Is MERC going to really allow Consumers a choice - a REAL CHOICE??

This post is excerpted (is there a word like that?) from my latest submission to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) of which I am an Authorised Consumer Representative for a few Cases pertaining to electricity distribution in the State of Maharashtra.

The issue in the present case is the CHOICE of electricity supplier, in the event that two distribution licensees are present in an area. This situation exists in the Mumbai suburbs where Reliance Infrastructure and Tata Power both have a license to distribute electricity.

MERC has severely restricted the choice that consumers can exercise. Both companies have elaborate setups, expensive advocates, humungous resources and are/have been throwing loads of paper-work and contentions at each other and at MERC ...and also at us, Consumer Representatives.

There have been numerous hearings in the matter and what I wrote to them, was more of an Appeal than a formal submission. An appeal to give us back our right to chose the electricity supplier of our choice - and to remove the unnatural (and illegal!) constraints that had been created. 

Here are the excerpts...

(For those interested in the Chronology of events, a very brief Background is given at the end of the excerpt)

==========
 

• The Case is governed by the ruling of the Supreme Court allowing Consumers (please note, there is no reference/definition of the word, Customer) to have the liberty of choosing their electricity supplier if two distribution licensees exist in the same area. The Commission cannot lose sight of this guiding Order, while deciding this Case. 
• The basic issue is that of CONSUMER CHOICE in a competitive scenario. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down not only a Strategic matter, but also, to some extent, given some general principles for Executive action. The Commission must not OVERSTEP (as it has done in the past, according to none other than the Supreme Court itself!) and distort the Order and its dilute its efficacy. 
• All other issues like laying cables, cross subsidy, regulatory asset charge, consumer mix, etc., need to be dealt with while keeping the end objective in mind. The Commission MUST not be guided (or driven!) by Licensees and their own constraints!
• I have read the numerous submissions made by both parties and the on-going charges and counter-charges and submissions and rejoinders and responses - this can go on ad infinitum (or should I say ad nauseum!) They are just seeking to further complicate the matter and delay the decision-making.  
• Both parties, RInfra and TPC are repeatedly referring to the Supreme Court order - but using selective phrases/passages/paras out of context to suit themselves. While they get to present their views ably supported by professional advocates, the hapless consumer has to depend upon people like us (who are not available to devote themselves full-time to this activity).  
• As a result, if a Consumer’s point is not put across forcefully (or even put across at all!) it is likely to be overlooked by the Commission who is drowned in the barrage of submissions made by both parties. It is therefore the prime duty and responsibility of the Commission to err on the side of the Consumer and not otherwise.
• It is likely that the parties are further going to divide Consumers into various groups and then advocate the benefits that one group is receiving (or likely to receive) and pit that against the dis-benefits accruing to another group.
• This artificial distinction has NOT been made out anywhere in the Law (the EA2003) or by the Supreme Court (which has upheld the principles in the preamble of the Act). When I request the Commission to uphold Consumer choice - it is WITHOUT bias to any group. Sometimes things need to be left to themselves and within the given constraints, equilibrium will be found. 
• Yes, there WILL be heartache and heartburn, but a Regulator needs to know when to step aside and let market forces drive the situation. Give companies a constraint - and see how innovative they can get! 
• The Reliance Group and the Tata Group have been at the forefront of innovation in many products and services and the Commission should back down and not try to ’protect’ one or the other. It should leave the two of them to fight for the winning the Consumer!
• The Order in Case 151 itself, severely restricted consumer choice and subsequent tariff Orders further complicated the calculations and is confusing Consumers. This Order has the potential to undo all the confusion and restore Consumer choice (for ALL Consumers, across various ’groups’ as selectively and artificially defined by the two parties) devoid of the various ifs and buts that constrain it. 
• The Commission MUST restore the right to choice of selecting electricity supplier. The methodology was already laid down in the earlier Interim Order and the scope of that should have been further widened - but it has been instead narrowed subsequently.

         The Commission must seriously ask itself....

• Does the Consumer REALLY have a choice? 
• The SAME choice that an Act of Parliament has granted it? 
• The SAME choice that the Supreme Court reaffirmed in its Order? 
• Or is the Commission again going to ’overstep’ itself - only to be censured later - at the cost of lakhs of consumers losing their right?? 

          The matter is in your hands.

==========

Background
In 2004, MERC has incorrectly passed an Order disallowing Tata Power from supplying electricity to consumers because its license precluded it from doing so. Reliance continued to enjoy a monopoly and the rates kept going through the roof. Tata Power eventually won the case in the Supreme Court, in 2008, which upheld its legitimate claim that it did indeed have such a license and censured both the MERC and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity for overstepping their jurisdiction. 

The Supreme Court in its Order, clearly stated that the electricity consumer MUST have a choice and a right to exercise that choice - upholding the Electricity Act 2003 and its preamble.

Subsequently, in 2009, MERC finally came out with a methodology of effecting this switch/change and consumers were happy that they finally had a choice!Reliance consumers promptly started switching over to Tata Power, whose tariff rates were lower.

...and then things went downhill thereafter. Reliance played spoilt-sport and complained to MERC that Tata was indulging in cherry-picking of only higher end consumers. Tata could not prove(!) that it wasn't proactively doing the cherry-picking, but yes, it was true that the higher consumption consumers, obviously, stood to benefit the most! And so MERC put a constraint on the switch/change and said that only those with consumption BELOW 300 units per month could switch/change!

Thereafter, a series of hearings, spanning months, and a few tariff orders later, the equation seemed to now become skewed in Reliance’s favour and MERC called for more hearings and this has been going on now. For those inclined to have details - please refer Case 151 of 2011 (Order passed) and now Case 85 of 2013 (present case, hearings still going on).

The Times…they are a changing

In the ’70s, when I used to wake up, the first thing I did was turn on the radio.

In the ’80s, the first thing I did was turn on my Cassette Tape Deck.

In the early ’90s, the first thing was my CD player.

In the early ’00s, FM Radio was my first choice.

Today, the first thing I turn on is… my Wifi Router!

Well, what next??

India's T20 World Cup Team

India's Twenty20 world Cup probables list has been announced. Check this list:

• MS Dhoni - Jharkhand
• Virender Sehwag - Delhi
• Gautam Gambhir - Delhi
• Suresh Raina - UP (?)
• Praveen Kumar - UP
• Ashish Nehra - UP
• Piyush Chawla - UP 
• Harbhajan Singh - Punjab
• Yuvraj Singh - Chandigarh
• Yusf Pathan -Gujarat
• Ravindra Jadeja - Gujarat
• Zaheer Khan - Maharashtra
• Rohit Sharma - Maharashtra
• R Vinay Kumar - Karnataka
• Dinesh Karthik - Tamil Nadu

Has anyone noticed how there are so many players from North India?
I don't want to take away any credit from those selected, even though some of them are 'injured' and their inclusion is really questionable. Not that I'm bigoted or racist, but I recall there used to be a time when players from West Zone and South Zone were almost dominating the India cricket scene.

If the logic for selection is recent performance, it can be inferred that teams from the North should have won all the Domestic cricket events - but is that so?

Check the winners of the past 12 months...
West Zone beat East Zone in Deodhar Trophy
TN beat Bengal in Ranji Trophy Final
Rest of India beat Mumbai in Irani Cup

But I guess these Selector chaps know more about cricket than I do - so I should just shut up and do my own thing, eh?

BTW, I've decided to make my posts shorter, so I can do this more often :)

Well ... and that's how I feel ... 

Posted via email from Well ... and that's how I feel ...

Electricity from Nuclear Power – A layman’s research!

Ok .. so the government won the Trust Vote (amidst accusations, mayhem and a general mockery of the Indian democratic system) - but what does that mean to you and me and the rest of the (unsuspecting) masses?

According to me there are 3 main issues ..
1. Is the cost of electricity from a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) really cheaper?
2. Is Nuclear Power better and ‘cleaner’?
3. Does India have to depend on the US (only) for Uranium?

Hey, I said, “according to ME” .. ok? This is MY blog…and I have the right to rant here :)
Anyway, I found no ready answers in our print & television media, as these guys are more obsessed with sensationalizing the shameful proceedings that went on.

So, I decided to spend some time Googling (is this now a valid word??) on another wet 26/7 in Mumbai, and here’s what I found.

Ok, here’s a caveat - I’m NOT an expert and there may be mistakes, but I have tried to summarize what I have understood from my readings across the Internet.

Here goes…

Question: Is electricity from Nuclear Power, cheaper?
My Answer: YES

From what I understand, when speaking of costs, there are two types: Internal and External. Internal costs are those which are incurred directly while generating energy, while External costs are those which are incurred in relation to health and the environment. External costs are quantifiable, but not built in directly into the cost of electricity.

In terms of Internal costs, Nuclear energy incurs about one-tenth of the costs of coal, so that makes it really cheap. And here’s the clincher, if you add up the (quantifiable) External costs, the cost from Coal increases by another 100% and that from Gas, increases by another 30%, making these two even more costly – and all of this is without adding the costs of global warming (since this is not quantifiable yet).

At first glance, the costs of setting up (and fuelling) a NPP seem much higher. However, when costs are declared for Nuclear energy, these always HAVE to include the entire cycle of costs (spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal), whereas, the costs for other technologies need not account for these directly.

So though, at first glance, such figures may seem higher, when you actually take into account carbon-dioxide emissions, waste disposal, etc., Nuclear energy is actually cheaper.I came across one official study done in Finland in August 2003 which compared all the costs (fixed, running and emission) of a Nuclear, Coal & Gas Plant. The final figures worked out to Nuclear 23.7 euro cents per MWh, Gas 39.2 cents and Coal 44.3 cents.

The study also analyzed the effect of the doubling of basic Fuel prices. If Fuel prices doubled, the cost of Nuclear energy would rise only 9%, but energy from Coal would rise 31% and that from Gas would rise 60% !! This is because the cost of Fuel in a NPP is relatively smaller percentage than the cost of Fuel in a Coal or a Gas power plant.

Next Question: Is Nuclear Power better and ‘cleaner’?
My Answer: YOU BET!

Coal-powered plants use 3,200 Million Tonnes of Coal each year to produce 38% of the world’s electricity. NPPs use only 61,000 Tonnes of Uranium for 16% of the world’s electricity.

Coal is generally used in the country where it is mined and sometimes has to be transported over a large distance to the Power plants, which further requires energy (in transportation) and causes greenhouse gas emissions (on the way).

In comparison, very little Uranium is required to do the same job. Consider the following facts:
1. A 1000 MWe NPP requiring 27 tonnes of fresh fuel per year is an average of about 74 kg per day.
2. A 1000 MWe Coal plant needs 8600 Tonnes of coal to be delivered every day.
3. Nuclear Plants have a Carbon Dioxide emission rate of 16 g/kWh, while Gas Plants emit 356g and Coal Plants emit a whopping 891g.
4. Every 22 Tonnes of Uranium used, we avoid an emission of 1,000,000 Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, relative to Coal.
5. When the electricity comes from Coal, 1 kiloWatt hour (kWh) of it results in about 1 Kg of Carbon Dioxide being emitted.

Last Question: Does India have to depend on the US (only) for Uranium?
My Answer: NO !

Uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that occurs throughout the earth's crust. It is about 500 times more abundant than gold and about as common as tin. Over half of the world's production of uranium from mines is from Canada (23%), Australia (21%) and Kazakhstan (16%). USA does only 4% of the production.

In 2008, the world would require 64,615 Tonnes of Uranium only for NPPs generating electricity. The largest requirement is of the US 29%, followed by France 16%, Japan 12%, Germany 5%, Russia 5%, South Korea 5%.

India’s requirement right now is a miniscule 2% at 978 Tonnes if its 17 reactors operate at full capacity. Presently, on account of the lack of supply, many of these are operating below capacity, some at around 50%.

The combined installed capacity in India stands at 3779 MWe which generates about 16 billion kWh of electricity - a mere 2.5% of our total electricity generated presently.

India also has huge reserves of Uranium - about 56,000 Tonnes of it! But this is of poor quality of ore which cannot really be used for the NPPs and hence we need to buy this from other countries (Australia, Canada & Kazaksthan). Now these other countries will not supply it to us, unless we are part of a global agreement that agrees to not use this purchased Uranium for military purposes.

So, if we sign the agreement with the US, we can get to buy the Uranium from other countries, to fuel our NPPs and use it for civilian (non-military) purposes.

Well, as I see it, it seems to be a win-win situation! See, India produces about 430 Tonnes of good quality, usable Uranium per year. Most of this goes to the NPPs and maybe some part, towards our own military purpose.

In future, the situation will change as we have another 25 Nuclear reactors (planned and/or under construction) taking our capacity from 3779 MWe to 20,115 MWe. This is almost 5 times our present requirement. Now WHERE are we going to get the Uranium to Fuel this if we don’t sign the agreement!

Obviously, when we started off planning for these reactors, the government KNEW that we cannot produce this Uranium within the country and we would HAVE to purchase this from outside… so why create a hungama NOW when the time to sign the Agreement has come?

If we didn’t want to give up our so-called ‘nuclear-independence,’ why did the Government plan to construct so many Nuclear Reactors in the first place?? It’s pretty obvious we didn’t have the Uranium then, and we don’t have the Uranium now!!

Now, here’s an interesting bit of news. NPPs can also use a mineral called Thorium – of which India has a whopping 319,000 Tonnes of, which is almost one-fifth of the world’s reserves. Here’s the good news. All of this is usable for NPPs, after some amount of processing, which we already DO even now.

So here’s my take .. let’s sign the Agreement, buy the Uranium from outside for electricity generation purposes and lets process our own Thorium for generating Uranium for our military purposes ..

Hey, doesn’t that sound too simple ?? So why the hell didn’t someone just tell it to us like this??

Well ... and that's how I feel ...

"DTH customers may get adult content"

Just read this news item on rediff.com (http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jun/02dth.htm).

The news item does not clarify if CAS and/or IPTV media are also included.

A TRAI report puts the total number of cable & satellite viewers at 70 million and the article says that there are 3.2 million DTH subscribers - so only 4.5% of the viewers will be "entitled" .. (or should I say, "privileged") to watch adult content.

The Govt is going to "reward" this 4.5% for investing in DTH systems, by allowing them to view "adult" content ...

So, according to the Govt (or is it only TRAI?), 95.5% of the viewer population is NOT mature enough to handle adult content !

This smacks of a business deal, where the DTH players are going to use the excuse of a TRAI-approved plan for "promoting" their product.

They will make it look like the TRAI has done this only because access-control is easier through DTH .. but what about CAS and IPTV? These are also "controllable".

In any case, it is absolutely discriminatory to make such a move - any such decision should be inclusive.

I have written to TRAI asking for a clarification ... but who knows if they will reply!

Just thought that you all should know :)