/Fictitious Consumers 1368 1135 892 710 662

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).

On examination of the Commercial Performance Monitoring report submitted by the

Petitioner it has been observed that as on 31.12.2016, number of ghost consumers in Roorkee (U),

Sitarganj and Uttarkashi divisions of UPCL were 445, 205 and 12 respectively. To this, the

Commission is of the view that the Petitioner should expeditiously identify and Write Off

ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its billing database under a transparent policy in the

aforesaid divisions.

Hence, the Petitioner is directed to write off ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from

its billing database under a transparent policy framed by the Petitioner latest by 31.05.2017,

failing which appropriate action under Act/Regulations maybe initiated against the concerned

officers of the Petitioner including Executive Engineer (Distribution) of the concerned Division.

6.2.2 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 quality of 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 has also improved the overall billing system of

the Petitioner. However, the Commission is of the view that still a majority of consumers are located

in rural areas and they may not avail the online payment facilities hence, a lot of scope for

improvement in billing, bill distribution and bill collection system is required at Petitioner’s end for

consumers residing in such areas.

6.2.2.1 NB & SB Cases

The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016, had directed the Petitioner to liquidate

and finalise at least 25% of the NB/SB cases latest by 30.09.2016, 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 Petitioner in its instant Tariff Petition under status of compliance of directives has

submitted that it has prepared an efficiency plan and circulated to the field officers for liquidating

25% NB/SB cases by 30.09.2016.

The Petitioner’s submission in the prescribed Format-4 of Commercial Performance

Monitoring Report pertaining to Not Billed (NB) and Stop Billed (SB) is being presented in the Table

given below:

Table 6.10: Status of NB & SB Cases

Status As on 03/13

As on 03/14

As on 03/15

As on 03/16

As on 12/16

No. of NB/SB Cases NB 62800 139614 144480 152485 161026 SB 74660

From the above Table it is evident that the no. of NB/SB cases has increased by 5.60% in FY

2016-17 (upto 31.12.2016) w.r.t. the cases in FY 2015-16, which indicates that the Petitioner has

shown least interest in reducing these NB/SB cases. The Commission had categorically directed the

Petitioner to realise atleast 25% of such cases whereas, the trend shows that such cases are

increasing year-on-year basis which clearly indicates that the Petitioner has failed to comply with

the directions of the Commission.

The Commission has taken a serious note of the continued non-compliance by the

Petitioner with regard to NB/SB cases and has decided to give last opportunity to the Petitioner

for liquidating and finalising at least 25% of the NB/SB cases latest by 30.09.2017, failing which

appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated against the Petitioner for

the continued non-compliance of the directions of the Commission.

6.2.2.2 Outstanding Arrears

The Commission, through its earlier Tariff Orders and various other Orders issued from

time to time, had given directions to expedite recovery of arrears considering that this parameter

directly inflicts Petitioner’s financial and commercial viability.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 had 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 receivable management programme besides taking

corrective actions against the habitual defaulters. The Commission also directed the Petitioner to lay



down standard procedure for receivables management and submit the same to the Commission

within one month of issuance of this Order.


submitted that a receivable management programme has been prepared for collection of arrears and

the same has been circulated to the field officers. The Petitioner had also submitted that division-

wise targets have been fixed for recovery of Revenue Arrears from non-Govt. categories for FY

2016-17 amounting to Rs. 161 Crore. Further, Outstanding Arrears against Govt. categories

amounting to Rs. 325 Crore approx. has also been targeted to be recovered during FY 2016-17.

The status of Outstanding Arrears furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed Format- 5 is

given below:-

Table 6.11: Status of Outstanding Arrears. Description As on 03/13 As on 03/14 As on 03/15 As on 03/16 As on 12/16

Arrear No. Amount

(Rs. Lac)

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 1400 66890 1374 48130 1=<Arrear<5 Lac 4260 7989 4306 7747 5538 10136 3079 5345 4322 7562 0.5 Lac=<Arrear<1 Lac

13237 8179 15401 10056 15449 10475 11749 8106 13481 9358

0.1 Lac=<Arrear<0.5 Lac

59115 13673 75696 16140 88900 18846 84165 17474 99959 20631

0.05 Lac=<Arrear<0.1 Lac

46703 3318 60664 4308 69730 4951 67004 4761 87434 6176

Total 124089 52722 156781 64044 180758 94190 167397 102577 206570 91857

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 year-on-year basis and has reached to an all time high of

2,06,570 in FY 2016-17 (upto 31.12.2016).

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 financial health of the Petitioner and may weed away the Petitioner’s financial

viability since 2.06 Lakh cases of arrears (which is around 11% of the total consumers of the

Petitioner) have been pending as on 31.12.2016 with a staggering amount of Rs. 918.57 Crore

pending recovery by the Petitioner which is about 18% of the Petitioner’s ARR.



The comparison of Outstanding Arrears furnished by the Petitioner in the above Table vis-a-

vis Outstanding Arrears shown in Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-4 is given below:-

Table 6.12: Comparison of Outstanding Arrears.

Description Total Arrear in Rs. Crore

as on 31.03.2015

as on 31.03.2016

as on 31.12.2016

As per Commercial Performance Monitoring report (excluding Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 941.90 1025.77 918.57

As per CS-4 report (including Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 2147.25 1789.05 2344.85

From the above Table, it has been observed that the Petitioner has not made enough efforts

in recovering its arrears in FY 2016-17 (upto 31.12.2016) due to which the total arrear to be realized

as on 31.12.2016 as per CS-4 report is Rs. 2344.85 Crore which is more than 40% of its total annual

revenues from sale of electricity. Further, from the above Table, it is observed that total amount of

arrears below Rs. 5000 to be recovered by the Petitioner as on 31.03.2016 & 31.12.2016 were Rs.

763.28 Crore & Rs. 1425.43 Crore respectively, which shows that the Petitioner is not only failing in

collecting its high arrear amounts but has also failed to collect the low arrear amounts (below Rs.

5000). Moreover, on examination, it has been observed that the Petitioner was able to

liquidate/decrease its 16.68% arrear amounts in FY 2015-16 whereas, its performance has

deteriorated in FY 2016-17 (upto 31.12.2016) and the amount of arrears instead of decreasing have

actually increased by 31.07% which shows that the Petitioner has not taken enough measures for

early recovery of the arrears.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has to understand the gravity of the

situation and should abstain from its legacy practice of remaining callous about arrears through the

year and waking up in the last quarter of the Fiscal Year. This by all standards in any commercial

organization is an in-appropriate practice and inculcates un-professional work culture in the

organisation especially for the young and future generation field officers who adapt the same and

are misguided by the false belief in the wrong historical practice.

Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to make sincere efforts in

mobilizing its resources throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a structured

receivable management programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual

defaulters.



6.2.2.3 Load Factor of KCC Consumers

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 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 the Petitioner to check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their

sanctioned/contracted demand and take corrective action in such cases.


submitted that monitoring of KCC consumers is being done on regular basis at Key Consumer Cell.

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 6.13: Status of KCC Consumers Description As on 03/13 As on 03/14 As on 03/15 As on 03/16 As on 12/16

Total KCC Consumers 16939 18668 19997 21119 21809 *Abnormal cases 2257 2554 2709 3271 3221 L.F<10% 6884 7513 8430 9063 9502 L.F>10% 10055 11155 11567 12056 12307

*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 be observed that as on 31.12.2016, number of consumers having

load factor less that 10% were 9502, which is around 43.57% 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, 3221 consumers which is 14.77% of the total number of KCC

consumers are falling under abnormal cases out of which majority comprises 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

18.95 Lakh consumers in the State, out of which 21809 consumers (Industrial category consumers

having load 5 kW & above and Commercial category consumers having load 10 kW & above) as on

31.12.2016, 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 directs the Petitioner that KCC consumers having less load

factor should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern and abnormality in



consumption pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission also directs

Petitioner to check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted

demand and take corrective action in such cases.

6.2.2.4 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 had directed 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 issuance of this Order.


submitted that a receivable management programme has been prepared for collection of arrears and

the same has been circulated to the field officers. The Petitioner had also submitted that division-

wise targets have been fixed for recovery of Revenue Arrears from non-Govt. categories for FY

2016-17 amounting to Rs. 161 Crore. Further, Outstanding Arrears against Govt. categories

amounting to Rs. 325 Crore approx. has also been targeted to be recovered during FY 2016-17.

The status of Revenue Realisation per Unit Sold furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed

Format-7 is given below:-

Table 6.14: Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

Year Sold

Energy (MU)

Total Revenue Realization (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 10298.14 524286 5.09 3.40 4.56 FY 2016-17 (December 2016) 8039.46 352766 4.39 - -

*Including Taxes/Duties/Cess/DPS & other recoveries

On examination, it has also been observed that in FY 2015-16, the total Revenue Realization

i.e. Rs. 5,24,286 Lakh submitted by the Petitioner in Format-7 of Commercial Performance

Monitoring reports is actually inclusive of arrears of previous years of Rs. 53,705.22 Lakh.



The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner should understand the gravity of the

situation and take strong measures in accordance with the directions of the Commission otherwise

commercial & financial viability of its distribution business would be under immense threat.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to ensure that the data furnished in Commercial

Performance Monitoring report should match with its Commercial Diary i.e. CS-4 data and the

Petitioner should ensure that in all future submissions of Commercial Performance Monitoring

reports the Average Realisation Rate should be calculated on the basis of recoveries on account

of Realisation Against energy dues only and the realisation shown should exclude recoveries

from duties/cess, etc. Further, the realisation against energy dues should clearly bifurcate

realisation against current dues & realisation against past dues.

6.2.3 Billing and Bill Collection System

Taking cognizance of various complaints received from the consumers to the Commission in

writing and also during public hearing, the Commission earlier had directed the Petitioner to

improve its existing Bill Collection System. Further, the Commission vide its Order dated 01.09.2005

had imposed a heavy consolidated penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 and recurring additional penalty of Rs.

2,500 per day on UPCL for non-compliance of its directions with respect to bill collection system.

However, not much has improved except for new Bill Collection Centres constructed under R-

APDRP schemes.

The Commission in its Order dated 07.01.2016 in the matter of Petitioner’s request on waiver

and refund of penalty imposed by the Commission vide its Order dated 01.09.2005, had held that

“as a last attempt to induce Petitioner to work in right earnest for meeting the requirement of Order dated

01.09.2005, the recovery of penalty due after 31.03.2011 is kept in abeyance till final disposal of this

Petition.A view on waiver or recovery would be taken after assessing performance of the Petitioner on

following: (a) actions taken to augment and upgrade its prevailing Bill Collection System in order to make it

consistent with the Commission’s Order dated 01.09.2005 within six months from the date of issuance of this

Order. Bimonthly report of action taken to be furnished to the Commission. (b) actions taken to extend the bill

collection facility/services integrating all the Common Service Centers (CSC) situated across the State within

six months from the date of issuance of this Order and submit monthly progress report with number of CSCs

integrated during the month latest by 15th day of next month (c) submit comprehensive Action Plan latest by

25.01.2016 including distinct focus/plan for Bill Collection System in rural and urban areas of the State in



accordance with the orders/direction by the Commission in this regard for effective implementation of the

direction issued at para (a) above.“

Thereafter, the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 had directed the Petitioner

to comply with the directions issued in the Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016, 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. Further, the Commission had also

directed the Petitioner to expedite integrating Common Service Centres (CSCs) available in State

with its billing system under the agreement executed between UPCL & Common Service Centre E-

Governance Services India Ltd., New Delhi.

However, in the absence of compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Commission issued a

show cause notice and, thereafter, the Commission in its Order dated 11.01.2017 had observed that

the Petitioner’s response to the issue is inadequate and routine and that the Petitioner even after an

elapse of more than 11 years has failed to implement the directions of the Commission issued in the

matter of Bill Collection System. Further, the Commission in its aforesaid Order had also observed

that even after a passage of almost a year since Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016, the total

number of CSCs integrated with UPCL’s system were only 909 which were not even 50% of the total

2000 number of CSCs situated across the State.

Accordingly, the Commission in its Order dated 11.01.2017 had directed the Petitioner to

deposit the outstanding penalty amount from 01.04.2011 upto 30.11.2016 and continue paying daily

penalty of Rs. 2500/- which shall be paid within 30 days of close of each calendar month till such

time each of the directions as given in the Order dated 09.07.2004 & 01.09.2005 of the Commission in

the matter of Bill Collection System has been fully complied with.

In compliance to the same, the Petitioner vide its letter No. 1023 dated 01.03.2017 deposited

an amount of Rs. 53,30,000/- against the penalty amount for the period from 01.04.2011 to

31.01.2017.


submitted that the integration of UPCL’s bill payment collection system was done with the

Common Service Centre also known as Dev Bhomi Jan Seva Kendra in the month of May, 2015 and

since then the application is running successfully. Reiterating its views expressed in Order dated

11.01.2017, the Commission finds the Petitioner’s efforts for improving the Billing & Collection



System as inadequate, the Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to continue paying daily

penalty of Rs. 2500/- which shall be paid within 30 days of close of each calendar month till such

time each of the directions as given in the Order dated 09.07.2004 & 01.09.2005 of the Commission

has been fully complied.

6.3 Energy Audit

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been reiterating its direction for conducting

the energy audit of 11 kV feeders and submit the audit report before the Commission. Moreover,

the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 had directed the Petitioner to provide metering

at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network so that effective energy

auditing can be done. Proper energy accounting can throw-up several actionable issues which,

when addressed, shall result in marked reduction in distribution losses of the Petitioner’s network.

Further, the Commission had also directed the Petitioner to submit the quarterly progress report

with regard to metering at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its network.


submitted that all the metering points at 33 kV level where metering is required has been identified

and are targeted to be metered by 31.12.2016. Further, the Petitioner has submitted that meters on

DTs in 31 Towns of R-APDRP project area have already been installed and 952 nos. of meters are

proposed to be installed at DTs under IPDS scheme. The Petitioner vide its letter No.

1262/UPCL/RM/C-12 dated 21.03.2017 has informed that metering at 33 kV level in areas namely

Haridwar, Roorkee, Haldwani, Kashipur, Rudrapur, Dehradun (Rural) and Almora have been

completed whereas, in areas namely Dehradun (Urban), Tehri and Pithoragarh the work is under

progress and would be completed by 31.03.2017.

The Commission is of the view that in order to have an effective energy accounting &

auditing system, metering at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in a distribution network

are mandatory. Therefore, it is important to bring the entire distribution network under the ambit of

robust metering system.

Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to provide/maintain the metering system at each

feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network for effective energy auditing

and accounting. The Petitioner is directed to submit compliance report in this regard by



30.09.2017, failing which appropriate action will be taken against the Petitioner in accordance

with the Act/Rules/Regulations.

6.4 AT&C Losses

From the above comprehensive analysis of metering, billing & collection activities of the

Petitioner, it is evident that still a lot of improvement, especially in the areas of provisional billing,

replacement of Mechanical Meters, replacement of Defective Meters and Outstanding Arrears is

required. The AT&C losses of the Petitioner as on 31.12.2016 as per Commercial Performance

Monitoring report are 29.29%. The reason for such high AT&C loss is primarily high distribution

losses and low collection efficiency till December, 2016. The Commission in its previous Orders had

also 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 05.10.2016 pertaining to Capital Investment for the Integrated

Power Development Scheme (IPDS) Project, Ministry of Power (MoP), Government of India (GoI).

Therefore, the Commission is of the view that with the above linkage of cost of funding with

the AT&C loss achievement, such programs can be construed as a double edged sword, which

might cause adverse financial impact in case the Petitioner fails to achieve the required reduction in

AT&C losses of the target area.

The status of AT&C losses of UPCL for the last five financial years furnished by the

Petitioner in the prescribed Format-8 is given below:



Table 6.15: Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL

Year

Inpu

t Ene

rgy

(MU

)

Ener

gy S

old

(MU

)

Ass

essm

ent (

Rs

Lac)

Col

lect

ion

(Rs

Lac)

Dis

trib

utio

n Lo

ss (%

)

App

rove

d D

istr

ibut

ion

Loss

(%)

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 12559.60 10298.14 493267 524286 18.01 15.00 106.29 12.85 16.28 FY 2016-17 (upto Dec,16) 9779.15 8039.46 410143 352766 17.79 15.00 86.01 29.29 16.28

It is evident from the above Table, that Petitioner’s distribution loss levels are higher than

approved levels. Further, the actual AT&C losses for above period are higher than computed AT&C

losses on the basis of approved level of distribution losses & collection efficiency of respective Tariff

Orders except in case of FY 2015-16.

From the above Table, it is observed that the collection efficiency in FY 2015-16 was 106.29%,

however, on examination of the collection data vis-a-vis CS-4 data, it has been observed that the

collection of Rs. 5,24,286 Lakh as indicated in the above Table is inclusive of arrears of previous

years of Rs. 53,705.22 Lakh. Whereas, for calculation of AT&C losses, the Realisation Against

Current Year Assessment should only be considered and should be exclusive of arrears of previous

years. It is because of this superficial collection efficiency of 106.29% as indicated in the above Table

the AT&C losses of the Petitioner are coming to 12.85% in FY 2015-16.

The Commission is of the view that the major component of AT&C losses are the

distribution losses which basically comprise of Technical and Commercial losses. Further, the

Commission is of the view that since technical & Commercial losses are more in LT network in

comparison to HT network, hence, it is apparent that in order to substantially reduce AT&C losses,

the Petitioner needs to strengthen its LT network.

In the following paragraphs the trend of losses in other category of consumers (excluding

HT consumers) and HT consumption in the State is being discussed.

The trend of losses in other category of consumers (excluding HT consumers) is shown in

the Chart given below:



Chart 7: AT&C Loss in consumer category other than HT consumers

From the above chart, it is observed that the losses for consumers other than HT consumers

have increased in FY 2015-16 which shows that the Petitioner has not put in serious efforts in

reducing AT&C losses for other categories, thereby, failing to bring these losses within acceptable

limits. The percentage of HT consumers sales vis-a-vis total sales over the past year is depicted

below:

Chart 8: HT Consumer Sales as % of Total Sales

From the above chart, it can be seen that there is an increase in HT sales in FY 2015-16. This

is primarily due to improvement in economy leading to increase in Industrial Consumption. In light

of the above, it should be the foremost endeavour of the licensee to reduce the distribution losses at



LT level within the acceptable limits. The Petitioner should take up the following works at the

earliest for reducing the AT&C losses:

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 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

than the areas covered under R-APDRP, which shall be helpful in providing prompt services

to consumer and shall be helpful in planning the new connections, transformer

augmentation, phase change, localising fault, supply restoration and other services to

consumers necessarily provided by any distribution utility having consumer services

orientation as its vision & mission.

6.5 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Financial Performance

The Commission has been monitoring & reviewing the performance of the Petitioner based

on the information/reports submitted by it. In this Order, the Commission is carrying out the

analysis of financial performance of UPCL based on its statement of accounts in certain key areas.

6.5.1 Liquidity Ratio

Liquidity ratios analyzes the ability of a company to pay off both its current liabilities as

they become due as well as their long-term liabilities as they become current. In other words, these

ratios show the cash levels of a company and the ability to turn other assets into cash to pay off

liabilities and other current obligations.

Liquidity is not only a measure of how much cash a business has. It is also a measure of how

easy it will be for the company to raise enough cash or convert assets into cash. Assets like accounts

receivable, trading securities, and inventory are relatively easy for many companies to convert into

cash in the short term. Thus, all of these assets go into the liquidity calculation of a company.

6.5.1.1 Quick Ratio or Acid test ratio

It is the ratio of (current asset – inventories) and current liabilities. The quick ratio or acid

test ratio is a liquidity ratio that measures the ability of a company to pay its current liabilities when

they become due with only quick assets. Quick assets are current assets that can be converted to

http://www.myaccountingcourse.com/financial-ratios/liquidity-ratios



cash within 90 days or in the short-term. Cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments or

marketable securities and current accounts receivable are considered quick assets excluding

inventories.

The quick ratio is often called the acid test ratio. The acid test of finance shows how well a

company can quickly convert its assets into cash in order to pay off its current liabilities. It also

shows the level of quick assets to current liabilities.

Higher quick ratios are more favourable for companies because it shows there are more

quick assets than current liabilities. A company with a quick ratio of 1 indicates that quick assets

equal current assets. This also shows that the company could pay off its current liabilities without

selling any long-term assets.

Chart 9: UPCL Quick Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

As can be seen from above graph, UPCL’s Quick Ratio was almost 1 in the FY 2002-03 & FY

2003-04 and thereafter, shows a downward linear trend in the ensuing years, thus, showing the

Corporation’s inability to maintain its liquidity over a period of time, the primary reasons for the

same could be its inability to realise its dues from the consumers and in turn discharging the current

liabilities which are also increasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset



6.5.1.2 Current Ratio

It is the ratio of current assets and current liabilities. The current ratio is a liquidity and

efficiency ratio that measures a firm's ability to pay off its short-term liabilities with its current

assets. The current ratio is an important measure of liquidity because short-term liabilities are due

within the next year, thus, implying that a company has a limited amount of time in order to raise

the funds to pay for these liabilities. Current assets like cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities

and inventories can easily be converted into cash in the short term. This means that companies with

larger amounts of current assets will more easily be able to pay off current liabilities when they

become due without having to sell off long-term, revenue generating assets.

A higher current ratio is always more favourable than a lower current ratio because it shows

the company can more easily discharge the current liabilities. A Current Ratio of less than 1

indicates a high working capital leveraging and highly risky position since it indicates that the

Current Liabilities are not fully backed up by the Current Assets and in the event of default, the

Company may resort to selling its Assets to meet out its debts.

Chart 10: UPCL Current Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

As can be seen from the above graph, apart from initial few years upto FY 2004-05, UPCL is

not able to maintain its current assets in proportion to its current liabilities, thus, showing a highly

leveraged position on the part of the Corporation. The current ratio mainly indicates that how much

times the short term liabilities are backed by the current assets, in case of UPCL as can be seen from



above graph, in the past five years UPCL is not able to maintain the said ratio to even as low as 0.5

which is way low than the industry standard of 1.

This indicates that for discharging its current liabilities, UPCL will either have to resort to

liquidating its long term assets or borrow additional working capital loans. This also is an indicator

that current liabilities have been used to finance the long term assets of UPCL. The Commission has

been pointing out towards this issue in its previous Tariff Orders that assets are being financed

through current liabilities. UPCL has been claiming every year that internal resources are being

used to finance certain asset additions. The internal resources in UPCL’s case are nothing but funds

which should have been used to discharge its current liabilities like Govt. Dues (Royalty, duties,

PDF etc), instead have been utilised in creation of long term assets.

In this regard, the Petitioner is directed to carry out the age-wise analysis of its current

liabilities outstanding as on 31.03.2016 and based on the ageing analysis determine how much of

the same would be required to be discharged and how much excess provision exists in the same

so that the same may be reversed and submit the same to the Commission within 3 months from

the date of Order.

6.5.1.3 Operating cash flow ratio

It is the ratio of cash flow from operation and the current liabilities. It is a measure of how

well current liabilities are covered by the cash flow generated from a company's operations.

The operating cash flow ratio can gauge a company's liquidity in the short term. Using cash flow as

opposed to income is considered a cleaner, or more accurate measure to analyse the financial health

of a company & also its operations. The operating cash flow ratio is a measure of the number of

times a company can pay off current debts with cash generated in the same time period. A higher

number means a company can cover its current debts more times, which is a good thing.

Companies with a high or increasing operating cash flow ratio are in good financial health. Those

that are struggling to cover liabilities may be in trouble, at least in the short term.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currentliabilities.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/operatingcashflow.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortterm.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-health.asp



Chart 11: UPCL Operating Cash Flow Ratio from FY 2008-09 to FY 2015-16

As can be seen from the above graph, cash flow from operating activities is hardly able to

meet its current liabilities. UPCL is struggling to cover its current liabilities, at least in the short

term. In FY 2009-10 and FY 2011-12, cash flow operating ratio is negative due to huge losses on

account of high distribution losses and poor collection efficicency resulting into negative Cash flow

from Operating Activities. In all the years the ratio is less than 1 which indicates that the company

has generated less cash in the period than it needed to pay off its short-term liabilities. This may

signal a need for more capital.

6.5.2 Solvency Ratio

Solvency ratios, also called leverage ratios, measure a company's ability to sustain

operations indefinitely by comparing debt levels with equity, assets, and earnings. In other words,

solvency ratios identify going concern issues and a firm's ability to pay its bills in the long term.

Solvency ratios focusses more on the long-term sustainability of a company instead of the current

liability payments. Better solvency ratios indicate a more creditworthy and financially sound

company in the long-term.

6.5.2.1 Interest Coverage ratio:

It is a ratio of EBIT (operating Income) during a given period and the amount a company

spends in interest payment on its debts during the same period. The interest coverage ratio is used

http://www.investinganswers.com/node/5011

http://www.investinganswers.com/node/5749



to determine how easily a company can pay interest on outstanding debt. Essentially, the interest

coverage ratio measures how many times over a company could pay its current interest payment

with its available earnings. In other words, it measures the margin of safety a company has for

paying interest during a given period, which a company needs in order to survive future (and

perhaps unforeseeable) financial hardship should it arise. A company’s ability to meet its interest

obligations is an aspect of a company’s solvency, and is, thus, a very important factor in

the return for shareholders. The lower a company’s interest coverage ratio is, the more its debt

expenses burden the company. When a company's interest coverage ratio is 1.5 or lower, its ability

to meet interest expenses may be questionable. 1.5 is generally considered to be a bare minimum

acceptable ratio for a company and a tipping point below which lenders will likely refuse to lend

the company more money, as the company’s risk for default is too high. Moreover, an interest

coverage ratio below 1 indicates the company is not generating sufficient revenues to satisfy its

interest expenses. If a company’s ratio is below 1, it will likely need to spend some of its cash

reserves in order to meet the difference or borrow more, which will be difficult for reasons stated

above. Otherwise, even if earnings are low for a single month, the company risks falling

into bankruptcy. Generally, an interest coverage ratio of 2.5 is often considered to be a warning

sign, indicating that the company should be careful not to dip further.

Chart 12: UPCL Interest Coverage Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

As can be seen from the above graph, UPCL was suffering losses in most of the financial

years and hardly able to meet its interest liability. The standard ratio is 1.5 times and it can be seen

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interest.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnings.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/solvency.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/return.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lender.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/risk.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/default2.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bankruptcy.asp



from the above graph, that only in FY 2013-14 UPCL earned sufficient profit to maintain the ratio

above the standard ratio.

6.5.3 Profitability Ratio

Profitability ratios compare income statement accounts and categories to show a company's

ability to generate profits from its operations. Profitability ratios focus on a company's return on

investment in inventory and other assets. These ratios basically show how well companies can

achieve profits from their operations. Profitability is also important to the concept of solvency and

going concern.

6.5.3.1 Return on Total Assets

It is a ratio of EBIT during a given period and average Fixed Assets. The ratio is considered

to be an indicator of how effectively a company is using its assets to generate earnings before

contractual obligations must be paid. The greater a company's earnings in proportion to its assets

(and the greater the coefficient from this calculation), the more effectively that company is said to be

using its assets. This ratio allows to see the relationship between organisation’s resources and its

income, and it can provide a point of comparison to determine if an organization is using its assets

more or less effectively than it had previously.

Chart 13: UPCL Return on Assets Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asset.asp



As can be seen from the above graph, UPCL earnings through its operations is not in parity

with the investment made in building up its fixed assets over a period of time.

6.5.3.2 Gross Margin Ratio

Gross margin is the difference of average sales revenue and the average direct cost, ie.

Power purchase cost in case of the Petitioner. Accordingly gross margin ratio is the ratio of gross

margin and the operating expenses of the company. Higher gross margin ratios are more favorable

indicating that the company will have more money to pay its operating expenses.

Chart 14: UPCL Gross Margin Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

As can be seen from above graph, UPCL is having a positive gross margin ratio except for

FY 2009-10. This indicates that the company is able to sell power at a rate higher than the

procurement cost of the same, however the overall ratio is not on the much higher side, with a

maximum going upto 0.51 in FY 2002-03, indicating that the company would be left with meagre

funds to meet its operational cost other than power procurement expense, and may land up in

facing losses over a period of time.

6.5.4 Operating or Activity Ratio

6.5.4.1 Repair & Maintenance to Net Fixed Assets

The maintenance expense to fixed assets ratio allows to understand the age or condition of

the company's equipment. An increase to a company's repairs and maintenance expense to fixed



assets ratio over time can signal ageing equipment or assets that are being pushed to their operating

limits.

Chart 15: UPCL R&M to Net Fixed Asset Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

It can be seen from the above graph, that UPCL is incurring R&M expenses on an average of

3% of the Net Fixed Assets. UPCL appears to be performing fairly on this ratio aspect merely on

account of the reason that it has been continuously receiving funds (grants) from GOI under various

schemes of MOP, GOI namely APDRP, RAPDRP, IPDS etc. which besides covering development of

new substaions/lines also include funding on augmentation/strengthening of old/existing assets,

thus, reducing the requirements of Repair & Maintenance of old assets, as the same are either

replaced by new assets or are augmented & strengthened.

6.5.4.2 Repair & Maintenance to Inventory Ratio

This ratio depicts the relation between the R&M expenses to Net Inventory maintained by

the corporation. In case of UPCL, being an Electricity Distribution Company, the inventory is not

converted into sales as part of the operations carried out by the entity. Further most of the project

works are getting done by the corporation on turn-key basis, wherein the material and labour is

supplied by the Contractor, thus denying the need for maintenance of inventory for said purpose.

The maintenance of inventory would be required by the corporation for the purposes of meeting its

requirement of Repair & Maintenance works as may be carried out from time to time during the



course of its operation. In view of the above, the calculation of inventory turnover ratio would not

hold good for the discoms like UPCL wherein the inventory is being maintained not for the

purposes of sale, but to meet out the expenses arising in the course of operation. Hence, a

customized ratio has been worked upon to analyse the relation between the inventories maintained

by the entity and how much of the same is being actually used during the year for meeting the

R&M expenses while carrying out the operations of the entity.

The formulae for the same is as follows: R&M Expenses/Average Inventory

Chart 16: UPCL R&M to Inventory Ratio Trend from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

As can be seen from above graph UPCL is having an average inventory ratio between 0.30 to

0.40, which indicates that almost 40% of the average inventory maintained by the company is being

consumed for meeting out the R&M expenses during the year which also suggests that inventory

being maintained by UPCL is at a very high level. The capital inventory of Rs. 356.30 Crore as on

31.03.2016 is very high considering the additions to the GFA of Rs. 284.78 Crore during FY 2015-16

and R&M expenses of Rs. 115.51 Crore during the year.

The Commission finds the inventory level maintained by UPCL as very high. Even the

statement of accounts of UPCL has qualified the inventories as:

“Based on the consumption pattern of inventory comprising of stores and spares in the past, company

is of the view that substantial portion of such inventory shall be consumed in future for

construction/erection of the capital assets. Since the identification/determination of inventory to be



consumed for other than capital purpose is not possible at this stage, the whole inventory of stores and

spares has been classified as "Inventory for Capital Works.

The company has not identified any obsolete, slow moving and dead stock except for those lying in the

Centralised Stores Division as all the items in the store are useable in spite of the fact that they are

very old.”

It appears that inventory levels have been so maintained so as to consume them in future for

construction/erection of the capital assets. For future consumption maintaining such inventory

level is a risky proposition as not only funds are blocked in purchasing the inventory but also the

inventories carry holding costs. There is also a risk of loss/damages and obsolescence in technology

if the inventories remain in stock for a long period of time as in power sector technologies are

evolving with time.

In this regard, the Petitioner is directed to submit the following details within one month

of the date of Order:

a) List of inventory as on 31.03.2016.

b) The accounting policies adopted in measuring inventories, including the cost

formula used;

c) Basis on which inventories issued: FIFO/LIFO/etc. and reason for choosing the same.

d) Whether any inventory classification, such as ABC analysis has been done? If yes the

same may be submitted and if no, reason for the same may be furnished?

e) Whether the inventories are verified physically? If yes, the periodicity of the same,

alongwith the report of last physical verification. If physical verification is not being

conducted reasons for the same?

6.5.5 Efficiency Ratio

The efficiency ratio is typically used to analyze how well a company uses its assets and

liabilities internally. An efficiency ratio can calculate the turnover of receivables, the repayment of

liabilities, the quantity and usage of equity, and the general use of inventory and machinery.

6.5.5.1 Average Collection Period

Number of days of receivable represents collection period or age of receivables for

distribution utilities. This measures effectiveness of a distribution utilities credit and collection



efforts in allowing credit to customers, as well as its ability to collect cash from them. This

comparison is used to evaluate how long customers are taking to pay a company. A low figure is

considered best, since it means that a business is locking up less of its funds in accounts receivable,

and so can use the funds for other purposes. Also, when receivables remain unpaid for a reduced

period of time, there is less risk of payment default by customers.

It is calculated based on the following formulae= 365/(Revenue from sale of

power/Average account receivables).

Chart 17: UPCL Number of days of Receivable from FY 2001-02 to FY 2015-16

Although, the collection period of receivables of UPCL shows a trend of improvement, it has

come down from 520 days in FY 2004-05 to 161 days in FY 2015-16, yet it is very high as compared

to the national average of receivables in FY 2013 of 117 days. The collection period of 161 days

reflects that UPCL takes almost 5 months to collect its dues. This is an area of concern and needs

immediate and corrective action. There are other utilities in the country which have a collection

period of less than 60 days. The Petitioner is directed to submit within 3 months, an action plan to

improve its collection period.

6.5.6 Conclusion

After analyzing the data related to the Petitioner’s Commercial Performance, it is concluded

that the Petitioner has to take immediate action in eliminating Ghost consumers, Provisional billing



cases (NA/NR/IDF), replacing mechanical meters 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 disseminationof information within

the organization which shall be beneficial for the Petitioner as well as for consumers of the State.

Considering the business spread of the Petitioner among its constituent divisions, the

Commission is of the view that performance monitoring of the Petitioner should be done at its

Distribution Division levels. For this purpose it is imperative that Division-wise target setting on

each parameter should be provided by the Petitioner in the first month of the Fiscal Year itself, so

that the whole Technical & Commercial monitoring process becomes meaningful with conclusive

inference on quantitative improvement on month on month basis.


7. Commission’s Directives

The Commission in its previous Orders had issued a number of specific directions to the

Petitioner with an objective of attaining operational efficiency, efficient manpower deployment and

streamlining the flow of information. These objectives would be beneficial not only for the sector

but also for the Petitioner’s company, both in terms of short and long term perspective. These

directions aim at creating a conducive, competitive and healthy environment for the Petitioner to

provide good quality of electricity supply and service to the consumers of Uttarakhand at optimum

and affordable costs. This Chapter deals with the compliance status and the Commission’s views

thereon on the directives issued vide Multi Year Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 dated April 5, 2016 as

well as the summary of new directions (given in preceding Chapters of this Order) for compliance

and implementation by the Petitioner.

7.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in Tariff Order for FY 2016-17 dated

April 5, 2016

7.1.1 Performance Report

The Commission directed the Petitioner that any 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 again directed the 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.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The Petitioner submitted that the observation on wrong reporting was for two different

figures of unmetered consumers as on March 31, 2015. These different figures were reported by the

field units in their two different submissions. The Petitioner also mentioned that that as per

direction of the Commission, further submission shall be made as per the data shown in monthly

commercial performance monitoring reports.



As regards submission of monthly Commercial Performance Report, the Petitioner in its

Petition mentioned that the monthly report upto the month of August, 2016 has been submitted to

the Commission.

The Commission has noted the compliance made by the Petitioner with regard to wrong

reporting/anomalies in figures.

The Commission 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 and without fail furnish the Quarterly

Targets as per prescribed Format - 2 & 3 alongwith the Commercial Performance Monitoring

report for the month of April, 2017. (Refer Para 6.2)

7.1.2 Sales

The Commission directed 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 Commission directed the Zonal Chiefs, the Circle Chief and the Executive Engineers 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.

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner submitted that UPCL, vide its letter no. 1575/UPCL/RM/C-12, dated 18-05-

2016 directed its field officers to record the sales of departmental employees based on meter

reading. 4613 Departmental Employees/Pensioners have been ledgerized so far.

UPCL also submitted that the Field officers have been directed to take action as per the

directions of the Commission with regard to deficiencies pointed out in the Commercial Data for FY

2014-15. They have also been directed to submit the compliance report as per the direction of the

Commission.

The Petitioner further submitted that it is in the process to get its billing information



verified, i.e. Input Energy, Billed Energy, Assessment and Collection for FY 2015-16. UPCL vide its

letter no. 1061/UPCL/CE/CCP-II/15/2016-17(Feedback), dated November 21, 2016 awarded the

work to M/s Feedback Infra Private Limited, New Delhi. The work has been targeted to be

completed within six months from the date of work order.

The Commission re-iterates its direction and provides final opportunity to UPCL to

rectify such errors and, accordingly, directs UPCL to rectify such anomalies else the Commission

would examine the matter and if required necessary corrections to this extent would be made in

the subsequent years. Further, the Zonal Chiefs, the Circle Chiefs and the concerned Executive

Engineers are hereby directed to examine the data with reference to their Divisions for FY 2014-

15 and for FY 2015-16 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 and also against

the Directors of the Petitioner Company. (Refer Para 3.1.1)

The Commission further directs UPCL to submit the findings of the study being carried

out on sales, average load factor, average billing rate for FY 2015-16 within six months from the

date of this Order along with the detailed action plan to rectify such errors.(Refer Para 3.1.1)

The Commission directs UPCL to meter all these consumers and submit compliance

report within one month from the date of this Order and also submit the bills for 132 unmetered

domestic consumers raised during FY 2015-16 within 30 days of the date of Order. (Refer Para

3.1.1 a)

The Commission directs UPCL to meter all these consumers and submit compliance

report within one month from the date of this Order and also submit the bills for 228 unmetered

PTW consumers raised during FY 2015-16 within 30 days of the date of Order.(Refer Para 3.1.1 b)

7.1.3 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 no load shedding has been carried out by UPCL in any area

continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days and prior approval of the

Commission shall be obtained as and when required as per the direction of the Commission.

The Petitioner submitted that it has also prepared a policy on power cuts, which was

approved by the Board of UPCL in the meeting held on July 23, 2015 and also submitted to the

Commission.

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.

7.1.4 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

March 4, 2013 in the Petitioner’s future submissions.


The Petitioner submitted that Division wise monthly targets of distribution losses has been

fixed by Corporate Office and circulated to the field officers vide UPCL’s letter dated July 29, 2016.

These targets are being submitted regularly to the Commission along with monthly commercial

performance monitoring reports. The month wise targets are as follows:

Table 7.1: Month-wise Distribution Loss Targets as submitted by the Petitioner

April, 16 17.76% October, 16 16.25% May, 16 17.50% November, 16 16.00% June, 16 17.25% December, 16 15.75% July, 16 17.00% January, 17 15.50% August, 16 16.75% February, 17 15.25% September, 16 16.50% March, 17 15.00%

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 March 4, 2013 in the

Petitioner’s future submissions.



7.1.5 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost

The Commission directed the Petitioner to restrict the net drawal from the grid within its

drawal schedules in order to ensure grid discipline.

The Commission 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 exceeded 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 the Order, failing which, the Commission may disallow such additional power purchase cost

while truing up the ARR for FY 2016-17.

The Commission directed the Petitioner to prepare its power purchase plan for the next

three years and initiate the bidding process to meet the deficit, if any. The Petitioner was directed to

submit an action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of the Order. The Petitioner was 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 Petitioner submitted that it is restricting its net drawal from the grid within the net

drawal schedules. However, in case of excess demand over availability, overdrawal is made within

permissible limit to comply with the directions of the Commission and in the interest of grid

discipline.

The Petitioner submitted that the details of power purchases for the quarter ending June,

2016 has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 2416/ UPCL/ UERC, dated

August 12, 2016. These details are as follows:

Table 7.2: Power Purchase for 1st Quarter of FY 2016-17 as submitted by the Petitioner

S. No. Particulars MU Rs. Crore

1. Power Purchase approved in the Tariff Order 3224.26 818.35

2. Power Purchase allowed up to 105% of ‘1’ 3385.47 859.27 3. Actual power purchase 3344.80 1044.94



As per the above details, the quantum of power purchase in the first quarter of FY 2016-17 is

3344.80 MU which is within the limit of the quantum approved by the Commission. The cost of

power purchase is Rs. 1044.94 Crore which is more than approved cost for the quarter. Following

were the main reasons of the increase in cost of power purchase in first quarter of FY 2016-17:

a) Payment of water tax to M/s UJVN Ltd. amounting to Rs. 85.36 Crore

b) Payment of arrear of tariff revision of various generating stations amounting to Rs. 71.03

Crore

c) Increase in cost due to difference between the approved average power purchase rate

and actual average power purchase rate of Rs. 26.90 Crore

d) The remaining difference was due to change in mix quantum as approved by the

Hon’ble Commission.

The Petitioner also submitted that the desired revised power purchase plan has been

submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 3012/UPCL/Com, dated September 1, 2016.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance. However, it is observed that the

Petitioner has not filed a separate Petition for prior approval of power purchase costs towards

more than 5% variation in power purchase costs for the first quarter of 2016-17. The Commission

has taken serious note of the same.

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 2017-18 as

indicated in the Table below, failing which, the Commission may disallow power purchases so

made while Truing up the ARR for FY 2017-18. (Refer Para 4.5)

7.1.6 Fixed Assets Register

The Commission once again directed 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 the Order.




The Petitioner submitted that Fixed Assets Registers of UPCL were got prepared from M/s

L.B. Jha & Co., Chartered Accountants, Kolkata for FY 2001-02 to FY 2012-13 and were submitted to

the Commission.

Fixed Assets Register for FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15 of UDD (South), Dehradun have been got

prepared from M/s RSA & Co., Chartered Accountants, Kolkata on a pilot project basis. On the

same lines, UPCL is in the process to award task for remaining units for FY 2013-14 & FY 2014-15,

which is expected to be completed by the end of March, 2017.

Fixed Assets Register for FY 2015-16 shall be prepared immediately after the finalisation of

Fixed Assets Registers for FY 2013-14 & 2014-15.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance on Fixed Asset Register. The

Commission, hereby, once again directs the Petitioner to expedite the process and submit the

Fixed Assets Register updated upto 31.3.2014 within 3 months of the date of the Order and the

Fixed Assets Register updated upto 31.3.2015 within 6 months of the date of this Order.

7.1.7 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 Tariff filings and also claim

depreciation based on the rates as specified in the Regulations for each class of asset.


Fixed Assets Registers of UPCL were got prepared from FY 2001-02 to FY 2012-13 by M/s

L.B. Jha & Co., Chartered Accountants, Kolkata in which the details as required by the Commission

were not available.

The Petitioner also submitted that the instructions have been issued to field units to

maintain records of Fixed Assets in the manner prescribed by the Commission, so that the desired

details can be incorporated in the Fixed Assets Registers.

The Commission has taken note of the efforts made by the Petitioner. The Commission once

again directs the Petitioner to maintain proper Fixed Asset Register showing amongst others the



date of capitalisation of each asset, their location, along with the accumulated depreciation on

the same and submit the same along with the next Tariff filings.

The Commission also directs the Petitioner to claim depreciation in line with its practice

followed in the accounts. (Refer Para 3.2.3)


The Commission once again directed the Petitioner to look into the issue of creating long

term assets from current liability and take appropriate remedial action for correcting this practice.

Further, the Petitioner was directed to expedite the matter and submit the details of assets created

by mode other than loan/grants/subsidies/deposit works/consumer contributions from FY 2001-

02 onwards and submit the source of such finances duly validating the same from their cash flow

and fund flow statements from FY 2001-02 within 3 months of issue of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that Fixed Assets are created out of various sources like loans from

various Financial Institutions, Grants, Deposits and Internal Resources (including Equity). The fund

received towards Security Deposit from Consumers as well as Retention money from

Suppliers/Contractors are also utilised for creation of Fixed Assets, which are clubbed under the

heading of “Other Current Liabilities”. Therefore, a portion of Fixed Assets are also created through

Current Liabilities, which is shown under “Internal Resources”.

The means of financing of Plant and Machinery and Line and Cable networks for FY 2007-08

to FY 2013-14 have been submitted to the Commission vide letter nos. 390 dated 04.02.15 & 769

dated 13.02.15. The means of financing of Plant and Machinery and Line and Cable networks for FY

2001-02 to FY 2006-07 have been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no.

2481/UPCL/RM/C-12, dated 13-07-2016.

The Commission has taken note of the Compliance as regards RoE. The Petitioner is

directed to take note of the findings of the Commission in this Order and claim RoE strictly in

accordance with the same and not cling to its own set of figures without assigning any reasons

for the difference in the two set of figures submitted before the Commission. (Refer Para 3.2.6)



7.1.9 Employee Expenses

The Commission directed the Petitioner 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.


The Petitioner submitted the status of direct recruitment as shown in the Table given below:

Table 7.3: Recruitment Status as submitted by the Petitioner Group Post No. of

Vacancies Current Status Remark

B Accounts Officer 11 Written Exam for these posts held on 24.4.2016.

Result & other action withheld vide Govt Letter No. 574/I (2)/2016-06(2)-14/2016 dated 26-04-2016

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.

09 no. selected candidates have joined UPCL. Remaining posts have been included in the fresh recruitment plan.

C Junior Engineer (Civil) 20 Appointment letters issued to 16 no. selected candidates.


C Office Assistant-III 77 Written exam held on 20/09/2015 by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad.

● List of eligible candidates for appointment / selection, has been provided to UPCL by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad. ● As per direction of Hon'ble High Court, Nainital dated 17-11-2015 in SPA No. 524 of 2015," …the corporation will not fill up the posts, through this selection process, which are occupied by the persons who have been appointed on contract basis through UPNL.......". ● Matter pending before Hon'ble High Court, Nainital.

C Technician Grade-2 496

Advertisement has been released on 8.12.2013 by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad. Rectt. process withheld as per directions of GoU till further orders.

●The recruitment for the post of TG-2 has been stopped by Govt. vide letter No. 31/2014 dated 26-08-2014. ● Matter pending before Hon'ble High Court, Nainital.

C Assistant Accountant 57

Appointment letters issued to 45 no. candidates selected by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad candidates.


C Assistant Store Keeper 20

17 no. candidates were selected by Uttarakhand Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad after written & typing test.

● Matter has been put up in 75th Board Meeting ● According to minutes of 75th meeting, Board of Directors have discussed and deferred the proposal. Letter written to Government for providing necessary directions.

Total 750



The Petitioner also submitted that Adhiyachan for the following posts has been sent/under

process to Uttarakhand AdhinasthaSewaChayanAyog:-

Table 7.4: Posts Under-Process as submitted by the Petitioner

Group Post No. of Vacancies Remark

C Junior Engineer (E&M) 160 According to additional staff structure vide G.O. No.

801/I (2)/2016-06(2)-08/2002 dated 23-06-2016 Revised Adhiyachan for 160 posts of JE-E&M and 06 post of JE-Civil has been sent to Adhinastha Sewa Chayan Ayog. Advertisement released on 21-09-2016. Online applications invited. Further recruitment process is in progress.

C Junior Engineer (Civil) 6

C Assistant Accountant 40

According to additional staff structure vide G.O. No.801/I (2)/2016-06(2)-08/2002 dated 23-06-2016 Adhiyachan for 40 posts of Assistant Accountant has been sent to AdhinasthaSewaChayanAyog. Advertisement released on 21-09-2016. Online applications invited. Further recruitment process is in progress.

C Draughtsman 19

Adhiyachan for 19 posts of draftsman has been sent to Adhinastha Sewa Chayan Ayog. Advertisement released on 21-09-2016. Online applications invited. Further recruitment process is in progress.

225 *Vacancies are provisional and can increase/decrease.

The Commission has taken note of the Compliance on Employee Expenses. The Petitioner is

directed to submit a plan of action regarding the recruitment process within one month of the

issue of Tariff Order. (Refer Para 2.26.10.2)

7.1.10 Bad &Doubtful Debts

The Petitioner was directed to finalize the Policy within three month of the date of Order

and submit the same for approval of the Commission.

UPCL was directed to submit the basis of arriving at the ageing of debtors within one month

of the date of Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the policy has been prepared and was put up to the Audit

Committee in the meeting held on June 24, 2016. Audit Committee directed to get the same

examined and verified through a firm of Professional Chartered Accountants. The process of

examination and verification of the policy is in progress.



The information relating to ageing of Arrears has been submitted to the Commission vide

UPCL’s letter no. 1542/UPCL/RM/N-20 dated May 16, 2016.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner submission. The Petitioner is directed to

submit the bad debt policy within three months from the date of this Order. (Refer Para 3.2.4)

7.1.11 Reliability Indices

The Commission 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

September 28, 2010. These reports should also be submitted in MS-Excel soft form.


The Petitioner submitted that the monthly report of reliability indices for the month of April,

2016 has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 1830/ UPCL/ RM/ SM, dated 4-

06-2016.

The Commission has noted the Petitioner’s reply on Reliability Indices. However, the

Petitioner is not submitting the monthly report on Reliability Indices in the prescribed format on

regular basis. The Commission once again directs the Petitioner to submit the monthly report on

Reliability Indices on regular basis.

7.1.12 Voltage wise Cost of Supply

The Commission 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 the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that it has identified all the points where metering is required at 33

kV voltage level and a detailed plan was submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no.

2941/D(O)/UPCL/C-4, dated November 1, 2015. As per this plan, the work of 33 kV Metering was

targeted to be completed by August 31, 2016.

The status of metering was reported to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no.

3293/D(O)/UPCL/C-4, dated November 2, 2016 with the request to grant time upto December 31,



2016 for completion of the work. The Petitioner also submitted that Meters on DT’s under 31 Towns

of R-APDRP project area have already been installed. 952 nos of meters are proposed to be installed

at DT’s under IPDS scheme in Towns other than R-APDRP Towns.

The Commission has taken note of the submissions of the Petitioner on Voltage wise cost of

supply. The Commission once again directs the Petitions to expedite the activities in this regard

and submit quarterly report on the status of metering alongwith an Action Plan to conduct

Energy Audit & also related costs to determine the Voltage-wise Cost of Supply.

7.1.13 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 GoU on October 30, 2015 approved a scheme for distribution

of LED Bulbs in Uttarakhand. Under the scheme all domestic consumers and Non-domestic

consumers (up to 10 kW) would be provided three LED Bulbs at a price of Rs. 105 per bulb (now Rs.

95 per bulb). There was a target of 55.65 lacs LED distribution under the scheme. 33.77 lacs LED

bulbs have been distributed so far. 75% cost of the LED bulbs in respect of BPL Consumers & 25%

cost in respect of Domestic Consumers having monthly consumption of 100 units is being borne by

GoU.

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.

7.1.14 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 this ARR and Tariff filing is being done keeping in view the

direction 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.

7.1.15 Metering of unmetered connections

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the actual status within one month of date

of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that as per information received from the field offices, there were

45 unmetered connections at the end of March, 2016 and 9 unmetered connections at the end of

August, 2016. Metering of all unmetered connections under Pithoragarh Circle has been completed.

This area was earlier maintained and operated by UREDA/UJVNL.

Further, the Petitioner in its subsequent monthly progress reports has submitted the number

of unmetered consumers as nil.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s submission. The Commission directs

that from December 2016 onwards any un-metered consumer, if found, in any of the Petitioner’s

record or billing ledger shall be treated as mis-declaration/wrong reporting by the Petitioner in

its monthly Commercial Performance Monitoring reports and appropriate action under

Act/Regulations may be initiated against the concerned officers of the Petitioner including

Executive Engineer (Distribution) of the concerned Division. (Refer Para 6.2.1.3)



7.1.16 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, 2016 and to submit the audit report to the Commission by

July 31, 2016.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL vide its letter no. 1854/UPCL/RM/C-11, dated May 1,

2015 submitted the copies of Audited Accounts of UPCL Employees GPF Trust for the period from

FY 2002-03 to FY 2009-10.

The work of preparation of Accounts and Audit of the same for the remaining period is

under progress and shall be provided to the Commission by December 31, 2016.


directs the Petitioner to submit the audit report to the Commission within one month from the

date of issue of the Order.

7.1.17 Treatment of Assets sent for repairs

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the information sought within 3 months

from the date of issue 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 Commission also asked the Petitioner to 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 was required to submit the above information within six months from the

date of issue of the Order and quarterly status report in this regard.




The Petitioner submitted that the assets like transformers, electric equipment, etc. which are

sent for repairs are shown as deductions from Fixed Assets. The said assets are replaced by

working/new transformers or equipment, available in the stock. As and when these items are

required at site or as per demand of distribution units, the same are issued at stock issue rates as

applicable as on the date of issue.

The Petitioner also submitted that the policy for showing the asset as deductions from Gross

Fixed Assets when it is sent for repairs and, thereafter, adding the same once it is received back

and/or replaced is being followed since inception by UPCL.

Therefore, in the case of transformers, the additions comprise of new additions (i.e. creation

of new assets) as well as replacement by working/repaired transformers. Similarly, the deductions

comprise of actual deletion as well as deletion on account of damaged transformers being sent for

repairs.

The deductions in the case of Fixed Assets also comprises of Assets, which are included in

additions as well as deletions. The net additions in Plant & Machinery and Line & Cable Network

including their financing for the Financial Years 2001-02 to 2006-07 has been submitted to the

Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 2481/UPCL/RM/C-12, dated July 13, 2016.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner.

7.1.18 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

The Petitioner was 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 directed the Petitioner to put in place a mechanism for recording the

arrears paid in a 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.




The Petitioner submitted that as directed by the Commission, the cost of inward banking

energy in FY 2014-15 shall be claimed in FY 2015-16 (during truing-up exercise), i.e. the year in

which the energy has been returned.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s submission on Power Purchase Expenses.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to include the provisioning amount of Rs. 50.88 Crore

towards banked power in the Petition for truing up of FY 2016-17. (Ref Para 3.1.3)

7.1.19 Deficit/Surplus Power

The Commission directed the Petitioner to 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 was directed to submit a comprehensive plan as to how it intends to meet the deficit

within one month of the date of Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the desired revised plan has been submitted to the

Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 3012/UPCL/Com, dated September 1, 2016.

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s submission. The Commission directs the

Petitioner to bank the surplus energy during the month of April 2017 to September 2017 and

withdraw the same in the month of October 2017 to March 2017. (Refer Para 4.5.15)

The Petitioner should put in sincere efforts to suffice its requirement of power during

deficit period/lean hydro generation period from the surplus energy available during the high

hydro generation period through appropriate banking arrangements/agreements.

7.1.20 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 the Order.




The Petitioner submitted that the study to identify and assess the load and consumption of

thrasher, cane crusher and rice huller consumers has been got done in EDD (U), Roorkee and it was

found that out of total 2429 PTW connections, cane crashers are being operated on 23 connections.

The results of this study has been submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter dated October

22, 2016, as follows:

Table 7.5: PTW Assessment as submitted by the Petitioner

Particulars

The details of 23 PTW Connections

on which cane crashers are being

operated

The details of total PTW Connections under the

division as on 31-03-2016

No. of PTW Connections 23 2,429 Contracted Load 150 kW 13,876 kW Electricity Consumption 59,989 units p.m. 11,99,583 units p.m. Average Electricity Consumption

399.92 units p.m./kW 86.45 units p.m./kW

Electricity consumption of cane crashers on PTW Connections

(399.92-86.45) x 150 » 11,99,583 = 3.92%

The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s submission in this regard.

7.1.21 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission directed the Petitioner to reduce the percentage of NA/NR cases to below

2% in both Hill & Plain area of the State latest by 31.12.2016.


The Petitioner submitted that for the improvement in the financial and operational efficiency

of the Company, UPCL prepared an efficiency plan and circulated the same to the Field Officers

vide letter no. 1629/UPCL/RM/N-38, dated March 23, 2016. In this efficiency plan, the NA/NR

cases have been targeted to be below 2% in both Hill & Plain areas by December 31, 2016. A copy of

the plan was submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s letter no. 2481/UPCL/RM/C-12, dated

July 13, 2016.

As on December 31, 2016, the NA/NR Cases were 5.87%.



The Commission takes a serious note of the non-compliance of the Petitioner. The

Commission directs the Petitioner to reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2% in the

entire State latest by 31.09.2017, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution),

Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer

(Test) shall be held responsible for non-compliance of the Commission’s directions and

appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations may be initiated. (Refer Para 6.2.1.1)

7.1.22 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters

The Petitioner was directed to restrict percentage of 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.




vide letter no. 1629/UPCL/RM/N-38, dated March 23, 2016. In this efficiency plan, the IDF cases

have been targeted to be brought at the level of 3% in plain areas up to 30.09.2016 and up to

30.12.2016 in Hill areas of the State. The Petitioner further submitted that as on December 31, 2016,

the IDF Cases were 5.27%.

The Commission is of the view that although there has been an improvement in IDF cases,

but still the overall progress made by the Petitioner does not comply with the directions of the

Commission. Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to restrict the percentage of defective meters

(IDF) to 3% in plain as well as in hilly areas of the State upto 30.09.2017, failing which the

concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive

Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-

compliance of the Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the

Act/Rules/Regulations may be initiated. (Refer Para 6.2.1.2)



7.1.23 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission directed the Petitioner to replace all the existing mechanical meters by

static/electronic meters by December 31, 2016 & consolidate its complete database for mechanical

meters including areas not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS Schemes.




vide letter no. 1629/UPCL/RM/N-38, dated March 23, 2016. In this efficiency plan, the mechanical

meters have been targeted to be replaced with the electronic meters by December 31, 2016. The

mechanical meters as on 31-03-2016 and 31-08-2016 were respectively 1,27,074 and 1,24,459.

The Commission is of the view that with the current pace of replacement of mechanical

meters, the Petitioner is likely to complete the exercise of replacement of mechanical meters by

electronic/static meters in next 10 years which is not acceptable at all.

The Petitioner is directed to consolidate its complete database for mechanical meters

including areas not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS Schemes. Further, the Commission directs the

Petitioner to prepare a division-wise firm plan for replacement of all the existing mechanical

meters by electronic/static meters within next 2 years and submit the same along-with the

prescribed Format-3 of Commercial Performance Monitoring report for the month of April 2017

and ensure that 50% of the existing mechanical meters are replaced by electronic/static meters

latest by 31.03.2018. (Refer Para 6.2.1.4)

7.1.24 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 March 31, 2016 and

August 31, 2016 are 710 and 682 respectively.



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 31.05.2017, failing which

appropriate action under the Act/Regulations may be initiated against the concerned officers of

the Petitioner including Executive Engineer (Distribution) of the concerned Division. (Refer Para

6.2.1.5)

7.1.25 NB & SB Cases

The Commission directed the Petitioner to liquidate and finalize NB/SB cases and set a

target of realization from at least 25% of these cases within 6 months from the date of issuance of the

Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the number of NB & SB cases as on August 31, 2016 is 1,55,841.

The Commission has taken a serious note of the continued non-compliance by the

Petitioner with regard to NB/SB cases and has decided to give last opportunity to the Petitioner

for liquidating and finalising at least 25% of the NB/SB cases latest by 30.09.2017, failing which

appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated against the Petitioner for

the continued non-compliance of the directions of the Commission. (Refer Para 6.2.2.1)

7.1.26 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

receivable management programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual

defaulters. The Commission also directed the Petitioner to lay down standard procedure for

receivables management and submit the same to the Commission within one month of issuance of

this Order.


The Petitioner submitted that a receivable management program has been prepared for

collection of arrears. This program is circulated to the Field Officers vide UPCL’s letter dated July 8,



2016. A copy of this letter has been submitted to the Commission vide letter no.

2481/UPCL/RM/C-12, dated July 13, 2016.

Division wise targets have been fixed for recovery of Revenue Arrears from Non-

Government Categories for FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs. 161 Crore. Further, outstanding arrear

against Government Categories amounting to Rs. 325 Crore approx. has also been targeted to be

recovered during FY 2016-17.

Category wise details of Arrears recovered from the Non-Government Categories for FY

2016-17 (up to October) may be shown as follows:

Table 7.6: Outstanding Arrears as submitted by the Petitioner upto October 2016

Category KCC (Rs. Crore)

Non-KCC (Rs. Crore)

Total (Rs. Crore)

Domestic 0.22 26.43 26.65 Non-Domestic 5.29 6.82 12.10 Industry 21.00 0.09 21.09 PTW - 1.34 1.34 Total 26.50 34.68 61.18

The Petitioner also submitted that recovery of arrears from Government categories

amounting to Rs. 120.85 Crore has also been done during FY 2016-17 (up to October).

The Commission directs the Petitioner to make sincere efforts in mobilizing its resources

throughout the year for collection of arrears under a structured receivable management

programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual defaulters. (Refer Para 6.2.2.2)

7.1.27 Status of KCC Consumers

The Commission directed the Petitioner that the 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 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 monitoring of KCC consumer is being done on regular basis.




again 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 the Petitioner to check KCC consumers

who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted demand and take corrective action in

such cases.(Refer Para 6.2.2.3)

7.1.28 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission directed the Petitioner to take immediate steps 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, arrears remaining outstanding and reasons for non-

realisation of these arrears/dues should be submitted to the Commission within three months of the

issuance of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that Division wise targets have been fixed for recovery of revenue

arrears from Non- Government Categories for FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs. 161 Crore. Further,

outstanding arrear against Government categories amounting to Rs. 325 Crore. approx. has also

been targeted to be recovered during FY 2016-17.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to ensure that the data furnished in Commercial

Performance Monitoring report should match with its Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-4 data and the

Petitioner should ensure that in all future submissions of Commercial Performance Monitoring

reports the Average Realisation Rate should be calculated on the basis of recoveries on account

of Realisation Against energy dues only and the realisation shown should exclude recoveries

from duties/cess, etc. Further, the realisation against energy dues should clearly bifurcate

realisation against current dues & realisation against past dues. (Refer Para 6.2.2.4)

7.1.29 Billing and Collection System

The Commission directed 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 the State

with its billing system under the agreement executed between UPCL & Common Service Centre E-

Governance Services India Ltd., New Delhi.


The Petitioner submitted that the integration of UPCL’s bill payment collection system was

done with the Common Service Centre also known as Dev Bhhomi Jan Suvidha Kendra in the

month of May, 2015 & the application is running successfully thereafter. The details of payment

made through CSC wallet is shown as follows:

Table 7.7: Collection through CSC Wallet as submitted by the Petitioner Month No. of

Consumer Amount paid

(Rs. Lacs) January, 16 6866 47.79 February, 16 8932 54.88 March, 16 10040 62.82 April, 16 7317 41.17 May, 16 10858 71.22 June,16 10511 76.65 July, 16 12632 101.64 August, 16 15427 130.70 September,16 15287 127.58 October, 16 17577 142.08

The Commission finds the Petitioner’s efforts for improving the Billing & Billing Collection

System as inadequate. The Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to continue paying daily

penalty of Rs. 2500/- which shall be paid within 30 days of the close of each calendar month till

such time each of the directions as given in the Order dated 09.07.2004 & 01.09.2005 of the

Commission has been fully complied.(Refer Para 6.2.3)

7.1.30 Energy Audit

The Commission directed the Petitioner to provide meters at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs &

consumers in the distribution network so that effective energy auditing can be done & proper

energy accounting can throw-up several actionable issues which, when addressed, will result in

marked improvement in distribution loss.




The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has identified all the points where metering is required

at 33 kV voltage level and a detailed plan was submitted to the Commission and as per this plan,

the work of 33 kV metering was targeted to be completed by 31.08.2016.

In this connection, the status of metering was reported to the Commission with a request to

grant time upto 31-12-2016 for completion of the work.

The Petitioner further submitted that meters on DT’s under 31 Towns of R-APDRP project

area have already been installed,. 952 nos of meters are proposed to be installed at DT’s under IPDS

scheme in Towns other than R-APDRP Towns and instructions have also been issued to distribution

divisions to prepare consumer books, transformer wise / feeder wise.

The Petitioner is directed to provide/maintain the metering system at each feeder, ‘T’

points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network for effective energy auditing and

accounting. The Petitioner is directed to submit compliance report in this regard by 30.09.2017,

failing which appropriate action will be taken against the Petitioner in accordance with the

Act/Rules/Regulations. (Refer Para 6.3)

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

Tariff Order dated 10.04.2014)

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that in compliance of direction issued by the Commission, 129

consumers at Dakpatthar and 13 consumers at Dhakrani site of UJVN Ltd. have already been taken

by UPCL but remaining consumers of Dhalipur & Koti site could not be taken over by UPCL as

UJVN Ltd. have not provided the security deposit, verification details and application forms of the

consumers. UJVN Ltd. has reported that there are no transferable consumers at Kulhal Power

House Colony. UJVN Ltd. officers have also informed that distribution system & connection of

residential colonies at Maneri, Tiloth, Kutaiti, Joshiyada & Chinyalisaur shall not be transferred to



UPCL.


directs both the utilities i.e. UPCL & UJVN Ltd. to complete the taking over/handing over of

distribution business in all respect by 30.06.2017 and submit the compliance report in the matter

by 15.07.2017, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated against the concerned Nodal

Officers responsible for the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act/Regulations.

7.1.32 Departmental Employees

The Commission directed 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.

The Commission directed 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 the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the Field Officers were directed to meter all the connections of

UPCL offices, sub-stations and departmental employees. Further, direction has been issued to

concerned officers of UPCL to ledgerise departmental connections and to maintain separate energy

account on monthly basis. 4613 nos. of departmental connections have already been ledgerised so

far. All Executive Engineers have been directed to complete the ledgerisation of departmental

connections.


In this regard, the Commission has taken a strong view and directs UPCL to take

immediate action on the directions of the Commission and report compliance to the Commission

within one month of the date of Order, failing which action will be initiated under Section 142 of

the Act against all officers responsible. (Para 2.19.13)



UPCL is directed to complete the ledgerisation of all the departmental employees

including retired employees availing the facilities within one month of the date of Order.

Thereafter, UPCL is required to take meter readings of all the departmental employees including

retired employees on monthly basis and issue bills to them. UPCL is required to submit the

copies of the bills issued by the end of each month to the Commission. (Refer Para 3.1.1 a)

7.1.33 Metering & Billing

The Commission directed the UPCL to consider the suggestions given by the stakeholders to

improve its metering and billing system and 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 Petitioner submitted that the benchmarks notified by the Commission in the SOP

Regulations regarding restoration of power, variation of voltage level etc. are being adhered to by

UPCL. However, there may be cases where voltage variation, low/high voltage, breakdown etc.

may occur due to certain unforeseen circumstances. Such cases are exceptions and not general.

Upon receiving complaint of such cases prompt action is taken by UPCL. A consumer can also

represent his case before the CGRF.


7.1.34 Distribution Infrastructure

The Commission directed the Petitioner to strengthen its distribution network.


The Petitioner submitted that the action will be taken as per the directions of Commission.


7.1.35 Quality of Power

The Commission directed UPCL to take adequate steps to improve the quality of supply.




The Petitioner submitted that complaint handling procedure as approved by the

Commission has been posted on the website of UPCL for the information of General Public and

Consumers. This is also available on the Notice Boards of each Sub-Division, Division, Circle Office

and Zonal Office.


7.1.36 Temporary Connections

The Commission directed 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 the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that Field officers have been directed to release temporary

connections in a locality for marriages/ceremonies/functions/melas etc. after assessing the overall

load of such new temporary connections in the locality vis - a- vis the capacity of the existing

transformer in the locality which would be feeding the enhanced load. In case the existing capacity

of the transformer is not capable to meet the enhanced load, transformation capacity should be

increased first for release of temporary connection in the locality.


7.1.37 Location of Installation of Meters

The Commission directed Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh 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 directed 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.


a) The Petitioner submitted that the reply in the matter by Chief Engineer (Distribution) &

Executive Engineer was submitted before the Commission on 06-06-2016. The

submission made by them is quoted follows:-



1. That after suitable inspection approximately 4000 meters were identified which were

required to be shifted to a safer location in or around the consumer premises.

2. That inspite of the month of March which was crucial with regard to the revenue

realization, being the last month of the financial year, and heavy rainfall /storms

continuously affecting the region in the months of April & May the identification

work was already completed and approximately 1200 meters were already relocated

to a safer location as per the directions of the Commission.

3. Considering that the purpose of whole exercise would actually be the convenience of

public and, hence, the feedback of some of the affected consumers/people were

taken and found satisfactory.

4. That though the mentioned work was assigned the highest priority but considering

the important day to day works regarding maintenance of supply position, release of

new connections, revenue related works etc., the leftover work of meter relocation

was expected to be completed by 15th of July, 2016.”

b) Executive Engineer, EDD, Pithoragarh vide his letter no. 2960/EDD Pithoragarh, dated

15-07-2016 informed the Commission that the work of shifting the identified meters to a

safer location in or around the consumer premises was completed in all respect on

13.07.2016.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner and directs the

Petitioner to examine this issue in other Divisions also and, if required, the Field Officers may

be directed to take corrective actions.

7.1.38 Load Shedding

The Commission directed the concerned Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, EDD

Pithoragarh, UPCL to coordinate with the District Administration/Local authorities and resolve the

issue and submit the compliance report within one month of the date of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the reply in the matter by Chief Engineer (Distribution) &

Executive Engineer was submitted before the Commission on 06-06-2016. The submission made by

them is quoted as follows: -



“That in the matter of load shedding under Pithoragarh division it is to submit that the water supply

of Pithoragarh town is mainly dependent upon the water supplied by Jal Sansthan department under

the Government of Uttarakhand and consumers generally use TulluPamps to increase the water

pressure and hence disturb the proper water distribution. That the matter was accorded to District

Magistrate, Pithoragarh as per the directions of Hon’ble Commission whereby an office memorandum

was issued directing Executive Engineer, EDD Pithoragarh, UPCL and Executive Engineer,

Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Pithoragarh to make a Roster Plan for carrying out Load Shedding at the

time of water supply to maintain Law & Order situation. In this regard copy of Roster Plan & O.M.

issued by District Magistrate, Pithoragarh are enclosed herewith (Annexure 21 &22). “


7.1.39 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the policy in this regard already exists and a copy of same has

been submitted to the Commission

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner. The Commision

directs the HR Department, UPCL to identify such employees who have been posted in the same

department for a period more than that stipulated in the aforesaid Policy, and take necessary

action as per the Policy and report compliance within 03 months of the date of Order.

7.1.40 Water Tax

The Commission directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the desired information shall be provided to the Commission

along with the proposal for true-up for FY 2016-17.




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 and FY 2017-18 along with its proposals for True up. (Refer Para 4.8)

7.1.41 Prepaid Metering

The Petitioner was directed to submit the data related to the cost of the meter and other

associated equipments to the Commission in the Tariff proceedings for FY 2017-18.


The Petitioner submitted that the cost of Single phase & three phase prepaid meters along

with meter box, home display unit, cable, connectors & vending etc. are as hereunder:

Table 7.8: Cost of Prepaid Meter Components as submitted by the Petitioner

S. No. Description

Unit FORD price including Sales

Tax (Rs.)

1. Single Phase Pre-Payment meter (Keypad) of accuracy class 1.0, 10-60A 4100.00

2. Three Phase direct connected Pre-Payment meter (Keypad) of accuracy class 1.0, 10-60A or higher 9500.00

3. In home display unit (Keypad) suitable for prepayment meters along with 5 meters two pair cable with connectors at both ends

650.00

4. Pilfer Proof Meter box suitable for single phase prepayment meter 950.00

5. Pilfer Proof Meter box suitable for three phase prepayment meter 950.00

Cost of vending charges per transaction is Rs. 11.24.


7.1.42 kVAh Tariffs

The Commission directed 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 directed 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.


The Petitioner submitted that in compliance of the direction issued by the Commission, 2000

kVAh meters have been procured out of which 700 meters have been installed at different locations.

By the end of March, 2017, kVAh meters shall be installed on all the Public Lamps and GIS

connections.


7.1.43 Open Access Charges

The Petitioner was 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 was 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.


The Petitioner submitted that the following new heads have been created in the accounts to

separately capture the information of wheeling charge and cross subsidy surcharge recovered from

the Open Access Consumers:

Table 7.9: New Heads in Open Access Accounting as submitted by the Petitioner

Account Head Description 23.711 Wheeling Charges 23.712 Cross Subsidy Surcharge 61.511 Wheeling Charges (L&H Power above 100 HP) 61.512 Cross Subsidy Surcharge (L&H Power above 100 HP)

Transmission Charges collected by PTCUL from the long term/medium term Open Access

consumers and adjusted in the Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL shall be shown in a

separate head under Non- Tariff Income.

The Commission has taken note of the compliance made by the Petitioner. 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. 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 and should not be reduced

from the Transmission charges payable to PTCUL. (Refer Para 5.4)

7.1.44 Power Procurement Plan

The Petitioner was 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 was directed to submit an

action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of Order. The Petitioner was 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 Petitioner submitted that the revised plan has been submitted to the Commission.


7.2 Fresh Directives

7.2.1 Tariff Hike

UPCL is directed to submit the details of the category-wise energy consumed & amount

thereon of those areas where bills have been waived off & also the details if any subsidy in this

regard has been received from GoU, within one month of the date of the Order. (Refer Para

2.4.2.3)

7.2.2 Collection Efficiency

UPCL is required to explore the possibility of waiving the service charges being

recovered from the consumers on payment of bills using its payment gateway & submit the

compliance on the same to the Commission within one month of the date of the Order. (Refer

Para 2.20.1.3)



7.2.3 Metering & Billing

The Commission directs UPCL to provide following services to the consumers namely

restoration of power, voltage fluctuation, metering and billing related etc. as per Orders/Supply

Code/SOP Regulations of the Commission.

The Commission also directs the Petitioner to start adjusting the Open Access energy in

the consumer bill in the same month/billing cycle within one month of issue of this Order.

The Commission further directs UPCL to submit an action plan for compliances of the

Judgments referred by Shri Mandok of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court & Hon’ble Supreme

Court within one month of the date of the Order. (Refer Para 2.21.1.3)

7.2.4 Construction of 33/11 kV Sub-station

The Commission directs UPCL to speed-up the construction process and submit the

update on its status to the Commission within one month of this Order. (Refer Para 2.26.4.3)

7.2.5 LED Distribution

The Commission directs UPCL to submit status report on the LED distribution scheme

alongwith the future course of action planned by the Petitioner in this regard within one month

of issuance of this Order. (Refer Para 2.26.5.3)

7.2.6 Defective Metering Correction

The Commission directs UPCL to submit a report on the factual position alongwith its

comments on the issues raised by the above stakeholders within one month of issuance of this

Order. (Refer Para 2.26.6.2)

7.2.7 Online Load Survey Reports

The Commission directs UPCL to take up this suggestion and submit the factual position

and also Action Plan for implementation of the above suggestions of the stakeholders with one

month of the issuance of this Order. (Refer Para 2.26.7.2)

7.2.8 Delay in Fault Rectification

The Commission directs UPCL to follow the Electricity Supply Code Regulations for its

fault rectifications. (Refer Para 2.26.8.2)



7.2.9 Proof of Ownership

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the details regarding the process of

releasing of connections alongwith the status of the connection released in Almora within one

month of the date of Order. (Refer Para 2.26.11.2)

7.2.10 View of Advisory Committee

The Commission directs UPCL to address the concerns raised by the Members of the

Advisory Committee & submit an Action Taken Report within one month of the date of Order.

(Refer Para 2.27.1.3)

7.2.11 Tariff Revenue

The Petitioner is directed to properly account for the revenues from tariff as well as non-

tariff income. (Refer Para 3.3)

7.2.12 Distribution Loss Trajectory

The Petitioner is directed to abstain from seeking relaxation in this regard in every

ensuing Tariff Petition once the issue has been settled by the Commission. (Refer Para 4.3)

7.2.13 Impact of Seventh Pay Commission

The Petitioner is directed to maintain separate details of the amount paid as arrears to its

employees on account of implementation of the recommendations of VII Pay Commission.

(Refer Para 4.11.3)

7.2.14 Prepaid Metering

The Petitioner is directed to submit the details of such new connections issued from

December 01, 2016 and the number of prepaid connections thereon. UPCL is also required to

submit the number of prepaid meters available with it within one month of the date of Order.


7.2.15 Current Ratio

The Petitioner is directed to carry out the age-wise analysis of its current liabilities

outstanding as on 31.03.2016 and based on the ageing analysis determine how much of the same



would be required to be discharged and how much excess provision exists in the same so that the

same may be reversed and submit the same to the Commission within 3 months from the date of

Order. (Refer Para 6.5.1.2)

7.2.16 Repair & Maintenance to Inventory Ratio

The Petitioner is directed to submit the following details within one month of the date of

Order:

a) List of inventory as on 31.03.2016.

b) The accounting policies adopted in measuring inventories, including the cost

formula used;

c) Basis on which inventories issued: FIFO/LIFO/etc. and reason for choosing the

same.

d) Whether any inventory classification, such as ABC analysis has been done? If yes

the same may be submitted and if no, reason for the same may be furnished?

e) Whether the inventories are verified physically? If yes, the periodicity of the same,

alongwith the report of last physical verification. If physical verification is not

being conducted reasons for the same?


7.2.17 Average Collection Period

The Petitioner is directed to submit within 3 months, an action plan to improve its

collection period. (Refer Para 6.5.5.1)

7.3 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 2017-18 annexed hereto as

Annexure-1. These Tariffs will be effective from April 01, 2017.



(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.

(Subhash Kumar) Chairman


8. Annexures

8.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2017

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

8. 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 2017

Amount Payable

On or Before 16th May 2017

Rs. 100/-

After 16th May 2017

Rs. 101.25

After 1st June 2017

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 RTS-10, i.e. Temporary Supply. 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 75 kW/88 kVA – In case of supply at 33

kV the consumer shall receive a rebate of 2.5% on the Energy Charge.

(iv) For consumers having contracted load above 75 kW/88 kVA and receiving supply at

132 kV and above, the consumer shall receive a rebate of 7.5% on the Energy Charge.

(v) All voltages mentioned above are nominal rated voltages.

8. Annexures


(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. 60/kW

Fixed Charges for contracted load = 30 x 60=Rs. 1800

Fixed Charges for excess load = 13x (2 x60) =Rs. 1560

Total Fixed Charges = 1800+1560= Rs. 3360

(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. 345/kVA

Demand Charges for contracted demand =2500 x 345=Rs. 862500

Demand Charges for excess demand = 300x (2 x 345) =Rs. 207000

Total Demand Charges = 862500+207000= Rs. 1069500

13. Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG)

The minimum consumption guarantee (MCG) charges shall be applicable to all non-

domestic consumers having load above 25 kW 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 2018.

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

8. Annexures


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.

8. 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)BPL/Life line consumers

Below Poverty Line and Kutir Jyoti having load upto 1 kW and consumption upto 30 units per month

Rs. 18/ connection/month Rs. 1.50/kWh

1.2) Other Domestic Consumers

Upto 100 units per month Rs. 45 /month Rs. 2.55/kWh

101-200 units per month Rs. 70 /month Rs. 3.30/kWh

201-300 units per month Rs. 110/month Rs. 4.50/kWh



Above 500 units per month Rs. 210/month Rs. 5.10/kWh

2) Single Point Bulk Supply Rs. 60/kW/month Rs. 4.05/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.18/connection/month Rs. 1.50/kWh

2) Non-domestic upto 1 kW Rs. 1.50/kWh 3) Non-domestic more than 1 kW & upto 4 kW Rs. 2.25/kWh 4) Non-Domestic more than 4 kW Rs. 30/connection/month Rs. 3.40/kWh

3. All other conditions of this Schedule shall be same as those in RTS-1.

8. 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. 55/ kW Rs. 4.30/ kWh

(b) Above 25 kW Rs. 65/ kVA Rs. 4.00/ 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. 60 /

kW Rs. 4.45/ kWh

(b) Others upto 25 kW not covered in 1.2(a) above Rs. 65 / kW Rs. 5.25/ kWh

(c) Above 25 kW Rs. 65 / kVA

Rs. 5.15/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA /month & 600 kVAh/ kVA/

annum

1.3 Single Point Bulk Supply** Rs. 65 / kVA

Rs. 5.05/ kVAh

50 kVAh /kVA /month & 600 kVAh/ kVA/

annum 1.4 Independent Advertisement Hoardings Rs. 80/kW Rs. 5.50/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.

8. 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. 55/kVA/month Rs. 4.75/ kVAh

Rural (Metered) Rs. 45/kVA/month Rs. 4.75/ kVAh

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

RTS 4: PTW (Metered) Nil 1.75

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.

8. Annexures


RTS-4A: Agriculture Allied Activities

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power for use in nurseries growing plants/saplings,

polyhouses and other units growing flowers/vegetables and fruits including mushroom cultivation

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

RTS 4(A): Agricultural Allied Services Nil 1.75



RTS-5: Government Irrigation System

1. Applicability


(i) State Tubewells, World Bank Tubewells, Pumped Canals and Lift irrigation schemes,

Laghu Dal Nahar etc.,

(ii) Irrigation system owned and operated by any Government department.

2. Rate of charge

Description Fixed Charges Energy Charges 1. Upto 75 kW Rs. 55/ kVA/month Rs. 4.60/kVAh

2. More than 75 kW Rs. 55/kVA/month Rs. 4.60/kVAh

8. 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. 55/kVA/month Rs. 4.70/kVAh Rural Rs. 45/kVA/month Rs. 4.70/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.

8. 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. 4.20/kWh Rs. 140/ 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. 3.85/kVAh Rs. 140/ 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 88 kVA/75 kW (100 BHP) Load Factor# Rs./ kVAh

2.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA Upto 40% 3.65 Rs. 285/kVA of the

billable demand* 100 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

month &

1200 kVAh/kVA of contracted load /

annum

Above 40% 4.00

2.2 Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA Upto 40% 3.65

Rs. 345/kVA of the billable demand* Above 40% 4.00

$ 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. 3.85/kVAh Rs. 5.78/kVAh Rs. 3.47/kVAh

For HT Industry

Load Factor* Energy Charge during Normal Hours Peak Hours Off-peak Hours

Upto 40% Rs. 3.65/kVAh Rs. 6.00/kVAh Rs. 3.29/kVAh Above 40% Rs. 4.00/kVAh Rs. 6.00/kVAh Rs. 3.60/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:

8. 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.

(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, 2017 till March 31, 2018. 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, 2017.

(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, 2017 till March 31, 2018. UPCL shall provide the

facility of continuous supply within 7 days from the date of application, subject to

fulfilment of Conditions of Supply.

(iv) 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 and the Continuous Supply

Surcharge on such consumers shall be applicable from the date of energisation of

aforesaid independent feeder till 31st March 2018, irrespective of actual period of

continuous supply option.

(v) In case of a new consumer (new connection) opting continuous supply, 15% extra

energy charges as Continuous Supply Surcharge shall be applicable from the date of

new connection till 31st March 2018, irrespective of the actual period of continuous

supply.

(vi) The existing consumers availing continuous supply option, who wish to discontinue

the continuous supply option granted to them earlier, will have to communicate, in

8. Annexures


writing, to UPCL latest by April 30, 2017 and they shall continue to pay continuous

supply surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order till April 30, 2017.

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.

(vii) The Continuous Supply Surcharge shall not be applicable on the power procured by

the industrial consumers through open access.

(viii) UPCL shall not change the status of a continuous supply feeder to a non-continuous

supply feeder.

(ix) 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.

(x) 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.

(xi) 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

the 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. 70/kW/month Rs. 4.75/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.

8. 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

240/- Rs. 4.25

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

1. Applicability (i) This schedule shall apply to temporary supplies of light, fan and power loads for all

purposes including illumination/public address/ceremonies and festivities/functions/

temporary shops not exceeding three months.

(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 existing building, shall

not be considered as unauthorised use of electricity as long as the intended purpose/use

of the building/apartments being constructed is same/permissible in the sanctioned

category of the connection.

2. Rate of Charge The rate of charge will be corresponding rate of charge in appropriate Schedule Plus 25%.

The appropriate rate schedule for the temporary supplies for cane crusher upto 15 BHP given for

maximum period of four (4) months will be RTS-7. However, the minimum consumption guarantee

charges shall not be applicable for temporary supply.

8. Annexures


8.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges

Sl. No

Nature of Charges Unit Approved (Rs.)

1

Checking and Testing of Meters a. Single Phase Meters Per Meter 50.00 b. Three Phase Meters Per Meter 75.00 c. Recording Type Watt-hour Meters Per Meter 170.00 d. Maximum Demand Indicator/ LT CT operated Meters Per Meter 350.00 e. Tri-vector Meters/ HT Meters with CT/PT Per Meter 1000.00 f. Ammeters and Volt Meters Per Meter 65.00 g. Special Meters Per Meter 335.00 h. Initial Testing of Meters Per Meter NIL

2 Subsequent testing and installation other than initial testing Per Meter 80.00

3

Disconnection and Reconnection of supply on consumers request or non-payment of bill (for any disconnection or reconnection the charge will be 50%)

a. Consumer having load above 100 BHP/75 kW Per Job 600.00 b. Industrial and Non Domestic consumers upto 100 BHP/75 kW Per Job 400.00 c. All other categories of consumers Per Job 200.00

4

Replacement of Meters a. Installation of Meter and its subsequent removal in case of Temporary Connections

Per Job 75.00

b. Changing of position of Meter Board at the consumer's request

Per Job 100.00

5

Checking of Capacitors (other than initial checking) on consumer's request:

a. At 400 V/ 230 V Per Job 150.00 b. At 11 kV and above Per Job 300.00



8.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice

8. Annexures




8.4 Annexure 4: List of Respondents Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. R.S. Yadav Vice President (HR & Admn.) M/s India Glycols Ltd.

A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar.

2. Dr. Umakant Panwar Principal Secretary (Energy)

Govt. of Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun.

3. Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui

Sr. General Manager (Finance)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd.

5th KM, Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar.

4. Sh. Vikas Jindal President M/s Kumaon Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce & Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar.

5. Sh. Pramod Singh Tomar Director M/s Galwalia Ispat

Udyog Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar.

6. Sh. Rajeev Gupta - M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd.


Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. 7. Sh. Gunmeet Bindra Principal Welham Boys’ School 5, Circular Road, Dehradun-248001.

8. Sh. Amit Joshi - - House No. #B-12, First Floor,

Lane No. 4, Sector 2, New Shimla- 171009, Himachal Pradesh

9. Sh. L.S. Chamyal Factory Manager M/s Khatema Fibres Ltd. UPSIDC Industrial Area, Khatima-262308, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar.

10. Sh. Achal Sharma President M/s East West Products Ltd.

Lohia Head Road, Khatima-262308, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar.




5th KM, Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar.

12. Shri Nikhil Tyagi - M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Plot 9, Sector 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Rudrapur-263153, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar.

13. Dr. Ganesh Upadhayaya - Uttarakhand State

Congress Committee Off.-Congress Bhawan, 21, Rajpur

Road, Dehradun-248001.

14. Sh. Teeka Singh Saini Former State

General Secretary

Kisan Congress 33, Katoratal, Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar.

15. 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.

16. Sh. Kuldeep Singh Cheema - Bhartiya Kisan Union

Village-Dakiya Kalan, Post Off.-Dakiya No.-I, Tehsil-Kashipur,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar-244713

8. Annexures


Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

17. Sh. Naveen Chandra

Joshi, S/o Late Sh. Tara Datt Joshi

Former Warrant Officer -

Resident-Bakshi Khola, Post Off. & Distt. Almora-263601,

Uttarakhand.

18. Sh. Amar Singh Karki - - Mohalla Makedi, Post Off. & Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand.

19. Sh. Pooran Chandra Tiwari

General Secretary Uttarakhand Lok Vahini

“Tiwari Sadan”, Talla Galli, Jakhandevi, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand.

20. Sh. P.S. Mehra Secretary Retired Central

Employees Welfare Committee

Address-C/o Sh. Ravindra Nath Verma (Retd. Postmaster), Baans Gali, Johri Market, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand.

21. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal

Director & General

Secretary

Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.)

Sanjay Bhawan, Malla Joshi Khola, Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand.

22. Sh. Pratap Singh Satyal

General Secretary M/s Day Care Centre Thana Bazaar, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand.

23. Sh. Girish Joshi Retd. Principal - Mohalla Dubkiya, Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand.

24. Sh. Trilok Singh Kadakoti - - Kadakoti Niwas, Poorvi Pokhar

Khaki, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand.

25. Sh. Vikas Jindal President M/s Kumaon Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce & Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur,

Udhamsingh Nagar.

26. Sh. R.S. Yadav Vice President (HR & Admn.) M/s India Glycols Ltd.

A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar.

27. Sh. Balkar Singh Chairman Bhartiya Kisan Union (Uttarakhand)

Kashipur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar.

28. Sh. Arunesh Kumar Singh - -

Village Fulsunga, Post Off.-Transit Camp, Rudrapur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar.

29. - - M/s Sanjay Techno Plast Pvt. Ltd.

Pant Nagar Plant : Khata No. 182, Khasra No. 301 Min., Village-

Fulsunga, Tehsil-Kichha, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153.

30. Sh. Puneet Jain Energy & CRT Manager

M/s Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd.

Lathhardeva Hoon, Jhabrera Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

31. Sh. Munish Talwar - M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.

Integrated Glass Plant, Village-Latherdeva Hoon, Manglaur-

Jhabrera Road, P.O. Jhabrera, Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

32. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia

Manager (Accounts)

M/s Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd.

Works : Virbhadra, Rishikesh-249202, Dehradun.

33. Sh. Raj Singh Chairman Devbhoomi Dharmshala

Prabhandak Sabha (Regd.)

Narsingh Bhawan, Upper Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.




34. Sh. Ram Kumar Senior Vice President

M/s Mussoorie Hotels Association

C/o Hotel Vishnu Palace, Gandhi Chowk, Mussoorie.

35. Col. S.P.S. Rawat President M/s Lansdowne Hotel Association

Oak Grove Inn, Jaiharikhal, Pauri Garhwal-246193, Uttarakhand

36. Sh. Sandeep Sharma Head (Engineering)

M/s Cavendish Industries Ltd.

Village-Khedimubarakapur, Tehsil-Laksar, Haridwar-247663,

Uttarakhand.

37. Sh. Deepak Gupta Hony. Secretary M/s Hotels and

Restaurants Association of Uttaranchal

Deep Hotel, Camel’s Back Road, Kulri, Mussoorie-248179,

Dehradun. 38. Brig. K.G. Behl (Retd.) - - 8-A, Nemi Road, Dehradun-248001.

39. Sh. Man Singh General Manager (Engg.)

M/s Vista Alps Industries Ltd.

Haridwar Unit-II, Plot No. 1 B, Sector-10, Integrated Industrial

Estate, SIDCUL, Haridwar.

40. Sh. Vijay Singh Verma - Kisan Club Village-Delna, P.O.-Jhabrera,

Haridwar-247665, Uttarakhand.

41. Sh. Pankaj Gupta President Industries Association of Uttarakhand

Mohabewala Industrial Area, Dehradun-248110.

42. Sh. G.D. Mandhok - - 146/1, Rajendra Nagar, Lane No. 9, Kaulagarh, Dehradun.

43. Sh. Pramod Singh Tomar Director M/s Galwalia Ispat

Udyog Pvt. Ltd.



44. Sh. G.S. Bedi General Manager

M/s Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Virbhadra-249202, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

45. Sh. R.P. Singh Executive Director M/s Tarai Foods Ltd.

Sandhu Farms, P.O. Box No. 18, Rudrapur-263153, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar.

46. Sh. Sunil Kumar Agarwal Editor Himalaya ki Diary 32, Parshuram Marg, Rishikesh,

Dehradun.

47. Dr. V.K. Garg Chairman M/s South Asia Forum for Energy Efficiency

A-24/E, DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.

48. Sh. Pawan Agarwal Vice-President Uttarakhand Steel

Manufacturers Association

C/o Shree Sidhbali Industries Ltd., Kandi Road, Kotdwar,

Uttarakhand.

49. Sh. V.K. Aggarwal General Manager

M/s Balaji Action Buildwell

Plot No. C-34 & C-34(a) to (d), C-6(a), C-6(b) & C-3, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitarganj-262405,


50. Sh. Bacchiram Kaunswal President Uttarakhand Rajya

Kissan Council

Uttarakhand Kisaan Sabha, 81, New Park Road, Gandhi Gram,

Dehradun.

8. Annexures


8.5 Annexure 5: List of Participants in Public Hearings

List of Participants in Hearing at Almora on 21.02.2017 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. Girish Joshi Principal (Retd.) - Mohalla Dubkiya, Distt. Almora-

263601, Uttarakhand

2. Sh. G.L. Verma Ex Navy Officer - Johari Bazaar, Distt.Almora,

Uttarakhand

3. Sh. Shankar Dutt Pandey

Incharge-District

Information Officer

- Mall Road, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

4. Sh. Akhtar Hussain Sabhasad - District Panchayat Awaas, Chaughan Pata, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

5. Sh. N.C. Joshi Ex. Warrant Officer -

S/o Late Sh. T.D. Joshi, Buxi Khola, PO & Distt. Almora-

263601, Uttarakhand

6. Sh. Amar Singh Karki - - Mohalla-Makedi, PO & Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

7. Sh. Krishna Singh Latwal - - Village-Dewali, PO-Lodhiya, Distt.

Almora, Uttarakhand

8. Sh. Pratap Singh Satyal

General Secretary

M/s Day Care Centre

Thana Bazaar, Distt.Almora, Uttarakhand

9. Sh. Pooran Chandra Tiwari

Central General

Secretary

Uttarakhand Lok Vahini

“Tiwari Sadan”, Talla Galli, Jakhandevi, Distt.Almora,

Uttarakhand

10. Dr. R.S. Shahi

Retd. Director

(Medical & Health)

- Near Chief Medical Officer (CMO)

Office, Pandey Khola, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

11. Sh. Shyam Lal Sah District President

Prantiya Udyog Vyapaar Pratinidhi

Mandal

Kachhari Bazaar, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

12. Sh. Anand Singh Bagadwal President Almora Urban Co-

operative Bank Lala Bazaar, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand

13. Sh. Manish Kumar Joshi - - Talla Joshi Khola, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand

14. Sh. D.S. Bisht - - Bansal Gali, Lala Bazaar, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

15. Sh. Hari Krishna Khatri - - 52 Seedi, Dharanaula Marg, Distt.

Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

16. Sh. Khajaan Mishra - - Bakshi Khola, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

17. Sh. T.S. Karakoti - - Karakoti Niwas, Near Shankar

Bhawan, East Pokhar Khali, Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

18. Sh. K.B. Pandey - - Talla Tilakpur, Sunari Naula, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand




19. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal

Director & Secretary

Shri Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti

Sanjay Bhawan, Malla Joshi Khola, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand

20. Sh. Kailash Gurrani - - Gurrani Khola, Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

21. Prof. Arun K. Pant - - Laxmi Niwas, Cement Kothi, Rani Dhara, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

22. Sh. Prakash Chandra Joshi President Nagar Palika Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

23. Sh. P.C. Tiwari President Uttarakhand Parivartan Party

Devki Niwas, Dharanaula, Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

24. Sh. Anand Singh Ary President M/s Day Care Centre

Thana Bazaar, Distt.Almora, Uttarakhand

25. Ms. Rekha Dhasmana - - BSNL Colony, Quarter No. 4, Type-4, Makedi, Dhara Naula, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand

8. Annexures


List of Participants in Hearing at Rudrapur on 22.02.2017 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Dr. Ganesh Upadhyaya - - Village and P.O. Shatipuri No. 2, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

2. Sh. Sudhir Shahi - - Village Pratappur, Tehsil-Rudrapur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

3. Sh. Avendra Kumar - - Village-Indrapur, P.O. Pratappur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

4. Sh. Navneet Mishra - - Village-Indrapur, P.O. Pratappur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

5. Sh. Indrasan Yadav - - Village-Indrapur, P.O. Pratappur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

6. Sh. S.K. Garg M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Plot 9, Sector 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

7. Sh. Jagdish Singh - - Village-Dharampur, P.O. Chattarpur,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

8. Sh. Kunwar Pal Singh - - Fauji Matkota, Bhurarani, Rudrapur,


9. Sh. Sushil Kumar - - Plot No. 14-B, Sector-9, SIDCUL,

Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

10. Sh. R.S. Yadav Vice President (HR & Admn.) India Glycols Ltd.

A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

11. 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

12. Sh. Virat Seth - M/s Tata Motors Ltd. Plot No. 1, Sector 11, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL, Pantnagar-263153, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

13. Sh. Devesh Pant - M/s Tata Motors Ltd. Plot No. 1, Sector 11, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL, Pantnagar-263153, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar




5th KM Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

15. Sh. Rakesh

Sood - M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar

16. Sh. Akash Jain - M/s Roop Polymers Ltd.

Plot No. 19, Sector-9, IIE SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

17. Sh. Sanjay Adhlakha

- M/s Ambashakti Glass India Pvt. Ltd.

Plot. No. 41, Sector-3, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

18. Sh. Deepak Kumar

- M/s Nestle India Ltd. Pantnagar, SIDCUL Industrial Area Road, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153

19. Sh. Teeka Singh Saini

Former State General

Secretary Kisan Congress 33, Katoratal, Kashipur, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar




20. Sh. Balkar Singh Fauji - - Village-Raipur Khurd, P.O. Kashipur,


21. Sh. Kuldeep Singh - -

Village-Dhakia Kalan, PO-Dhakia No. 1, Tehsil-Kashipur, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar-244713

22. Sh. Tushar Agarwal - M/s BTC Industries Ltd. Village-Kishanpur, P.O. Deooria, Tehsil-

Kichha, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

23. Sh. Arunesh Kumar Singh - M/s Perfect Dynamics

Auto Pvt. Ltd. Fulsunga, P.O. Transit Camp, Rudrapur,


24. Sh. Dinesh Johsi - M/s Sanjay Technolplast Pvt. Ltd.

Pant Nagar Plant : Khata No. 182, Khasra No. 301 Min., Village-Fulsunga, Tehsil-Kichha, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar-263153

25. Sh. Vijendra Singh - M/s Sanjay

Technolplast Pvt. Ltd.

Pant Nagar Plant : Khata No. 182, Khasra No. 301 Min., Village-Fulsunga, Tehsil-Kichha, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar-263153

26. Sh. Sukkha Singh - - Village & P.O.-Chattarpur, Rudrapur,


27. Sh. Prateek Agrawal - M/s Shrishti Steel

Industries (P) Ltd. Station Road, Kashipur, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar

28. Sh. Dheerendra Kumar Singh - M/s Omega Icewill Pvt.

Ltd

Plot No. 37, Sector-4, IIE, Pantnagar, SIDCUL, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

29. Sh. R.B. Biradar Sr. General Manager

M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd.

A-1, A-2, B-3, Industrial Area, Bazpur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

30. Dr. R.P. Singh Executive Director M/s Tarai Foods Ltd.

Sandhu Farms, P.O. Box No. 18, Rudrapur-263153, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

31. Sh. Manish Goyal - M/s BST Textile Mills

Pvt. Ltd. Plot 9, Sector-9, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

32. Sh. S. Sinha - M/s Endurance Technologies Ltd.

Plot-03, Sector-10, IIE, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153

33. Sh. Harish Pant - M/s Endurance Technologies Ltd.

Plot-03, Sector-10, IIE, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153

34. Sh. Rajiv Kumar - M/s Endurance

Technologies Ltd. Plot-03, Sector-10, IIE, Pantnagar, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar-263153

35. Sh. Amit Goyal - M/s Ashok Layland Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Sector 12, IIE, Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153

36. Sh. Rameshwar Dayal - M/s Ashok Layland

Ltd. Plot No. 1, Sector 12, IIE, Pantnagar, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar-263153

37. Sh. Ashok Bansal - M/s Rudrapur Solvents

Pvt. Ltd. Rudrapur-Kichha Road, Lalpur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

38. Sh. Ajit Dandavate - M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Plot No. 2, Sector-10, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Rudrapur,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

39. Sh. Prem Maurya - - Village & P.O. Chattarpur, Rudrapur,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar-263153

8. Annexures



40. Sh. Umesh Sharma - M/s Voltas Ltd.

Plot No. 2-5, Sector-8, IIE, Pantnagar Industrial Area, Rudrapur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar-263153

41. Sh. Ram Kumar Agarwal - M/s Umashakti Steels

(P) Ltd. Village-Vikrampur, Bannakheda Road,

Bazpur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

42. Sh. Sushil Kumar Tulsyan - M/s Umashakti Steels

(P) Ltd. Village-Vikrampur, Bannakheda Road,

Bazpur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

43. Sh. Naresh Ghai - M/s AICA Laminates

India (P) Ltd. Plot No. 23-26 & 45-48, Sector-5, SIDCUL,

Pantnagar, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

44. Sh. Kuldeep Singh -

M/s Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce & Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar.

45. Sh. Vijay Mishra Manager (HR)

M/s Eminent Power Friends Equiptment Co.

Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No-14-A & 15, Sector-4, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar-263153, Distt. Udham Singh

Nagar

46. Sh. D.N. Maurya - - Chattarpur, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar-263153

47. Sh. Shiv Ji Maurya - - Village & P.O. Chattarpur, Rudrapur,


48. Sh. J.K. Patel - M/s SIDCUL Welfare Association

SIDCUL Area, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

49. Sh. Manoj Tyagi - - -

50. Sh. Jagri Singh - - Village-Bagwara, P.O. Garinegi, Tehsil-Jaspur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

51. Sh. Gurbachan Singh - - Village & P.O. Kunda, Tehsil-Jaspur,


52. Sh. Shital Singh - - S/o Sh. Singara Singh, Village-Jagatpur

Patti, P.O. Shivrajpur, Tehsil-Jaspur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

53. Sh. Didaar Singh - -

S/o Karam Singh, Village-Jagatpur Patti, P.O. Shivrajpur, Tehsil-Jaspur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

54. Sh. Harish Bhatt - - Village & P.O. Chattarpur, Rudrapur,


55. Sh. Rajeev Gupta - M/s Kashi Vishwanath

Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar.

56. Sh. Sanjeev Jindal - M/s Uttaranchal Ispat

Pvt. Ltd. Pipaliya Industrial Area, Bazpur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar.

57. Sh. Vikash Kumar - - Plot No. 13, Sector-2, Rudrapur, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar.



List of Participants in Hearing at Dehradun on 02.03.2017

Sl. No.

Name Designation Organization Address

1 Sh. K.S. Kukreja - - 1/9, Govind Garh, Dehradun

2 Sh. Pankaj Gupta President M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

3 Sh. Rajiv Agarwal Sr. Vice-President

M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

4 Sh. R.L. Khanduri - M/s Flex Foods Ltd.

Lal Tappar Industrial Area, P.O. Resham Majri, Haridwar

Road, Dehradun-248140

5 Sh. Sandeep Sahni President Uttarakhand Hotel Association

Hotel Brentwood, Kulri, The Mall, Mussoorie-248179, Dehradun

6 Sh. Ram Kumar Sr. Vice President

Mussoorie Hotel Association

Hotel Vishnu Palace, Library Chowk,

Mussoorie-248179, Dehradun

7 Sh. G.C. Madhwal - - 147/28, Kalidas Road, Hathibarkala, Dehradun

8 Sh. Gulshan Rai - Sh. Ganesh Roller Floor Mills

Mohabbewala Industrial Area, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun-248001

9 Sh. Vishvamitra Gogiya - - 36, Panchsheel Park, Chakrata Road, Dehradun

10 Sh. K.G. Behl - - 8A, Nemi Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun

11 Sh. Arvind Jain Member Tarun Kranti Manch (Regd.) 6-Ramleela Bazaar, Dehradun

12 Sh. Anoop Nautiyal - - 69, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun

13 Sh. V. Viru Bisht - - Village-Mohanpur,

Post Off.-Premnagar, Dehradun-248007

14 Sh. G.D. Madhok - - 146/1, Rajendra Nagar, Street No. 9, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun

15 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

16 Sh. Manish Garg - M/s Madhu

Gupta & Company

51/510, New Hyderabad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

17 Sh. Sushil Tyagi - - 34, Phase-1, THDC Colony, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun

18 Sh. Mahesh Sharma President M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

Off. G-31, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand

19 Sh. Vikas Kumar - M/s Cavendish Industries Ltd.

Village-Kheri Mubarakpur, Laksar, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

8. Annexures


Sl. No.

Name Designation Organization Address

20 Sh. Manish Garg - M/s Galwalia

Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.



21 Dr. Mahesh Bhandari President Doon Residential Welfare Front 6, Municipal Road, Dehradun

22 Sh. Avdhash Kaushal - - 68/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun

23 Sh. Surendra Nautiyal - - Lower Nehru Gram, P.O.-Nehru Gram, Dehradun

24 Sh. K.S. Pundir - - Shantikunj, Lane No.-1A, Lower Nathanpur, Dehradun

25 Sh. Sanjay Chaurasiya - M/s Hindustan

National Glass & Industries Ltd.

Post Off.-Virbhadra, Rishikesh-249202, Uttarakhand

26 Sh. K.L. Sundriyal - - 4(4/3), New Road, Near Hotel

Relax, (Amrit Kauri Road), Dehradun

27 Sh. Akash Agarwal Arunachal

Pradesh Power Ltd.

Sector-1, B-15, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

28 Thakur Sh. R.S. Kaintura - - 4/19, Lane No. 03, P.O. Road Clement Town, Dehradun

29 Sh. Vijay Singh Verma - - Village-Delna, P.O. Jhabrera, Haridwar-247665, Uttarakhand

30 Sh. Dharam Pal Goyal - - S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Gyan Vihar,

Gurudwara Road, Doiwala, Dehradun

31 Sh. Umesh Sharma Kau Hon’ble MLA - Brahma Niwas, Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun

32 Sh. P.C. Thapliyal - - 90, Vijay Park, Dehradun

33 Sh. Man Singh General Manager (Engg.)

M/s Vista Alps Industries Ltd.

Haridwar Unit-II, Plot No. 1 B, Sector-10, Integrated Industrial

Estate, SIDCUL, Distt. Haridwar

34 Sh. Rajendra Singh - - 91, Dharampur, Dehradun

35 Sh. Shekhera Nand Maindolia - - 150, Divya Vihar, Danda

Dharampur, Dehradun.

36 Sh. Shakti Singh Bartwal - - Shri Sidhh Vihar, Lane No.-04, Lower Nehrugram, Dehradun



List of Participants in Hearing at New Tehri on 03.03.2017 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1 Sh. Prem Singh Bangai Advocate - Chamber No. 2, Court

Compound, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand

2 Sh. Shiv Singh Negi President

Consumer Welfare

Committee (Regd.)

Block No. 9/2, Type-3, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal,

Uttarakhand

3 Sh. Sumer Singh Pradhan -

Village-Khatyada, Vikas Khand-Narendra Nagar, P.O.-Rani

Chaudi, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand

4 Sh. Sandeep Singh - - Near Main Post Office, Moldhar,

New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand

5 Sh. Ashish Chauhan - M/s Golu Bakers Gaja, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand

8. Annexures


¼uksV%& ;g :ikUrj.k] ek0 vk;ksx }kjk ikfjr VSfjQ vkns'k fnukad 29-03-2017 ds Annexures 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

8. layXud

8-1 layXud 1% 01-04-2017 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

8. 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] 2017

ns; jkf”k

ij ;k iwoZ Ik”pkr~ Ik”pkr~

16 ebZ] 2017 16 ebZ] 2017 1 twu] 2017

: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 esa 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

8. 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 60@kW

lafonkdr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =30x60= :0 1800/- vfrfjDr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =13 (2x60) = :0 1560/- dqy fLFkj izHkkj =1800+1560= :0 3360/- 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 =:0 345/kVA lafonkdr ekax gssrq ekax izHkkj = 2500 x 345 = :0 862500/- vfrfjDr ekax gsrq ekax izHkkj = 300 x (2x345) = :0 207000/- dqy ekax izHkkj = 862500 + 207000 = :0 1069500/-

13- U;wure~ miHkksx xkjaVh ¼MCG½

25 kW ls Åij Hkkj okys lHkh v?kjsyw 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] 2018 ds ekg

gsrq fcy esa lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA



mnkgj.k %

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

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

mnkgj.k Lo:Ik ,yVh0 la;kstd ds fy,& lafonkd`r Hkkj 10 kW

Ekkg okLrfod miHkksx

kWh

Lkap;h okLrfod miHkksx

kWh

fcy fd;k miHkksx

kWh

Lkap;h fcy fd;k

miHkksx

kWh

viSzy] 450 450 500 500

ebZ 550 1000 550 1050

Tkwu] 540 1540 540 1590

tqykbZ] 600 2140 600 2190

vxLr] 350 2490 500 2690

flrEcj] 300 2790 500 3190

vDVwcj] 400 3190 500 3690

uoEcj] 700 3890 700 4390

fnlEcj] 800 4690 800 5190

Tkuojh] 550 5240 550 5740

Qjojh] 650 5890 650 6390

ekpZ] 550 6440 50 6440

8. Annexures


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 18@la;kstu@ ekg :0 1-50@ kWh 1-2½ vU; ?kjsyw miHkksDrk 100 ;wfuV~l@ekg rd miHkksx gsrq :0 45@ekg :0 2-55@kWh 101&200 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 70@ekg :0 3-30@kWh 201&300 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 110@ekg :0 4-50@kWh 301&400 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 135@ekg :0 4-50@kWh 401&500 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 180@ekg :0 5-10@kWh 500 ;wfuV~l@ekg ls Åij :0 210@ekg :0 5-10@kWh 2½ ,dy fcUnq Fkksd vkiwfrZ :0 60@kW@ekg :0 4-05@kWh

8. 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 18@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 30@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 55@kW :0 4-30@ kWh

¼ch½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 65@kVA :0 4-00@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 60@ kW :0 4-45@kWh

¼ch½ 25 kW rd mijksDr 1-2 ¼,½ esa “kkfey

ugha :0 65@ kW :0 5-25@kWh

¼lh½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 65@ kVA :0 5-15@kVAh 50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o 600 kVAh/ kVA / okf"kZd

1-3 ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ** :0 65@ kVA :0 5-05@kVAh

50 kVAh/ kVA / ekg o 600 kVAh/ kVA / okf"kZd

1-4 LorU= foKkiu gksfMZaXl~~ :0 80@ kW :0 5-50@kWh

* ;fn [kir 50 ;wfuV@ekg ls vf/kd gS rks iw.kZ [kir ij fo|qr izHkkj mi&Js.kh 1-2 ¼ch½ ds vuqlkj fy;k tk;sxkA

** “kkfiax dkWEIysDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl ds fy;s 75 kW ls Åij

8. Annexures


3- vU; 'krsZa 3-1 kW esa lafonkdr 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 55@kVA/ekg :0 4-75@ kVAh xzkeh.k ¼ehVMZ½ :0 45@ kVA/ekg :0 4-75@ kVAh

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

8. 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 vkjVh,l& 4 % PTW ¼ehVMZ½ “kwU; 1-75

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 ,oa vU; bdkbZ;ksaa

mxk;s Qwyksa@lfCt;ksa rFkk Qyksa] e”k:e dh [ksrh lfgr] 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 vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ %

d`f"k lac) lsok;sa

'kwU; 1-75

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l & 5% ljdkjh flapkbZ iz.kkyh

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%


(i) jkT; uydwiksa] 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 55@kVA/ekg :0 4-60@kVAh 2- 75 kW ls vf/kd :0 55@kVA/ekg :0 4-60@ 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 55@ kVA /ekg :0 4-70@kVAh xzkeh.k :0 45@ kVA /ekg :0 4-70@kVAh

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 7% ,y Vh rFkk ,p Vh m|ksx

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk


(i) vkS|kSfxd rFkk@;k izlaLdj.k ;k d`f’k vkS|kSfxd mn~ns”;ksa] fctyh dj?kk o lkFk gh

vkdZ@bUMD”ku QusZlst] jksfyax@fj&jksfyax feYl] y?kq LVhy la;a=ksa ds fy;s rFkk fdlh vU;

nj vuqlwph ds v/khu lfEefyr u fd;s x;s miHkksDrkA

(ii) lCth] Qy] Qwyksa o e”k:e dh [ksrh] izlaLdj.k] HkaMkj.k o iSdsftax ds lkFk d`f"k rFkk tks

vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ esa vkPNkfnr u gksrs gkas] bl izdkj dh bdkb;k¡ Hkh bl nj vuqlwph esa

lfEefyr gksxhA

2- vkiwfrZ dh fof”k’V “krsZa

(i) lHkh la;kstu] mi;qDr jsfVax rFkk ch-vkbZ-,l- fofunsZ”kuksa ds ,e lh ch ¼fefu;spj lfdZV cszdj½

;k lfdZV cszdj@fLop fx;j ds lkFk la;ksftr fd;s tk;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 4-20@kWh lafonkd`r Hkkj

dk :0 140@ 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 3-85@ kVAh lafonkd`r Hkkj

dk :0 140@ 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 3-65

* fcy ;ksX;

ekax dk :0

285@ kVA Lakfonkd`r Hkkj/ ekg dk 100 kVAh/ kVA

rFkk

Lakfonkdr Hkkj/ okf"kZd

dk 1200 kVAh/KVA 40% ls Åij 4-00

2-2 lafonkd`r Hkkj 1000 kVA ls

Åij

40% rd 3-65 * fcy ;ksX;

ekax dk :0

345@ kVA 40% ls Åij 4-00

$vkVk pDdh ds fy, 30 kWh/ kW@ekg rFkk 360 kWh/kW/okf"kZd

*fcy ;ksX; ekax] okLrfod vf/kdre ekax ;k lafonkdr 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

8. 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 3-85@kVAh :0 5-78@kVAh :0 3-47@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 3-65@kVAh :0 6-00@kVAh :0 3-29@kVAh 40% ls Åij :0 4-00@kVAh :0 6-00@kVAh :0 3-60@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 (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 01-04-2017 ls 31-03-2018 rd

Åij mYysf[kr fo|qr izHkkj dk 15 izfr'kr vfrfjDr fo|qr izHkkj ns; gksxkA ;wihlh,y ls ;fn dksbZ

8. Annexures


fookn fdlh QhMj esa gks rks ml QhMj ds miHkksDrkvksa dks 30 vizSy] 2017 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] 2017 ls 31 ekpZ] 2018 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 (iv) ;|fi] Lora= QhMj ls vkiwfrZ dk iqu% 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] vkiwfrZ dh “krkZsa dh iwfrZ

ds lkFk] iznku djsxk vkSj ,sls miHkksDrkvksa ij Lora= QhMj ds ÅthZdj.k dh frfFk ls fujUrj

vkiwfrZ dh lqfo/kk ds fodYi dh okLrfod vof/k ds ckotwn 31-03-2018 rd fujUrj vkiwfrZ vf/kHkkj

ykxw gksxkA (v) u;s miHkksDrk ¼u;k la;kstu½ }kjk fujUrj vkiwfrZ dks pqus tkus dh n'kk esa] fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh

okLrfod vof/k ds ckotwn] u;s la;kstu dh frfFk ls 31 ekpZ] 2018 rd 15 izfr'kr vfrfjDr

fo|qr izHkkj ds :i esa fujUrj vkiwfrZ vf/kHkkj ykxw gksxkA (vi) 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] 2017 ls iwoZ fyf[kr esa ;wihlh,y dks 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]

2017 rd dh vof/k dk Hkqxrku djuk gksxkA blds vfrfjDr] bl lEcU/k esa ;fn fdlh 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 esa lwfpr

djsxkA (vii) vksiu ,Dlsl ds ek/;e ls vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrkvksa }kjk izkIr fo|qr Ø; fd;s tkus ij fujUrj

vkiwfrZ ljpktZ ykxw ugha gksxkA (viii) ;wihlh,y xSj fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj ds fy, ,d fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj dh fLFkfr dks ifjofrZr ugha

djsxkA (ix) ;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 tks fd th.kZ&”kh.kZ

n'kk esa gS] mulss fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj esa :dkoV u gksA



(x) ;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 (xi) 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

8. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 8% fefJr Hkkj

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph 75 kW ls vf/kd ds ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ la;kstu ij ykxw gksrh gS tgk¡ vkiwfrZ

izeq[kr% ?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ¼60% ls vf/kd ?kjsyw Hkkj½ ds fy;s rFkk lkFk gh vU; v?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s

iz/kku :Ik ls mi;ksx esa ykbZ tkrh gSaA ;g vuqlwph MES dks vkiwfrZ ij Hkh ykxw gksrh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

bl Js.kh ds miHkksDrkvksa ij fuEufyf[kr njsa ykxw gksxh %

fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

:0 70@kW@ekg :0 4-75@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 240@& :0 4-25

3- vU; “krsZ %

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr] “kqYd dh vU; “krsZ ogh jgsaxh tks fujarj vkiwfrZ gsrq ToD VSfjQ ,oa vf/kHkkj

dh iz;ksT;rk dks NksM+dj vkjVh,l&7 ds v/khu lkekU; ,p Vh m|ksxksa ds fy;s gSaA

8. Annexures


vkjVh,l 10 % vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

¼,½ vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

(i) ;g vuqlwph ykbZV] ia[ks vkSj fo|qr Hkkj gsrq lHkh mn~~ns';ksa ftlesa

iznhiu@tu&lacks/ku@lekjksg rFkk R;kSgkjksa@mRloksa@vLFkkbZ nqdkuksa vf/kdre 03 ekg

rd dh vLFkkbZ vkiwfrZ ij ykxw gksxhA

(ii) ;g vuqlwph] ljdkjh foHkkxksa lfgr lHkh miHkksDrkvksa }kjk flfoy dk;ksZa lfgr fuekZ.k

iz;kstuksa ds fy;s yh xbZ ÅtkZ ds fy;s Hkh ykxw gksxhA fdlh dk;Z@ifj;kstuk ds fy;s

fuekZ.k iz;kstu gsrq ÅtkZ dk;Z@ifj;kstuk ds iw.kZ gksus rd fuekZ.k dk;Z ds fy, izFke

la;kstu ysus dh frfFk ls ekuh tk;sxhA

rFkkfi Hkou ds fuekZ.k] ejEer ;k uohuhdj.k ds fy;s miHkksDrk ds Lo;a ds ifjlj gsrq

Lohd`r ,d LFkk;h la;kstu }kjk fo|qr ds iz;ksx dks fo|qr dk vukf/kdr mi;ksx ugha

ekuk tk;sxk] tc rd fd fuekZ.k fd;s tk jgs orZeku Hkou@vuqyXud dk vk”kf;r

iz;kstu@mi;ksx] la;kstd dh Lohdr Js.kh esa ogh vuqKs; gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj

izHkkj dh nj] mi;qDr vuqlwph esa izHkkj dh rn~uq:Ik nj 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



8-2 layXud 2% fofo/k izHkkjksa dh vuqlwph

dz0

la0 izHkkjksa dk LoHkko ;wfuV

nj

¼:0½

1- ehVjksa dh tkWp o ijh{k.k

,- flaxy Qst ehVlZ 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

Final Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2017-18 29.03.17 with ... Order/2017-18/Tariff Orders for...

Documents

Transcript of Final Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2017-18 29.03.17 with ... Order/2017-18/Tariff Orders for...