Sometimes you get lucky and people get to know about your struggle.
Rediff put this up
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/oct/09/slide-show-1-meet-the-man-who-took-on-reliance-energy.htm
Feedback is most welcome :)
Showing posts with label Consumer Representatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumer Representatives. Show all posts
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Saturday, November 10, 2007
News from Mysore
The bijlee power struggle is everywhere ... here is what is happened in Mysore.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/message/907
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/message/907
Consumer Activists protest against Power companies
Here is the full text of a Press Release from CERS:
ELECTRICITY COMPANIES ENDANGERING LIVES OF CONSUMERS
The Ahmedabad based Consumer Education and Research Society has filed a petition before Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission against State owned four Distribution Companies and Chief Electrical Inspector for violation of Electricity Rule-33 of Indian Electricity Rules-1956 which mandates provision of separate earth terminals atthe premises of residential and commercial consumers.
The existing practice of providing earth terminal from solidly grounded neutral at transformer end is out dated and does not fulfill provision of Electricity Rule - 33. These DISCOMS continue to follow old and obsolete 'TT' system of earthing, that too not fully wherein case of earth fault MCB/fuse at consumers' premises remains as show piece and will not cut of power supply of consumer.
The new and safe 'TNCS' or 'TNS' systems of earthing provides better safety to consumers' lives and property against electric shock/fire/voltage related damages. The private Distribution Companies in Gujarat follow this new system of earthing since ages. .pa
During last hearing on 30th August 2007 before Hon'ble Commission the monitoring agency i.e. office of Chief Electrical Inspectorate and four Discoms of Gujarat submitted that the cost of providing separate earth terminals will cost Rs.300/- to each consumer putting a burden of Rs.275 crores on four DISCOMS.
CERS strongly objected to this proposal and representated before GERC that these DISCOMS have already collected the amount while providing new connections to consumers under the head of Service Line Charges but failed to provide separate earth terminals to consumers' premises violating Rule-33. Therefore the consumers are not liable to pay any amount and the cost has to be borne by DISCOMS.
The Hon'ble Commission reprimanded and directed CEI and all DISCOMS to study the system prevailing at Torrent Power and resolve this issue by implementing Rule 33 of IER-1956 and submit Action Taken Report to GERC before 15th October 2007.
CERS was representated by Shri K K Bajaj (Hon Director) and Shri V.J.Vachharajani (Consultant).
ELECTRICITY COMPANIES ENDANGERING LIVES OF CONSUMERS
The Ahmedabad based Consumer Education and Research Society has filed a petition before Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission against State owned four Distribution Companies and Chief Electrical Inspector for violation of Electricity Rule-33 of Indian Electricity Rules-1956 which mandates provision of separate earth terminals atthe premises of residential and commercial consumers.
The existing practice of providing earth terminal from solidly grounded neutral at transformer end is out dated and does not fulfill provision of Electricity Rule - 33. These DISCOMS continue to follow old and obsolete 'TT' system of earthing, that too not fully wherein case of earth fault MCB/fuse at consumers' premises remains as show piece and will not cut of power supply of consumer.
The new and safe 'TNCS' or 'TNS' systems of earthing provides better safety to consumers' lives and property against electric shock/fire/voltage related damages. The private Distribution Companies in Gujarat follow this new system of earthing since ages. .pa
During last hearing on 30th August 2007 before Hon'ble Commission the monitoring agency i.e. office of Chief Electrical Inspectorate and four Discoms of Gujarat submitted that the cost of providing separate earth terminals will cost Rs.300/- to each consumer putting a burden of Rs.275 crores on four DISCOMS.
CERS strongly objected to this proposal and representated before GERC that these DISCOMS have already collected the amount while providing new connections to consumers under the head of Service Line Charges but failed to provide separate earth terminals to consumers' premises violating Rule-33. Therefore the consumers are not liable to pay any amount and the cost has to be borne by DISCOMS.
The Hon'ble Commission reprimanded and directed CEI and all DISCOMS to study the system prevailing at Torrent Power and resolve this issue by implementing Rule 33 of IER-1956 and submit Action Taken Report to GERC before 15th October 2007.
CERS was representated by Shri K K Bajaj (Hon Director) and Shri V.J.Vachharajani (Consultant).
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Open letter to MERC Chairman on Consumer Representatives
I sent this to mercindia@mercindia.org.in on 12.8.2007 with copies (not BCC) to a few media and other concerned persons.
-------------
12.8.2007
To:
Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairman,
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
13th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Trade Centre
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
Dear Sir,
Re: RTI reply on MERC's "Consumer Representatives"
1. This is with reference to the four organisations that are referred to as "Consumer Representatives" by MERC, time and again, in Public Hearings of the MERC. These are:
a) Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Mumbai
b) Prayas, Pune
c) Thane Belapur Industry Association, Navi Mumbai
d) Vidharbha Industries Association, Nagpur
2. As per Section 94(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a State commission "may authorise any person, as it deems fit, to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceedings before it."
3. We are all aware that the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 has been repealed by Section 185 of the EA 2003.
4. Yet, MERC has referred to these four as "Consumer Representative u/s 26 of the ERC Act 1998" in the matter of the Public Hearing on Approval of Long Term Power Purchase Agreement between BEST & TPC-G (Case No. 87 of 2006), held on 17.7.2007 (which I attended, and have in my possession a copy of the attaendance sheet).
5. MERC has admitted (in a reply dated 24.7.2007, to an RTI filed on 19.7.2007 by Shri Kewal Semlani) that "the Commission has not appointed any Consumer Representatives (CRs). They have been authorised to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceeding."
6. MERC's reply also states that since this is an "authorisation" the "terms of appointment, tenure, scope of work, deliverable, remuneration, etc. are not applicable."
7. MERC's reply further states that "all copies of all notices are marked to these authorised consumer representatives and they were attending the hearings where generic issues are involved. No compilation of attendance is maintained."
8. In light of the above, and in public interest, I would like you to answer the following questions:
a) How is MERC ensuring that it is fulfilling the mandate given to it (under the EA 2003) of ensuring that consumers interests are protected, when it has not even formally appointed any "Consumer Representatives" ?
b) Why are there no defined eligibility terms for any such appointment of Consumer Representatives (or people who would protect the interests of the consumers) ? In the absence of any firm eligibility terms and conditions, such "authorisations" seem highly suspect.
c) Does MERC not think that this matter is serious enough ? With electricity tariffs rising more than three-fold (in most cases) over the past two years, consumers are reeling under tariff shock, and the State Commission seems to be taking this lightly. Had it not been for the RTI application, the public would never know the truth.
d) Why are these four (who have been so authorised) not been made to take their role seriously? This is apparent from the fact that they do not have a defined role, scope or work, deliverable list - and moreover, MERC does not even maintain an attendance schedule for them.
e) Why has MERC been referring to a repealed Act ? The ERC Act 1998 was repealed by section 185 of the EA 2003. Does the MERC not know of the sections of the Act governing itself?
9. If this is the level of commitment of the MERC itself, what can be expected of the four organisations. In fact for the last hearing as mentioned above NONE of the four turned up! (I was present and I know it).
10. I look forward to a more formal and systematic approach to the protection of consumers' interests, which includes the following:
a) MERC should cancel the present authorisations with immediate effect.
b) A transparent process of appointment of such Consumer Representatives should be put in place.
c) There should be clearly defined eligibility terms, scope of work, deliverables, etc. Persons / organisations who have business relations with electricity companies cannot be eligible for this role.
d) MERC must keep a close watch on such "appointees" and must ensure that they are fulfiling their roles adequately in protecting consumers' interests.
10. You may or may not choose to respond to these questions and may ignore this mail completely, which will go further in proving that MERC does not take protection of consumer interests seriously, neither does it bother about consumers rights, opinions or feelings.
11. Since we (the general public) are continuously suffering on account of higher tariff, I am alarmed that you as the Regulator have not done enough to ensure that our interests are protected - which is indeed a matter of great shame for the organisation that you head.
I trust you will take the necessary action in this regard and restore the faith of the consumers in your organisation.
Thank you for your patience (in reading this mail).
Warm regards,
Sandeep N. Ohri
98 33 09 7575
snohri2004@yahoo.co.in
PS. Since this is a matter of public interest, I have taken the liberty of marking a copy to some sections of the Media and a few concerned individuals / organisations who I feel may be in a better position, than myself, to take this up this issue further.
-------------
12.8.2007
To:
Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairman,
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
13th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Trade Centre
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
Dear Sir,
Re: RTI reply on MERC's "Consumer Representatives"
1. This is with reference to the four organisations that are referred to as "Consumer Representatives" by MERC, time and again, in Public Hearings of the MERC. These are:
a) Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Mumbai
b) Prayas, Pune
c) Thane Belapur Industry Association, Navi Mumbai
d) Vidharbha Industries Association, Nagpur
2. As per Section 94(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a State commission "may authorise any person, as it deems fit, to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceedings before it."
3. We are all aware that the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 has been repealed by Section 185 of the EA 2003.
4. Yet, MERC has referred to these four as "Consumer Representative u/s 26 of the ERC Act 1998" in the matter of the Public Hearing on Approval of Long Term Power Purchase Agreement between BEST & TPC-G (Case No. 87 of 2006), held on 17.7.2007 (which I attended, and have in my possession a copy of the attaendance sheet).
5. MERC has admitted (in a reply dated 24.7.2007, to an RTI filed on 19.7.2007 by Shri Kewal Semlani) that "the Commission has not appointed any Consumer Representatives (CRs). They have been authorised to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceeding."
6. MERC's reply also states that since this is an "authorisation" the "terms of appointment, tenure, scope of work, deliverable, remuneration, etc. are not applicable."
7. MERC's reply further states that "all copies of all notices are marked to these authorised consumer representatives and they were attending the hearings where generic issues are involved. No compilation of attendance is maintained."
8. In light of the above, and in public interest, I would like you to answer the following questions:
a) How is MERC ensuring that it is fulfilling the mandate given to it (under the EA 2003) of ensuring that consumers interests are protected, when it has not even formally appointed any "Consumer Representatives" ?
b) Why are there no defined eligibility terms for any such appointment of Consumer Representatives (or people who would protect the interests of the consumers) ? In the absence of any firm eligibility terms and conditions, such "authorisations" seem highly suspect.
c) Does MERC not think that this matter is serious enough ? With electricity tariffs rising more than three-fold (in most cases) over the past two years, consumers are reeling under tariff shock, and the State Commission seems to be taking this lightly. Had it not been for the RTI application, the public would never know the truth.
d) Why are these four (who have been so authorised) not been made to take their role seriously? This is apparent from the fact that they do not have a defined role, scope or work, deliverable list - and moreover, MERC does not even maintain an attendance schedule for them.
e) Why has MERC been referring to a repealed Act ? The ERC Act 1998 was repealed by section 185 of the EA 2003. Does the MERC not know of the sections of the Act governing itself?
9. If this is the level of commitment of the MERC itself, what can be expected of the four organisations. In fact for the last hearing as mentioned above NONE of the four turned up! (I was present and I know it).
10. I look forward to a more formal and systematic approach to the protection of consumers' interests, which includes the following:
a) MERC should cancel the present authorisations with immediate effect.
b) A transparent process of appointment of such Consumer Representatives should be put in place.
c) There should be clearly defined eligibility terms, scope of work, deliverables, etc. Persons / organisations who have business relations with electricity companies cannot be eligible for this role.
d) MERC must keep a close watch on such "appointees" and must ensure that they are fulfiling their roles adequately in protecting consumers' interests.
10. You may or may not choose to respond to these questions and may ignore this mail completely, which will go further in proving that MERC does not take protection of consumer interests seriously, neither does it bother about consumers rights, opinions or feelings.
11. Since we (the general public) are continuously suffering on account of higher tariff, I am alarmed that you as the Regulator have not done enough to ensure that our interests are protected - which is indeed a matter of great shame for the organisation that you head.
I trust you will take the necessary action in this regard and restore the faith of the consumers in your organisation.
Thank you for your patience (in reading this mail).
Warm regards,
Sandeep N. Ohri
98 33 09 7575
snohri2004@yahoo.co.in
PS. Since this is a matter of public interest, I have taken the liberty of marking a copy to some sections of the Media and a few concerned individuals / organisations who I feel may be in a better position, than myself, to take this up this issue further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)