Here is a news item (TOI, 14-Sep-2003) about how REL (RINFRA's earlier AVATAR), had wanted to get a Distribution License for many cities in Maharashtra. Incidentally, Tata had also applied for few more cities. (Both applications were eventually turned down by MERC.)
REL also wanted to buy power from power producers other than TATA and MSEB. Well its been SIX years since then and RINFRA has still not formally tied up with anyone else!!
Mr. Anil Ambani had a meeting with then then CM, Mr. Sushilkumar Shinde to move this forward. Mr. Shinde, as we all know is now the Union Minister for Power (coincidence?)
Incidentally, while quoting an example of how the 'monopoly' can be broken, an example of BEST's network usage has been given (see second last para).
I do not recall BEST raising an objection at that time, that they were a "Local Authority" ...
==============
Reliance makes power play for 5 towns
TNN 14 September 2003, 11:48pm IST
MUMBAI: Reliance Energy (formerly called BSES Ltd) has made pitch to light up Maharashtra. Following the central legislation allowing competition among firms selling electricity to consumers, Reliance Energy has made an application to the state government to distribute power directly to homes and offices in five major cities of the state— Pune, Nagpur, Nashik, Aurangabad as well as Navi Mumbai, including Vashi, Nerul, Bhandup, Mulund and parts of Thane.
At present, the loss-making Maharashtra State Electricity Board, which had a revenue deficit of Rs 1,462 crore last year, sells electricity in these areas. Sources said Reliance Energy (REL) filed the application to the state government about ten days ago.
When contacted, state chief secretary Ajit Nimbalkar said the company had made a presentation to chief minister Sushilkumar Shinde last week about setting up a new gasbased power station in the state.
"Among the suggestions made by Reliance was that it also wanted to distribute electricity to various centres," he said. "However, it is too early to comment on Reliance Energy's proposal," he added.
Follwing the meeting between Anil Ambani, CMD of REL and Mr Shinde, the chief minister appointed a committee headed by Mr Nimbalkar to look into the various proposals. "This committee will also examine the proposal to distribute electricity in five towns and cities," said Mr Nimbalkar.
According to industry sources, Reliance Energy wants to set the ball rolling to open up the state's electricity sector, after the passage of the Electricity Act at the Centre allowing competition among players in all aspects of the power sector —generation, transmission and distribution.
Reliance Energy also filed an appeal with the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission about a fortnight ago to open up the existing electricity infrastructure like power lines to competition and fix the necessary charges.
It wants MERC to allow REL to buy power from players other than Tata Power and MSEB for its operations in Mumbai's suburbs,where it sells power to 23 lakh consumers.
According to the Electricity Act, existing monopoly players have to allow other firms to use their existing infrastructure like power lines for a fee.
For instance, if another firm wants to sell power to customers in Mumbai, it can do so using BEST's network of wires but it will have to pay for it.
However, for this to start MERC has to fix the rental rates for using another firm's network and power lines.
=================
2009 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
=================
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Reliance-makes-power-play-for-5-towns/articleshow/181849.cms
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Calculation of Wheeling Charges - RTI reply from MERC
Those who are interested in switching over from RINFRA to Tata, already know that they would still need to pay RINFRA 'wheeling charges' - which is charged by the network owner to the billing/distribution supplier.
MERC in its Interim Order has stated that Wheeling Charges should be paid even by switchover customers.
The question in my mind was how is the Wheeling Charges calculated for TPC and RINFRA and the following details were provided by MERC (under RTI).
RINFRA-D's Low Tension (LT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 121 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 4600 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 667.92 cr (121 x 4600 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 7560.17 Million Units
5. WC is Rs. 0.88 per kWh (667.92 / 7560.17 x 10)
RINFRA-D's High Tension (HT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 108 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 317 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 41.06 cr (108 x 317 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 896.59 Million Units
5. WC is Rs. 0.46 per kWh (41.06 / 896.59 x 10)
TPC-D's Low Tension (LT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 160 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 110 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 21.15 cr (160 x 110 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 572.23 Million Units
5. WC is Rs.. 0.37 per kWh (21.15 / 572.23 x 10)
TPC-D's High Tension (HT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 78 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 398 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 37.25 cr (78 x 398 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 2065.90 Million Units
5. WC is Rs. 0.18 per kWh (37.25 / 2065.90 x 10)
For an RINFRA switchover consumer. Take the standard TPC rate, then deduct the TPC-WC (0.37) and then add the RINFRA-WC (0.88).
An Excel sheet is available with me, for those who are interested in doing 'what-if' scenarios.
RTI can get us information - but once we receive it, experts need to 'decode' it and then take follow up action. Many of the technical experts would be interested in this info and how it will affect us going forward.
There is still a VALID dispute whether switchover consumers need to pay the RINFRA WC at all or not - and this matter is also being taken up by the BIJLEE Group.
Trust this has been of help.
MERC in its Interim Order has stated that Wheeling Charges should be paid even by switchover customers.
The question in my mind was how is the Wheeling Charges calculated for TPC and RINFRA and the following details were provided by MERC (under RTI).
RINFRA-D's Low Tension (LT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 121 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 4600 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 667.92 cr (121 x 4600 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 7560.17 Million Units
5. WC is Rs. 0.88 per kWh (667.92 / 7560.17 x 10)
RINFRA-D's High Tension (HT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 108 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 317 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 41.06 cr (108 x 317 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 896.59 Million Units
5. WC is Rs. 0.46 per kWh (41.06 / 896.59 x 10)
TPC-D's Low Tension (LT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 160 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 110 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 21.15 cr (160 x 110 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 572.23 Million Units
5. WC is Rs.. 0.37 per kWh (21.15 / 572.23 x 10)
TPC-D's High Tension (HT) for FY 2009-10, is calculated as under:
1. Wheeling Charges for the year Rs. 78 per kW per month
2. Contract Demand is 398 MVA / MW
3. Wheeling Cost for the year is Rs. 37.25 cr (78 x 398 x 12 / 10000)
4. Annual Sales for the year is 2065.90 Million Units
5. WC is Rs. 0.18 per kWh (37.25 / 2065.90 x 10)
For an RINFRA switchover consumer. Take the standard TPC rate, then deduct the TPC-WC (0.37) and then add the RINFRA-WC (0.88).
An Excel sheet is available with me, for those who are interested in doing 'what-if' scenarios.
RTI can get us information - but once we receive it, experts need to 'decode' it and then take follow up action. Many of the technical experts would be interested in this info and how it will affect us going forward.
There is still a VALID dispute whether switchover consumers need to pay the RINFRA WC at all or not - and this matter is also being taken up by the BIJLEE Group.
Trust this has been of help.
Uniform power tariff will cost government Rs. 3,000 cr
At the risk of being unpopular, I would like to repeat that UNIFORM TARIFF is not the answer!
Not only does it negate the benefits of a competitive environment, it is also NOT permitted by the EA 2003, UNLESS the State Govt grants a subsidy.
When the State Govt grants a subsidy - this will eventually need to be collected (as taxes) from EVERY individual, whether he/she is an electricity consumer or not!
Here is an example of what will happen - the State Govt will effectively undertake to 'fund' these utilities for their 'obscene' rates, and make the general public pay for it, by increasing taxes!! The general public will never know HOW much was collected as additional tax to pay this Subsidy!
Suppose the Govt increases the taxes across many items - and ends up collecting MORE than the Subsidy amount??
In such a situation how can uniform tariff be 'consumer friendly'?
This is similar to leaving our environmental problems to our grand-children..."as long as WE don't have to pay, who cares" - right? Is this the LEGACY we want to leave behind?
We must move away from such 'protectionist' measures and let open market competition 'force' the prices down.
Many people wonder whether RINFRA's consumers switching to TPC would make a big difference. Here are some facts:
1. RINFRA's avge costs are higher than TPC and so the consequent cross-subsidy is a larger spread.
2. On a pure arithmetical basis, it IS more cost-effective for RINFRA's high consumption users, to switch to TPC.
Now, it may appear that TPC 'wants' only high-end consumers - which is not true, as any RINFRA consumer can switch.
There are 2 sides to any argument. One could assume that since RINFRA's higher consumers have moved, it would have raise the level for the rest of its remaining consumers. However, the other side of the story is also that the Demand that RINFRA has to meet will also be lower! Consequently it would have to purchase lesser of the 'expensive' power..
This can only be determined if a really SUBSTANTIAL no of consumers switch. As I understand it, as of date only about 3000 consumers may have completed the switchover. Which is too minuscule a no considering that RINFRA has about 2.7 Million consumers!
The issue is not about RINFRA or TPC being benefited - its about each one of US - each consumer - having a choice.
As far as RINFRA's costs are concerned, I guess MERC's investigation would throw light on whether they actually needed to spend all that money on the Mumbai electricity business .. or even if they actually DID spend that money on us - maybe it WAS diverted into the RINFRA group's other ventures.
Since they have admittedly, not been maintaining separate accounts, there is quite a likelihood that they took money from us and spent it elsewhere.
Trust I have thrown some light on the issue.
(Related news item here...)
================
Uniform power tariff will cost government Rs3,000cr
Ashwin Aghor / DNA
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:16 IST
Mumbai: If the state government does decide to take power minister Ajit Pawar's recent announcement about introducing uniform power tariffs in Mumbai seriously, it will have to be prepared to bear an additional burden of Rs3,000 crore annually for the subsidies the city's four power suppliers will have to be provided to bring their rates on a par.
Last week, during the winter session of the assembly, Pawar assured the house that the government will explore the feasibility of uniform power tariff for the city. Uniform tariff is more consumer-friendly, and has already been implemented in cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, despite them having more than one supplier.
===================
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_uniform-power-tariff-will-cost-government-rs3000cr_1324178
Not only does it negate the benefits of a competitive environment, it is also NOT permitted by the EA 2003, UNLESS the State Govt grants a subsidy.
When the State Govt grants a subsidy - this will eventually need to be collected (as taxes) from EVERY individual, whether he/she is an electricity consumer or not!
Here is an example of what will happen - the State Govt will effectively undertake to 'fund' these utilities for their 'obscene' rates, and make the general public pay for it, by increasing taxes!! The general public will never know HOW much was collected as additional tax to pay this Subsidy!
Suppose the Govt increases the taxes across many items - and ends up collecting MORE than the Subsidy amount??
In such a situation how can uniform tariff be 'consumer friendly'?
This is similar to leaving our environmental problems to our grand-children..."as long as WE don't have to pay, who cares" - right? Is this the LEGACY we want to leave behind?
We must move away from such 'protectionist' measures and let open market competition 'force' the prices down.
Many people wonder whether RINFRA's consumers switching to TPC would make a big difference. Here are some facts:
1. RINFRA's avge costs are higher than TPC and so the consequent cross-subsidy is a larger spread.
2. On a pure arithmetical basis, it IS more cost-effective for RINFRA's high consumption users, to switch to TPC.
Now, it may appear that TPC 'wants' only high-end consumers - which is not true, as any RINFRA consumer can switch.
There are 2 sides to any argument. One could assume that since RINFRA's higher consumers have moved, it would have raise the level for the rest of its remaining consumers. However, the other side of the story is also that the Demand that RINFRA has to meet will also be lower! Consequently it would have to purchase lesser of the 'expensive' power..
This can only be determined if a really SUBSTANTIAL no of consumers switch. As I understand it, as of date only about 3000 consumers may have completed the switchover. Which is too minuscule a no considering that RINFRA has about 2.7 Million consumers!
The issue is not about RINFRA or TPC being benefited - its about each one of US - each consumer - having a choice.
As far as RINFRA's costs are concerned, I guess MERC's investigation would throw light on whether they actually needed to spend all that money on the Mumbai electricity business .. or even if they actually DID spend that money on us - maybe it WAS diverted into the RINFRA group's other ventures.
Since they have admittedly, not been maintaining separate accounts, there is quite a likelihood that they took money from us and spent it elsewhere.
Trust I have thrown some light on the issue.
(Related news item here...)
================
Uniform power tariff will cost government Rs3,000cr
Ashwin Aghor / DNA
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:16 IST
Mumbai: If the state government does decide to take power minister Ajit Pawar's recent announcement about introducing uniform power tariffs in Mumbai seriously, it will have to be prepared to bear an additional burden of Rs3,000 crore annually for the subsidies the city's four power suppliers will have to be provided to bring their rates on a par.
Last week, during the winter session of the assembly, Pawar assured the house that the government will explore the feasibility of uniform power tariff for the city. Uniform tariff is more consumer-friendly, and has already been implemented in cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, despite them having more than one supplier.
===================
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_uniform-power-tariff-will-cost-government-rs3000cr_1324178
NEWS Posts at the BIJLEE Group
Here is a summary of the some of the NEWS posts at the BIJLEE Group at Yahoo.
No DVC-Bhel link-up for Raghunathpur project
Govt spent more than required on power: CAG
Patni, Spanco among 4 cos empanelled for power project
50-paise sop will boost wind power capacity, say turbine makers
Pact with Bhutan for 4 hydel projects
They look to sun to light up Carter Road
Activists oppose proposed amendment of MSEDCL rules
BSES fudged June 2009 outage figures by 50% - Committee
Delhi private discoms claim capex of 6000 cr - DERC to enquire
You're paying Rs224.5cr for power emergencies
50 paise/unit sop for wind projects feeding power to grid
Delhi meet finds no solution to power crisis in the state
Public hearing on TNEB's plan for 'reliability charge'
Australia Solar Institute keen to partner Indian research bodies
TN launches power transmission co
TN ramping up power generation capacity
Institution of Engineers favours tie-up with Nepal for hydro power
Govt targets generating 20,000 mw from solar energy by 2020
Roadmap for solar power plan only after 3 years: Farooq
Plan panel seeks note on attracting investment in power
CESC likely to generate power from Budge Budge 3rd unit soon
Govt betting big on private power projects
Feedback is welcome.
No DVC-Bhel link-up for Raghunathpur project
Govt spent more than required on power: CAG
Patni, Spanco among 4 cos empanelled for power project
50-paise sop will boost wind power capacity, say turbine makers
Pact with Bhutan for 4 hydel projects
They look to sun to light up Carter Road
Activists oppose proposed amendment of MSEDCL rules
BSES fudged June 2009 outage figures by 50% - Committee
Delhi private discoms claim capex of 6000 cr - DERC to enquire
You're paying Rs224.5cr for power emergencies
50 paise/unit sop for wind projects feeding power to grid
Delhi meet finds no solution to power crisis in the state
Public hearing on TNEB's plan for 'reliability charge'
Australia Solar Institute keen to partner Indian research bodies
TN launches power transmission co
TN ramping up power generation capacity
Institution of Engineers favours tie-up with Nepal for hydro power
Govt targets generating 20,000 mw from solar energy by 2020
Roadmap for solar power plan only after 3 years: Farooq
Plan panel seeks note on attracting investment in power
CESC likely to generate power from Budge Budge 3rd unit soon
Govt betting big on private power projects
Feedback is welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)