REL applied for a change of name .. to Reliance Infrastructure .. now here's the fun ..
As we all know (via RTI) that the Electricity Distribution License for Mumbai Suburbs belongs
to 'Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Limited' ...
... whose name was changed to 'BSES Limited' and 'Transfer of license' was not even applied for!
... and then the company was taken over by Reliance (undivided) group and again, no Transfer was applied.
... and then the company was 'allocated' to Anil Ambani Group and again, no transfer was applied.
... and then the name was changed to Reliance Energy Ltd and again, no transfer was applied for. In fact this time MERC tells the public that no transfer is required in a name change and tries to convince the people that Companies Act 'overrides' the Electricity Act (when it reality it DOES NOT)
... and now the name is changed to Reliance Infrastructure and do you think they have applied for a Transfer ?? Keep guessing !! More on that later ...
Anyway, the other point is that everytime a name change is effected, there needs to be a major change in the 'Objects' of the company - meaning the new company may now, not really be strictly an 'electricity' company - making it even more difficult for MERC (or anyone else) to figure out the accounts and the profitability of the electricity business .. so how are we going to determine tariff ??
The spineless MERC has still not been able to get REL to submit a separate P&L (and Balance Sheet) for the Mumbai Electricity business .. so consumers will again be taken for a ride.
On one hand REL is declaring one successful Quarter after another .. with upward spiralling profits .. and on the other hand it is trying to tell MERC that it is suffering a loss on account of higher Purchase Cost .. and therefore it needs to RAISE tariff !!
How long are you going to buy this story ??
Chew on it .. as you pay higher bills this summer....
Showing posts with label Electricity Bills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electricity Bills. Show all posts
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
MERC Public Hearing on Dec 6th - 11 am
If you don't take action now .. you may end up paying higher electricity bills .. again !!
Just a small reminder that there is a Public Hearing on Dec 6th at the YB Chavan Auditorium (Opp. Mantralaya), Mumbai - at 11 am.
This is to hear public suggestions / comments on MSEDCL's petition to increase electricity tariff in lieu of imposing second "staggering" day.
MSEDCL proposes to purchase "costly power" from Kawas/Kayakulam (at around Rs.8-9 per unit) and from Captive Power plants (at around Rs. 11-12 per unit). It proposes to distribute this expensive power through a FRANCHISEE arrangement, to Industries and other consumers
who will be charged higher tariff.
My response (already filed with MERC) is available here on the bijlee Group site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/files
File Name : BSSIA_Public_Response_60_of_2007.pdf
I wonder how many of you (in this group) are affected by the MSEDCL's proposed hike .. and how many have filed a response.
Just goes to show that we are great at e-mailing - but poor when it comes to taking action !
More such stuff if you join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/
I can be reached at snohri2004@yahoo.co.in
Incidentally, MERC has allowed the public to send emails (instead of the cumbersome procedure it had earlier) .. something I had taken up in the MYT tariff hearings ...
Moral of the story: When you keep at it .. your chances of success are greater ...
Just a small reminder that there is a Public Hearing on Dec 6th at the YB Chavan Auditorium (Opp. Mantralaya), Mumbai - at 11 am.
This is to hear public suggestions / comments on MSEDCL's petition to increase electricity tariff in lieu of imposing second "staggering" day.
MSEDCL proposes to purchase "costly power" from Kawas/Kayakulam (at around Rs.8-9 per unit) and from Captive Power plants (at around Rs. 11-12 per unit). It proposes to distribute this expensive power through a FRANCHISEE arrangement, to Industries and other consumers
who will be charged higher tariff.
My response (already filed with MERC) is available here on the bijlee Group site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/files
File Name : BSSIA_Public_Response_60_of_2007.pdf
I wonder how many of you (in this group) are affected by the MSEDCL's proposed hike .. and how many have filed a response.
Just goes to show that we are great at e-mailing - but poor when it comes to taking action !
More such stuff if you join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/
I can be reached at snohri2004@yahoo.co.in
Incidentally, MERC has allowed the public to send emails (instead of the cumbersome procedure it had earlier) .. something I had taken up in the MYT tariff hearings ...
Moral of the story: When you keep at it .. your chances of success are greater ...
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.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
MERC hiding the fact that its Chairman was BSES Director !!
MERC is hiding the fact that it's Chairman, Dr. Pramod Deo was once a Director in BSES (now REL).
This is the MERC link: http://www.mercindia.org.in/pdmember.htm
This is REL's Official link:http://www.rel.co.in/investorrelations/pdf/98-99/dirrepo99.pdf
See page No. 6 of this BSES Director's Report, which was signed by RV Shahi, who was the CMD of BSES and then went on to became the Secretary in the Ministry of Power !!
Now do you see the nexus between BSES-REL-MERC-Ministry of Power ??
Just Google "DEO BSES" .. Great Results !!
And you were wondering how come electricity tariff keeps going up .. Ha !
This is the MERC link: http://www.mercindia.org.in/pdmember.htm
This is REL's Official link:http://www.rel.co.in/investorrelations/pdf/98-99/dirrepo99.pdf
See page No. 6 of this BSES Director's Report, which was signed by RV Shahi, who was the CMD of BSES and then went on to became the Secretary in the Ministry of Power !!
Now do you see the nexus between BSES-REL-MERC-Ministry of Power ??
Just Google "DEO BSES" .. Great Results !!
And you were wondering how come electricity tariff keeps going up .. Ha !
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Should MERC interfere with the Agreement between Tata & BEST ?
FACTS:
- Tata generates and supplies all the power that is required by BEST.
- Tata has been doing this for more than 70 years now.
- BEST has no generation of its own.
- BEST is a Local Authority (controlled by the Municipal Corporation).
- The Tata-BEST Agreement expired in 2004, but is valid till another is signed.
- MERC, as the Regulator, forces them to sign a new one.
- They finally sign a new one in Dec 2006 taking into account current demand of 800 MW.
- Tata supplies balance power (after giving to BEST/own consumers) to REL.
- REL is a private operator having its own Power Generation and TRading companies.
Now, MERC asks Tata to divert power to REL, and wants BEST to source power from elsewhere !!
Wouldn't the rates increase for BEST consumers in case BEST does not find any other source at the same rate ?
Why should MERC interfere in such a deal? It is clearly a case of OVER-regulation!
How can MERC give itself more powers than what the Electricity Act 2003 has given it ?
MERC can't do what they should ..
... like protect consumers' interests,
... like get REL to be transparent and separate accounts,
... like disseminate knowledge about the actual power situation in Mumbai (under an RTI reply to me, they admitted that they DO NOT KNOW how is Mumbai's Demand being met !).
Seems to me that MERC wants BEST to increase its rates .. and take a lot of flak .. while REL laughs all the way to the Bank ...
A Public Hearing is scheduled for July 17th on this ... I have made a submission ... watch this space ...
Friday, May 25, 2007
Received your NEW electricity bills yet ?
For those of you in Mumbai, this is about the time we get our new MERC-approved first MYT-Tariff Bills.
The biggest impact will be felt by the BEST consumers, whose bills will almost DOUBLE !! .. and they didn't even turn up for the Public Hearing ...
REL's small industrial consumers will be pleased that the Fixed Demand Charge is now only above 20kW (26.5 HP) as against the earlier 11.25KW (15 HP).
Also, the Billing Demand will be calculated on 65% of Max Demand hit (as opposed to 100% earlier).
And the rate for Fixed Charge has come down to Rs. 300 per kVA, from Rs. 374 per kVA.
All in all, small industries will get approx 45% LOWER bills (on account of the Fixed Demand itself) and many may actually "escape"the clutches of Fixed Demand by the increase in threshold.
Some reason here to smile !
Residential users, make sure you have only a SINGLE-phase connection. If you have a three-phase connection, get it converted to single-phase. Check your electricity bill, by seeing what is the FIXED charge that you are paying, you will be able to figure out whether you are single-phase or three-phase (Rs. 100 Fixed charge generally means you are in three-phase, unless your consumption is unduly high).
However, the rates have gone up for all suppliers and now the Max rate for units in excess of 500 has crossed Rs. 7 .. so watch your consumption, guys !
The other issue that we fought for .. a parity on the Prompt Payment Discount and Delayed Payment Charges, has also been finally rectified by MERC. Now the discount and penalty will be calculated on the same elements (excluding only duuties and taxes, which is fair) .. so consumers can now avail of prompt payment discount even on the Fixed Charges and Power factor penalty/incentive also :)
Will post a detailed comparison of all suppliers' rates later.
The biggest impact will be felt by the BEST consumers, whose bills will almost DOUBLE !! .. and they didn't even turn up for the Public Hearing ...
REL's small industrial consumers will be pleased that the Fixed Demand Charge is now only above 20kW (26.5 HP) as against the earlier 11.25KW (15 HP).
Also, the Billing Demand will be calculated on 65% of Max Demand hit (as opposed to 100% earlier).
And the rate for Fixed Charge has come down to Rs. 300 per kVA, from Rs. 374 per kVA.
All in all, small industries will get approx 45% LOWER bills (on account of the Fixed Demand itself) and many may actually "escape"the clutches of Fixed Demand by the increase in threshold.
Some reason here to smile !
Residential users, make sure you have only a SINGLE-phase connection. If you have a three-phase connection, get it converted to single-phase. Check your electricity bill, by seeing what is the FIXED charge that you are paying, you will be able to figure out whether you are single-phase or three-phase (Rs. 100 Fixed charge generally means you are in three-phase, unless your consumption is unduly high).
However, the rates have gone up for all suppliers and now the Max rate for units in excess of 500 has crossed Rs. 7 .. so watch your consumption, guys !
The other issue that we fought for .. a parity on the Prompt Payment Discount and Delayed Payment Charges, has also been finally rectified by MERC. Now the discount and penalty will be calculated on the same elements (excluding only duuties and taxes, which is fair) .. so consumers can now avail of prompt payment discount even on the Fixed Charges and Power factor penalty/incentive also :)
Will post a detailed comparison of all suppliers' rates later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)