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).

APTEL stays MERC Order on CSS

The Appellate Tribunal has stayed (for now) the MERC Order on Cross Subsidy Surcharge being levied by RINFRA.

The Order was passed today (21st June, 2013) and is available online, here: http://aptel.gov.in/Dailyorder.html

In my opinion, this is an important Order even if simply from the perspective that ANY element of tariff CANNOT be levied without it being clearly discussed with the public/consumers.

Also the Commission needs to give SPEAKING ORDERS explaining their reasoning and the rationale behind it.

This is only an Interim Stay on collection of CSS and the status quo to be restored as what it was before the MERC Order. Merits of the case will be argued in the 1st week of August.

A few excerpts of the Order are given below for your reference...

"The R-Infra on 07.1.2013 filed a petition before the State Commission in case No.3 of 2013 i.e. the present proceedings, seeking for determination of Cross Subsidy Surcharge for Open Access consumers. In this petition, only the other distribution licensees and the Government of Maharashtra alone were impleaded as a party and only they were heard. In fact, on 7.2.2013 the Government of Maharashtra had sent a letter to the State Commission to de-link the trajectory for reduction in Cross Subsidy Surcharge from the determination of Cross Subsidy Surcharge." 

"When the prayer was made by the R-Infra in Case No.3 of 2013 seeking for the determination of Cross Subsidy Surcharge, the State Commission did not choose to issue notice to the consumers with reference to the said issue. On the other hand after hearing the distribution licensees and the Government, the State Commission has passed the impugned order dated 10.5.2013 revising the Cross Subsidy Surcharge applicable to changeover consumers by increasing the Cross Subsidy Surcharge to a great extent without hearing them." 

"We are unable to understand as to why the State Commission had hurriedly passed the impugned order with reference to this issue which is admittedly pending before the State Commission in MYT proceedings as well as in Appeal No.178 of 2011 before this Tribunal. No reasons have been given in the impugned order with regard to the urgency."

"It is also noticed that the State Commission has decided to determine Cross Subsidy in the present proceedings after getting the view of the Government of Maharashtra without hearing the parties who are likely to be affected due to the high increase in the Cross Subsidy Surcharge."

"We find that there is prima-facie merit in this contention. That apart, the balance of convenience also in our view lies in favour of the Appellants." 

"If the impugned order, with reference to the increase in Cross Subsidy Surcharge is not stayed pending adjudication of the present Appeals, the Appellants will have to pay Surcharge which is increased to 1000% and 400% respectively and this would cause grave prejudice to the consumers once such increase of Cross Subsidy Surcharge has been collected from the changeover consumers."

NEWS: Users oppose RInfra surcharge

 I made a detailed presentation at MERC's Public Hearing at Rangsharda Hall, Bandra, Mumbai yesterday (2nd April, 2011).

The following news item appeared in today's HT.

Users oppose Rinfra surcharge
Dharmendra Jore, Hindustan Times
Mumbai, April 03, 2011 

City consumers have opposed Reliance Infrastructure’s demand that consumers who have moved to Tata Power Company (TPC) to avail of low-cost power pay the cross subsidy surcharge.

RInfra wants the surcharge to provide relief to its low-end consumers. The company has the highest number of domestic (below poverty line) consumers who are subsidised by high-end consumers. But, as one lakh high-end consumers have shifted to TPC, RInfra’s subsidy ratio has taken a big hit, which may result in low-end users paying more.

Consumer representatives, presenting their side at a hearing on Saturday on RInfra’s tariff revision petition, blamed RInfra for the crisis. They said consumers who shifted to Tata because of its low tariff should not be forced to pay more for RInfra’s fault.

“RInfra’s spiralling power purchase costs impacted suburban power bills. RInfra had not been prudent in securing long-term inexpensive power,” said MERC-authorised consumer representative Sandeep Ohri, at the hearing conducted by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC).

Ohri said the company had not categorically shown how it would meet the requirement for its 28 lakh consumers from April, 1, 2011, because TPC has completely stopped supplying power.

The Mumbai airport complex that switched to TPC long ago, opposed the cross subsidy surcharge. “We have paid all charges to RInfra before migrating.” The airport is saving more than Rs 10 lakh per month by availing TPC power.

To this, RInfra representative said the company’s requirement had gone down because of the migration of one lakh consumers to TPC and hence it would not hike bills.

RInfra has not sought any hike for 2010-11. Tariff petitions for the current year are yet to be filed. But, the company demanded the cross subsidy surcharge.

Ohri, who made a detailed presentation, also questioned RInfra’s business model. “We have seen Rinfra doing all the wrong things.

Indiscriminate expenses, baseless growth rates, non-transparent functioning, inconsistent statements, unnecessary legal proceedings and a monopolistic attitude are to be blamed for the misery of consumers,” he said.

Some representatives spoke in favour of RInfra. They said the company should be allowed to recover cross subsidy surcharge to discharge its social obligation of providing cheap power to the poor.

----
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Users-oppose-RInfra-surcharge/Article1-680707.aspx
----

Calculate savings of switchover to TATA

After much work, anguish and deliberations, MERC had issued an Interim Order in the matter of switchover to TATA. I am happy to inform you that we have successfully had the first case of a switchover. An existing RINFRA consumer has been duly moved to TATA - using RINFRA's network and TATA's Meter!

Now, before everyone decides to do the same, first check whether it makes economic sense to switch to TATA. To help you, I have prepared a detailed Excel sheet for Single Phase, Residential consumers (LT-I) Tariff showing the exact calculations and savings of moving from RINFRA to TATA.

Here are some of the results of the calculations in the PRESENT scenario.

For 1,500 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 13,391    Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 9,212
Monthly Savings = Rs. 4,179    Annual Savings = Rs. 50,147

For 1,000 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 8,309    Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 5,828
Monthly Savings = Rs. 2,482    Annual Savings = Rs. 29,780

For 800 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 6,277    Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 4,474
Monthly Savings = Rs. 1,803    Annual Savings = Rs. 21,634

For 500 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 3,172    Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 2,387
Monthly Savings = Rs. 784   Annual Savings = Rs. 9,413

For 350 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 1,857   Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 1,490
Monthly Savings = Rs. 368    Annual Savings = Rs. 4,412

For 200 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 879   Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 760
Monthly Savings = Rs. 119    Annual Savings = Rs. 1,427

For 100 units per month:
Existing RINFRA Bill = Rs. 316    Switchover TATA Bill = Rs. 307
Monthly Savings = Rs. 9    Annual Savings = Rs. 108

It seems clear from the above, that only those consumers who have a higher monthly consumption would benefit more by switching to TATA from RINFRA.

However, the decision to DO-THE-SWITCH must be an informed, long-term decision and not a short-term knee jerk reaction. The attached file covers the PRESENT scenario as well a few other known possible scenarios that may happen in the next one year. For instance:

a) Due to approvals from earlier MERC and ATE Orders, RINFRA already has an 'uncovered gap' of Rs. 1,079 crores! Suppose they get an approval to charge this in next year's Tariff - what would be the impact?

b) MERC has stayed the RINFRA June 2009 Tariff Order, but suppose the stay order is lifted?

c) RINFRA has gone to High Court and asked for a stay on the limit of Fuel Adjustment Charge (FAC) of 67 paise. They are asking for 113 paise/unit. Suppose they succeed?

d) In this Interim Order, MERC has allowed RINFRA to collect Wheeling charges, despite our protests that we have already paid for these. In case, it is ruled that we do not have to pay RINFRA Wheeling charges, then the NEW switchover bills will be even more lower.

e) If the consumer uses a TATA meter instead of a RINFRA Meter, it is possible that consumption recording itself is lower!

The attached Excel file also shows how much would be the difference in case the above scenarios start playing out.

Do feel free to circulate this to all concerned and please send me feedback - especially if there are any errors (this is so complicated, even though I've tried my best, there may still be some mistakes!)

This Excel file is also available on the BIJLEE Group in the Files section here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/files/_RINFRA_SWITCHOVER/

I will request MERC to prepare such types of Calculators and host them on their websites.

Trust this has been of help to you :)

Rediff Article

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 :)

More at the BIJLEE Yahoo Group Site here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee

Mumbai Power Tariff - a few facts

There seems to be a lot of (mis) information being spread - about the Mumbai Power Tariff situation, which is leading to confusion in the minds of the people.

I thought of contributing my opinion to the on-goings. Please spare a few moments and go through this post.

1. State Govt can bring down tariff.
Well, not really .. NO. The power to determine tariff rates are SOLELY with MERC, as per the Electricity Act, 2003. NO STATE GOVT can set the rate. At best the State Govt can grant a SUBSIDY (meaning the rate to the consumer will be low, but the Govt will pay the supplier directly).

In such circumstances, the Govt ends up incurring a loss (and Maharashtra is already in a loss) and will eventually RAISE TAXES in some other form to compensate for this loss. So we consumers WILL end up paying for this anyway, in case the State Govt gives any supplier any kind of subsidy!

2. Uniform Tariff in Mumbai
Uniform Tariff is NOT permitted by the EA 2003!! IN fact the whole concept of 'competition' will become defunct is the tariff is the same for all suppliers. Like in PETROL.

Also, (again) the Govt will have to end up paying the supplier to HOLD prices at a particular (LOW) level. This is what the Delhi Govt had been doing for the past three years - and now that subsidy has also been withdrawn recently.

3. Lower rates are benefiting builders/malls.
Builders/Malls had a much higher rate - which is partly on account of something called "cross-subsidy". This means that if the avge cost of power is Rs. 4 (say), then some users are charged Rs. 2-3, and the others are charged Rs. 5-7 (to make up for the 'discount' to the lower users).

The EA 2003 and the National Tariff Policy have mandated that the level of cross-subsidy is too high and MUST be brought down. Hence the unusually high rates MUST come down and (consequently), the lower rates WILL go up.

There's NOTHING that the Mah State Govt can do in this - neither can the MERC be held responsible - they are just following the law.

4. Tata Power is 'responsible' for the power shortage (!)
At the risk of sounding like a Tata spokesperson ....Did you know that Tata Power kept supplying power to REL/RINFRA even though it was NOT paid for THREE years? Well, you try and NOT pay RINFRA for three months and what happens??

Tata Power set up an additional capacity of 250MW in the last 10 years - while BSES/REL/RINFRA did not set up a single MW. Tata Power was formally given permission by MERC to shut down its plant as there was no need for additional power (as claimed by BSES/REL) - immediately thereafter BSES/REL started making claims for higher charge (reliability charges, etc) to 'ensure' continued power to Mumbai.

RINFRA did not sign any deal with Tata - and now, from 31.3.2010, its also going to lose the 500MW that Tata was giving it.

5. Tata is selling Power outside Mumbai for a profit.
Yeah, sure, Tata is getting money for the power it supplies to MSEDCL. There is nothing in the EA 2003 that can force a Generating company to supply power to any particular area/distributor.

Even RINFRA is selling power generated by its own companies, outside the State - RINFRA's Samalkot plant generates 220MW, Goa does 48MW and Kochi has 165MW - but does ANY of this come to Mumbai?? WHY??

RINFRA has been desperately trying to get the environmental clearance waived for its Dahanu expansion plan (1200MW) citing Mumbai shortage as the reason. The Supreme Court has stayed this - as it does not want any more pollution near Mumbai. Rightly so!

FINALLY ...
I'm not in favour of Tata - neither am I against RINFRA - I'm in favour of the CONSUMER, his/her rights, and the deal he/she is getting from the suppliers.

If anyone feels differently - they are most welcome - but for now, the law is WITH us consumers - we have a choice and we should be given the right to switch suppliers and put our own meters, so till the law changes ... well, this is it!

You decide...

For more info, join the BIJLEE group on Yahoo by sending an email to bijlee-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - or just visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee/ and read the messages.

Thanks, for your time - I value it :)

MERC appointed me as an Authorised Consumer Rep!!

Guess what?? MERC (on their own) actually appointed me as an Authorised Consumer Representative, under section 94(3) of the Electricity Act 2003 - in a case filed by RINFRA.

I guess with a new Chairman at MERC, the consumers are finally beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel!

Already, we have a choice in Mumbai now... we can chose to move to Tata Power, from RINFRA, BEST or MSEDCL.

Soon this will pave the way for competition in the electricity sector, across India - and the consumer will be able to move freely between electricity providers - very much like telecom providers!

Happy Independence Day :)

MERC has been LYING to the public for SIX years!!

What expectations can you have from an organization that has been LYING to the Public for the last 6 years.

As per the Electricity Act 2003, the Regulatory Commissions (MERC, here in Mah.) are supposed to appoint 'Consumer Representatives' so that these persons (or organisations) can 'represent' consumer interest, in various matters - especially in determining tariff.

Section 94(3) states, "(3) The Appropriate Commission may authorise any person, as it deems fit, to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceedings before it."

MERC has always led us (the public) to believe that the following four agencies have been "authorised by the Commission" under 94(3):
1. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, Mumbai
2. Prayas Energy Group, Pune
3. Thane Belapur Industries Association, Navi Mumbai
4. Vidharba Industries Association, Nagpur

See MERC's RINFRA Tariff Order issued on 15-Jun-2009, where MERC is stating that hearings were conducted in the presence of 'consumer representatives' authorised under 94(3).

MERC has been allowing ONLY these four to attend and hear the initial, critical technical validation sessions for Tariff fixation - and in fact, for some of the hearings it only allows these four to attend - and does not allow the Public to participate.

On 19-Dec-2003, MERC issued an Order stating that they had appointed these four as Consumer Representatives. There was NO selection, NO invitations from the public, NO systematic methodology for such appointment, NO fixed term, NO responsibilities defined - NOTHING.

MERC just 'hand-picked' these guys ... (I wonder why?) ... and then gave them an 'open-ended' appointment!! There is NO TERMINATION date for these appointments.

I wanted to know more details and so I filed an RTI on 01-Jun-2009 (otherwise they are inclined not to respond) and to my surprise, they replied on 02-Jul-2009 that there has been NO appointment by them under Section 94(3) or under their own Regulation 18 !!

So why has MERC been 'misleading' us to believe that our (consumer) interest is being 'protected' by these 'representatives'!!

These guys could very well be the STOOGES of the electricity companies - and therefore are not really bothered about general consumer interest. No wonder tariff has been continuously rising since 2003 ...

I demand that ALL Tariff Orders issued by MERC, since 2003 be revoked, since due process of law has not been followed. Tariff to be rolled back to the pre-2003 levels.

Most of this happened during the tenure of the earlier Chairman, Dr. Pramod Deo - who is now the Chairman of CERC. The present Chairman, V.P.Raja is, unfortunately, facing all the flak...

Also, see the manner in which MERC has responded to my queries, I know for a fact that certain agencies HAVE applied - and MERC has been silent on this.

How long will you remain silent and continue to let such unscrupulous agencies get away with such blatant lies?

Send an email to MERC and let them know how you feel. Their email ID is mercindia@mercindia.org.in

Tell the present Chairman to reopen ALL the Tariff Orders passed by his predecessor.

THAT's the ONLY way you will get some respite from rising tariff - who knows - you may also get a REFUND!!

DO-THE-SWITCH

Fed up with Reliance's BIJLEE Tariff?? Just "DO-THE-SWITCH" from Reliance Infra (or REL, whatever!) to Tata Power.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Tata CAN supply electricity to anyone in Mumbai, even a single individual!

When you switch between mobile (or land line) phone service providers e.g. from MTNL to Airtel or Vodafone - you don't care how many cables they have laid or how many towers they have - so why should you care whether Tata has the necessary infrastructure in your area.

It is your RIGHT ... and their DUTY.

You may want to inform your contacts about this as well - go ahead and forward this info to whoever would like to DO-THE-SWITCH.

Tata's standard application form is available on their website, or you can apply ONLINE here:
http://cp.tatapower.com/cip/cpnew/customer-support/new-connection.php
OR
call 1800-22-7575 (TOLL FREE) or 6668 8354/55/59/60

At the new Tariff rates today, for 100 units:
A Tata Consumer will pay Rs. 205
A BEST Consumer will pay Rs. 261
A RInfra Consumer will pay Rs. 391

...and for 300 units:
A Tata Consumer will pay Rs. 885
A BEST Consumer will pay Rs. 1,165
A RInfra Consumer will pay Rs. 1,712

RInfra's rate is approx 90% higher than Tata and approx 50% higher than BEST!

Also, see how much your RInfra bill has gone up over the years.

For 100 units, in R-Infra area:
In Sep 2006, you paid Rs. 205
In Jun 2008, you paid Rs. 290
Now we will pay, Rs. 391

UP 90% in 3 years and 35% in 1 year!!

You can decide for yourself, if you want to continue paying such rates to Reliance - or DO-THE-SWITCH to Tata.

Let's be practical here - taking out morchas to Reliance's office will NOT help. They will simply pass the onus on to MERC, who is responsible for approving these rates. We must hold MERC accountable, R-Infra is after all a private company out to make profits, so why should they not take advantage of the system.

"Awareness precedes choice", and when you are at the Choice Point you WILL make a choice - even between action and inaction.

Inform as many people in Mumbai, so that everyone knows that they can also .....DO-THE-SWITCH!

If you are having trouble, just send me an email. We will help you. Many Citizen's groups and NGOs are helping consumers to DO-THE-SWITCH.

With warm regards,
Sandeep

sandeep.ohri@ymail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee

My presentation at MERC's hearing

Check this out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9E-KdDQ7l0

Its the presentation I made at MERC's Public hearing on Rel Infra's Tariff petition.

Got a copy thru RTI.

Hope this encourages more people to make presentations.

More at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bijlee

Public Response in Reliance Tariff hike

The response that I will be submitting to Reliance is attached here and here

Go through it so that you may understand the issues we are dealing with. I am not a legal expert and the legal fraternity may excuse my attempt at this :)

Anyway, I have attempted to include all the issues that would affect Residential consumers.

The procedure is thus:

1. Fill in your name, postal address tel/mobile and email ID (before you take prints). Details need to be filled on Page 1, Page 2 and Page 19.

2. Before Thurs, March 19th, make sure one copy is delivered to
Mr. Ramesh Shenoy, Company Secretary
Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Reliance Energy Centre
Santa Cruz (E)
Mumbai 400055

You would need to show proof of service so make 2 copies and get one stamped / acknowledged by their office - or retain Fax/courier slip (in which case you may need to do it at least one day earlier). There is no email provided for Reliance - so that makes it a little more difficult for us! However, I tried sending it to ramesh.shenoy@relianceada.com.

3. Make 6 copies of the submission (actually make 7, you will need one for yourself!) and attach the fax/courier/stamped page on all 6 copies and then send it before Thurs Mar 19th, to
The Secretary
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
13th Floor, Centre No. 1, World Trade Centre
Cuffe Parade
Mumbai 400005
Fax: 2216 3976
email: mercindia@mercindia.org.in

To see what really happens, come for the Public Hearing on Thurs Mar 26th at Rangsharda Natya Mandir, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W). The hearing starts at 11am.

Let's try and ensure we get justice done !

- Sandeep.

Reliance's Proposed Tariff Hike

I have been going through the Reliance Tariff petition and was trying to find out the increase in electricity charges, since Sep 2006 (the past 30 months). I was surprised with the results and decided to prepare a 'calculator' for Reliance customers to realize how much their tariff has gone up in the past 30 months.

I've uploaded the file here on the Bijlee YahooGroup site and you can sign in to access it (scroll down the list to reach the file "Revised_Reliance_Tariff_Calculator.xls).

All you need to do is input your consumption in the yellow box on the first sheet - and the data will appear as to how much you would have paid at various intervals during this time frame. The dates taken are based on the various tariff orders issued by MERC.

I have included the figure of what would happen, if Reliance's current proposal is approved.

Just to give you a few examples:
1. If your consumption is 100 units - in Sep 2006 you would have paid Rs. 205.29, and (if Reliance's proposal is approved) from Apr 2009, you would be paying Rs. 418.76 - a whopping 104% up in 30 months - and average of almost 42% per year (or 3.5% per month)

2. If your consumption is 400 units - in Sep 2006 you would have paid Rs. 1,577.15, and (if Reliance's proposal is approved) from Apr 2009, you would be paying Rs. 2,923.84 - an increase of 85% in 30 months - and average of approx 34% per year (or nearly 2.9% per month).

Just to put this in perspective, the official Inflation Index for India for FY 2006-07 was 519 and for FY 2008-09 it is 582, which means that as per the Govt. the actual inflation has been around 12% (582/519) for this period.

Also, from Sep 2006 till date, central excise duty has come down from 14% to 8% (down 43%), service tax has come down from 12.36% to 10.3% (down 17%), the price of oil (per barrel) has come down from US$ 63.75 to US$ 41.31 (down 35%) - and yet Reliance has petitioned MERC with an increase that will end up in us paying almost 30% MORE.

I wonder if our disposable incomes went up as much !!

The MERC Public Hearing on Reliance's Tariff Petition is scheduled for Thursday, March 26th at Rangsharda, Bandra Reclamation at 11am. I trust at least a few of you would file a public response opposing the hike (I will be filing one - and you would like to do that, please email me and I send you a copy of what I file).

For those who can't wait - send an email to mercindia@mercindia.org.in - not that they take cognizance of emails - but still 1,000 emails can make a BIG difference - considering that there are about 28 Lakh consumers of Reliance... and don't forget to mark me a copy!

Go ahead and try this - and do send me your feedback at sandeep.ohri@ymail.com (bouquets and brickbats - both will be accepted humbly).

- Sandeep


(Disclaimer: I have tried to make this calculator as accurate as possible - but please try and understand that this is really complex and hey.. who said everyone was perfect!)

Oct 2006-Jul 2008: It's been a long struggle...

It was in October 2006, I used to run a small scale unit in Mumbai and I received my first escalated electricity bill from Reliance Energy.

(For those who came in late... my bill went from Rs. 210 for 11 units to Rs. 10,800 for 14 units!!)

It was then that I woke up and smelt the coffee .. oops .. the mud, about how Reliance Energy had been hoodwinking its consumers.

Ever since then and with the help and guidance of Mr. Rakshpal Abrol (President of the Bombay Small Scale Industries Association) I was made aware of the depths of this bottomless chasm. He warned me of the gravity of the situation, but I was determined to 'do something' - after all this was 'wrong'!!

Since then, I jumped in and ...

... started 'blogging' (this one here and mirrored on Rediff iland and then later also Bijleepower).
... formed (and still Moderate) the Bijlee Yahoo Group
... started an Online Petition for removal of monopoly in Mumbai's electricity supply
... sent out many emails (more in frustration and desperation) to demystify the electricity issue
... participated in public meetings on creating awareness
... became the Moderator of the Electricity section at Karmayog.org
... was hit by threatening Legal Notices by REL
... initially refused to pay their illegal bills (later relented in the interest of feeding my staff)
... initiated a legal battle with REL in the Consumer Court (after they chopped off my electricity)
... made presentations at MERC's public hearings
... was interviewed by TV & newspapers on the issue (some called me 'Power Activist', Ha!)
... made presentations at the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi
... got REL penalised for not turning up at the Tribunal hearing !
... was referred to in many of MERC's Orders. See here (pgs 12/24/25) and here (pgs 39/40)
... and even helped file a case against REL in the Supreme Court

There was a time when people have come up to me and told me, 'Don't take "panga" with the Ambanis.' Well, it was never personal and so I was never 'afraid' ... he is a businessman in his own right and I have my rights as a Consumer.

This journey has by no means ended (hey, life is a journey .. to sound cliched) and things will go on. I have moved on from my small scale unit into a challenging corporate environment. People have become more aware of the electricity situation ... and of their rights ...

And now in July 2008, the Supreme Court has given its verdict on the interpretation of Tata Power's Distribution License .. that Tata Power can also supply electricity to retail consumers in Mumbai.

Thus paving the way, once again, for competition in this sector and giving me a sense of accomplishment-of-sorts.

Sure, we have a long way to go, but I think we have set the ball rolling and now there are enough people who have been made aware of the situation.

Looking back, I have learnt a lot from this experience and the point of this entire blog is that if you feel deep down you are right about something, its worth pursuing (and pursue it like hell).

The results may seem elusive at first and even impossible - but if you are on the right track, the small spark that you carry can actually become a forest fire !

Do not underestimate your own capabilities. When this happened, I was a complete novice (I believe, 'newbie' is the right word ... or is it 'noob'?) in the ways of the Internet - but now I can get myself around.

Don't give up ... Believe in yourself ... Take on the world ... and whether you get the results you desired or not .. YOU will be a different person !!

Cheers !!

End note: It's Guru Purnima on July 18th .. I would like to pay my respects to my Guru, Mr. Rakshpal Abrol, who taught me the ropes in this entire struggle of mine. Sir, with folded hands I pay my humble respect to you. Thank you.

Private Firms covered under RTI - Great !!

Here's some good news .. private companies who report to any "Regulatory Authority" are also covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Which means that any company, whether public orprivate, if it is "reporting" to any Government or Regulatory authority, it is liable to give out information under RTI.

With this, the RTI list also includes:
- Private Banks (via RBI)
- Stock Exchange Listed companies (via SEBI)
- Telecom companies (via TRAI)
- Electricity companies (via CERC/MERC/State Commissions)
- Insurance companies (via IRDA)

Some more Regulatory Authorities are in the pipeline:
- Pre-examination Coaching Centres Regulatory Authority of India
- Airport Economic Regulatory Authority

There should be more transparency, now that Consumers can now hold all such companies "answerable" and "accountable."

This news item appeared in MINT, the business newspaper from Hindustan Times. MINT is a great new, refreshing way to read business news...

Here's the link:
http://www.livemint.com/2007/02/06134316/Right-to-information---Private.htx

I must mention that one needs to register at the site to read the article (however, it's free - and takes less than a minute).

But for those who haven't registered (or won't !), I have reproduced a few excerpts from the article below....

------------------------------
Companies, banks under purview of the govt have to honour RTI requests, clarifies information commission - K. P. Narayana Kumar

M.M. Ansari, information commissioner at the Central Information Commission that oversees the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, told Mint that as long as these companies reported to a regulator or a government department, they were within the purview of the sunshine law.

According to the commission, companies will not have to appoint an information officer to deal with right-to-information demands the way government entities do. Applicants will route their requests through the relevant agency.

“Applicants have every right to seek information on a private company even though it is in the private sector, if it reports to a government body,” Ansari says, citing sections of the Act that made this possible.

Only applications that served public interest would be dealt with, not those that sought to erode a company’s competitive position, he adds.

The message: you can ask a cola company for details on how much water it used and where the water came from, but not the formula of its fizzy drink.

If there is any difference of opinion on what constitutes public interest and what doesn’t, the commission will intercede and decide.
---------------------------

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