Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2019-20 With Hindi Final · Order on Approval of Business Plan and...

Order on

Approval of Business Plan and Multi

Year Tariff Petition

For

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

for

Third Control Period

(FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22)

February 27, 2019

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Vidyut Niyamak Bhawan,

Near I.S.B.T., P.O. Majra, Dehradun – 248171

i

Table of Contents

1. Background and Procedural History ............................................................................................. 5

2. Stakeholders’Objections/Suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses and Commission’s Views .. 11

2.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.1 Compliance to Regulations/Directions of Commission ....................................................... 11

2.2 Overall Tariff Increase ........................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Domestic Tariff ....................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Non-Domestic Tariff .............................................................................................................. 19

2.5 Agricultural Tariff .................................................................................................................. 20

2.6 Agriculture Allied Activities ................................................................................................. 21

2.7 Industrial Tariff ...................................................................................................................... 23

2.7.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 23

2.7.2 Tariff Hike ................................................................................................................................ 24

2.8 Time of Day Tariff .................................................................................................................. 27

2.8.2 Load Factor based Tariff.......................................................................................................... 28

2.9 Fuel Charge Adjustment ......................................................................................................... 30

2.10 Minimum Consumption Guarantee ...................................................................................... 31

2.11 Rebate and Incentives ............................................................................................................ 32

2.12 Projected growth of various Parameters .............................................................................. 33

2.12.1 Energy Sales Forecast .............................................................................................................. 33

2.13 Cross Subsidy .......................................................................................................................... 35

2.14 Continuous Supply ................................................................................................................. 36

2.15 Components on ARR and Revenue........................................................................................ 38

2.15.1 Power Purchase Cost ............................................................................................................... 38

2.15.2 Return on Equity ...................................................................................................................... 40

2.15.3 Operation & Maintenance Expenses ...................................................................................... 40

2.15.4 Interest and Finance Charges .................................................................................................. 41

2.15.5 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................. 42

2.15.6 Non-Tariff Income ................................................................................................................... 43

2.16 Consumer Security Deposit ................................................................................................... 43

2.17 Terms and Conditions for Seasonal Industries (RTS-7) ...................................................... 44

2.18 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts ................................................................................. 45

ii

2.19 Capitalization and Capital Expenditure ..............................................................................46

2.20 Truing-up for Past Years ........................................................................................................48

2.21 Distribution Losses ................................................................................................................50

2.22 Departmental Employees .......................................................................................................54

2.23 Tariff for Cane Crushers .........................................................................................................57

2.24 Metering and Billing ...............................................................................................................57

2.25 KCC Data ................................................................................................................................61

2.26 Quality of Power ....................................................................................................................62

2.27 Compliance of Directives .......................................................................................................64

2.28 Open Access .............................................................................................................................64

2.29 Collection Efficiency ...............................................................................................................67

2.30 Mixed Load Tariff ...................................................................................................................69

2.31 Power Procurement Plan .......................................................................................................70

2.32 Deviation Settlement Mechanism .........................................................................................71

2.33 Voltage wise Cost of Supply ..................................................................................................71

2.34 Change of Supply Voltage on Marginal Load Enhancement by Consumers ......................73

2.35 New Connections ....................................................................................................................73

2.36 CGRF........................................................................................................................................74

2.37 Provision of Street Lighting in Rural feeders .......................................................................75

2.38 Views of State Advisory Committee .....................................................................................76

3. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Business

Plan for the third Control Period ........................................................................................................... 79

3.1 Statutory Requirement ...........................................................................................................79

3.2 Multi Year Tariff Framework ................................................................................................79

3.3 Business Plan for the third Control Period ..........................................................................80

3.4 Sales Forecast ..........................................................................................................................87

3.4.1 Domestic (RTS-1) ...................................................................................................................... 92

3.4.2 Non-Domestic (RTS-2) ............................................................................................................. 93

3.4.3 Government Public Utilities (RST-3) ....................................................................................... 93

3.4.4 Private Tube-Wells (RTS-4) ...................................................................................................... 93

3.4.5 Industry (RTS-5) ....................................................................................................................... 94

3.4.6 Mixed Load (RTS-8) .................................................................................................................. 95

3.4.7 Railway Traction ....................................................................................................................... 95

iii

3.5 Efficiency Parameters............................................................................................................. 96

3.5.1 Distribution Losses .................................................................................................................. 96

3.5.2 Collection Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 101

3.6 Power Procurement Plan ..................................................................................................... 103

3.6.1 Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd. ........................................................................................... 108

3.6.2 Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. ......................................................................................... 109

3.6.3 Power Purchase from THDC Ltd. .......................................................................................... 110

3.6.4 Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. .......................................................................................... 110

3.6.5 Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd............................................................................................. 112

3.6.6 Power Purchase from Renewable Energy Sources ............................................................... 112

3.6.7 Power Purchase from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar ........................................... 113

3.6.8 Power Purchase from Sasan UMPP ....................................................................................... 113

3.6.9 Power Purchase from State Gas Generating Stations ........................................................... 113

3.6.10 Power purchase from Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Ltd. .................................................. 114

3.6.11 Power purchase from upcoming generating stations........................................................... 114

3.6.12 Energy available from Firm Sources...................................................................................... 116

3.6.13 Power Purchase for fulfilling RPO ........................................................................................ 116

3.6.14 Deficit/(Surplus) Energy........................................................................................................ 117

3.7 Capital Expenditure Plan and Capitalisation Plan .......................................................... 119

3.8 Financing Plan ...................................................................................................................... 124

3.9 Human Resouce Plan............................................................................................................ 125

4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing Up

for FY 2017-18 ......................................................................................................................................... 130

4.1 Truing-up for FY 2017-18 ...................................................................................................... 130

4.1.1 Sales ......................................................................................................................................... 131

4.1.2 Distribution Losses ................................................................................................................. 144

4.1.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges) ............................................ 146

4.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses ..................................................................... 148

4.2 Cost of Assets and Financing .............................................................................................. 157

4.2.1 Capital cost of Original Assets ............................................................................................... 157

4.2.2 Financing of Capital Cost ....................................................................................................... 159

4.2.3 Provisions for Bad and Doubtful Debts ................................................................................ 164

4.2.4 Interest on Working Capital (IoWC) ..................................................................................... 167

4.2.5 Return on Equity ..................................................................................................................... 169

iv

4.2.6 Non Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 170

4.3 Tariff Revenue ....................................................................................................................... 171

4.4 Sharing of Gains and Losses ................................................................................................ 174

4.5 ARR and Revenue for FY 2017-18 ........................................................................................ 176

5. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on MYT

Period for Third Control Period ........................................................................................................... 178

5.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 178

5.2 Sales ....................................................................................................................................... 178

5.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory ............................................................................................... 179

5.4 Aggregate Revenue Requirement ......................................................................................... 180

5.5 Power Purchase Cost ............................................................................................................ 181

5.5.1 Cost of Power Purchase.......................................................................................................... 182

5.6 Transmission Charges .......................................................................................................... 188

5.6.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges Payable to PGCIL ........................................................... 188

5.6.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL .......................................................... 189

5.6.3 Transmission Charges ............................................................................................................ 190

5.7 SLDC Charges ....................................................................................................................... 190

5.8 Water tax ............................................................................................................................... 190

5.9 GFA and Additional Capitalisation ................................................................................... 190

5.9.1 GFA base for FY 2018-19 ........................................................................................................ 190

5.9.2 Capitalisation during the third Control Period .................................................................... 191

5.10 Means of Finance .................................................................................................................. 191

5.11 Interest and Finance Charges ............................................................................................... 192

5.11.1 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 195

5.11.2 Operation and Maintenance expenses .................................................................................. 196

5.11.3 Interest on Working Capital................................................................................................... 204

5.11.4 Return on Equity .................................................................................................................... 206

5.11.5 Income Tax .............................................................................................................................. 207

5.11.6 Provision for Bad and doubtful debts ................................................................................... 208

5.11.7 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................................................. 210

5.11.8 Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20 ................................................................................... 211

5.11.9 Revenue at Existing Tariff ...................................................................................................... 211

5.11.10 Revenue Gap for FY 2019-20 at existing Tariff ..................................................................... 212

v

6. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues....................................................... 213

6.1 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2019-20 .................................................. 213

6.1.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 213

6.1.2 Petitioner’s Proposals ............................................................................................................. 213

6.1.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures .................................................... 216

6.1.4 Treatment of Revenue Gap .................................................................................................... 235

6.1.5 Cross Subsidy .......................................................................................................................... 236

6.1.6 Category-wise Tariff Design .................................................................................................. 236

6.1.7 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff ................................................................................................... 238

6.1.8 RTS-3: Government Public Utilities ....................................................................................... 239

6.1.9 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump Setsand Agriculture Allied Activities ........................... 239

6.1.10 RTS-5: Industry ....................................................................................................................... 240

6.1.11 RTS-7: Railway Traction ......................................................................................................... 241

6.2 Revenue for FY 2019-20 ........................................................................................................ 242

6.3 Cross Subsidy ........................................................................................................................ 242

6.4 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................ 244

7. Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL ......................................................................... 248

7.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 248

7.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 .................................................................. 250

7.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 ....................................................... 251

7.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 ............................................................... 253

7.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance ............................ 254

7.2.1 Metering .................................................................................................................................. 256

7.2.2 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective meters (referred to as

Identified defective meters (IDF)) .......................................................................................... 258

7.2.3 Billing....................................................................................................................................... 261

7.2.4 Billing and Bill Collection System.......................................................................................... 267

7.3 Energy Audit ......................................................................................................................... 271

7.4 AT&C Losses ......................................................................................................................... 272

7.5 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Financial Performance ................................. 277

7.5.1 Liquidity Ratio ........................................................................................................................ 277

7.5.2 Solvency Ratio ......................................................................................................................... 281

7.5.3 Profitability Ratio .................................................................................................................... 282

7.5.4 Operating or Activity Ratio .................................................................................................... 284

vi

7.5.5 Efficiency Ratio ....................................................................................................................... 288

7.5.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 291

8. Commission’s Directives ............................................................................................................ 293

8.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 dated March 21, 2018293

8.1.1 Performance Report ................................................................................................................ 293

8.1.2 Sales ......................................................................................................................................... 293

8.1.3 Load Shedding ........................................................................................................................ 294

8.1.4 AT&C Losses........................................................................................................................... 295

8.1.5 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost ..................................................................................... 295

8.1.6 Fixed Assets Register .............................................................................................................. 297

8.1.7 Bad &Doubtful Debts ............................................................................................................. 297

8.1.8 Reliability Indices ................................................................................................................... 298

8.1.9 Voltage wise Cost of Supply .................................................................................................. 298

8.1.10 Demand Side Management Measures ................................................................................... 299

8.1.11 Deficit/Surplus Power ........................................................................................................... 300

8.1.12 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF ....................................................................................... 301

8.1.13 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters ....... 302

8.1.14 Replacement of Mechanical Meters ....................................................................................... 302

8.1.15 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers ................................................................................................. 303

8.1.16 NB & SB Cases ........................................................................................................................ 303

8.1.17 Outstanding Arrears............................................................................................................... 304

8.1.18 Status of KCC Consumers ...................................................................................................... 304

8.1.19 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold .......................................................................... 305

8.1.20 Billing and Collection System ................................................................................................ 306

8.1.21 Transfer of Distribution Business from UJVN Ltd. to UPCL ............................................... 307

8.1.22 Departmental Employees ....................................................................................................... 308

8.1.23 Location of Installation of Meters .......................................................................................... 309

8.1.24 Transfer of Petitioner’s Personnel ......................................................................................... 309

8.1.25 Water Tax ................................................................................................................................ 310

8.1.26 Open Access Charges ............................................................................................................. 310

8.1.27 Tariff Hike ............................................................................................................................... 310

8.1.28 Service Charge from consumers on payment of bills ........................................................... 311

8.1.29 Metering & Billing .................................................................................................................. 311

8.1.30 Departmental Employees ....................................................................................................... 312

vii

8.1.31 Temporary Connection........................................................................................................... 312

8.1.32 Views of State Advisory Committee ..................................................................................... 312

8.1.33 Cost of Free Power .................................................................................................................. 313

8.1.34 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 313

8.1.35 Bad Debt .................................................................................................................................. 313

8.1.36 Impact of VII Pay Commission .............................................................................................. 313

8.1.37 Additional A&G Expenses ..................................................................................................... 314

8.1.38 Adjustment of Free Power ..................................................................................................... 314

8.1.39 Consumer Mix ........................................................................................................................ 314

8.1.40 Conductor Augmentation ...................................................................................................... 315

8.1.41 Inventory Management .......................................................................................................... 315

8.2 Fresh Directives .................................................................................................................... 316

8.2.1 Scrutiny of KCC Data ............................................................................................................. 316

8.2.2 Scrutiny of KCC Data ............................................................................................................. 316

8.2.3 Procurement of Deficit Energy .............................................................................................. 316

8.2.4 Depreciation ............................................................................................................................ 317

8.2.5 Bad and Doubtful Debts ......................................................................................................... 317

8.2.6 Power Pruchase Plan to meet the Deficit .............................................................................. 317

8.2.7 Details for changing the threshold level for applicability of kVah based tariff for LT

Industry and Non-Domestic Category .................................................................................. 317

8.2.8 Miscellaneous Charges ........................................................................................................... 318

8.2.9 Replacement of Mechanical Meters ....................................................................................... 318

8.2.10 Energy Audit ........................................................................................................................... 318

8.2.11 Analysis of Current Liabilities ............................................................................................... 318

8.2.12 Average Collection Period ..................................................................................................... 318

8.2.13 Collection Efficiency Ratio ..................................................................................................... 319

8.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 319

9. Annexures ..................................................................................................................................... 320

9.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2019 ........................................................ 320

9.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges ................................................................ 344

9.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice .................................................................................................... 345

9.4 Annexure 4: List of Respondents ......................................................................................... 348

9.5 Annexure 5: List of Participants in Public Hearings ......................................................... 351

viii

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Publication of Notice ................................................................................................................. 6

Table 1.2: Schedule of Hearings ................................................................................................................. 6

Table 2.1: Tariff hike proposed by UPCL in Domestic Category .......................................................... 14

Table 2.2: Rebate allowed by Commission in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19........................................... 33

Table 2.3: Power purchase cost of various Utilities across India........................................................... 39

Table 2.4: Distribution loss trajectory proposed by UPCL .................................................................... 52

Table 2.5: Performance of UPCL in handling Distribution Losses........................................................ 53

Table 2.6: Power purchase cost of various utilities across India ........................................................... 70

Table 3.1: Actual consumer category wise sales for FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18 (MU) .......................... 87

Table 3.2: Computed CAGR of Sales as submitted by the Petitioner ................................................... 88

Table 3.3: Consumer Category wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 3.4: Consumer Category wise connected load projected by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY

2021-22 (kW) ...................................................................................................................................... 91

Table 3.5: Consumer Category wise number of consumers projected by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20

to FY 2021-22 (Nos.) .......................................................................................................................... 91

Table 3.6: Category Wise Sales Projections for third Control Period (MU) .......................................... 96

Table 3.7: Year wise distribution losses as submitted by the Petitioner ............................................... 96

Table 3.8: Distribution Loss trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ...... 98

Table 3.9: Distribution Losses for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ................................................................. 98

Table 3.10: High Distribution Loss divisions in FY 2017-18 .................................................................. 99

Table 3.11: AT&C Loss Target as per UDAY ........................................................................................ 100

Table 3.12: Distribution Losses for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.............................................................. 100

Table 3.13: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ....................................................................................................... 101

Table 3.14: Collection efficiency trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

.......................................................................................................................................................... 102

Table 3.15: Collection efficiency for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 ............................................................ 102

Table 3.16: Collection Efficiency for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ........................................................... 102

Table 3.17: Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd......................................................................................... 108

ix

Table 3.18: Energy Availability from UJVN Ltd. For FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22(MU) ....................... 108

Table 3.19: Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. ...................................................................................... 109

Table 3.20: Energy Availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU) ..................... 109

Table 3.21: Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. ............................................................................ 110

Table 3.22: Energy Availability at State periphery from THDC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 110

Table 3.23: Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. ....................................................................................... 111

Table 3.24: Energy Availability from NTPC Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 111

Table 3.25: Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd. ........................................................................................ 112

Table 3.26: Energy Availability from SJVN Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 112

Table 3.27: Energy Availability from Existing RE Sources For FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU) ...... 112

Table 3.28: Energy Availability from Vishnu Prayag HEP at State Periphery (State Royalty Power)

for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU) ................................................................................................ 113

Table 3.29: Energy Availability from Sasan UMPP at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-

22(MU) ............................................................................................................................................. 113

Table 3.30: Energy Availability from Kashipur CCPP at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

(MU) ................................................................................................................................................. 114

Table 3.31: Energy Availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY

2021-22 (MU) ................................................................................................................................... 114

Table 3.32: Energy Availability from upcoming generating stations at State periphery for FY 2019-20

to FY 2021-22(MU) .......................................................................................................................... 115

Table 3.33: Energy available from Long Term Sources (MU) ............................................................. 116

Table 3.34: Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO for FY 2019-20 .................................................... 117

Table 3.35: Energy deficit/surplus Scenario for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU) .............................. 118

Table 3.36: Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................................................ 119

Table 3.37: Capitalisation Plan for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs.

Crore) ............................................................................................................................................... 121

Table 3.38: Actual Gross GFA addition of UPCL (Rs. Crore) .............................................................. 122

x

Table 3.39: Capitalisation as % of sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure ......................... 123

Table 3.40: Capital expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ....... 124

Table 3.41: Financing Plan proposed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ..................................................... 124

Table 3.42: Actual funding of capitalisation for FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 ................. 125

Table 3.43: Financing Plan approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............................................... 125

Table 3.44: Employee addition plan proposed by the Petitioner ........................................................ 126

Table 3.45: Retirement over the control period as submitted by the Petitioner ................................. 127

Table 3.46: Category wise employee addition proposed by the Petitioner for the control period ... 128

Table 3.47: HR Plan approved by the Commission .............................................................................. 129

Table 4.1: Break up of Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 (MU) .................................. 131

Table 4.2: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Domestic Category ................................................. 133

Table 4.3: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Domestic Category ........................................................ 134

Table 4.4: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Non-Domestic Category ........................................ 135

Table 4.5: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Non-Domestic Category ................................................ 135

Table 4.6: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for RTS 4 Category ....................................................... 136

Table 4.7: Excess Sales to be disallowed for RTS 4 Category ............................................................... 137

Table 4.8: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Government Irrigation System .............................. 138

Table 4.9: Excess Sales to be disallowed for GIS Category .................................................................. 139

Table 4.10: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Public Water Works ............................................. 140

Table 4.11: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Public Water Works Category .................................... 141

Table 4.12: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for HT Industries ........................................................ 142

Table 4.13: Excess Sales to be disallowed for HT industry .................................................................. 143

Table 4.14: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Mixed Load ........................................................... 143

Table 4.15: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Mixed Load .................................................................. 144

Table 4.16: Category-wise Sales for FY 2017-18 (MU) .......................................................................... 144

Table 4.17: Assessed Distribution Losses for FY 2017-18 (MU) ........................................................... 145

Table 4.18: Power Purchase Cost approved in the Tariff Order Vs Actual Power Purchase Cost for

FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)..................................................................................................................... 146

Table 4.19: Cost of UI Overdrawal for FY 2017-18 ............................................................................... 147

Table 4.20: Power Purchase Cost claimed by UPCL and approved by the Commission for FY 2017-

18 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................................................... 148

xi

Table 4.21: Revised Employee Expenses as claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ............................ 150

Table 4.22: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .............................................. 152

Table 4.23: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...................................................... 153

Table 4.24: List of firms from which services were availed for upkeep of data centres .................... 155

Table 4.25: Revised A&G Expenses submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)..................................... 155

Table 4.26: Expenses booked under A&G expenses (Rs. Crore) ......................................................... 156

Table 4.27: Approved A&G expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 157

Table 4.28: Approved O&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...................................................... 157

Table 4.29: Assets base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ..................................................... 158

Table 4.30: Assets base approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ............................ 159

Table 4.31: Means of Finance for FY 2017-18 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ................. 159

Table 4.32: Means of Finance as approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ............. 159

Table 4.33: Inerest expense on capital loans as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

.......................................................................................................................................................... 161

Table 4.34: Guarantee Fee claimed by the Petitioner in FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ................................ 162

Table 4.35: Basis of computing provisions on account of Guarantee Fee (Rs. Crore) ....................... 162

Table 4.36: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ................................................ 163

Table 4.37: Depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................... 164

Table 4.38: Category wise Bad Debt written off as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) ............ 165

Table 4.39: Ageing schedule of receivables with UPCL as on 31.03.2018 (Rs. Crore) ....................... 166

Table 4.40: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ................................................... 168

Table 4.41: Opening and closing equity for FY 2017-18 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore) 170

Table 4.42: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .................. 170

Table 4.43: Non-tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ................. 171

Table 4.44: Additional Revenue from Sale for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ............................................... 172

Table 4.45: Revenue for FY 2017-18 Corresponding to Assessed Sales .............................................. 172

Table 4.46: Revenue from Sale of Power for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .................................................. 173

Table 4.47: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ............... 173

Table 4.48: Sharing of Gains and Losses for FY 2017-18 claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)........ 174

Table 4.49: Sharing of Gains on Account of Controllable Factors approved by the Commission for

FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................................... 176

xii

Table 4.50: O&M Expenses as Trued up by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ................. 176

Table 4.51: Summary of true up for FY 2017-18 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............. 177

Table 5.1: Category Wise Sales approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from

FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU) 179

Table 5.2: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ....................................................................................................... 179

Table 5.3: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ....................................................................................................... 180

Table 5.4: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase for FY 2019-20 184

Table 5.5: Summary of Power Purchase Cost for FY 2019-20 .............................................................. 185

Table 5.6: Quarterly Power Purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 ........................ 187

Table 5.7: Energy Charges of thermal generating stations for FY 2019-20 ......................................... 188

Table 5.8: Transmission Charges for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................... 190

Table 5.9: GFA base approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ................................. 191

Table 5.10: GFA base approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to

FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)..................................................................................................................... 191

Table 5.11: Details of financing for capitalisation for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore) .................................... 192



Table 5.14: Repayment Schedule for REC old loans (Rs. Crore) ......................................................... 193

Table 5.15: Interest on Loan approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................... 195

Table 5.16: Depreciation approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20

to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................................ 196

Table 5.17: Gn approved by the Commission ....................................................................................... 199

Table 5.18: Employee expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ................................................................................................... 200

Table 5.19: R&M expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................... 201

Table 5.20: A&G expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................... 203

xiii

Table 5.21: O&M Expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ........................................................................................................... 204

Table 5.22: Interest on working capital approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore) .. 206

Table 5.23: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................. 207

Table 5.24: Summary of Non-Tariff Income for last 3 years (Rs Crore) ............................................. 210

Table 5.25: Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore) .......... 211

Table 5.26: Revenue for FY 2019-20 at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) ....................................................... 212

Table 5.27: Revenue Gap for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)............................................................................ 212

Table 6.1: Consumers having load above 10 kW and upto 25 kW (as on Sep 2018) .......................... 217

Table 6.2: Effective Tariff & Cross-subsidy for HT Industry having contracted load 1 kVA ........... 228

Table 6.3: Effective Tariff & Cross-subsidy for HT Industry ............................................................... 232

Table 6.4: Tariff for Domestic Consumers ............................................................................................ 237

Table 6.5: Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas .......................................................................... 238

Table 6.6: Tariff for Non Domestic ........................................................................................................ 239

Table 6.7: Tariff for Government Public Utilities ................................................................................. 239

Table 6.8: Tariff for Private tube Wells/ Pump Sets ............................................................................ 240

Table 6.9: Tariff for LT Industry ............................................................................................................ 240

Table 6.10: Existing, Proposed and Approved Tariff for HT Industries ............................................ 241

Table 6.11: Tariff for Mixed Load .......................................................................................................... 241

Table 6.12: Tariff for Railway Traction.................................................................................................. 242

Table 6.13: Summary of Category Wise Projected Revenue ................................................................ 242

Table 6.14: Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply ......................................................................... 243

Table 6.15: Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 .................................. 243

Table 6.16: Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2019-20 ..................................................................... 246

Table 7.1: Detail of Substations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2018 .................................... 248

Table 7.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2018........................................................ 249

Table 7.3: Increase in Assets of UPCL in last one year (31.12.17 to 31.12.2018) ................................. 249

Table 7.4: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access.............................................................. 252

Table 7.5: Revised Formats prescribed by the Commission vide letter dated 27.11.2014 ................. 255

Table 7.6: Status of Provisional Billing viz. NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF............................................... 257

xiv

Table 7.7: Status of Defective Meters .................................................................................................... 259

Table 7.8: Status of Mechanical Meters ................................................................................................ 261

Table 7.9: Status of NB & SB Cases ....................................................................................................... 262

Table 7.10: Status of Govt. Arrears submitted by the Petitioner ........................................................ 263

Table 7.11: Status of Outstanding Arrears ........................................................................................... 263

Table 7.12: Comparison of Outstanding Amount of Arrears (Rs. Crore) .......................................... 264

Table 7.13: Load Factor of the KCC Consumers ................................................................................... 265

Table 7.14: Status of Revenue Realisation per unit sold ..................................................................... 267

Table 7.15: Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL ........................................................................................ 273

Table 7.16: Division-wise details where Physical Verification Date is at variance from the close of

Financial Year .................................................................................................................................. 287

Table 8.1: Power Purchase for 1st Quarter of FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner ................. 296

Table 8.2: Details of SAIFI, SAIDI & MAIFI for April to September, 2018 ........................................ 298

Table 8.3: Status of Distribution of Energy Efficient Equipment ....................................................... 300

Table 8.4: Details of Banking Arrangement done in FY 2018-19 ........................................................ 300

Table 8.5: Details of arrears as submitted by UPCL ............................................................................ 304

Table 8.6: Status of CSC transactions as submitted by UPCL ............................................................ 307

Table 8.7: Takeover of UJVN Ltd. connections by UPCL .................................................................... 308

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission 1

Before

UTTARAKHAND ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Petition No.: 58 of 2018

And

Petition No.: 57 of 2018

In the Matter of:

Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited for approval of Business Plan for third

Control Period from FY 2019-20 to 2021-22.

AND

In the Matter of:

Petition filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited for determination of ARR of third Control

Period from FY 2019-20 to 2021-22 and Tariff for FY 2019-20.

AND

In the Matter of:

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited

Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun ...............Petitioner

Coram

Shri Subhash Kumar Chairman

Date of Order: February 27, 2019

Section 64(1) read with Section 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to

as “the Act”) requires the Generating Companies and the Licensees to file an application for

determination of tariff before the Appropriate Commission in such manner and along with such fee

as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission through Regulations.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commission had notified

Order on approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff of UPCL for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

2 Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011”) for the first Control

Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 specifying therein terms, conditions and norms of operation

for licensees, generating companies and SLDC. The Commission had issued the MYT Order dated

May 6, 2013 for the Control Period from FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16. In accordance with the

provisions of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2011, the Commission had carried out the Annual

Performance Review for FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 vide its Orders dated April 10, 2014,

April 11, 2015 and April 5, 2016 respectively.

Further, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commission had notified

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Multi

Year Tariff) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015”) for the

second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 specifying therein terms, conditions and

norms of operation for licensees, generating companies and SLDC. The Commission had issued the

Order on approval of Business Plan and Multi Year Tariff dated April 5, 2016 for the Control Period

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. In accordance with the provisions of the UERC Tariff Regulations,

2015, the Commission had carried out the Annual Performance Review for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-

18 vide its Order dated March 29, 2017 and March 21, 2018 respectively.

Further, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commission had notified

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Multi

Year Tariff) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018”) for the

third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 specifying therein terms, conditions and norms

of operation for licensees, generating companies and SLDC. In compliance with the provisions of

the Act and Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 10(1) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, Uttarakhand

Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “UPCL” or “Licensee” or “Petitioner”) filed

separate Petitions for approval of its Business Plan for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to

FY 2021-22 (Petition No. 58 of 2018, hereinafter referred to as the “Business Plan Petition”) and

Multi Year Tariff Petition (Petition Nos. 57 of 2018 hereinafter referred to as the “MYT Petition”) on

November 30, 2018. UPCL, in its Business Plan Petition, has submitted the Capital Investment Plan,

Financing Plan, Human Resources Plan and trajectory of performance parameters for the third

Control Period. Further, through the MYT Petition, UPCL has submitted the detailed calculations of

its projected Aggregate Revenue Requirement for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY


2021-22 in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018. Through the MYT Petition, the

Petitioner has also requested for true up of FY 2017-18 based on the audited accounts in accordance

with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The Business Plan Petition filed by UPCL had certain infirmities/deficiencies which were

informed to UPCL vide Commission’s letter no. UERC/6/TF/504/2018-19/2018/1233 dated

December 6, 2018 and UPCL was directed to rectify the said infirmities in the Petition and submit

certain additional information necessary for admission of the Business Plan Petition. UPCL vide its

letter no. 4393/UPCL/RM/B-20 dated December 12, 2018 submitted most of the information sought

by the Commission. Based on the submission dated December 12, 2018 made by UPCL, the

Commission vide its Order dated December 17, 2018 provisionally admitted the Petition for further

processing with the condition that UPCL shall furnish any further information/ clarifications as

deemed necessary by the Commission during the processing of the Petition within the time frame,

as may be stipulated by the Commission, failing which the Commission may proceed to dispose of

the matter as it deems fit based on the information available with it.

Further, the MYT Petition filed by UPCL also had certain infirmities/deficiencies. The

Commission, accordingly, vide its letter no. UERC/6/TF/503/2018-19/2018/1232 dated December

6, 2018 directed UPCL to rectify these infirmities/deficiencies and to submit certain additional

information necessary for admission of the MYT Petition. UPCL vide its letter no.

4392/UPCL/RM/B-20 dated December 12, 2018 submitted most of the information sought by the

Commission. Based on the submissions dated December 12, 2018 made by UPCL, the Commission

vide its Order dated December 17, 2018 provisionally admitted the MYT Petition, with the condition

that UPCL shall furnish any further information/ clarifications as deemed necessary by the

Commission during the processing of the Petition within the time frame, as may be stipulated by

the Commission, failing which the Commission may proceed to dispose of the matter as it deems fit

based on the information available with it.

This Order, accordingly, relates to the Business Plan Petition and the MYT Petition filed by

UPCL for approval of the Business Plan and determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement

(ARR) for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and Tariff for FY 2019-20 as well

as true up for FY 2017-18 and Annual Performance Review for FY 2018-19, and is based on the

original as well as subsequent submissions made by UPCL during the course of the proceedings.



Tariff determination being the most vital function of the Commission, it has been the

practice of the Commission to elaborate in detail the procedure and to explain the underlying

principles in determination of tariffs. Accordingly, in the present Order also, in line with past

practices, the Commission has tried to elaborate the procedure and principles followed by it in

determining the ARR of the licensee. For the sake of convenience and clarity, this Order has further

been divided into following Chapters:

Chapter 1 - Background and Procedural History

Chapter 2 - Stakeholders’ Objections/suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses & Commission’s

Views

Chapter 3 - Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on

Business Plan for third Control Period.

Chapter 4- Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on

Truing up for FY 2017-18

Chapter 5 - Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on

APR for FY 2018-19 and ARR for MYT Period for third Control Period of FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22.

Chapter 6 –

Chapter 7 -

Chapter 8 -

Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and related issues

Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL

Commission’s Directives


1. Background and Procedural History

In accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act 2000 (Act 29 of

2000), enacted by the Parliament of India on August 25, 2000, the State of Uttaranchal came into

existence on November 9, 2000. Section 63(4) of the above Reorganization Act allowed the

Government of Uttaranchal (hereinafter referred to as “GoU” or “State Government”) to constitute

a State Power Corporation at any time after the creation of the State. GoU, accordingly, established

the Uttaranchal Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) under the Companies Act, 1956, on February

12, 2001 and entrusted it with the business of transmission and distribution in the State.

Subsequently, from April 1, 2001, all works pertaining to the transmission, distribution and retail

supply of electricity in the area of Uttaranchal were transferred from UPPCL to UPCL, in

accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated March 13, 2001, signed between the

Governments of Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh. On May 31, 2004, GoU first vested all the interests,

rights and liabilities related to Power Transmission and Load Despatch of “Uttaranchal Power

Corporation Limited” into itself and, thereafter, re-vested them into a new company, i.e. “Power

Transmission Corporation of Uttaranchal Limited”, now renamed as “Power Transmission

Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited” after change of name of the State. Since then Uttarakhand

Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) a company wholly owned by the Government of Uttarakhand

became the sole distribution licensee engaged in the business of distribution and retail supply of

power in the State of Uttarakhand.

The Commission vide its Order dated May 6, 2013 issued the Order on approval of Business

Plan for UPCL for the first Control Period FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 and Tariff for FY 2013-14.

Further, the Commission had issued the Tariff Orders for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 vide its Orders

dated April 10, 2014 and April 11, 2015 respectively.

The Commission vide its Order dated April 5, 2016 issued the Order on approval of Business

Plan for UPCL for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and Tariff for FY 2016-

17. Further, the Commission had issued the Tariff Orders for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 vide its

Orders dated March 29, 2017 and March 21, 2018 respectively.

As mentioned earlier also, in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and

Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 10(1) of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, UPCL is required to



submit Business Plan Petition and MYT Petition for determination of its ARR by November 30,

2018. UPCL in compliance to the Regulations submitted the Business Plan Petition and MYT

Petition for determination of ARR for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and

Tariff for FY 2019-20 along with the True up for FY 2017-18 on November 30, 2018.

The Business Plan Petition and MYT Petition were provisionally admitted by the

Commission vide two separate Orders dated December 17, 2018. The Commission, through its

above Admittance Order dated December 17, 2018, to provide transparency to the process of tariff

determination and give all the stakeholders an opportunity to submit their objections/suggestions

/comments on the proposals of the Distribution Licensee, also directed UPCL to publish the salient

points of its Petitions in the leading newspapers. The salient points of the Petitions were published

by the Petitioner in the following newspapers:

Table 1.1: Publication of Notice S.No. Newspaper Name Date Of Publication

1. Amar Ujala 20.12.2018 2. Dainik Jagran 20.12.2018 3. Times of India 20.12.2018 4. Hindustan (Hindi) 20.12.2018 5. Hindustan Times 20.12.2018 & 21.12.2018 6. Indian Express 20.12.2018 & 21.12.2018

Through above notice, the stakeholders were requested to submit their

objections/suggestions/comments latest by 31.01.2019 (copy of the notice is enclosed as Annexure

3). The Commission received in all 43 objections/suggestions/comments in writing on the Petition

filed by UPCL. The list of stakeholders who have submitted their

objections/suggestions/comments in writing is enclosed as Annexure-4.

Further, for direct interaction with all the stakeholders and public at large, the Commission

also held public hearings on the proposals filed by the Petitioner at the following places in the State

of Uttarakhand.

Table 1.2: Schedule of Hearings S. No Place Date

1. Srinagar January 29, 2019 2. Dehradun January 31, 2019 3. Almora February 04 2019 4. Rudrapur February 05, 2019

The list of participants who attended the Public Hearing is enclosed at Annexure-5.



The Commission also sent the copies of salient features of tariff petitions to Members of the

State Advisory Committee and the State Government. The salient features of the tariff Petitions

submitted by UPCL were also made available on the website of the Commission, i.e.

www.uerc.gov.in. The Commission also held a meeting with the Members of the Advisory

Committee on February 11, 2019, wherein, detailed deliberations were held with the Members of

the Advisory Committee on the various issues linked with the Petition filed by UPCL.

The objections/suggestions/comments, as received from the stakeholders through

mail/post as well as during the course of public hearing were sent to the Petitioner for its response.

All the issues raised by the stakeholders and Petitioner’s response and Commission’s views thereon

are detailed in Chapter 2 of this Order. In this context, it is also to underline that while finalizing

this Order, the Commission has, as far as possible, tried to address the issues raised by the

stakeholders.

Meanwhile, based on the scrutiny of the Petition submitted by UPCL, the Commission vide

its letter no. UERC/6/TF-504/2018-19/2018/1332 & letter no. UERC/6/TF-503/2018-19/2018/1331

dated December 21, 2018, pointed out certain data gaps in the Petitions and sought following

additional information/clarifications from the Petitioner:

Business Plan Petition

• Revised format after inter-linking the same within various forms of the Formats.

• Submit whether the Petitioner has entered into any agreement or signed any MoU for power procurement from upcoming stations along with a copy of such agreement/MoU.

• Methodology adopted for projecting the demand of 2,01,788 consumers under SAUBGHAGYA Scheme.

• Detailed justification for projecting procurement of short term power during the third Control Period.

• Monthly estimate of the power availability to meet Base load and peak load requirement for the third Control Period.

• Present status of actual number of unelectrified households.



• Supporting documents including commitment of State Government for equity contribution, if any, and Lender's Commitment, cost/benefit analysis, alternatives considered etc.

• Existing and projected Wires Availability as well as Supply Availability for the Control Period.

• Confirm that the Capital Investment Plan submitted is in conformity with the perspective plan made by the STU.

• Year wise details of balance posts which it intends to fill during the third Control Period.

• Category wise monthly load shedding carried out in FY 2017-18.

• Category wise pending applications for new connections as on 30.11.2018.

• Category wise bifurcation of sales booked on metered and assessment basis for FY 2017-18.

• Distribution Circle/Division wise status of Defective Meters as on 30.11.2018.

• Status of PPA with SECI for procurement of power as submitted in the Business Plan.

• Division wise actual Distribution Losses for FY 2017-18.

• Review Report identifying the capital expenditure need for its various operational Circles/Divisions.

MYT Petition

• Audited statement of Accounts for FY 2017-18.

• Resubmit all the Formats using formulae and appropriately link the same to the relevant formats for ensuring consistency and accuracy of the data submitted.

• Submission of duly filled excel formats along with the break-up of actual for H1 (April -September) and estimated for H2 (October – March) for FY 2018-19.

• Proposed tariff hike in terms of percentage for each consumer category for FY 2019-20 to meet the projected revenue gap.

• Justify the proposed tariff hike in terms of reduction of cross-subsidy between various consumer categories, in accordance with the provisions of the EA, 2003, Tariff Policy and previous Orders of the Commission.



• Submit table indicating the existing and proposed category wise cross subsidy, in view of the proposed tariff revision.

• Submit all the relevant information along with the supporting documents for substantiating the actual expenses incurred on account of Water Tax, for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 along with its proposals for True up for FY 2017-18.

• Provide the status & details of expected COD of new stations considered with supporting documents to substantiate the same.

• Voltage-wise cost of supply for Current year and FY 2019-20, and the Cross-subsidy w.r.t. voltage wise cost of supply.

• Segregate the additions of fixed assets into HT & LT works and submit the Clearance from the Electrical Inspector for capitalisation of various HT/EHT schemes for FY 2017-18.

• Status of the works (financial as well as physical progress) for the capital expenditure incurred during the Control Period ending 31.03.2019.

• Details of Bad Debts written off by it.

• Audited COMDATA for FY 2017-18 and for April 2018 to November 2018.

• Actual bills pertaining to power procurement from Central Thermal Generating Stations for the month of September 2018 to November 2018.

• Amount of Grant received from the Central and State Government for FY 2017-18 and for FY 2018-19 (Till Nov).

• Opening amount of Consumer Security Deposit, addition/adjustment of CSD during the year and closing CSD for FY 2017-18.

• Copy of vouchers corresponding to payments of Rs. 10.78 Crore made towards upkeep and maintenance of data centre.

So as to have better clarity on the data filed by the Petitioner and to remove inconsistency in

the data, a Technical Validation Session (TVS) was also held with the Petitioner’s officers on January

9, 2019, for further deliberations on certain issues related to the Petition filed by UPCL. Minutes of

above Technical Validation Session were sent to the Petitioner vide Commission’s letter no.

UERC/6/TF-503/2018-19/2019/1398 dated January 10, 2019, for its response.



The Petitioner submitted the replies to the data gaps and clarifications sought during TVS

vide its letter no. letter no. 07/UPCL/RM/B-20 dated 02.01.2019, letter no. 06/UPCL/RM/B-20

dated January 02, 2019 and 164/UPCL/RM/B-20 dated January 18, 2019. The submissions made by

UPCL in the Petition as well as additional submissions have been discussed by the Commission at

appropriate places in the Order along with the Commission’s views on the same.


2. Stakeholders’Objections/Suggestions, Petitioner’s Responses and Commission’s Views

The Commission has received suggestions and objections on UPCL’s Petition for True-up for

FY 2017-18, Annual Performance Review of FY 2018-19, Approval of Business Plan for next Control

Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-21 andApproval of Annual Revenue Requirement and Tariff for

FY 2019-20. The Commission also obtained responses from UPCL on the comments received from

the stakeholders.

Since, several issues are common and have been raised by more than one Respondent all the

comments have been clubbed issue-wise and are summarised below.

2.1 General

2.1.1 Compliance to Regulations/Directions of Commission

2.1.1.1 Stakeholder’s Comments

Shri Ram Kumar of Mussoorie Hotels Association submitted that the exercise of determining

annual tariff was unjust and the tariff should be revised at least after 3 years.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that the Petitioner did

not submit the segregation of data for domestic consumers, MSME and large industries in lieu of

which the Petition should be dismissed.

2.1.1.2 Petitioner’s Reply

The Petitioner submitted that with a view to estimate the tariff closer to the actual cost of

supply, it is necessary to determine the tariff every year.

The Petitioner submitted that as a part of the current tariff proceedings, the Petitioner has

filed the MYT Tariff Petition along with the Business Plan for the third Control Period. For each

year, the Petitioner has provided detailed data on number of consumers, connected load, energy

sales, revenue for each tariff category in the tariff petition along with further details furnished as a

part of the distribution formats.



2.1.1.3 Commission’s Views

As per the provisions of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Multi Year

Tariff) Regulations, 2018, the tariff for the ensuing year is determined every year based on the true-

up of the ARR of previous year for which latest audited accounts are available and the latest power

purchase costs. Further, the tariff is determined on the basis of normative parameters and expenses

are allowed only after carrying out due prudence check.

The Petitioner in its Petition has provided category-wise information on sales, number of

consumers and connected/contracted load.

2.2 Overall Tariff Increase


Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand, Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of

Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd., Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd.,

Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Shri Pawan Agrawal

of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association, Shri Suresh Kumar of Sitarganj Sidcul Industries

Welfare Association, Shri Ganga Prasad Agrahari of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Shri

Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd., Shri R.K Singh of Tata Motors Ltd., Shri Raj Kumar

Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Private Limited, Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd.,

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals, Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of PSR

Innovations LLP, Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari of Uttarakhand Lok Vahini, Shri Arvind Jain, Shri Y. S.

Pawar have submitted that tariff hike proposed by UPCL in categories like Domestic, Public Water

Works, LT & HT Industry and Mixed load along with the tariff hike proposed by UJVN Ltd. and

PTCUL are exorbitant and unjustified.

Shri Naval Duseja of Flex Foods Limited submitted that if the tariff is increased from the

existing level the sustainability of food business will be affected adversely and requested the

Commission not to approve any tariff hike.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that the tariff hike of

26% proposed by the Petitioner is exorbitantly high, which further increases to 42.8%, on

consideration of impact of gap submitted by all the utilities. He further submitted that as the

industrial load in the State is on the rise, only a nominal tariff increase should be approved which



will suffice UPCL to meet the additional expenditure proposed by the Petitioner.

Shri Kishan Gopal Behl of AICC Uttarakhand, Shri Ganga Prasad Agrahari of Indian Drugs

& Pharmaceuticals Limited, Shri Anil Marwah of Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association, M/s

BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. have submitted that revenue shortfall should be met by measures like

check on in-efficiency and losses at various fronts instead of increase in tariff.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd submitted that tariff

should be reduced as repeated hikes not only affect the viability of industry but also effects

generation of revenue thereby reduction in payment of taxes and ultimately affecting the economy

at large.

Smt. Gita Bisht of District Congress Committee submitted that UPCL has been showing

losses every year in order to propose a tariff hike and the proposed tariff hike should not be allowed

by the Commission.

Shri Khemchand Gupta of Bharatiya Janata Party submitted that the proposed tariff hike by

UPCL shall inadvertently impact the consumers who get the electricity for the first time through the

SAUBHAGYA Scheme and, therefore, special measures should be undertaken to ensure that these

consumers are not burdened.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of PSR Innovations LLP submitted that UPCL should concentrate

on reduction of its A&G expenses, in order to meet the revenue requirement at existing tariff.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that UPCL has not

acted in public interest and the only intention of their petition is to get the tariff increased somehow

which will put additional burden on the consumers. He further submitted that power tariff can not

be subjected to cyclic ups and down as it is very important parameter of growth.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that it has become a regular feature

that generating and distributing companies are often filing petitions with UERC to escalate power

tariff owing to their rise in expenditure. These unexpected petitions for tariff hike have created a

feeling of strong resentment amongst manufacturing units as they are already burdened with rise in

oil prices and it is becoming impossible to sustain growth and retain the market.

Shri Manoj Joshi of Nagar Palika Parishad, Almora, Shri Amar Singh Karki have submitted

that Uttarakhand is known as Urja Pradesh and electricity is being generated through hydro plants



developed in the rivers of Uttarakhand. Therefore, there is no question of tariff hike in Uttarakhand.

M/s Hero MotoCorp Ltd. submitted that there has been a hike of 16.2% in power tariff in the

last 3 years and the Petitioner in the instant Tariff Petition has proposed a further tariff hike which

makes overall hike of 31%, which should not be allowed.

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that the Fixed charges

should be imposed only on those consumers where the establishments/houses are not consuming

any electricity or do so for a temporary duration.

Shri Shyam Lal Shah submitted that the revenue gap if any should not be passed onto the

consumer and should be recovered through State support.


The Petitioner submitted that being a commercial organization it is required to meet its

Annual Revenue Requirement out of the revenue realized from the consumers through electricity

tariffs. The revenue deficit for FY 2019-20 at existing tariff has been estimated at Rs. 883.41 Crore for

which an overall tariff hike of 13.71% is required. Justification has been provided in the Petition in

respect of each claim of expenditure. Further, additional information has also been provided to the

Commission as per their direction. The current MYT Tariff Petition along with True-up for FY 2017-

18 has been filed in accordance with UERC MYT Regulations, 2015 and 2018.

As regards the increasing losses, the Petitioner submitted that as against the average tariff

hike of 13.71%, a tariff hike of 6.24% for Domestic, 14.28% for Non Domestic, 14.13% for PTW,

14.02% for LT Industry and 16.04% for HT Industry has been proposed. In domestic category

overall tariff hike is 6% and slab wise proposed hike is as follows:

Table 2.1: Tariff hike proposed by UPCL in Domestic Category Slab of Consumer Category Proposed Tariff Hike

Up to 100 units per month 3% 101 – 200 units per month 4% 201 – 400 units per month 7% Above 400 units per month 10%

As regards ongoing investigation, the Petitioner submitted that the financial statements of

the Company are audited by an auditor appointed under Companies Act, 2013 and by the team of

Comptroller and General of India every year. Further, all procurement of goods and services is



done as per the procedure specified in Uttarakhand (Procurement) Rules, 2017 and all the

procurements are also audited by the above authorities.

Regarding the request to scrap fixed charges, the Petitioner submitted that section 45(3) of

the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates for imposition of Fixed Charge in addition to the Energy Charge

for electricity supplied. Irrespective of the actual consumption of energy, UPCL is required to be

ready to supply energy according to the contracted load of the consumer. For this purpose, a certain

amount of expenditure has necessarily to be incurred by UPCL which is not related to energy

consumed but related to the contracted load of the consumer. The recovery of this amount should

be done through demand / fixed charges whether or not the consumer consumes electricity. The

total cost of UPCL may be segregated into power purchase cost and other costs. The other costs

should be recovered through fixed/demand charges.


The Commission is of the view that the overall tariff increase is a function of projected

Annual Revenue Requirement for the ensuing year (including impact of truing up of expenses and

revenue for previous year) and projected revenue at existing tariffs. The Commission has carried

out the detailed scrutiny of ARR for FY 2019-20 and truing up for FY 2017-18 in accordance with the

provisions of the relevant Regulations as discussed in subsequent Chapters of the Order and as an

outcome of scrutiny, the Commission has approved a marginal tariff increase as discussed in

Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.3 Domestic Tariff


Shri Raghunath Singh Negi of Jan Sangharsh Morcha, Uttarakhand requested the

Commission to not allow the proposed tariff hike of 13.8% for Domestic category, in view of their

low paying capacity.

Smt. Rashmi Agrawal has submitted that Demand Charges and Energy charges should not

be increased by 6% to 11% and 4% to 12% respectively as these are already too high. She further

submitted that tax payers should not be penalized by increasing tariffs and instead concerned

authorities should keep check on the theft and line losses.



Smt. Tanuja Joshi submitted that the Fixed charges of Domestic Consumers in the state of

Uttarakhand are very high as compared to the fixed charges prevailing in the State of Himachal

Pradesh, wherein only Rs. 60/month are charged for all the slabs unlike the different Fixed Charges

for different slabs in Uttarakhand despite both the States having similar geography and almost

equal consumer base. She further submitted that the fixed cost should be fixed at the same level for

all the slabs and whatever gap arises due to this may be adjusted in the Industrial category.

Shri Kishan Gopal Behi of AICC Uttarakhand submitted that supply to domestic consumers

should not be pooled with commercial users, which includes an element of profit as well.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma has submitted that Energy Charges under RTS-1 Category for the

slabs 0-100 and 100-200 Units should be enhanced in proper ratio otherwise it will promote theft of

electricity. He also submitted that Maximum demand violation provisions must also be introduced

in domestic category. He requested the Commission to reduce the Fixed Charges for the Domestic

consumers.

Shri Tika Singh Saini of Bharatiya Kisan Union submitted that the prices of Domestic

category are already high and, therefore, the tariff hike proposed by UPCL should not be allowed.

He further submitted that the FCA charges and fixed charges should be abolished.

Shri Amar Singh Karki, Shri Navin Chandra Joshi, Shri P. S Mehra of Sevanivrit Kendriya

Karmachari Kalyan Samithi, Almora, Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari of Uttarakhand Lok Vahini have

submitted that the bill of Domestic consumers should not contain any other charges like surcharge

and fixed charges other than electricity consumption charges.

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that Domestic consumers

are using electricity for commercial purposes. This should be inspected by UPCL as this would lead

to additional revenue recovery.

Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari of Uttarakhand Lok Vahini submitted that the domestic

consumers of hilly terrain should be given free of cost or be charged a nominal rate for electricity

consumed as the natural habitat was destroyed because of hydro electric projects.

Shri Shyam Lal Shah submitted that electricity consumers in hilly terrain should get

subsidized electricity considering the provision of special treatment in Section 62(3) of Electricity

Act 2003 and previous entitlement of 50% hill subsidy till FY 2003-04. He further submitted that



connections of 2 kW load should be brought under RTS I in entire State as currently it is applicable

to urban consumers.





which an overall tariff hike of 13.71% is required. As against average tariff hike of 13.71%, a tariff

hike of 6% for Domestic consumers has been proposed. Further, lower tariff hike has been proposed

for consumers having low consumption in domestic category, as follows:

a) No tariff hike has been proposed for BPL consumers.

b) Only 3% tariff hike has been proposed for the consumers having consumption up to 100

units per month.

c) 4% tariff hike has been proposed for the consumers having consumption between 101 -

200 units per month.

d) 7% tariff hike has been proposed for the consumers having consumption between 201 -

400 units per month.

e) 10% tariff hike has been proposed for the consumers having consumption above 400

units per month.

The Petitioner further submitted that tariff of Domestic Category (Rs. 4.19/ unit) is only 72%

of average cost of supply and tariff of BPL category (Rs. 1.96/unit) is only 34% of the average cost of

supply.

The Petitioner further submitted that the total cost of UPCL may be segregated into power

purchase cost and other costs. The other cost is about 10% to 15% of total cost and fixed in nature.

This cost has necessarily to be incurred by UPCL and is not related to the energy consumed, but is

related to the contracted load of the consumers. Thus, this cost needs to be recovered through

fixed/demand charges and does not correlate to timely payments.

Regarding the Fixed Charges in Domestic Category the Petitioner submitted that the

Commission vide its Order dated 11-04-2015 had introduced fixed charges for domestic consumer



based on consumption. This was done considering the comments of all stakeholders during the

public hearings. Earlier fixed charges were based on contracted load. The consumption based fixed

charges are more reflective of costs incurred to supply electricity to the consumers and reduce cross

subsidy available to the consumers of this category who have higher consumption as they are

affluent consumers and should be paying the cost of supplying electricity to them.

Regarding the FCA charges, the Petitioner submitted that Section – 62 (4) of the Electricity

Act, 2003 mandate the imposition of Fuel Charge Adjustment for recovery of additional power

purchase cost over and above the approved power purchase cost. Accordingly, FCA is being

charged by the Petitioner only when the actual power purchase cost in any quarter is more than the

approved/considered power purchase cost for that quarter in the Tariff Order.

Regarding misuse of domestic connections, the Petitioner submitted that checking of such

connections is done by the field units as well as vigilance cell established at Corporate Office of

UPCL. Action is taken against the consumers who are found to use the electricity for any purpose

other than the purpose for which electricity is allowed to them.

As regards Maximum demand violation, the Petitioner submitted that the Commission may

take a view in the matter.

Regarding covering of consumers with load up to 2 kW under RTS-1 category, the Petitioner

submitted that as per Section – 61(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Tariff should progressively

reflect the cost of supply of electricity and also reduce cross subsidies. In case consumers of all other

categories having load upto 2 kW are billed in domestic category, the level of cross subsidy will

increase and the consumers of subsidizing categories shall be transferred to subsidized category

which is against the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. The Petitioner further submitted that the

domestic category consumers having load upto 2 kW and monthly consumption upto 200 units per

month are allowed to use some portion of his premises for non-domestic purposes.


As discussed earlier, based on the ARR for FY 2019-20 including impact of truing up for FY

2017-18, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff with respect to tariff for FY 2018-19

approved vide Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 to meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in

detail in Chapter 6 of the Order.



Further, continuing with the approach adopted in the previous years, the Commission has

attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while designing the tariffs for various categories as

elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order. As regards the special tariff to be provided for consumers in

hilly areas and consumers having lower consumption, the Commission would like to clarify that as

per the existing tariff structure also, the tariff structure for domestic category includes BPL

consumers with consumption upto 60 units/month as a sub-category with a much lower tariff and

also within domestic category, the consumers having consumption upto 100 units per month fall in

the 1st slab with lowest tariff and, hence, there arises no need to provide any separate rebate. For

better understanding, the Rate Schedule (RTS-1) annexed to the Tariff Order can be referred.

2.4 Non-Domestic Tariff


Shri Ram Kumar of Mussoorie Hotels Association submitted that the proposed increase in

tariff for RTS-2 category of consumers having contracted demand above 25 kW from Rs. 5.25/kVAh

to Rs. 6.25/kVAh is exorbitant as they are already paying Electricity duty, Green Energy Cess and

FCA charges over and above the existing tariff. He further submitted that increase in Fixed charges

from Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 is also unjustified considering their increase by approx. 15-20% every year. Few

years back there was no ‘fixed charge’. In due course of time, UPCL introduced this new head and

with increment each year, this charge has increased from Rs. 20 to Rs. 70.

Shri Prem Kashyap of Principals Progressive Schools’ Association, Uttarakhand has

submitted a suggestion that the schools which are doing the yeoman services for the community

upliftment should be charged with the domestic rate as the application of commercial rates on the

schools will have a ripple effect on the running cost of the schools and have implications on the

students and their parents.





which an overall tariff hike of 13.71% is required. As against the average tariff hike of 13.71%, a



tariff hike of 6.24% for Domestic, 14.28% for Non Domestic, 14.13% for PTW, 14.02% for LT Industry

and 16.04% for HT Industry has been proposed.

The Petitioner further submitted that as per the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19, domestic

category applies to the residential premises for domestic purposes and is not applicable for

educational institutions. Rate Schedule RTS-2 (Non-domestic) is applicable for the billing of

educational institutions and a lower tariff as compared to other non-domestic consumers is

applicable on the Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions and Charitable

Institutions. If any educational institution is covered under Rate Schedule RTS – 1 it will be

transferred from subsidizing category to subsidized category which is against the provisions of

Electricity Act, 2003.


The Commission appreciates the views expressed by some of the stakeholders that the tariff

increase should be reasonable. As discussed earlier, based on the approved ARR for FY 2019-20

including impact of truing up for FY 2017-18, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to

meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order.

Further, continuing with the approach adopted in the previous years, the Commission has

attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while designing the tariffs for various categories as

elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.5 Agricultural Tariff


Shri Tika Singh Saini of Bharatiya Kisan Union submitted that Commission should not allow

tariff hike in agricultural tariff as already the existing tariff is high. He further submitted that the

tariff for agricultural pumps without meter used to be Rs. 60 before the formation of State which in

2015 is increased by three times to Rs. 180 and the tariff for Agricultural Pumps with meter has

increased from Rs. 0.60 to Rs. 1.84 which is very high considering the income of farmers.




The Petitioner submitted that UPCL is a commercial organization and is required to meet its



which an overall tariff hike of 13.71% is required. As against the average tariff hike of 13.71%, a

tariff hike of 6.24% for Domestic, 14.28% for Non Domestic, 14.13% for PTW, 14.02% for LT Industry

and 16.04% for HT Industry has been proposed. The Petitioner further submitted that the tariff (Rs.

2.10/unit) of PTW Category has been proposed at only 36% of average cost of supply.

2.5.1.3 Commissions Views

As discussed earlier, based on approved ARR for FY 2019-20 including impact of truing up

for FY 2017-18, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff to meet the projected revenue

gap as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order. Further, continuing with the approach adopted

in previous years, the Commission has attempted to reduce the cross-subsidy while designing the

tariffs for various categories as elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.6 Agriculture Allied Activities


Shri R Meenakshi Sundaram, Secretary, Fisheries Department, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Shri G.

S. Sandhu of Tarai Farm Lands Private Limited have submitted that the Fisheries has been covered

under agricultural category vide GoU’s Order No: 533/XV-3/2016-07(04)/2015, dated 23.12.2016.

They further submitted that farmers involved in Fisheries and using electricity for filling water in

fish ponds & tanks, recirculating pumps and other air circulation devices along with electricity for

hatcheries and laboratories are not getting the benefits of electricity tariff under RTS-4A so far. In

the interest of promoting fisheries in Uttarakhand, the Commission is requested to incorporate

fisheries under tariff RTS-4A.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that tariff for

Mushroom cultivation was given some relief which is completely unjustified. Though the relief is

provided in other States, the subsidy is borne by the State Governments and similarly in

Uttarakhand, the relief should be borne by Uttarakhand Government itself.



Shri G. S. Sandhu of Tarai Farm Lands Private Limited submitted that the vegetable freezing

industry be allowed to select the period for which they wish to surrender the load depending on

their requirement which suits for the crops unlike the current accommodation by Commission

which is only suitable for green peas. He requested that the quantum of power to be surrendered be

determined by the industry rather than by Power Corporation. He further submitted that the food

processing industry be exempted from minimum fixed charges/ power consumption rates which

will go a long way in encouraging and promoting the food processing industry in Uttarakhand.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma submitted that tariff of RTS-4A should be applicable for the farmers

of snowbound areas and not for other farmers (Consumers).


The Petitioner submitted that the category RTS-4A pertains to “Agriculture Allied

Activities” and was created by the Hon’ble Commission vide Tariff Order on Retail Supply Tariff of

UPCL for 2015-16 dated 11th April, 2015. As per the Tariff Order, this schedule currently applies to

supply of power for use in nurseries growing plants/ saplings, polyhouses growing

flowers/vegetables and fruits including Mushroom cultivation which doesn’t involve any kind of

processing of product except for storing and preservation. This category is not applicable for fishery

activities.

The Petitioner further submitted that as per Section – 61 (g) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the

Tariff should progressively reflect the cost of supply of electricity and also reduce cross subsidies.

As per the existing tariff order the fishery activity is covered under Rate Schedule RTS – 7

(Industry) which is subsidizing category whereas the Rate Schedule RTS – 4A is subsidized

category. In case, fishery activity is covered under Rate Schedule RTS – 4A it will be transferred

from subsidizing category to subsidized category which is against the provisions of Electricity Act,

2003. In case State Government wants to give any concession to any category, it may give direct

subsidy to that category as provided under section – 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

As regards relief to Mushroom cultivating industries the Petitioner submitted that the

Commission may take an appropriate decision on the matter.

Regarding surrendering power for seasonal food processing industries, the Petitioner

submitted that seasonal tariffs are applicable on sugar, ice, rice mill, frozen foods and tea as per the



Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 considering the seasonal nature of the same and in case any specific

industry is to be included under seasonal status, justification for the same needs to be provided.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) rates applicable in

the past have been abolished with effect from April 01, 2018 as per the directive of the Commission.


The Commission with regard to inclusion of fishery and dairy farming in RTS-4A category is

of the view that these activities cannot be included in RTS-4A as RTS-4A is a subsidised category

applicable for supply of power for use in nurseries growing plants/saplings, polyhouses growing

flowers/vegetables and fruits including Mushroom cultivation which does not involve any kind of

processing of product except for storing and preservation.

2.7 Industrial Tariff

2.7.1 General


Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that as per Mega

Industrial Policy the Industrial Consumers who expanded the existing capacity are entitled to a

subsidy of Rs. 1 per unit borne by Sidcul/State Government. As per the existing norms one

industrial unit should have a single meter but UPCL was ready to install a submeter and requested

the Commission to devise a mechanism for the same.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission may take an appropriate decision on the

matter.


The Commission is of the view that the issue related to single connection and meter at one

unit is governed by the provisions of Supply Code Regulations and this provision cannot be

changed through the Tariff Order.



2.7.2 Tariff Hike


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd., Shri Suresh Kumar of

Sitarganj Sidcul Industries Welfare Association, Shri Adarsh Jaiswal of Ambuja Cements Ltd., Shri

Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private

Ltd. have submitted that the proposed hike in Fixed Charges in the HT Industries Category with

contracted load above 1000 kVA from Rs. 355 to Rs. 410 should not be allowed as existing Fixed

charges are already high compared to States like Rajasthan (Rs. 185/kVA/Month), Punjab (Rs.

240/kVA/Month) and are almost 126% from FY 2003-04 levels.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that there is a need to

rationalize fixed charges for industries.

Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India

Private Ltd. have submitted that proposed increase in Demand Charges of LT Industries from Rs.

145/kW to Rs. 165/kW should not be allowed.

Shri Adarsh Jaiswal of Ambuja Cements Ltd. have submitted that UPCL has proposed

approx. 17%, 16% & 16% increase in Energy Charge in Normal Hours, Peak Hours & off-peak hours

respectively. This increase in energy charges will heavily impact the consumers and he requested

the Commission to consider minimum increase in Energy Charges which will benefit consumers.

Shri Pawan Agrawal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association submitted that there

should be at least 10% reduction in tariff of Industrial consumers. The State Government is

collecting a Cess/Royalty of Rs. 0.50 per unit for electricity produced by UJVNL which should not

be charged from this year because it is charging Electricity Duty separately and Industrial

consumers are paying Rs. 0.50 per Unit which is twice the amount collected from other categories of

consumers. In this matter he further submitted that State Government is also earning revenue by

sale of Free Power allocated to it, in this scenario the collection of Cess/Royalty is unjustified. He

further submitted that Industrial consumers are entitled to pay Rs. 0.13 per unit in the name of

Green Cess/FCA Charges apart from all the above. He requested the Commission not to allow any

tariff hike for industrial consumers and in lieu requested to increase tariff of other categories except

BPL Connections and direct UPCL to increase efficiencies.



Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd. submitted that the

calculation of billable demand for fixed charge should be on average basis of whole month instead

of peak load of a particular slot of a month.

M/s Hero MotoCorp. Ltd. requested the Commission not to further increase demand

charges.

Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd. submitted that the recent tariff hikes have affected

the operation of the textile sector and as the sector is in overall downfall, he requested to ease their

tariff burden by not allowing the tariff hike along with a rebate of Rs 1.00/ unit and 100%

exemption from electricity duty for the next 7 years in accordance with Point 9(v) of the Order No.

791/VII-1/40-SIIDCUL/2014 dated December 11, 2014. He further submitted that the billable

demand for industrial consumers must be changed from 80% of contracted load to 75% of

contracted load and it should be same as in FY 2018-19.

Shri Anil Marwah of Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association requested the Commission

not to allow any Tariff hike for MSME Sector in both fixed charges and Energy Charges instead, he

requested for a scheme of subsidy or incentive and exempt them from Fixed Charges so that it will

provide relief.


As regards tariff hike in fixed charges, the Petitioner submitted that the total cost of UPCL

may be segregated into power purchase cost and other cost. The other cost is about 10% to 15% of

total cost and fixed in nature. This cost has necessarily to be incurred by UPCL and is not related to

the energy consumed, but which is related to the contracted load of the consumers. Thus, this cost

needs to be recovered through fixed/demand charges. The Petitioner in this Petition proposed to

recover about 15% of its ARR through fixed charges.

For recovery of this fixed cost billable demand has been decided by the Commission as 80%

of the Contracted Load or actual recorded demand during the month, whichever is higher.

Reduction in billable demand from 80% would reduce the recovery of fixed charges which should

be avoided in a mandate of two part tariff. Further, in case demand charges are reduced, the energy

charges will have to be increased in order to have the composite tariff equivalent to the cost of

supply plus required level of cross subsidy. Further, since the distribution network has to be laid



down to meet the peak demand of the consumer, the demand charges are recovered to cover the

system cost to meet the peak.

As regards subsidy for MSME sector, the Petitioner submitted that since UPCL is a

commercial organization, the stakeholder is requested to approach the Government of Uttarakhand

for any special packages/subsidy for relief in electricity tariff applicable.

As regards Cess & Royalty the Petitioner submitted that the Govt. of Uttarakhand vide its

notification no. 601/I(2)/04(1)-1/2017, dated 31-05-2017 and no. 600/I(2)/04(1)-1/2017 dated 31-05-

2017 ordered for imposition and collection of cess (duty) @ 0.30 p/unit and Royalty @ 0.10 p/unit

respectively on the saleable energy generated from those existing hydro power projects of the State

Govt. under UJVNL which are under commercial operation for more than 10 years and whose cost

of electricity generation is not more than Rs. 2/unit. These orders have been effective from 31-05-

2017. The Petitioner has incorporated the cost of cess and royalty for the 3rd Control Period based

on these orders.

As regards Electricity Duty exemption, the Petitioner submitted that as per Section 3 of Uttar

Pradesh Electricity (Duty) Act (Uttarakhand adaptation and modification) Order 2001, State

Government is empowered to fix the rates of Electricity Duty to be charged from various category

of consumers. Government of Uttarakhand vide its notification no. 79/I/2016-01(3)/01/2003, dated

25-01-2016 has fixed these rates applicable w.e.f. 1-01-2016. UPCL is charging electricity duty as per

Government orders. The Electricity duty charged from consumers is payable by UPCL to GoU.

Therefore, the matter may be taken up with GoU.


As discussed earlier, based on the APR for FY 2018-19 including impact of truing up for FY

2017-18, the Commission has marginally increased the tariff with respect to tariff for FY 2018-19

approved vide Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 to meet the projected revenue gap as discussed in

detail in Chapter 5 of the Order. However, there is no tariff increase if the tariff approved in this

Order is compared with the existing tariff approved by the Commission in its Order dated 21

March, 2018.

Further, continuing with the approach adopted in previous years, the Commission has

attempted to reduce the cross subsidy while designing the tariffs for various categories as



elaborated in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.8 Time of Day Tariff


Shri Ganga Prasad Agrahari of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited submitted that

abolition of morning peak hours beyond 8 AM needs to be considered for leaving space of 8 hours

for General Shift working in Industry at normal rates.

Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaun

Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that there is a need to review the

morning peak hours and be done away as in no other hill State except Uttarakhand. They further

submitted that no such higher rates are prevailing in market of open access.

Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari of Uttarakhand Lok Vahini submitted that load shedding

happening at the time of peak hours due to improper surveillance of departmental employees

should be compensated.


The Petitioner submitted that as per para 5.1.3.9 of the Tariff Order dated 21-03-2018, the

Commission observed that the demand during winter starts rising from 6.00 a.m. till it reaches the

peak at about 8.00 a.m. and then starts falling around 9.00 a.m. in the morning and flattens by

around 11.00 a.m. Accordingly, the demand of the consumer cannot be accepted.

The Petitioner submitted that no load shedding has been carried in any area continuously

for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days and the overall load shedding in FY 2017-

18 has been less than 0.5% of the actual energy requirement.


The Commission has analysed the actual daily hourly load curves in the State of

Uttarakhand and has found that apparent morning peak demand exists in the State during winter

months which exceeds the demand in evening peak. The Commission feels the need for Demand

Side Management (DSM) and having ToD tariff as a measure for ensuring curtailment of morning

as well as evening peaks. However, considering the suggestions received during the State Advisory



Committee (SAC) meeting, the Commission has modified the peak hours and off peak hours during

winter season as discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.8.2 Load Factor based Tariff


Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd, Shri Suresh Kumar of Sitarganj

Sidcul Industries Welfare Association, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd.,

Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of

Commerce and Industry have submitted that load factor based tariff applicable for industries is

discriminatory to the equitable principle and needs to be reviewed by the Commission.

M/S BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that Load factor based tariff is completely illegal

and should be abolished immediately.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the

Commission may determine less rates for high load factor and high rates for low load factor to

promote energy consumption by HT industries who are the maximum contributor of revenue to

UPCL.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India

Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd. have submitted that an Industrial consumer

entering into contract with licensee for a certain contracted demand has the right to consume

electricity up to the contracted demand and higher tariff is acceptable for consumption beyond this

limit unlike the existing system in State which penalizes consumers within its contracted demand

till 100% load factor. The justification by Commission in this regard owing to costlier marginal

power defies the logic as orders of UPCL did not provide any data to prove the same proving that

this approach is unscientific and illogical. If the Commission is required to impose load factor based

tariff it should provide telescopic basis for charging incremental consumption beyond specified

load factor limit on higher rates instead of charging the whole consumption at higher energy charge

for particular load factor slab as followed in calculation of income tax by the Income Tax Deptt.

where the assessee enjoys all rates of income tax (10%, 20% & 30%) depending upon his taxable

income.



Shri R.S Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that Load factor based tariff was imposed in

Uttarakhand and some other States when there was shortage of power. However, circumstances

and situation have changed now as India is not a power deficit country. The Committee being

appointed by Government of India consisting of Chairman CEA, Secretary CERC, FICCI President

and Energy Secretary of State of Bihar, Tamilnadu, Gujarat, MP & UP have recommended that India

is power surplus now and power should be given at lower rate to heavy consumers against

traditional view/trend of higher rates for higher consumption designed during power deficit

scenario. He further submitted that State like MP & Maharastra provides lower tariff for higher load

factor & load factor based discounts respectively.

Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd, Shri Suresh Kumar of Sitarganj

Sidcul Industries Welfare Association, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd.,

Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of

Commerce and Industry have submitted that the formula considered by the commission for Load

Factor calculation results in paying of higher energy charges while using 80% of the contracted

demand and needs to be rectified as below. They further submitted that though this fact was

highlighted in earlier hearings but not considered by Commission and the Commission may

reconsider the issue.


The Petitioner submitted that as per section 62(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 tariff may be

differentiated on the basis of consumers load factor. Hence, higher energy charges are levied for

higher consumption due to the fact that each procurement of additional power (marginal power)

has higher cost. Secondly, at higher load factor demand charges per unit is reduced which is the

incentive to the consumer for having higher load factor and average tariff per unit for the

consumers having load factor up to 40% and above 40% is maintained at the same level.

As regards Load Factor formula the Petitioner submitted that it is calculated based on the

actual requirement of load of the consumer. In case maximum demand is lower than the contracted



load, maximum demand (actual requirement) is considered. In case maximum demand is higher

than the contracted load, contracted load is considered because the consumer has contracted this

capacity.


This issue had been dealt in detail by the Commission in the in-house paper issued during

the MYT Order for the second Control Period. Since the marginal cost of power is higher than the

average cost of power, therefore, to have cost reflective tariffs, the energy charges should increase

with load factor. Further, the Commission has deliberated on this issue in detail in Chapter 6 of the

Order.

2.9 Fuel Charge Adjustment


Shri R. K. Singh of Tata Motors Limited submitted that UPCL brings office memo of fuel

charges adjustment and additional energy charges in between the months instead of beginning of

quarter, impacting the power purchase planning and due to this consumers have to pay FCA

charges to UPCL that are not planned at the beginning of the month and at the same time he will

not get power through open access due to wrong estimation of bidding rate.

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that the Fuel Adjustment

Charges are unnecessarily being imposed additionally. If required these should be planned and

incorporated in the overall bills.


The Petitioner submitted that Section 62 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 83 of

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 mandate the imposition of Fuel Charge Adjustment for recovery of

additional power purchase cost over and above the approved power purchase cost. Accordingly,

FCA is being charged by the Petitioner only when the actual power purchase cost in any quarter is

more than the approved/considered power purchase cost for that quarter in the Tariff Order. On

the basis of power purchase cost of previous year, order for imposition of FCA is issued in the next

month of the quarter.




The Commission during the tariff proceedings projects the cost of power purchase on the

basis of past year variable charges which in turn depends upon the fuel cost. The Commission

carries out due diligence while approving the rate of power purchase, however, due to several

unforeseen reasons like fuel price increase, change in royalty and tax structure governing fuel prices

the variable charges of fuel increases which needs to be passed on to the Petitioner as per the

mechanism specified under UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 in accordance with the provisions of the

Act and numerous Judgments of Hon’ble ATE in the matter. The Commission in this Order has

taken due care that the impact of such increase is mitigated to a large extent by taking suitable rate

of increase in variable (fuel) cost.

2.10 Minimum Consumption Guarantee


Shri Pankaj Gupta, President, Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that UPCL

has not projected revenue receipt on account of MCG. As per the past data, this amount is very low

and it causes heavy burden on the consumers paying MCG. It requested that the MCG be removed

in the current Tariff fixation.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Shri Mahendra Pal Singh Rawat have submitted that

the Commission allows MCG charges apart from two-part tariff which clearly indicates that the

Industrial consumers are being burdened to compensate the inefficiency of UPCL in ensuring

proper meter reading and billing of its consumers. Further, the billing data has been claimed by the

licensee to have improved since FY 2008-09 as such the logic which was considered by Commission

to levy MCG does not hold good now and needs to done away.


The Petitioner submitted that the Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) rates

applicable in the past have been abolished with effect from April, 2018 as directed by the

Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19. As a result, the Petitioner has not projected any

revenue on account of MCG for future years.




The Commission has already taken a view in the matter of MCG in Tariff Order dated

21.03.2018, wherein the applicability of MCG was abolished for Industrial category and for Non-

Domestic consumers with effect from April, 2018.

2.11 Rebate and Incentives



Rebate/Incentive should be provided to consumers for Reactive Power Management to encourage

consumer as it off loads UPCL system from Reactive Power. He further submitted to consider

Rebate/Incentive for consumers directly connected to PTCUL substations on account of no or

reduced line losses to UPCL.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd., Shri R.S Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. have

submitted that high voltage rebate should be increased from 7.5% to 10% for consumers connected

at 132 kV or above voltage level as there is negligible T&D losses at higher voltage and requested

the Commission to look into this matter.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the rebates for 33 kV and

132/220 kV consumer needs to be increased from existing levels to 3.0% and 8.5% respectively

owing to low energy loss and infrastructure cost.

M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that voltage rebate for 33 kV customers should be

increased from 2.5% to 5%.

Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd. submitted that voltage rebates for 33 kV and 132/220

kV consumers’ needs to be increased from existing levels to 5.0% and 10% respectively.

Shri Suresh Kumar of Sitarganj Sidcul Industries Welfare Association, Shri Raj Kumar

Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd. have

submitted that voltage rebates for 33 kV and 132/220 kV consumers’ needs to be increased from

existing levels by 1% each.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that either a



separate tariff slab should be defined for HT consumers connected at high voltage or the rebate

should be allowed to compensate the tariff cost. He also submitted that rebate for 33 kV and

132/220 kV consumers’ needs to be increased from existing levels to minimum 7.5% and 15%

respectively.


Regarding Rebate / Incentive for kWh billing for RTS – 5, the Petitioner submitted that the

rates of electricity in kWh billing are the base rates and a power factor is considered for

computation of kVAh rates. However, the Commission may take a view on this request.

Regarding voltage rebate, the Petitioner submitted that as per Tariff Order for FY 2018-19

the Commission has allowed rebate as given in following Table:

Table 2.2: Rebate allowed by Commission in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 S. No. Connected load of Consumer Volatge level Rebate as % of

Energy Charges 1. Up to 75 kW/88 kVA Above 400 V and up to 11 kV 5% 2. Above 75 kW/88 kVA 33 kV 2.5% 3. Above 75 kW/88 kVA 132 kV and above 7.5%

As regards to increase in Rebate for taking supply at higher voltage, the Petitioner submitted

that the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 10th April 2014 revised it from 1.5% to 2.5% and 5% to

7.5% for taking supply at 33 kV and 132 kV and above respectively. Thus, presently there is no

justification for increasing the existing level of High Voltage Rebates.


The Commission in its Order dated April 10, 2014 considering the requests made by various

stakeholders and UPCL’s response on the same had modified the provisions of voltage rebate and

the Commission feels that the provisions of the prevalent voltage rebate are appropriate.

2.12 Projected growth of various Parameters

2.12.1 Energy Sales Forecast





Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that as per actual energy sales data,

licensee has reported the State's energy consumption has a CAGR of 3.5% over the last 5 years from

FY 2013 to FY 2018 and assumed the energy consumption to grow in future with the same trend.

However, the energy sales for LT & HT consumers are projected on the growth rate of 4.15% for LT

industry and 5.0% for HT industry this is apparently overestimated seeing the current trend of

closure of existing industries and decrease in number of upcoming industries. ln this regard they

opined that the growth rate of energy sales may not be more than 3% seeing the current trend for

these categories and 5.0% for other categories. They further submitted that the projected energy

sales for the Control Period needs to be approved, accordingly, on a realistic and rational basis by

the Commission.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that seeing almost stagnation stage

in all categories, CAGR for FY 2018-19 is not likely to hold good for growth in the subsequent years

of the Control Period. As such the CAGR growth rate for FY 2018-19 may be reasonably taken for

the subsequent years to avoid inflated sales and higher power purchase cost affecting the tariff to

consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that in case of RTS-5, LT Industry, increase in connected load

occurred during FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 (i.e. 8%-9%). Accordingly, it projected the sales to this

category to grow at a rate of 3.5% in FY 2018-19 and subsequent years of the third Control Period in

line with the 2 year CAGR. Further, for HT industries, it is observed that the growth in sales during

FY 2017-18 was 6.4% after subdued growth of 3% in FY 17. The high growth in FY 2017-18 was

coupled with load enhancement. Accordingly, the Petitioner has considered 5 year CAGR of 5% for

projecting the sales in this category for FY 2018-19 and subsequent years.


The Commission has duly scrutinised and analysed the sales projected by the Petitioner and

has approved the category-wise sales based on past trends including recent trends and considering

the other factors submitted by the Petitioner and other stakeholders as elaborated in Chapter 5 of

this Order. Further, while approving the actual sales for FY 2017-18 as part of truing up, the



Commission has re-casted the actual sales considering the anamolies in sales and revenue figures as

discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the Order. It has been found that the Petitioner has duly adjusted

the power drawn under open access by industry consumers while projecting the sales in the said

category. The Commission is of the view that for planning purposes, the sales projections should be

based on unrestricted sales and, accordingly, the Commission had projected the unrestricted sales.

The detailed assumptions considered by the Commission for sales projections for various categories

are provided in Chapter 3 of the Order.

2.13 Cross Subsidy


Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that the Commission

should decide the tariff of different consumers in such a way that cross subsidies lie in the range of

±20% only and ensure that tariff is determined based on Commercial principles rather than Social

Welfare.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association also submitted that Domestic

consumers are charged at nominal prices compared to Industrial consumers and the slab wise tariff

is unjustified rather it should have been decided based on the objective of the cross-subsidy

principle. If any State Government agency approaches Commission for reduction of tariff for any

category the subsidy should not be borne by other categories but by the State Government itself.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the cross

subsidies should be eliminated in phased manner instead of being increased every year. He also

submitted that most of the SERCs have taken initiatives for reducing the cross subsidy and

rationalizing the number of consumer categories/slab while also creating new consumer categories

as and when required.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission is regularly reducing the level of cross

subsidy in each Tariff Order.

As regards following of cross subsidy principle, the Petitioner submitted that the

Commission may take an appropriate decision in the matter.




The Commission have been designing the tariffs for previous years with gradual reduction

in cross subsidies and similar approach have been followed while designing the tariffs for FY 2019-

20 as deliberated in Chapter 6 of the Order.

2.14 Continuous Supply


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. has requested the Commission to evaluate the

continuous supply surcharge which is 10% of energy charges and requested to remove the same as

the nation as well as the State is a power surplus State in the current situation.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. has submitted that

continuous supply surcharge is to be removed and UPCL should be penalized for non-delivery of

power to its consumers 24X7 since it is responsibility of UPCL to arrange power for its consumers.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the Commission's order for levy

of 10% additional charge for continuous supply needs to be reconsidered in accordance with the

provisions of the Act and National Tariff Policy.

Regarding the provision of continuous supply to industries on selective basis on Industrial

feeder Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaun

Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that where all the industries

connected on industrial feeder must opt for continuous supply is discriminative and, therefore,

needs to be reviewed by Commission. In this regard they suggested that the non-opting industries

can be restricted to use small percentage of load say 5% for light and fan etc. during restricted hours

while penalty for excess usage and continuous supply surcharge to make them disciplined which

may turn a good source of revenue by way of penalties.

Regarding provision for providing compensation to industry opting continuous supply due

to interruptions in power supply Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri

Ashok Bansal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that there

is a need to define the Continuous Supply in the tariff order/regulations, fix standards for the same

along with a compensation mechanism for the consumers if the prescribed standards of supply are



not met to such consumers opting continuous supply.

Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd and Shri Suresh Kumar of

Sitarganj Sidcul Industries Welfare Association, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India

Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaun Garhwal

Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Shri Adarsh Jaiswal of Ambuja Cements Ltd. have submitted

that with the existing provision in tariff, consumer opting for continuous supply is subjected to 15%

higher energy charge round the year even though load shedding may be warranted for a few weeks

or months in the year. Therefore, if at all such additional charge is to be levied for whole of the year

it should not be more than 5% on the energy charges of the opting consumer.

Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd. submitted that Commission should decrease the

Continuous Supply Surcharge to 7.5% from existing 10% since power supply is adequate.

Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. submitted that Continuous Supply Surcharge should

be reduced to 5% since power supply is adequate and a charge of 10% is vey high. As reducing the

surcharge will result in more consumers opting for continuous supply resulting in increase in

revenue realization to UPCL. He further submitted that no other State charges any additional

amount on account of continuous power supply except Punjab where they are only 10 Paisa per

unit.


The Petitioner submitted that as per Para-8.2.1 (1) of Tariff Policy the consumers willing to

avail continuous and quality power supply are required to pay a tariff which reflects efficient costs.

This is an additional charge (premium) payable by the consumer to have the facility of getting

continuous supply of power. These consumers are exempted from load shedding during

scheduled/unscheduled power cuts and during restricted hours of the period of restriction of

usages approved by the Commission from time to time. However, load shedding required due to

emergency break-down / shut-down is imposed on these consumers as and when the situation

arise. As the Petitioner is required to incur extra infrastructure cost as well as arrangement for

additional energy which is at a higher cost the Petitioner submitted that a rate below 10% of energy

charges will not be adequate and is required to be recovered from the consumers having the facility

of getting continuous supply. The Commission vide its order dated 21.03.2018 has reduced the



Continuous Supply Surcharge from 15% to 10% upon demand of consumers. Further, in the above-

mentioned order the Commission observed that Uttarakhand is still facing power shortage and

UPCL is procuring short term power from market to meet the demand.

As regards providing compensation to industries opting continuous supply the Petitioner

submitted that consistent efforts to provide uninterrupted power supply are being made and the

load shedding during FY 2017-18 is only 0.26% of the overall energy demand (31.44 MU) at the State

periphery. No scheduled power cuts are being imposed and rostering is being done only due to

emergency breakdown / shutdown. Further, Petitioner submitted that if minimum average supply

to any HT Industry Consumer is less than 18 hours per day during the month, the Demand Charges

applicable for such HT Industry Consumer shall be reduced by 20%.


The Commission has already reduced the Continuous Supply Surcharge from 15% to 10%

vide its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018. As discussed in subsequent Chapters, UPCL is still having

shortages in winter months which is primarily met through short term power purchase and, hence,

the Commission has decided to continue with the Continuous Supply sur-charge. The Commission

will review the same once the aforesaid deficit in UPCL’s requirement is completely wiped off.

2.15 Components on ARR and Revenue

2.15.1 Power Purchase Cost


Shri Kishan Gopal Behl of AICC Uttarakhand submitted that purchase of power has been

carried out in a haphazard manner as and when required basis and not in a planned manner when

power could have been estimated and projected after exploring sources from where it could be

obtained at cheaper rates.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand has submitted that Power

purchase expenses are very closely related to Transmission and Distribution

Losses. If these losses will be less, it will result in less purchase of energy for same

level of consumption.




The Petitioner submitted that it is making consistent efforts to reduce the power purchase

cost from all sources and have proposed for long term arrangements to meet 90% of its power

requirement for FY 2019-20. Further, banking arrangement has also been proposed for giving

surplus energy during summer months and taking back the same during deficit in winter months.

The Petitioner further submitted that it is well aware of the declining costs of solar power.

UPCL is also in discussion with SECI and private developers to procure solar power at cheaper

rates. However, the generic tariff for private IPPs and rooftops is still in the range of Rs. 5.20/unit to

Rs. 7.80/unit due to smaller capacities and higher financing costs. Therefore, the Petitioner has been

cautiously expanding the energy portfolio to ensure that the average power purchase cost remains

at market competitive rates.

The power purchase cost approved by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission for

various States for FY 2018-19 is mentioned hereunder:

Table 2.3: Power purchase cost of various Utilities across India State Power Purchase Cost (Rs. / unit)

Uttarakhand 3.94 Himachal Pradesh 3.11 Delhi 4.90 Punjab 4.15 Haryana 4.66 Gujarat 4.44 U.P. 4.64 Maharashtra 4.64

It is clear from the above that the power purchase cost in Uttarakhand is lowest except

Himachal Pradesh. The main reason of cheap power in Himachal Pradesh is that there is cheap

hydro generation available which is more than demand of the State. Uttarakhand has only about

40% power from State Hydro Generation of its demand and remaining power is being procured

from other sources outside the State, the cost of which is comparatively higher.


The issues related to source wise power purchase quantum and costs have been deliberated

by the Commission in Chapter 3 and 5 of this Order.



2.15.2 Return on Equity


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd submitted that projection in Return on Equity

from Rs. 88.01 Crore in FY 2018-19 to Rs. 114.13 Crore in FY 2019-20 is very high.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that UPCL always

comes out with new methodologies for calculating Return on Equity despite the clear approach

provided by the Commission, and, therefore, UPCL has claimed additional RoE at higher level. He

further requested to calculate Return on Equity in line with the earlier approach of the Commission.


The Petitioner submitted that RoE for FY 2019-20 is claimed based on the opening equity for

FY 2019-20 in accordance with Regulation 26(2) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 and the equity

addition in FY 2018-19 has been determined by the funding pattern of capitalization schedule

proposed.


The issue of Return on Equity has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 5 of this

Order.

2.15.3 Operation & Maintenance Expenses


Shri Kishan Gopal Behl of AICC Uttarakhand submitted that there is a drastic increase in

O&M expenses and UERC must minutely examine as to where these expenses are being incurred

and can those be reduced.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. submitted that Petitioner should work on

manpower cost reduction by the different methodology. Manpower Audit should be done in depth

and find out some spare manpower which can be utilized against the retired employees and every

employee should have dedicated task with the specific timeline.




The Petitioner submitted that it has proposed O&M expenses for the 3rd Control Period in

line with the UERC MYT Regulations, 2018. The detailed explanation for each component within

O&M, i.e. employee expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expense has been provided in the MYT

Petition. A major impact on employee expenses has arisen due to the impact of Seventh Pay

Commission.

The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has a total of 2923 regular employees (as on 31-03-2018).

In-spite of an increase in consumer base and overall operations the overall manpower has declined

leading to difficulties in operations. Several steps were taken to address the severe shortage of

manpower and in the recent years personnel from the Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Limited

(UPNL) on a contractual basis to fill a major portion of the vacant posts were recruited which are

within the total number of sanctioned posts. Further, the Petitioner submitted that the Commission

also acknowledged the fact and requested the Govt. of Uttarakhand to expedite the pending

recruitment matters.


The issue of O&M expenses has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 and 5 of

this Order.

2.15.4 Interest and Finance Charges


Shri Kishan Gopal Behl of AICC Uttarakhand submitted that the interest paid by UPCL is

more than what Commission had approved last year indicating that UPCL failed to collect revenues

due from consumers and as a result is taking loans to run the Corporation and this needs to be

investigated. Regarding the pending cases against consumers and other State Corporations, he also

submitted that action must be taken on pending cases where many funds are due to UPCL, thus,

giving benefit to UPCL and in the process relief to the consumers without increasing rates.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd submitted that an escalation in Interest on

Term Loan from Rs. 79.86 Crore in FY 2018-19 to Rs. 107 Crore in FY 2019-20 is not justified.




The Petitioner submitted that in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18 dated March 29, 2017 the

Commission had approved total interest on loan as Rs. 167.07 Crore against which the Petitioner

has claimed Rs. 160 Crore in its true-up Petition. Therefore, the actual interest paid for FY 2017-18 is

lower than the interest approved by the Commission. It is to be noted that the Petitioner’s claim

submitted as a part of true-up petition is based on actual capitalization in FY 2017-18 as against the

capitalization approved by the Commission at the beginning of the Control Period in the MYT

Order dated 05.04.2016 and, hence, the variation.

The Petitioner submitted that the closing normative loan balance for FY 2018-19 is

considered as the opening balance for FY 2019-20 and a loan addition of Rs. 473.72 Crore during the

year is considered as per capitalization and funding pattern proposed. Based on this, the interest on

normative loan has been computed on the average normative loan and the weighted average rate of

interest of 11.04% (which is equivalent to the weighted average rate of interest on capital loans as

per audited accounts of UPCL for FY 2017-18 in line with the methodology adopted by the

Commission in previous Tariff Orders).


The issue of interest charges has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 and 5 of

this Order.

2.15.5 Depreciation


Shri Kishan Gopal Behl of AICC Uttarakhand submitted that the proposed depreciation

appears too much in variance against the approved depreciation by the Regulatory Commission for

the last year, basis on which it has been worked out needs to be checked.


The Petitioner has claimed that depreciation for FY 2017-18 is in line with the provisions of

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The Petitioner has considered the actual closing GFA for FY 2016-17

as explained in detail in the Tariff Petition. The rate of depreciation as per audited accounts has



been applied on the opening assets for FY 2017-18 after reducing the value of grants and consumer

contribution/deposit received.


The issue of interest charges has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 and 5 of

this Order.

2.15.6 Non-Tariff Income


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd has submitted that payment of any interest

towards bank loan taken for early payment of power purchase bills is less than the amount of rebate

availed on account of such early payment of bill but by doing proper analysis, some sort of saving

has also been incorporated, so why consumers are burdened from time to time by incorporating

high energy rates. He further suggested that rather than putting these stringent power hike

measures, UPCL needs to streamline their existing machinery for efficient delivery.


The issue of non-tariff income has been deliberated by the Commission in Chapter 4 and 5 of

this Order.

2.16 Consumer Security Deposit



Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that Commission needs to consider

the arrangement of security deposit to UPCL from consumers in the form of Bank Guarantee

instead of cash deposit.

M/S BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that Security deposit rule should be changed and

it should be Maximum of 1.5 Months instead of 2 months and opined that at least this provision

should be applicable for customers paying bills on time.




The Petitioner submitted that as per Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Distribution

Licensee is required to pay interest on the security deposit. As interest cannot be paid on the money

held with UPCL as Bank Guarantee / Letter of Credit, the security deposits should only be in the

form of cash / bank draft.

Regarding the amount of Security Deposit, the Petitioner submitted that once the supply is

drawn by a consumer the bill is generated after a 1 month period. In 15 days, the bill is received by

the consumer and again after 15 days the time period is given for payment. Thus, a 2 month period

is justifiable and is also in accordance with the UERC Supply Code.


The Commission is of the view that the issues raised regarding quantum and mode of

payment of Security Deposit are governed by the provisions of the Supply Code Regulations and,

hence, cannot be modified through Tariff Order.

2.17 Terms and Conditions for Seasonal Industries (RTS-7)


Shri Anil Marwah of Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare Association requested the Commission

to include Soft Drink Concentrate manufacturers in Point No. IV of Terms and Conditions for

Seasonal Industries.


The Petitioner submitted that seasonal tariffs are applicable on sugar, ice, rice mill, frozen

foods and tea as per the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 considering the seasonal nature of the same.

However, in case any specific industry is to be included under seasonal status, then it is suggested

to provide the justification for the same.


The Petitioner submitted that the stakeholder has not provided adequate justification for

including the Soft Drink Concentrate manufacturers as Seasonal Industries under the Rate

Schedule.



2.18 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts



Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the Commission allowed a total

provision of Rs. 333.75 Crore till 2008-09 which included balance of provision inherited from

UPPCL and with UPCL submitting write off of Rs. 230.44 Crore till 2016-17 it is left with a provision

of Rs. 103.31 Crore. On this account, the Commission did not allow additional provision sought by

UPCL. As per UPCL Rs. 52.48 Crore has been written off in the account of FY 2017-18 and thus, left-

over provision of Rs. 53.83 Crore still remains to be exhausted. In this regard they submitted that

with the left-over provision any further provision in the ARR for such consideration is not

warranted and the request is highly opposed. It is not understood how the write off as claimed in

the proposal have been done and claimed by the licensee as there is no such circulated Policy from

UPCL regarding the same.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted the following:

a. The Commission has not fixed any norm for bad and doubtful debts.

b. UPCL has not identified and actually written off bad debts according to a transparent

Policy approved by the Commission.

c. UPCL is trying to move in its own direction without taking into consideration the

observations of the Commission on bad and doubtful debts.

d. The earlier stand taken by the Commission for bad and doubtful debts should hold good

for this year also.

e. Even though UPCL has not provided for any amount for bad and doubtful debts this

year but they have justified their earlier analogy in this ARR also and have asked

Commission to allow for Bad and doubtful debts.


The Petitioner submitted that Regulation 31(1) of the UERC MYT Regulations, 2018 states

that, “the Commission may allow a provision for bad and doubtful debts upto one percent (1%) of

the estimated annual revenue of the distribution licensee, subject to actual writing off of bad debts

by it in the previous years.” Since the Petitioner has initiated actual writing off of bad debts, it has



requested allowing the same as a part of ARR in future years.


The issue of the provision for Bad & Doubtful debts has been deliberated by the Commission

in Chapter 4 and 5 of the Order.

2.19 Capitalization and Capital Expenditure


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. has submitted that there has been a substantial

increase in capital expenditure and it seems less efforts have been made to reduce the capital

expenses considering less impact of adoption of central sector schemes and measures to improve

Load growth, Loss reduction and system strengthening. He submitted that the projected increase of

capital expenditure of 156.75 Crore in FY 2019-20 from 102.60 Crore in FY 2018-19 on account of

Loss of LT ABC cable in theft prone areas is huge and resulting in this tariff hike. Similarly, there is

almost Rs. 16 Crore escalation from FY 2018-19 to FY 2019-20 on increasing LT protection system on

transformers showing that protection system was not so reliable and strengthened previously. He

further submitted that evaluation criteria and computation for capitalization is unclear.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that though the objective of UPCL

for capital expenditure & capitalization is reasonable there are some measures proposed in previous

proposals which are yet to be completed by the licensee as given below:

a. Replacement of mechanical meters by electronic meters.

b. Replacement of defective meters to avoid estimation in billing.

c. Failure to check metering periodically as per law. Presently the metering of even big

consumer is checked whenever there is breakdown in their metering system. There is no

program for periodical checking.

d. Failure to compute feeder wise line losses. Only independent feeders are being

monitored although 100% meter, are provided at sending ends of the feeders.



e. LT ABC cables have been provided in the areas like roadsides, scantily habited instead of

densely populated areas where LT lines are adjacent to the houses where direct tapping

happen.

f. Expenditure made for distribution transformers metering has been sheer waste in the

past. The objective of computation of distribution transformer wise losses could not be

fulfilled at all by the licensee.

g. Metering cubicles were installed a few years back on roadsides to shift the nearby

consumers meters in Rudrapur, Kashipur and other big towns but the cubicles have

disappeared before shifting of meters. The expenditure was wasteful without any

objective and results.

h. There are complaints that centrally funded Saubhagya Scheme has not been executed

honestly like installation of meters without providing LT lines and transformers in the

area just to achieve the targets. The scheme was implemented through contractor

without proper supervision and monitoring leading to such a state of affairs

They have further submitted the following:

a. There are some works which have been carried out in haphazard manner in the past and

demanding heavy capex for the same in current proposals. The current proposal for

Capex by UPCL is about 18.5% of Rs. 4020.53 Crore total proposal and includes such

works which are never ending. There are some cases where distribution transformers in

big town are running without protection for many years.

b. UPCL has provided a capex of Rs. 29.07 Crore for an odd capacity CSS 990 KVA to

replace existing two transformers in a location instead of a separate transformer at

nearby location giving rise to a thought that it is targeted for some particular

manufacturer/supplier to avoid healthy competition.

c. The Commission should order field audit of the various works executed by the licensee

to ascertain whether the funds were utilized for the objective of the scheme or just for

sake of utilization of the resources and order UPCL to circulate list of such works along

with deadline of such proposals so that consumers also get to know the usage.




The Petitioner submitted that during the 2nd Control Period many Central Sector Schemes

are implemented and the initial project cost for such schemes is often revised based on ground-level

surveys & implementation plan. Therefore, the initial sanctioned project cost may vary from the

financial closure of the scheme. A 100% physical progress is being achieved by Petitioner under

Saubhagya, R-APRDRP Part-A and Part-B schemes.

As regards Capitalization the Petitioner submitted that the new expenditure incurred

towards central schemes (i.e. IPDS, DDUGJY and Saubhagya) in FY 2019-20 will be capitalized in

the ratio of 60:40 in FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 respectively. Similarly, new expenditure under IPDS

in FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 will be capitalized in the ratio of 60:40 in year 1 and year 2 of the

investment. The balance capital expenditure of non-central schemes is split into 40%, 30% and 30%

over three years. Additionally, the opening CWIP at the beginning of FY 2018-19 has been estimated

to be capitalised in the ratio of 40:40:20 over three years during the third Control Period.

As regards Field Audit, the Petitioner submitted that the accounts of the Company are

audited by an Auditor appointed under Companies Act, 2013 and by the team of Comptroller and

Auditor General of India every year. Therefore, there is no need for a separate audit in the matter.


The Commission has duly scrutinised the actual and proposed capitalisation and each and

every cost element of APR for FY 2018-19 and ARR for FY 2019-20 in accordance with the provisions

of UERC Tariff Regulations and the same has been discussed in Chapter 3, 4 and 5 of the Order.

2.20 Truing-up for Past Years


Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand has submitted that UPCL in

every Tariff Petition comes out with new methodology for return on equity though the Commission

through various orders is giving clear system for calculation of return on equity. In this regard he

submitted that in True Up of year 2016-17 UPCL claimed Rs. 66.45 Crore as against approved figure

of Rs. 47.12 Crore owing to different methodology and he requested the Commission to follow the

system as approved by them in the past.



Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that the shortfall in

revenue as against the revenue projected by the Commission is mainly due to load shedding on

industrial consumers. Industrial consumers pay the highest tariff and they are subject to maximum

rostering resulting in shortfall in revenue for UPCL. In other States, rostering of industrial

consumers is done as the last measure to maintain grid balance.

Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. has submitted that since UPCL has shown revenue

surplus in True up of FY 2017-18 there is no point of increase in tariff in FY 2019-20.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the licensee has requested to

approve revenue surplus of Rs. 137.54 Crore for FY 2017-18 and a total of Rs. 166.77 Crore along

with carrying cost in FY 2018-19. The legitimate expenses in true up may be allowed by the

Commission in ARR for FY 2019-20.


The Petitioner submitted that in the MYT Tariff Petition, the Petitioner has claimed true-up

of FY 2017-18. The true-up of FY 2016-17 was conducted as a part of previous year’s tariff

proceedings and approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19.

As regards shortfall in revenue the Petitioner submitted that in truing-up exercise for FY

2017-18, UPCL proposed surplus of revenue amounting to Rs. 137.54 Crore which has been reduced

from the ARR for FY 2019-20.

As regards revenue surplus the Petitioner submitted that tariff increase of 13.71% and

revenue gap of Rs. 883.41 Crore proposed for FY 2019-20 comprises of the impact (surplus) of true-

up exercise conducted for FY 2017-18. In the absence of this revenue surplus for FY 2017-18, the

impact on tariff would have been even higher by Rs. 166.77 Crore. The Petitioner while preparing

the MYT Tariff Petition has followed the methodology laid down by the Commission in the UERC

MYT Regulations, 2018 and 2015.

As regards availability of quality power, the Petitioner submitted that UPCL has been

making consistent efforts to provide uninterrupted power supply to its consumers. The load

shedding during FY 2017-18 is only 0.26% of the overall energy demand (31.44 MU) at the State

periphery. It is also to mention that no scheduled power cuts are being imposed and rostering is



being done only due to emergency breakdown/shutdown.


The Commission has duly scrutinized each and every element of Truing up for FY 2017-18 in

accordance with the provisions of UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2015 and the same has been discussed in Chapter 4 of this Order.

2.21 Distribution Losses


Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. has submitted that since UPCL failed to achieve targets

set by the Commission in FY 2017-18, UPCL should not be allowed any tariff hike and direct UPCL

to improve performance with stringent targets.

Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd. has submitted that reducing distribution

losses up to 15.1% has no significant relevance and it needs to undertake viable measures to reduce

distribution losses to bare minimum as there are some States in India who are able to reduce their

distribution losses below 10%. Some corrective initiatives can be taken like to replace mechanical

meters with electronic meters, replacement of defective meters and laying of insulated wires and

100% metering of consumers to be completed in due course of time. He further submitted that

reliable Energy audit must be done by competent auditing agency and audit findings must be

shared in the Petition.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand, Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi

India Glass Ltd. have submitted that Petitioner stated that Distribution Loss trajectory specified by

the Commission is unachievable and unrealistic.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that though the

Commission is directing UPCL to reduce the losses every year, UPCL is not working on the same

and UPCL is able to show decreasing losses because of increase in sales by Industrial Consumers. In

some divisions, the losses are still above 30%. He opined that if Commission directs UPCL to reduce

the losses Distribution Division wise then the revenue of UPCL increases and the losses are

reduced.

Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted the following:



a. In Uttarakhand, the sale of energy to industrial consumers has increased from 28% in FY

2004-05 to 55% in FY 2016-17. Therefore, the loss level should be much lower. It is generally

accepted that the losses incurred in the distribution to these industrial consumers cannot be

more than 3%-4%. With such lower loss levels of industrial consumers, the overall losses

should be much lower than the target level. If the losses at all levels other than industrial

consumers are seen, then these losses are actually increasing.

b. The Commission had fixed the loss reduction target and directed UPCL to carry out Energy

Audit to which UPCL has not complied. UPCL should be directed to carry out Energy Audit

at S/s level and also at different voltage levels separately so that the actual reason for losses

can be ascertained and action be taken to bring down the losses to target level.

c. UPCL should convert their S/s into profit cost centres and any S/s found to be losing money

should be subjected to penalties.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the

distribution losses projected by UPCL are 14.67% against the Commission approved 14%. He

further submitted that HT Consumers being 52.58% energy consumers of UPCL are punished with

14.50% losses whereas in actual there are hardly 2% distribution losses in supplying energy by

UPCL to HT consumers.

Smt. Rashmi Agrawal submitted that line losses should be checked by concerned authorities.

Shri Pawan Agrawal of Uttarakhand Steel Manufacturers Association submitted that as

UERC approved losses of 15.50% for the year FY 2018-19 this time the approved losses should be

12% for this year, 11% for FY 2020-21 and 10% for FY 2021-22. He further submitted that losses in

other categories comes out to be around 30% if around 55% of industrial consumption is considered

and requested the Commission to restrict the losses to 12% for this year.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the projections by UPCL are not

in line with the Commission's orders and approach in its previous ARR exercises. They also

submitted that as such the proposed distribution loss trajectory for the third Control Period

proposed by the licensee against the approach and orders of the Commission deserves no merit.

They further submitted that the Commission may approve distribution loss for FY 2019-20 and



onwards as per approved losses of 14.5% for FY 2018-19 with 0.25% reduction in each year from FY

2019-20 to 2021-22 so that losses at the end of FY 2021-22 may be 13.5% as against UPCL's proposal

of 14.17%.

M/s Hero MotoCorp Ltd has submitted that currently the Petitioner imposes distribution

loss of 14.50% on the 66 kV and above voltage level to open access consumers connected to PTCUL

Transmission System. It has further submitted that as other States do not impose distribution losses

in EHT category, the Petitioner in instant Tariff Petition has proposed to increase the distribution

loss level to 14.67%. Further, it was submitted that for most of the industries in Uttarakhand tax

benefit period is also nearing to end in March, 2018 and the proposed increase will burden the

consumer and hence, it requested the Commission to avoid the proposed Tariff hike.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma has submitted that Distribution and Commercial losses should be

revealed separately as they are quite different in units today while UERC is giving more emphasis

on Distribution Losses.

Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari of Uttarakhand Lok Vahini submitted that line leakages are

often found and street lights are lit even in morning leading to losses which are ultimately paid by

the honest consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that against the approved distribution loss level of 14.75% for FY

2017-18, UPCL achieved the level of these losses at 15.17% and proposed the true-up for FY 2017-18

based on the approved distribution losses of 14.75%. 2/3rd loss on this account has been borne by

UPCL (2/3rd of 27.23 = Rs. 18.15 Crore). UPCL is very close to the target of distribution loss as

approved by the Commission and as the reduction in distribution losses below 15% is very difficult,

UPCL on the basis of actual distribution losses of 15.17% for FY 2017-18 proposed reduction in these

losses @ 0.25% per year. The distribution loss trajectory is as follows:

Table 2.4: Distribution loss trajectory proposed by UPCL 2018-19

(Approved) 2018-19

(Proposed) 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22

14.50% 14.92% 14.67% 14.42% 14.17%

The Petitioner submitted that following actions were taken for reduction of distribution

losses.



• Vigilance raids are being conducted and cases are being registered under Section 126 and

135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Legal proceedings are being initiated against the

person(s) who is found indulging in theft of electricity.

• Mechanical meters are being replaced by electronic meters.

• Defective Meters are being replaced.

• LT ABC is being laid in theft prone areas.

• Automatic Meter Reading is being done of high value consumers.

• Android based billing has been introduced for improvement in Billing Efficiency.

As a result of the above measures, the reduction in distribution losses are as given in Table

below:

Table 2.5: Performance of UPCL in handling Distribution Losses Year Distribution Loss Reduction in distribution loss

2013-14 19.18% 1.32% 2014-15 18.53% 0.65% 2015-16 18.01% 0.53% 2016-17 16.68% 1.32% 2017-18 15.17% 1.51%

As regards to the Commission’s directive of audit, the Petitioner submitted that an Energy

Audit was conducted for FY 2015-16 and appointment of consultant for the audit for period from

FY 2019-20 to FY 2020-21 is in progress.

As regards Distribution loss for HT consumers the Petitioner submitted that voltage wise/

category wise losses are not available and Category wise Tariff has been calculated on the basis of

average cost of supply and permissible level of cross subsidy. In absence of availability of voltage

wise losses, which is a mix of technical losses and commercial losses, the distribution losses are

required to be charged on an average basis from all category of consumers as well as open access

consumers.

As regards segregating distribution and commercial losses the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner is submitting the detailed Commercial Diary for each month to the Commission which

constitutes a segregation of distribution and commercial losses (collection inefficiency).




The Commission has taken note of the concerns raised by the stakeholders and the

initiatives taken by UPCL for reducing the losses. The Commission would like to clarify that though

the actual distribution losses are higher, the Commission for the tariff purposes have been

considering the distribution loss at the target level approved by the Commission and the same

approach has been continued while approving the true-up for FY 2017-18 as discussed in Chapter 4

of the Order. Further, the Commission has approved the loss trajectory for the third Control Period

by considering 0.25% loss reduction every year as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order.

2.22 Departmental Employees



Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that Departmental Employees and

Pensioners Category consumption is not being monitored, accounted and billed properly. There has

been very nominal hike in their tariff from FY 2003-04 as against tariff of other categories which has

increased by more than 50% during the period FY 2003-04 to FY 2018-19. The Commission may take

notice of the fact & direct UPCL to bill such consumers in domestic category and provide a pre-

determined rebate on the total bill amount.

Smt. Gita Bisht of District Congress Committee submitted the following

1. The Departmental Employees should be allotted some Units monthly and consumption

above the allotted units should be charged as per tariff of general public.

2. All the inefficient lighting loads of Departmental Employees should be replaced with

efficient LED or CFL.

3. All office premises should be metered in order to promote energy efficiency.

4. Those employees using air conditioners (AC), Rs. 500 per month should be collected

instead of Rs. 200 per month and it should be charged in winters also as most of the Air

Conditioners are equipped to handle hot and cold weather conditions.

Shri Khursheed Ahmed submitted that Department Employees are allotted free electricity,



the burden of which is passed onto the consumer in tariff.

Shri Khemchand Gupta of Bharatiya Janata Party submitted that recruitment for the post of

Line man should be done.

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/S Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that the Departmental

Employees of UPCL should be allowed to have only one connection in the entire State which should

be ledgerized online.

Shri P. S Mehra of Sevanivrit Kendriya Karmachari Kalyan Samithi, Almora submitted that

Departmental Employees and pensioners should be charged equally like domestic consumers as

electricity is not procured for free and it is resulting in increase in tariff of all the other categories.

He further submitted that as per as per the objective of Tariff Policy and letter by Power Ministry

published on 2/2/2016 by Amar Ujala 11th Edition no free electricity is to be given to Departmental

employees or pensioners as they are already getting salaries or pensions for their services. In this

regard he further submitted that though this was brought to Commission’s view earlier no progress

was made.

Shri Navin Chandra Joshi submitted that as per Tariff Policy no one is allowed to use

electricity for free and many other States in India is following the same. In this regard he submitted

that from FY 2019-20 no one in Uttarakhand should be allowed free electricity and requested the

Commission to make such provision so that other consumers will not be overburdened and even

the revenue of UPCL will also be increased.


The Petitioner submitted that employees of UPCL are being given the facility of

departmental electricity connection since U.P. State Electricity Board was in existence. Under this

facility, a fixed lump-sum amount is charged from the employees according to their designation

towards electricity charges for electricity supplied to them. Erstwhile UPSEB was unbundled under

the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 and Section 23(7) of the said Act

provides “terms and conditions of service of the personnel shall not be less favorable to the terms

and condition which were applicable to them before the transfer”. The same spirit has been echoed

under first proviso of section 133(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The benefits for

employees/pensioners as provided in Section 12(b)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Reform Transfer



Scheme, 2000 include “concessional rate of electricity”, which means concession in rate of electricity

to the extent it is not inferior to what was existing before 14th January, 2000. The rates and charges

indicated above for this category are strictly in adherence to the above statutory provisions. As

UPCL is the successor entity of UPPCL (formed as a result of unbundling of UPSEB), the above

legal provisions are also applicable on it (UPCL). The Petitioner further submitted that in the

previous Tariff Orders, the Commission has not been allowing the impact of concessional supply to

departmental consumers including pensioners of UPCL, UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL and has been

considering revenue corresponding to the ABR of domestic consumers.

As regards number of connections to Department Employees the Petitioner submitted that

as per the prevailing orders, the employees and pensioners of UPCL can have only one

departmental electricity connection in their name at the place of posting.

The Petitioner submitted that in Uttarakhand LED Bulbs, LED Tube-lights & LED Fans are

being provided to the general public by M/s EESL on concessional rates and Departmental

employees being self-motivated also availed this concession.

The Petitioner submitted that instructions have been issued to the concerned officers to

meter and bill all the offices/work places of UPCL, UJVNL & PTCUL. They have also been directed

to bill all the departmental employees and pensioners of UPCL, UJVNL and PTCUL on the basis of

rates approved for domestic category from 01-04-2018 and to book the concession provided to them

in the books of accounts in a separate head of accounts.

As regards charge for using Air Conditioners the Petitioner submitted that all departmental

employees / pensioners having air conditioners are required to pay Rs. 200 per AC for the period

from May to August every year in addition to the normal monthly energy charges payable by them.

As regards recruitment of Lineman the Petitioner submitted that the matter is under

consideration.


The Commission has taken note of the submissions of the stakeholders and the Petitioner.

The Commission would like to clarify that in the previous Tariff Orders, the Commission had not

been allowing the impact of concessional supply to departmental consumers including pensioners

of UPCL, UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL and has been considering revenue corresponding to the ABR of



domestic consumers and the same approach has been adopted while carrying out the truing up for

FY 2017-18. The Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 has also directed the Petitioner

to bill all departmental employees on the basis of rates approved for RTS-1 Domestic Category from

April 01, 2018. As regards the concession provided to these consumers, the Petitioner is directed

to show the same separately as expenses in its accounts.

2.23 Tariff for Cane Crushers


Shri Vijay Singh Verma submitted that under RTS-4, Cane Crusher connection should be

separated from PTW connection. It should be either be included in temporary category or

commercial category. He further submitted that if any consumer is availing temporary connection

exclusively for Cane Crushing he should be charged with tariff as levied for Commercial

Connection.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission may take a view in the matter.


The cane crushers are covered under Rate Schedule RTS-4 as per the terms and conditions

provided in the Rate Schedule.

2.24 Metering and Billing


Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. has submitted the

following:

a. If UPCL raises NA/NR/RDF bills no Late Payment Surcharge needs to be charged until

the bill is corrected as in cases where UPCL raised NA/NR/RDF bill, the consumers are

often told that the bill will be corrected only in next billing cycle and they are asked to

pay the NR bill which being vague may be even few times higher than its average bills.



b. NA/NR/RDF billing have become tool in hands of UPCL through which they exploit

their consumers by raising bills on their own will and provisions need to be made in

such a way that if the consumer is raised a NA/NR bill he need not be compelled to pay.

c. Prepaid metering needs to be promoted for all categories including HT/LT consumers as

it allows to recover amount in advance and results in curbing of bad debts also.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of PSR Innovations LLP

have submitted that as per practice prevailing in UPCL on generation of bill due date is fixed giving

only 3-4 days’ time from bill generation date (instead of minimum 15 days provided in the

Regulations) and then grace period is fixed allowing 15 days grace period from due date thus not

allowing the customer the specified period to pay without delay payment surcharge. The

Commission is requested to look into the same. They further submitted that the due date and grace

date should be system generated. The billing software needs to be modified so that due date is

automatically fixed 15 days after the bill generation date and further 15 days grace period is fixed

accordingly for payment without inviting delayed payment surcharge.


Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of PSR Innovations LLP

have submitted that delayed payment surcharge is to be levied on the principal amount of the bill

which remains unpaid except the delayed payment surcharge levied in previous months. However,

as per practice prevailing in UPCL, if the bill is not paid by the consumers, the total amount of the

bill including delayed payment surcharge due in the month is shown as arrears and further,

delayed payment surcharge is levied on that amount, thus once a consumer becomes defaulter,

delayed payment surcharge is charged on both principal amount and previous delayed payment

surcharge in arrears.

Shri Amar Singh Karki, Shri P. S Mehra of Sevanivrit Kendriya Karmachari Kalyan Samithi,

Almora have submitted that the current billing for Domestic Consumers is done based on

consumption of two months which should be changed to monthly consumption. In the meanwhile

with billing cycle of two months, it must be ensured that the consumption for both months is

segregated and bill is computed separately for both months.

Shri Vijay Singh Verma and Shri Darshan Singh submitted that reading of PTW Connections



should be taken on monthly basis and billing should be done quarterly. The Delayed Payment

Surcharge should be charged after 6 months.

Shri Navin Chandra Joshi, Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted

that bill of Domestic Category consumers should be sent monthly instead of two months.

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted the following

a. The meters which are in improper conditions like hanging should be maintained.

b. It was observed that in places where there is no meter, IDF bills are raised and the

arrears are used to inflate the revenue recovery by the Department.

c. To improve the services of UPCL like registering complaints of consumers in a proper

way along with the contact details of the assigned personnel.

d. NA/NR Bills should not be for a period of more than 3 months

e. The arrear on any consumer should not be more than security deposits.

M/S BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that Electricity bill generation date is around

9th/10th of every month & due date of payment is around 18th/19th leaving only 10 days to

arrange the payment. He requested the Commission to give them at least 20 days’ time after release

of bill online or bill should be generated by 3rd of every month for HT Consumers.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted that as consumers are

mandated to have meters UPCL should also meter all its central distribution, all the sub stations

from 33 kV, Departmental Employees and Pensioners as well as monitor the same. Further, he

submitted that it must be ensured that all tubewells are metered and fixed charges are also imposed

on this category on the lines of tariff determined for other categories.


The Petitioner submitted that as per provisions of Tariff Order the bills of NA/NR are raised

on the basis of average billed consumption of the last year which is subject to adjustment when

actual reading is taken. As these assessed bills are average bills, imposition of surcharge for non

payment of these bills is justified.

As regards bills of NA/NR / IDF the Petitioner submitted that they are raised as per the



provisions of Tariff Order issued by the Commission and field officers have been directed to ensure

100% meter reading of each and every consumer. However, sometimes readings of some consumers

is not taken due to shortage of staff and efforts are being made to ensure 100% meter reading in

future.

Regarding arrears on any consumers the Petitioner submitted that the suggestion is

appreciable and efforts are being made to ensure 100% realization against billing for a period.

As regards Prepaid Metering the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner agrees with the view of

the stakeholder and has proposed Prepaid Metering Scheme as a part of the MYT Tariff Petition and

requested the Commission to approve the cost of procurement of meters under the capital

expenditure plan for 3rd Control period.

As regards Payment of bills the Petitioner submitted that the Commission vide its Tariff

Order for FY 2006-07 had allowed 15 days grace period for payment of the bill without any delayed

payment surcharge, on the ground that UPCL was not allowing 15 days clear time to the consumers

for payment of their electricity bills. There is no mandate to allow 15 days before due date and

further 15 days grace period, total of 30 days. 15 days grace period is also being allowed after due

date and no delayed payment surcharge is payable if the bill is paid upto the last date of grace

period.

As regards Delayed Payment Surcharge the Petitioner submitted that it is not being levied

on the arrear amount of delayed payment surcharge. This is being levied on the principal amount of

electricity arrears.

As regards metering of PTW connections the Petitioner submitted that Electricity

connections of all the categories are metered now and the Commission may take appropriate

decision on the matter.

Regarding billing cycle for Domestic Category the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is

making efforts to reduce the billing cycle for domestic consumers to one month by the end of next

year. However, such a measure shall increase the expenditure incurred on meter reading exercise

and involve higher manpower. Further, it is to apprise that there is no extra financial burden on the

consumer in the present bi-monthly billing cycle system.

Regarding maintenance of meters the Petitioner submitted that utility is taking suitable



action against the complaints received from the consumers.

Regarding raising of improper IDF bills the Petitioner submitted that such connections are

being identified and fictitious arrears are being written off after preparation of final account of the

consumer.

As regards metering of Departmental Employees and Pensioners the Petitioner submitted

that all the connections of departmental employees and pensioners and offices of UPCL, PTCUL &

UJVNL are metered. The billing of all the metered connections is being done on the basis of meter

reading.


The Commission has taken note of various suggestions received from the stakeholders

regarding improvement in metering and billing and the Commission directs UPCL to consider the

suggestions given by the stakeholders to improve its metering and billing system. Further, with

regard to the suggestion to provide electricity bills on monthly basis instead of 2 months for

domestic consumers, the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 directed UPCL to

explore this option atleast in urban areas and to submit its report in the matter within 3 months of

the date of the Order. As submitted by MD, UPCL during the Public Hearings, the Petitioner is

making its efforts to reduce the billing cycle for domestic consumers to one month by the end of

next year.

2.25 KCC Data


Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand submitted that although UPCL

has done good job in compiling data in KCC cell, enough benefit is not being derived from scrutiny

of this data. He suggested that the Commission may set up one cell either in its office or in UPCL

for scrutiny of this data. This cell should be independent and should not be reporting to UPCL. The

formation of this cell would help in proper diagnostics of UPCL at division level.


The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has covered all the industrial consumers having load



above 5 KW and non-domestic consumers having load above 10 kW under KCC billing. The MRI

report and billing of the HT consumers are being checked at Corporate Office on regular basis.

Corrective actions are being taken on the irregularities found in the checking of the metering system

and billing of these consumers.


As regards the suggestion for scrutiny of KCC data, the Commission directs UPCL to

constitute a cell in its commercial wing for analysis and monitoring of KCC data including low

load factor cases, meter tamper cases etc. The Commission directs UPCL to submit the report on

analysis and monitoring of KCC data on monthly basis by 15th of every month.

2.26 Quality of Power


Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand and Shri Y.S. Pawar submitted

that the issues like voltage variations amongst different phases, low voltage, high voltage, frequent

breakdowns etc. have become a common practice. The Commission should give clear directions to

UPCL for improvement in quality of supply.

Shri Khemchand Gupta of Baratiya Janata Party submitted that similar to previous year,

electrical lines should be provided with breakers so that fault in one place does not impact supply

to other areas.

Shri Puran Chandra Tiwari of Uttarakhand Lok Vahini submitted that loss to consumers on

account of power fluctuations should be compensated.

M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that night shift breakdown should be attended in

night itself by UPCL. He further submitted that if breakdown occurs in some feeder whole supply

of that area is tripped because of improper functioning of relays.

Shri P. S Mehra of Sevanivrit Kendriya Karmachari Kalyan Samithi, Almora submitted that

electric lines should be laid underground instead of overhead in order to reduce the damage at the

times of cyclones/severe weather conditions.

Regarding the compensation for voltage fluctuations the Petitioner submitted that in



exercise of powers conferred under Section 57, the Commission notified UERC (Standards of

Performance) Regulations, 2007. As per these Regulations compensation is payable to the consumer

on damage of consumer ‘s apparatus due to voltage fluctuations.


The Petitioner submitted that efforts are regularly made for improvement in quality of

power. The demand of electricity has become about four times from the date of creation of the State

and UPCL is meeting the demand of electricity to the satisfaction of the consumers. The average

supply of electricity in a day in the State is between 22-24 hours.

As regards installing breakers, the Petitioner submitted that being aware of this issue a

proposal for around forty-five 33 kV new breakers for additional feeders or where breaker is not

available & around fifty five 11 kV new breakers each in FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 & FY 2021-22 is

made as part of the capital expenditure plan. The Petitioner requested the Commission to approve

the cost to be incurred on these works.

Regarding the night shift breakdown the Petitioner submitted that it is making consistent

efforts to reduce the time taken to attend the faults.

Regarding underground cabling the Petitioner submitted that after identifying the issue, the

Petitioner has proposed underground cabling works during the third Control Period under IPDS

Phase-II as well under other non-central works. The Petitioner requested the Commission to

approve the capital expenditure proposed under these works.


The Commission has taken note of the concerns raised by the stakeholders and directs UPCL

to take adequate steps to improve the quality of supply. In this regard, the Commission would like

to clarify that UPCL’s complaint handling procedures have been approved by the Commission and

are available on the website of the UPCL/Commission which, interalia, provides computerised

logging of complaints followed by status feedback to the complainant in his mobile/phone. If the

complaints are not resolved by UPCL internally, the consumers can also lodge their complaints with

the “Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums” functional in the State details of which can be seen in

the Petitioner’s website.



2.27 Compliance of Directives


Shri Pankaj Gupta of Industries Association of Uttarakhand has submitted that the

directions given by the Commission will have big implications on the overall performance and cost

to the consumers. Though the directives are being reiterated in every Tariff Order with great regret

it is pointed out that UPCL is giving casual replies in respect of the follow up in respect of these

directives. The Commission is requested to take up seriously with UPCL for the proper follow-up

on these directives.


The Petitioner submitted that details of compliance status along with revised compliance

status during Technical validation sessions are provided to the Commission. As a result of regular

compliance and achievements made in the past, many directives have been progressively dropped

by the Commission in the previous order.


The issue related to the compliance of directives has been deliberated by the Commission in

Chapter 8 of this Order.

2.28 Open Access


Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd, Shri Adarsh Jaiswal of Ambuja

Cements Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaun Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have

submitted that the increase in cross-subsidy surcharge by approximately 43% and additional

surcharge proposed by the licensee on the consumers are highly opposed as the same are against

the spirit of open access facility provided to such consumers as it will discourage them to go for

open access.

Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd., Shri R.S Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. have submitted

that the voltage rebate should be given on power purchased through open access.



Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd. has submitted that Open Access consumers at high

voltage should be charged only transmission loss of 2% in place of average distribution loss or as

decided by UERC for transmission/PTCUL.

Shri Man Singh of Alps Industries Ltd. submitted that UPCL should have a software for the

calculations of Open Access adjustments which will be helpful in reducing errors.

Shri Adarsh Jaiswal of Ambuja Cements Ltd. has submitted that Distribution losses for

Open Access consumer should be less than 5% instead of 14.50%.

Shri Adarsh Jaiswal of Ambuja Cements Ltd., Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. have

submitted that NOC for Short-term Open Access should be for a minimum period of one

year/quarter.


following:

a. The Commission is requested to reduce the cross subsidy by 25% and transmission

losses by 25% as the open access tariff charge reflects that approach of UPCL is just to

defeat the competition by increasing charges and the proposed charges are against the

spirit of National Tariff Policy as well as the Electricity Act 2003.

b. The Commission is requested not to allow any additional surcharge on purchase of

power as the additional surcharge to be levied on open access consumers compensates

the fixed cost obligation on distribution companies in a specified period and it cannot be

projected on a mere theoretical basis. He also submitted that the additional surcharge is

ought to be calculated on wheeling charges and not on the fixed charges.

c. There is no system for adjustments of open access units at the time of billing resulting in

too much follow up leading to atmosphere of confusion.

d. The consumers are not getting the compensation which is allowed by the Commission

despite repetitive reminders and instructions by CGRF.

e. Load survey reports should be available to all HT consumers by 5th of next month

through email so that they are able to monitor their consumption of electricity slab wise

as currently they are available to them after rigorous follow-up.



M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. submitted that they are not getting the net amount of bill

after adjustment of open access refunds because of which the bill is showing requirement of

additional security though it has been paid for more than 2 months avg bill. He requested the

Commission to investigate this long pending issue.


The Petitioner submitted that as per Section 42(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, open access

may be allowed only on payment of existing level of cross subsidy by the consumer. This cross

subsidy is derived by reducing the average tariff from the tariff of the subsidizing category.

Accordingly, cross subsidy surcharge obtained is Rs. 0.70 per unit arrived by the difference of Rs.

6.49 and Rs. 5.79 per unit has been proposed in the petition.

The Petitioner submitted that at present the Open Access consumers with the Petitioner

Company are embedded consumers. These Open Access consumers buy power from the Petitioner

Company as well as through Open Access as per their financial suitability but the Petitioner is

required to supply power to them as per their contracted capacity and Petitioner is required to have

an arrangement of power sufficient to meet the requirement of these Open Access consumers

including the quantum which they were buying earlier through Open Access. In case, any

consumer go for Open Access the Power Purchase commitments of the Petitioner becomes stranded

and, therefore, the Open Access consumers are required to bear fixed component of power purchase

cost of the Petitioner.

Further, absence of suitable additional surcharge levied to the open access consumer would

result in undue burdening of the other consumers and, therefore, there Petitioner requested the

Commission to determine the additional surcharge for FY 2019-20.

As regards Distribution losses for Open Access the Petitioner submitted that in absence of

availability of voltage wise losses, which is a mix of technical losses and commercial losses, the

distribution losses are required to be charged on an average basis from all category of consumers as

well as open access consumers.

As regards Open Access billing the Petitioner submitted that at present open access energy

is being adjusted manually by the distribution divisions in the next month of the transactions.

However, the Petitioner is in the process to update its billing software to adjust the Open Access



Energy in the consumer bill. This work has been planned through software under R-APDRP Cell,

which is taking time due to non - standardization of input formats from IEX regarding daily

scheduling data. Thereafter, the open access energy will be adjusted through software in the same

month/billing cycle and this shall be implemented in due course of time.

As regards voltage rebate to Open Access consumers, the Petitioner submitted that High

Voltage Rebate is admissible on the Energy Charges and as no energy charges is payable on the

Open Access Energy, no question arises for allowing rebate on Open Access Energy. In the absence

of availability of voltage wise losses, which is mix of Technical Losses and Commercial Losses, the

Distribution Losses are required to be charged from the consumers as well as Open Access

Consumers.


Some of the stakeholders have raised the issues related to Open Access such as renewal of

open access applications etc., which are governed by Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra State Open Access) Regulations, 2015. The principles

for calculating Transmission/Wheeling charges, cross-subsidy surcharges & losses have already

been specified in the Regulations and are, therefore, worked out on such specified principle. On the

issues raised that no wheeling charge should be levied on open access consumers as demand

charges are already being paid by them, the Commission clarifies that wheeling charges recovered

by embedded open access consumers is net off demand charges applicable to such consumers in

accordance with the provisions of the Regulations.

2.29 Collection Efficiency



Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the UPCL’s proposal appears to

be reasonable for improving collection efficiency at the rate of 0.05% each year as 100% collection

efficiency is difficult to achieve with the mix of different consumers categories - rural and urban in

the State.

Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that strict action is not



being taken against consumers who are not paying their dues regularly. The number of collection

centers should be increased and it should be ensured that atleast one counter in every city is open

between 2-4 pm while rest of the collection centers are operational till atleast 2 pm. Security

measures should be put in place at the cash collection centres. He further submitted that consumers

should be allowed to make part payments and UPCL should device a mechanism to ensure that

these are adjusted in the subsequent bills.

Shri R.K. Singh of Tata Motors Ltd. submitted that UPCL has proposed collection efficiency

of 98.95% against approved 99% by UERC, as poor collection efficiency results in loss of revenue

and consequently affects consumer. He requested the Commission to set stringent target for UPCL.


The Petitioner requested the Commission to approve the collection efficiency trajectory as

proposed.

The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has achieved collection efficiency of 98.90% during FY

2017-18 as against the approved target of 98.75% for FY 2017-18 by the Commission. With the

continuation of its efforts, the Petitioner expects to maintain the current level of collection efficiency.

However, any further improvement in collection efficiency beyond 99% is very difficult specially in

a situation that the LT consumers under various schemes of Government are increasing regularly.

Therefore, UPCL has proposed an improvement of 0.05% in collection efficiency in FY 2018-19 and

during each year of the 3rd Control Period considering the actual collection efficiency of 98.90%

achieved during FY 2017-18.

Regarding part payments the Petitioner submitted that officers at various levels have been

authorized to sanction that the payment of the consumer may be accepted in installments.

As regards collection centers the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is making efforts to

increase the number of collection centers and has also made arrangements for online payments for

consumers. The Petitioner has also made arrangement with M/s CSC to accept the payment of the

electricity bills at their counters located in the various locations of the State.

Regarding security measures at cash collection centers the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner is taking measures to enhance the same.

Regarding action on delayed payments the Petitioner submitted that action is being taken



against the consumers who are not paying their electricity dues in time. The connections of

defaulters are being disconnected and action is being taken against them as per the provisions of the

Uttarakhand (U.P. Government Electricity Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958) Adaptation

and Modification Order, 2002.


The Commission directs UPCL to make efforts to achieve the collection efficiency targets

approved by the Commission and also submit the details of number of defaulting consumers

disconnected and amount of arrears realized within one month of the end of each quarter.

2.30 Mixed Load Tariff



tariff paid by Mixed Load Tariff Category is higher than Domestic Tariff despite similar uses in both

the cases. He also submitted that Domestic Consumers having contracted load up to 2 kW &

consumption up to 200 kWh per month can use some portion of premises for business/other

purposes without any additional charges on domestic rates. As such either rates of these two

categories be kept nearer or mixed load tariff be split in to various rates depending on percentage of

domestic load like Domestic consumers category.


The Petitioner submitted that as per Tariff Order for FY 2018-19, RTS-6 category of mixed

load applies to single point bulk supply connection of more than 75 kW where the supply is used

predominantly for domestic purposes (with more than 60% domestic load) and also for other non-

domestic purposes. However, in case of bulk supply connections under domestic tariff, energy is

exclusively used for domestic purpose and, accordingly, the tariff for domestic category has been

kept lower than mixed load.


The Commission is of the view that the Mixed Load Category is there for single connection

having mixed load comprising predominantly (more than 60%) of domestic usage and balance non-



domestic usage, whereas the domestic category is designed primarily for domestic use and, hence,

the tariff for these two category cannot be specified at same level.

2.31 Power Procurement Plan


Shri Munish Talwar of Asahi India Glass Ltd submitted that the rate of purchasing power

needs to be clarified and this should be provided in the Petition. If generation from State generating

stations is less and demand is expected to increase, a comprehensive plan should be drafted to meet

this shortfall.


The Petitioner submitted that a detailed power procurement plan for the entire 3rd Control

Period along with the average power procurement rate from each Station has been provided in

Table 83 of the Petition. The Petitioner submitted that consistent efforts were taken to reduce the

power purchase cost from all sources and proposed long term arrangements to meet 90% of its

power requirement for FY 2019-20. Further, banking arrangement has also been proposed for giving

surplus energy during summer months and taking back the same during deficit in winter months.

The power purchase cost approved by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions for various

States for FY 2018-19 is mentioned hereunder:

Table 2.6: Power purchase cost of various utilities across India State Power Purchase Cost (Rs. / unit)

Uttarakhand 3.94 Himachal Pradesh 3.11 Delhi 4.90 Punjab 4.15 Haryana 4.66 Gujarat 4.44 U.P. 4.64 Maharashtra 4.64

From the above, it can be observed that the power purchase cost in Uttarakhand is lowest

except Himachal Pradesh. The main reason of cheap power in Himachal Pradesh is that there is

cheap hydro generation available which is more than demand of the State. Uttarakhand has only

about 40% state hydro generation of its total demand and remaining power is being procured from



other sources outside the State the cost of which is comparatively higher.


The issues related to source wise power purchase plan and costs have been deliberated by

the Commission in Chapter 3 and 5 of this Order.

2.32 Deviation Settlement Mechanism



following:

a. The DSM is a technical issue and suggested that a workshop needs to be conducted for

the State constituents prior to implementation of it. Further, there may be at least one-

month time difference between sharing of trial data to the State constituents and

applicability of the mechanism, thereby, avoiding any litigation on the subject matter.

b. In absence of clarity on the subject bidding of open access was halted leading to losses

for the organization in the absence of any clarity as to how SLDC will take the settlement

of power purchased through open access.

c. Requested the Commission to extend the date for application of DSM


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission may take an appropriate decision on the

matter.


The Commission has noted the submission of the stakeholder.

2.33 Voltage wise Cost of Supply


Shri Suresh Kumar of Sitarganj Industrial Welfare Association, Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of

Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd., Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd.,



Shri Vinay Debral of Brakes India Private Ltd. have submitted that even though the Commission

has been directing UPCL in every tariff order for past 6 years to work out the losses on the basis of

voltage and to categorize the tariff on this basis and calculate the cost of supply the licensee has not

complied with the same.

Shri R.S. Yadav of India Glycols Ltd., submitted that non-compliance of the Commission’s

directive on Voltage wise Cost of Supply by UPCL seems to be a deliberate attempt to

surreptitiously obtain higher revenue in tariff & high voltage open access consumers and requested

the Commission to take appropriate action against UPCL.

Shri Suresh Kumar of Sitarganj Industrial Welfare Association, Shri Raj Kumar Sharma of

Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vinay Dabral of Brakes India Private Ltd. have requested the

Commission to take serious note on such non-compliance by the licensee on a regular basis and fix

the tariff of such consumer by taking HT level losses on a notional basis.

Shri Puneet Mohindra of Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ashok Bansal of Kumaon

Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that the licensee has again ignored

the direction of the Commission and the current ARR does not depict any such exercise by the

licensee leading to a situation that Commission has to again make assumptions for HT level losses

while approving ARR & Tariff for the year FY 2019-20 which may hurt the interest of HT consumers

particularly. They requested the Commission to take serious note for such non-compliance.

Shri Shakeel A Siddiqui of Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill Pvt. Ltd. submitted that most of

the prominent industrial active States have defined tariff slab load wise, the cost of service to HT

consumer connected at high voltage is much less than the average cost of supply, since the

distribution losses are very much less in comparison to low voltage consumers.


The Petitioner submitted that at present voltage wise category wise losses are not available

and category wise tariff has been calculated on the basis of average cost of supply and permissible

level of cross subsidy as per Regulation 91 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018. The Petitioner

initiated the process of collecting and assessing voltage wise losses in the last few months and shall

be in a position to evaluate voltage wise losses for consumers very soon as per the directives of the

Commission.




The Commission has taken note of the concerns raised by the stakeholders and further

directs UPCL to compute Voltage wise losses for each category of consumers and submit the data

on voltage wise losses alongwith next Tariff Petition.

2.34 Change of Supply Voltage on Marginal Load Enhancement by Consumers



Garhwal Chamber of Commerce and Industry have submitted that in existing tariff regulations no

margin has been provided for the consumers requiring enhancement of load marginally and in case

of even slight enhancement of load beyond the above threshold limit, the consumer has to shift to

higher supply voltage which necessarily requires change of all existing power supply equipment /

apparatus installed by him for the existing supply voltage. The Commission may consider this

matter and allow such consumers to avail certain percentage of load enhancement (say up to 10% of

existing load) without going into higher supply voltage category.


The Petitioner submitted that this point pertains to Supply Code which is under

consideration for revision by the Commission. The draft Supply Code was issued by the

Commission inviting comments of all the stakeholders and a hearing was also conducted in the

matter. The final code is expected to be released soon.


This matter pertains to Supply Code and shall be dealt separately.

2.35 New Connections


Shri Vijay Kumar Verma of M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals submitted that release of new

connections is not being done in the order of registration of consumers. Also, no cables have been

made available for consumers who have received new connections.



Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia of Indian Industries Association submitted the following:

a. Charges for new connection are high and charging the same amount for the load

between 26 kW to 50 kW is unjustified and needs to be reviewed.

b. The expenditure for providing the connection for loads between 26 kW to 50 kW & 50

kW to 100 kW should be borne by the Department itself and for load above 100KW

expenses should be borne by the Department.

c. The time for release of new connection should be maximum 15 days and the system

should be online based.

d. A portal with every information regarding the information of new connection should be

made.


The Petitioner submitted that release of new connections is being done as per the provisions

of the Regulations.

The Petitioner further submitted that the points raised by Shri Rakesh Kumar Bhatia

pertains to Supply Code which is under consideration for revision by the Commission. The draft

Supply Code was issued by the Commission inviting comments of all the stakeholders and a

hearing was also conducted in the matter. The final code is expected to be released soon.


This matter pertains to Supply Code and shall be dealt separately.

2.36 CGRF


Shri Shyam Lal Shah submitted that CGRF should be established in each district.

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar of PSR Innovations LLP submitted that though CGRF is a wing of

UPCL, its decisions are challenged in High Court by UPCL itself. If in case the decision of CGRF is

challenged in apex court by UPCL the decision of CGRF should be implemented and in case the

decision is overturned by apex Court then UPCL may recover compensation against the same from



consumer. This shall ensure that the consumer does not need to bear the burden of legal

proceedings.


The Petitioner submitted that there are five CGRF cells functional in the State. One forum is

in each zone, i.e. Garhwal Zone, Kumaon Zone, Haridwar Zone and U.S. Nagar Zone and one other

Forum is for the consumers of Electricity Distribution Circle, Srinagar. Further, as per directive of

the Commission, constitution of Forums at Uttarkashi, Gopeshwar/ Karanpryag, Almora &

Pithoragarh is under process.

The Petitioner submitted that CGRFs have been established by UPCL in accordance with the

provisions of Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rules and Regulations issued in the

matter. Further, the Petitioner submitted that action taken by UPCL is as per provisions of law.

Regarding compensation to consumers the Petitioner submitted that the Commission may

take an appropriate decision on the matter.


The Commission has noted the submissions of the stakeholder. The Commission also

observes that the Petitioner is making efforts for constituting the CGRF Forum in other districts

also.

2.37 Provision of Street Lighting in Rural feeders


Shri Vijay Singh Verma, Shri Vijay Kumar Verma have queried about the provision for

providing public lamps (including Street lights) in rural feeders and the operating mechanism for

the same as no tariff is collected for this consumption.


The Petitioner submitted that the payment against street lights is being made by Nagar

Palikas / Nagar Nigams. With regards to collection of dues from Government organizations,

arrears are regularly being recovered from Government organisations.




The Commission is of the view that street lighting/public lamps system is the responsibility

of the local bodies namely Municipal Corporations, Panchayats etc. and these local bodies have

elected public representatives as their heads and the staffs in these bodies are primarily

Government employees. In case local bodies decides to handover operation & maintenance of the

above system to UPCL, it conducts the operation and maintenance of street light/public lamp

system as an agency to these local bodies and material cost incurred is borne by these local bodies

while UPCL is entitled for labour charges to be recovered by these local bodies. It is for these bodies

and the Government to decide amongst themselves as to who would be making payments for

electricity consumed by them.

2.38 Views of State Advisory Committee

During the State Advisory Committee Meeting held on February, 11, 2019, the Members

made the following suggestions on the Business Plan and MYT Petitions for Third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.

a) The tariff increase proposed by UPCL is very much on higher side

b) UPCL has not computed voltage wise cost of supply & voltage wise lossss till now, even

after repeated directions by the Commission.

c) The Commission in its last Tariff order has reduced the continuous supply surcharge

from 15% to 10%. Further, reduction in the continuous supply surcharge from 10% to 5%

is suggested and the same should be charged only for the consumption during rostering

period only and not on the entire consumption.

d) High voltage rebate should be increased from 2.5% to 3% for 33 kV and from 7.5% to

10% for 132 kV.

e) Morning Peak hours should be abolished.

f) The Departmental eployees and pensioners category consumption is not being

monitored, accounted and billed properly. This should be monitored by UPCL and

impact of this should not be passed on to the consumer.



g) The Commission needs to consider the arrangement of security deposit to UPCL from

consumers in the form of Bank Guarantee or cheques or online instead of cash deposit.

h) Increase in cross-subsidy surcharge and additional surcharge proposed by the licensee

on the consumers are highly opposed as the same are against the spirit of open access

facility provided to such consumers and the same will discourage the open access.

i) UPCL, in order to increase its collection efficiency demands advance payments from the

industry.

j) Appreciated the efforts all the three utilities for improvement in quality of supply of

power as quality of power directly impacts the cost of production in Industry.

k) UPCL should try to improve the efficiency of the Technical staff by providing them

adequate training or capacity building programmes may be organized. UPCL should

target for Capacity building of the staff in order to provide improved quality of supply.

l) Morning Peak hours should be shifted from 6 am to 8 am instead of 6 am to 9:30 am. The

peak hours should be fixed in such a manner that the single shift industry gets clear 8

hours (plus one hour break) for continuous operation at normal tariffs.

m) Commission needs to take the appropriate view on distribution losses for UPCL

considering the trajectory approved in previous Orders.

n) UPCL has claimed huge amount of capital expenditure during next 3 to 4 years. The

Commission needs to take an appropriate view while approving the capital expenditure

plan.

o) UPCL should convert their sub-station into profit cost centres and any sub-station found

to be losing money should be subjected to penalties.

p) Consultation Forum should be made including officers of Utilities, Regulatory

Commission, representative of industries and representative of other stakeholders to

discuss the issues related to Uttarakhand power sector.

q) The Street lights should not lit till late in the morning and by switching off the street

light by half an hour early, 4% reduction in cost may be achieved by UPCL.



r) UPCL should take appropriate measures for reduction in wastage of assets of UPCL in

order to reduce the cost which in turn may improve the efficiency of the organization.

s) The slabs for Domestic, Non-domestic and Govt. institutions may be revised as the slabs

were fixed long back and the permissible consumption in lowest slab should increased.

t) Tariff should not be increased for charitable institutions.

u) There is a huge difference in fixed charges for different slabs under domestic category.

The same should be rationalized.


The Petitioner submitted the following replies

a) With regards to non-performance at grass root level, UPCL submitted that they are

facing shortage of employees and UPCL is trying to get approval from the Govt. for

proposed recruitment.

b) With the incorporation of SAIFI and SAIDI the quality of supply has improved.

c) UPCL has now been able to calculate the voltage wise loss and will provide the data

soon. For Voltage wise assets, UPCL is appointing an external agency to carry out the

valuation of assets at each voltage level.

d) For load factor based tariff and continuous supply surcharge, UPCL submitted that the

Commission may take a view on the same.

e) For peak hours UPCL submitted that the peak hours are directly linked to the GRID and

cannot be changed without confirming from SLDC.


The issues raised by the Members of the Advisory Committee have been taken into

consideration while deciding on the Petitioner’s claims in the Petitions filed for approval of

Business Plan for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and true up of FY 2017-18,

APR for FY 2018-19 and Tariff for third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as detailed in

subsequent Chapters of this Order.


3. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and

Conclusion on Business Plan for the third Control Period

3.1 Statutory Requirement

The Commission had notified the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms

and Conditions for Determination of Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2015 on September 10, 2015 in

accordance with the provisions of the Act. The above Regulations were applicable for determination

of Tariff for the Second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. The Commission had further

notified the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for

Determination of Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2018 on September 14, 2018 applicable for

determination of Tariff for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.

3.2 Multi Year Tariff Framework

As regards the Multi Year Tariff Framework, UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies as

follows:

“4. Multi-year Framework

The Multiyear tariff framework shall be based on the following: -

a) Business plan submitted by the applicant for the entire control period for the approval of

the Commission prior to the beginning of the control period;

b) Applicant’s forecast of expected ARR for each year of the control period, based on

reasonable assumptions and financial & operational principles/parameters laid down under

these Regulations submitted alongwith the MYT petition for determination of Aggregate

Revenue Requirement and Tariffs for first year of the control period;

c) Review of control period ending on 31.03.2019 shall also be taken up alongwith the

ARR/Tariff petition for the first year of ensuing control period;

d) Trajectory for specific parameters as may be stipulated by the Commission based on

submissions made by the Licensee, actual performance data of the Applicants and performance

achieved by similarly placed utilities;



e) Annual review of performance shall be conducted vis-à-vis the approved forecast and

categorization of variations in performance into controllable factors and uncontrollable

factors;

f) Sharing of excess profit or loss due to controllable and uncontrollable factors as per

provisions of these Regulations.

…

7. Determination of Baseline

The baseline values (operating and cost parameters) for the base year of the control period

shall be determined by the Commission based on the approved values by the Commission, the

latest audited accounts, estimates for the relevant year, prudence check and other factors

considered by the Commission.

The Commission may re-determine the baseline values for the base year based on the actual

audited accounts of the base year.”

3.3 Business Plan for the third Control Period

Regarding Business Plan, Regulation 8 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies as

follows:

“8. Business Plan

(1) An Applicant shall submit, under affidavit and as per the UERC Conduct of Business

Regulations as amended from time to time, a Business Plan by November 30th, 2018, for the

Control Period of three (3) financial years from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2022;

…

c) The Business Plan for the Distribution Licenses shall be for the entire control period and

shall, interalia, contain-

(i) Sales/demand forecast for each customer category and sub-categories for each year of the

control period;

(ii) Distribution loss reduction trajectory for each year of the control period; including details

of the measures proposed to be taken for achieving the target loss;

3. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Business Plan for the third Control Period


(iii) Power procurement plan in case of long term, medium term and short term based on the

sales forecast and distribution loss trajectory for each year of the business plan period; the

power procurement plan may also include energy efficiency and demand side management

measures;

(iv) Collection efficiency improvement trajectory for each year of the control period;

(v) Capital investment plan considering the sales/demand forecast, power procurement plan,

distribution loss trajectory, targets for quality of supply, etc. The capital investment plan

shall be consistent with the perspective plan drawn by the State Transmission Utility (STU),

and the investment plan should also include yearly phasing of capital expenditure alongwith

the source of funding, financing plan and corresponding capitalisation schedule;

(vi) The appropriate capital structure of each scheme proposed and cost of financing (interest

on debt and return on equity), terms of the existing loan agreements, etc;

(vii) Details related to availability of power from renewable energy sources and actions

proposed for complying with the RPO specified by the Commission.

...

(2) The Applicant shall also submit the details in respect of its manpower planning for the

Control Period as part of Business Plan.

(3) The Commission shall scrutinize and approve the business plan after following the due

consultation process.”

With regard to Sales Forecast, Regulation 77 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies

as follows:

“77. Sales Forecast

(1) Considering the importance of capturing seasonal variation, Monthly Sales Forecast for the

Control Period shall be done in respect of each consumer category/sub-category and to each tariff

slab within such consumer category/sub-category, based on the past trends, as far as possible and

shall be submitted to the Commission for approval along with the Business Plan. Suitable

adjustments shall be made to reflect the effect of known and measurable changes with respect to

number of consumers, the connected load and the energy consumption, thereby removing any

abnormality in the past data.



Provided that where the Commission has stipulated a methodology for forecasting sales to any

particular tariff category, the Distribution Licensee shall incorporate such methodology in

developing the sales forecast for such tariff category.

(2) The sales forecast shall be consistent with the load forecast prepared as part of the long-term

power procurement plan submitted as a part of Business Plan under these Regulations and shall

be based on past data and reasonable assumptions regarding the future.

(3) The Commission shall examine the forecasts for reasonableness based on growth in number of

consumers, the connected load and the energy consumption in previous years and anticipated

growth in the next year and any other factor, which the Commission may consider relevant and

approve the projected sale of electricity to consumers with such modifications as deemed fit.”

Regarding Distribution losses, Regulation 79 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies

as follows:

“79. Distribution losses

(1) Energy loss in the distribution system shall be called Distribution Loss.

(2) Distribution Loss above and up to a particular voltage level shall be calculated as the

difference between the energy initially injected into the distribution system and the sum of

energy sold up to that level and energy delivered to next voltage level.

% Distribution Loss above and up to a particular voltage level shall be expressed in terms of

Distribution Loss up to that level as a percentage of the energy initially injected into the

distribution system.

(3) The Commission may require information on Circle-wise/Division-wise and/or month-wise

Distribution loss calculation.

(4) To substantiate the Distribution Loss calculations, the Commission may require the

Distribution Licensee to conduct proper and reliable energy audit.

(5) The Distribution Licensee shall also propose voltage-wise losses for each year of the control

period for the determination of voltage-wise cost of supply. The Commission shall examine the

filings made by the licensee for the distribution loss trajectory for each year of the control period

and approve the same with modification as it may consider necessary.



(6) The Commission may ask Distribution Licensee to submit detailed information on voltage-

wise Distribution Losses segregating them into Technical loss (i.e. Ohmic/Core loss in the lines,

substations and equipment) and Commercial Loss (i.e. unaccounted energy due to metering

inaccuracies/inadequacies, pilferage of energy, etc.). The Commission shall examine the filings

made by the Distribution Licensee in respect of distribution loss (segregated into technical loss

and commercial loss) and approve the same with modification, as it may consider necessary.

(7) The Commission may fix targets, both long term and short term, for each year of control

period for loss reduction to bring down the Distribution loss levels (both technical and

commercial) gradually to acceptable norms of efficiency.”

Regarding Power procurement plan, Regulation 73 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018

specifies as follows:

“73. Power procurement plan

(1) The Distribution Licensee shall prepare a plan for procurement of power to serve the demand

for electricity in its area of supply and submit such plan to the Commission for approval:

Provided that such power procurement plan shall be submitted for the second Control Period

commencing on April 1, 2019:

Provided further that the power procurement plan, approved as a part of the Business Plan, shall

be submitted along with the application for determination of tariff.

Provided that the power procurement plan submitted by the Distribution Licensee may include

long-term, medium-term and short-term power procurement sources of power, in accordance

with these Regulations. However, the distribution licensee should as far as possible, not plan for

short-term purchases except for conditions specified in Regulations 75 and should endeavor to

meet its requirement from long term and medium term power procurement and make a plan

accordingly.

(2) The power procurement plan of the Distribution Licensee shall comprise of the following:

a) A quantitative forecast of the unrestricted demand for electricity for each tariff category,

within its area of supply over the Control Period;

b) An estimate of the quantities of electricity supply from the identified sources of generation

and power purchase;



c) An estimate of availability of power to meet the base load and Peak load requirement.

Provided that estimate should be monthly estimation of demand and supply expressed both

in Mega-Watt (MW) as well as in Million Units (MUs).

d) Standards to be maintained with regard to quality and reliability of supply, in accordance

with the UERC (Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2007, as amended from time to

time;

e) Measures proposed to be implemented as regards energy conservation and energy

efficiency;

f) The requirement for new sources of power generation and/or procurement, including

augmentation of generation capacity and identified new sources of supply, based on (a) to (d)

above;

g) The plan for procurement of power including quantities and cost estimates for such

procurement:

Provided that the forecast/estimate contained in the long-term procurement plan shall be

separately stated for peak and off-peak periods, in terms of quantities of power to be procured

(in millions of units of electricity) and maximum demand (in MW / MVA):

Provided further that the forecasts/estimates shall be prepared for each month of the Control

Period:

Provided also that the long-term procurement plan shall be a cost-effective plan based on

available information regarding costs of various sources of supply.

h) Short-term power procurement proposed shall be in accordance with Regulation 75 of these

Regulations.

(3) The forecasts/estimates shall be prepared using forecasting techniques based on past data and

reasonable assumptions regarding the future:

Provided that the forecasts/estimates shall take into account factors such as overall economic

growth, consumption growth of electricity-intensive sectors, advent of competition in the

electricity industry, trends in captive power, impact of loss reduction initiatives, improvement in

Generating Station Plant Load Factors and other relevant factors.



(4) Where the Commission has stipulated a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in

the area of a Distribution Licensee to be purchased from co-generation and renewable sources of

energy, the power procurement plan of such Distribution Licensee shall include the plan for

procurement from such sources at least upto the stipulated level.

(5) The Distribution Licensee shall be required to forward a copy of the power procurement plan

to the State Transmission Utility for verification of its consistency with the transmission system

plan for the intra-State transmission system;

Provided that the Distribution Licensee may also consult the State Transmission Utility at the

time of preparation of the power procurement plan to ensure consistency of such plan with the

transmission system plan.

(6) The Distribution Licensee may, as a result of additional information not previously known or

available to him at the time of submission of the procurement plan under sub-Regulation (1)

above, apply for a modification in the power procurement plan, for the remainder of the Control

Period, as part of the application for Annual Performance Review:

(7) The Commission may, as a result of additional information not previously known or available

to the Commission at the time of submission of the procurement plan under sub-Regulation (1)

above, if it so deems, either on suo motu basis or on an application made by any interested or

affected party, modify the procurement plan of the Distribution Licensee, for the remainder of the

Control Period, as part of the Annual Performance Review.

(8) The Commission shall review the power procurement plan of the Distribution Licensee, or

any proposed modification thereto, and upon such review being completed, the Commission shall

either-

a) Issue an order approving the power procurement plan, or modifications thereto, subject to

such modifications and conditions as it may deem appropriate; or

b) Reject the power procurement plan or application for modification thereto, for reasons

recorded in writing, if such plan is not in accordance with the guidelines contained in this

Part, and direct the Distribution Licensee to submit a revised plan based on such

considerations as it may specify:

Provided that the Distribution Licensee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard

before rejecting its power procurement plan.”



Regarding Capital Investment Plan, Regulation 71 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018


“71. Capital Investment Plan

(1) The Distribution Licensee shall file a detailed capital investment plan, financing plan and

physical targets for each financial year of the Control Period, for meeting the requirement of load

growth, reduction in distribution losses, improvement in quality of supply, reliability, metering,

consumer services, etc. to the Commission for approval as a part of Business Plan. The capital

investment plan should be filed at the beginning of the Control Period.

(2) The investment plan shall be a least cost plan for undertaking investments on strengthening

and augmentation of the distribution system for meeting the requirement of load growth,

reduction in distribution losses, improvement in quality of supply, reliability, metering, etc.

(3) The investment plan shall cover all capital expenditure projects to be undertaken by the

Distribution Licensee in the Control Period and shall be in such form as may be stipulated by the

Commission from time to time.

(4) The prior approval of the Commission shall be required for all capital expenditure schemes of

the value exceeding the ceiling specified by the Commission in the distribution license.

(5) The investment plan shall be accompanied by such information, particulars and documents

as may be required showing the need for the proposed investments, alternatives considered,

cost/benefit analysis and other aspects that may have a bearing on the wheeling tariff and retail

tariffs. The investment plan shall also include capitalisation schedule and financing plan.

(6) The Distribution Licensee shall submit, along with the MYT Petition or along with the

application for Annual Performance Review, details showing the progress of capital expenditure

projects, together with such other information, particulars or documents as the Commission may

require for assessing such progress.”

In accordance with Regulation 8, Regulation 71, Regulation 73, Regulation 77 &

Regulation 79 of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, the Petitioner submitted the Business Plan for the

third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Petitioner in its Business Plan Petition and

subsequent submissions has submitted the Sales Forecast, distribution loss reduction trajectory,

power procurement plan, collection efficiency improvement trajectory, capital expenditure plan,

capitalisation plan, and human resources plan for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY



2021-22. The Petitioner’s submissions and the Commission’s analysis on the approval of the

Business Plan for UPCL for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 are detailed

below.

3.4 Sales Forecast

The Petitioner submitted that various measures including tax incentives, etc. for providing

boost to the economic activities along with increasing population, per capita consumption and

electrification level has resulted in significant increase in consumer base and sales in the State. The

actual daily household consumption of registered domestic consumers (both urban and rural) has

grown from 3.04 units in FY 2010-11 to 3.87 units in FY 2017-18 at a CAGR (Compounded Annual

Growth Rate) of 4.1%. The Petitioner further submitted that the Central Schemes with their focus on

rural electrification like DDUGJY, Power For ALL, SAUBHAGYA etc. have spurred demand in the

State, which has resulted in increase of domestic sales share from 21% in FY 2012-13 to 24.5% in FY

2017-18. On the other hand, completion of tax holidays and initiatives such as demonetisation and

rollout of GST have dampened industrial consumption in the State from 57% in FY 2012-13 to 55%

in FY 2017-18. The Petitioner further submitted that based on actual energy sales data, Uttarakhand

witnessed compounded growth in energy consumption of 5.5% over the past five years from FY

2012-13 to FY 2017-18. The actual consumer category wise sales for the past 5 years are as shown in

the Table below:

Table 3.1: Actual consumer category wise sales for FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18 (MU) Consumer Category FY

2012-13 FY

2013-14 FY

2014-15 FY

2015-16 FY

2016-17 FY

2017-18 RTS-1: Domestic 1799.57 2108.08 2272.98 2390.95 2486.16 2,741.53 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 953.94 993.87 1069.93 1120.82 1178.02 1,235.25 RTS-3: Public Lamps 69.83 44.06 46.84 45.37 48.40 57.31 RTS-4: Private Tubewells Wells/Puming Sets 257.63 239.75 268.89 283.91 350.77 271.37 RTS-5: Government Irrigation System 130.20 104.23 107.64 141.03 145.08 165.70 RTS-6: Public Water Works 302.68 293.37 316.64 347.04 358.04 367.23 RTS-7: LT & HT Industry 4884.88 5092.57 5371.28 5719.59 5808.16 6,160.27 RTS-8: Mixed Load 167.55 177.60 185.68 186.78 178.11 182.43 RTS-9: Railway Traction 7.83 11.49 14.70 14.16 19.23 27.73 Total 8574.11 9065.02 9654.58 10249.65 10571.97 11208.82

The Petitioner further submitted that for projecting the consumer category-wise sales for FY

2018-19 and for each year of the third Control Period, the Petitioner has considered the trend of

actual sales in the past six years (FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18). The Petitioner submitted that the



Commission in the previous Orders has projected unrestricted sales by adjusting the sales of the

Petitioner for the actual load shedding during the respective years. For FY 2017-18, the Petitioner

has been able to reduce the load shedding to less than 0.5% of the actual energy requirement in FY

2017-18 and, therefore, the sales during FY 2017-18 can be considered equivalent to unrestricted

sales and hence, the Petitioner has considered the actual sales for FY 2017-18 for the purpose of

projection of sales for FY 2018-19 and subsequent years of the third Control Period. Further, the

Petitioner submitted that the number of unmetered connections has reduced to nil and, hence, the

Petitioner has done away with re-casting of sales for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner submitted that in

line with the methodology adopted by the Commission in the past, the Petitioner has adopted the

CAGR approach to project the sales for each consumer category while excluding any outliers

(relative to the trend) observed in the growth rates over the period of 5 years. According to this

method, Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGRs) were calculated from the past figures for each

category, corresponding to different lengths of time in the past five years, along with the year-on-

year growth rates from FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18. The Petitioner has also considered the seasonality

effect on consumption, enhancement of connected load and impact of Saubhagya scheme while

selecting the growth rate.

The Petitioner has computed (CAGR) for each consumer category on the basis of actual sales

for the past 6 years from FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18. The CAGR calculated for different lengths of

time from FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.2: Computed CAGR of Sales as submitted by the Petitioner S.No. Consumer Category 5 year 4 year 3 year 2 year 1 year

1. RTS-1: Domestic 8.78% 6.81% 6.43% 7.08% 10.27% 2. RTS-2: Non-Domestic 5.26% 5.54% 4.91% 4.97% 4.86% 3. RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 3.26% 7.52% 7.80% 5.19% 7.02% 4. RTS-4: Private Tube-wells/Pumping sets 1.04% 3.15% 0.00% -9.59% -22.57% 5. RTS-5: LT & HT Industry

Total LT 0.87% 1.24% -0.28% 3.46% 0.69% Total HT 4.97% 5.08% 4.96% 3.80% 6.36%

6. RTS-6: Mixed Load 1.72% 0.67% -0.59% -1.17% 2.43% 7. RTS-7: Railway Traction 28.77% 24.65% 23.56% 39.92% 44.20%

Total 5.50% 5.45% 4.99% 4.33% 6.03%

The Petitioner submitted that the sales for various categories of consumers have been

projected in the following manner:



• RTS-1: Domestic Category: Sales for FY 2018-19 has been projected considering the

impact of new consumers added under SAUBHAGYA scheme by analysing

consumption of BPL consumers in the last three years. Subsequently, projection for

sales for the Control Period has been made considering the 5 years CAGR of 8.78%

over revised base of FY 2018-19.

• RTS-2: Non-Domestic Category: Sales has been projected for FY 2018-19 and each

year of the Control Period considering the nominal 5 year CAGR of 5.3%.

• RTS-3: Government Public Utilities: Sales for FY 2018-19 and for each year of the

Control Period has been projected considering the 3 year CAGR of 7.80%.

• RTS-4: Private Tubewells / Pumpsets (including RTS-4A): Sales for FY 2018-19 and

for each year of the Control Period has been projected considering the 4 year CAGR

of 3.1%.

• RTS-5: For LT industry, the Petitioner submitted that the 3/5 year growth in sales is

minimal. However, in view of the increase in connected load during FY 2016-17 and

FY 2017-18, i.e. 8%-9%, the Petitioner has projected the sales for this category to grow

at a rate of 3.46% in FY 2018-19 and subsequent years of the third Control Period in

line with the 2 year CAGR.

For HT Industries, the Petitioner submitted that the growth in sales during FY 2017-

18 was 6.4% after subdued growth of 3% in FY 2016-17. The high growth in FY 2017-

18 was coupled with load enhancement. Accordingly, the Petitioner has considered 5

year CAGR of 4.97% for projecting the sales in this category for FY 2018-19 and

subsequent years.

• RTS-6: Mixed Load: Sales for FY 2018-19 and for each year of the Control Period has

been projected considering the 5 year CAGR of 1.72%.

• RTS-7: Railway Traction: Sales for FY 2018-19 has been projected based on the

increase in month-wise sales in FY 2017-18 due to load enhancement. For FY 2018-19

and subsequent years a growth of 4.00% has been considered in view of the full year

impact of the enhanced load of the railways.



The projections of consumer category wise sales for the third Control Period from FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22 submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.3: Consumer Category wise sales projected by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Consumer Category FY2018-19 (Revised)

Growth Rate

FY 2019-20 (Projected)



RTS-1: Domestic 3,043.22 8.78% 3,310.54 3,601.33 3,917.67 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1,300.17 5.26% 1,368.53 1,440.48 1,516.21 RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 636.31 7.80% 685.97 739.50 797.21 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 279.72 3.15% 288.33 297.21 306.36 RTS-5: LT & HT Industry 6,462.18 6,778.94 7,111.30 7,460.01 Total LT 312.68 3.46% 323.52 334.72 346.32 Total HT 6,149.50 4.97% 6,455.43 6,776.57 7,113.70 RTS-6: Mixed Load 185.56 1.72% 188.75 191.99 195.29 RTS-7: Railway Traction 28.84 4.00% 29.99 31.19 32.44 Total 11,936.00 12,651.04 13,412.99 14,225.20

The Petitioner submitted that for projecting the connected load and number of consumers

for all the categories (except domestic category) for FY 2018-19 and for each year of the third

Control Period actual load/consumer growth between FY 2012-13 and FY 2017-18 has been

considered, i.e. the chosen growth rate is applied over the actual connected load/number of

consumers in FY 2017-18 to make the projections for each category for FY 2018-19, and for

projections for each year of the Control Period. Further, for Domestic category the Petitioner for

projecting the number of consumers for FY 2018-19, has considered the impact of 2,17,292 new

connections released under SAUBHGYA scheme. The number of consumers for each year of the

Control Period is then projected based on the growth rate considered for dometic category over

number of consumers for FY 2018-19 respectively.

The projected connected load for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 for each consumer category is as

shown in the Table below:



Table 3.4: Consumer Category wise connected load projected by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (kW)

Consumer Category FY 2018-19 (Revised Estimate)

Growth Rate

FY 2019-20

FY 2020-21

FY 2021-22

RTS-1: Domestic 3110392 7.49% 3343237 3593513 3862525 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1080117 8.40% 1170706 1268899 1375334 RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 187075 6.01% 198337 210301 223012 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells/Pumping sets 181505 5.00% 190581 200110 210116 RTS-5: LT & HT Industry 2111225 - 2240905 2378578 2524738

Total LT 238187 5.14% 250423 263288 276814 Total HT 1873038 6.27% 1990482 2115290 2247924

RTS-6: Mixed Load 58307 0.62% 58671 59037 59405 RTS-7: Railway Traction 15000 - 15000 15000 15000 Total 6743621 - 7217437 7725438 8270130

The projected number of consumers for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 for each consumer

category is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.5: Consumer Category wise number of consumers projected by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Nos.)

Consumer Category FY 2018-19 (Revised Estimate)

Growth Rate FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

RTS-1: Domestic 2180533 5.42% 2298815 2423513 2554975 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 248904 6.00% 264373 280804 298256 RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 5370 10.79% 5960 6625 7376 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets 34098 5.00% 35823 37635 39538 RTS-5: LT & HT Industry 12895 - 13142 13393 13649

Total LT 10425 1.91% 10625 10828 11035 Total HT 2470 6.05% 2517 2565 2614

RTS-6: Mixed Load 73 1.45% 74 75 76 RTS-7: Railway Traction 2 0% 2 2 2 Total 2481875 - 2618189 2762047 2913872

The Commission observed that the sales projections made by the Petitioner for the third

Control Period are the restricted sales projections as the Petitioner has computed the growth rates

based on actual restricted sales and then applied the growth rates on the actual restricted sales. It

would be important to note that the actual load shedding in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 was to the

extent of 84 MU and 31 MU respectively. The Commission is of the view that for the purpose of

planning, it would be more appropriate to project the unrestricted sales for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as UPCL can arrange to procure additional power from the market



due to the improvement in demand supply situation across the country as well as in the Northern

Region. Accordingly, the Commission has projected the unrestricted sales for the third Control

Period.

The Commission while carrying out the truing up of sales for each category, recasts the sales

for certain categories. Accordingly, the Commission while carrying out the truing up of sales for FY

2017-18 has re-casted the sales for certain categories as discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the Order.

The Commission has, therefore, considered the actual re-casted sales of previous 6 years. For

projecting the category-wise sales for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22, the

Commission analysed the growth rates derived based on re-casted unrestricted sales data for the

previous 6 years. The Commission has normalized the growth rate, wherever, considered

appropriate based on the ground reality, to realistically estimate the sales figures for a particular

category of consumers for each year of the Control Period. The Commission has first applied the

growth rates so derived on the actual re-casted sales figures of FY 2017-18 to estimate the category

wise sales for FY 2018-19 and, thereafter, applying the same growth rates on the estimated sales

figures for FY 2018-19, category wise sales figures has been projected for each year of the third

Control Period.

The category-wise growth rates considered by the Commission for different categories of

consumers and sales projections for the Control Period are discussed in the following paras.

3.4.1 Domestic (RTS-1)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 8.78% after considering the impact of sales to

new consumers added under SAUBHGYA scheme in FY 2018-19 by analysing consumption of BPL

consumers over last three years. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected energy sales to domestic

consumers for FY 2019-20 as 3,310.54 MU.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for domestic

category works out to 7.91%, 6.37%, 4.93%, 6.34% and 8.39% respectively. The Commission

considering the CAGR of previous years and year on year variations has projected the sales for the

third Control Period considering the five year CAGR of 7.91%. With regard to impact of increase in

consumers in FY 2018-19, the Commission observes that the total increase in number of consumers

and connected load vis-a-vis FY 2017-18 is 12.34% and 7.49% respectively and the above CAGR of



7.91% factors in the impact of the same. Hence, the sales for domestic Category projected by the

Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 works out to 3137.38 MU, 3385.63 MU and

3653.51 MU respectively.

3.4.2 Non-Domestic (RTS-2)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 5.26% considering the range bound actual

consumption over past year in this category. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected energy sales

to non- domestic consumers for FY 2019-20 as 1,368.53 MU.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for non-domestic

category works out to 3.96%, 4.11%, 3.44%, 3.87% and 3.32% respectively. Considering the CAGR of

previous years and year on year variation in sales, the Commission for projecting the sales for the

third Control Period has considered five years CAGR of 3.96%. Hence, the sales for non-domestic

Category projected by the Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 works out to

1325.79 MU, 1378.24 MU and 1432.77 MU respectively.

3.4.3 Government Public Utilities (RST-3)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 7.80% considering the actual rise in sales in

the last three years. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected a sale of 685.97 MU for FY 2019-20 for

this category.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for Government

Public Utilitites category works out to 1.40%, 6.40%, 5.70%, 2.97% and 3.10% respectively.

Considering the CAGR of previous years and year on year variation in sales, it is observed that

there is no clear trend in sales in the previous years. However, the Commission for projecting the

sales for the third Control Period has considered three years CAGR of 5.70%. Hence, the sales for

Government Public Utilitites Category projected by the Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and

FY 2021-22 works out to 639.13 MU, 675.56 MU and 714.08 MU respectively.

3.4.4 Private Tube-Wells (RTS-4)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 3.15% considering the range bound actual

consumption over past years in this category. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected energy sales

to Private Tube-Wells consumers for FY 2019-20 as 288.33 MU.



The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for PTW category

works out to 6.03%, 5.16%, -2.04%, -4.81% and -18.76% respectively. It is observed that for this

category 3 Year CAGR, 2 Year CAGR and 1 Year CAGR works out to be negative. However, the

Petitioner in reply to the deficiency note has submitted that it has released 5208 new connection

under PTW category in FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 and has projected to provide new 3500 PTW

connections during the third Control Period. Therefore, the Commission for projecting the sales for

the third Control Period for this category has considered nominal growth rate of 4.00%. Hence, the

sales for Private Tube-Wells Category projected by the Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and

FY 2021-22 works out to 282.91 MU, 294.23 MU and 306.00 MU respectively.

3.4.5 Industry (RTS-5)

The Petitioner has considered the growth rate of 3.46% for LT category of consumers

considering the increase in connected load. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected sales to LT

consumers at 323.52 MU for FY 2019-20.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for LT industries

works out to be -0.83%, -0.68%, -2.41%, 1.23% and -2.79% respectively. It is observed that 5 years, 4

years, 3 years and 1 year CAGR is negative and further there is no clear trend in sales in these years.

Therefore, the Commission for projecting the sales for the third Control Period has considered

growth rate of 3.50% considering the growth in connected load as projected by the Petitioner.

Hence, the sales for LT Industry Category projected by the Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21

and FY 2021-22 works out to be 315.03 MU, 326.05 MU and 337.47 MU respectively.

The Petitioner has considered the growth rate of 4.97% for HT category of consumers

considering the high growth in sales in FY 2017-18. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected sales

to HT consumers at 6455.43 MU for FY 2019-20.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for HT industries

works out to be 4.15%, 3.74%, 3.59%, 2.83% and 5.31% respectively. Considering the CAGR of

previous years and year on year variation in sales, it is observed that there is no clear trend in sales

in the previous years. The Commission for projecting the sales for the third Control Period has

considered a nominal growth rate of 5.00% considering the growth in connected load and sales as

projected by the Petitioner. Hence, the sales for HT Industry category projected by the Commission



for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 works out to 6445.84 MU, 6768.14 MU and 7106.54 MU

respectively.

3.4.6 Mixed Load (RTS-8)

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 1.72% considering the actual increase in sales

in the previous years. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected a sale of 188.75 MU for FY 2019-20

for this category.

The 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for Mixed Load

category works out to 0.09%, -1.13%, -2.57%, -3.12% and -0.71% respectively. In the absence of any

specific trend the Commission has considered a nominal growth rate of 2.00%. Hence, the sales for

this Category projected by the Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 works out to

be 185.46 MU, 189.17 MU and 192.95 MU respectively.

3.4.7 Railway Traction

The Petitioner has considered a growth rate of 4.00% based on the increase in month wise

sales in FY 2017-18 due to load enhancement. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected sales of 29.99

MU in FY 2019-20 for this category.

As the 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year CAGR of unrestricted sales for this

category works out to be on a higher side as there was considerable load enhancement in FY 2017-

18. The impact of such load enhancement is already factored in the sales of FY 2017-18. Therefore,

the Commission for projecting the sales for Railway Traction for the third Control Period has

considered the growth rate of 4.00%. Hence, the sales for this Category projected by the

Commission for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 works out to be 30.08 MU, 31.28 MU and

32.53 MU respectively.

The summary of the category-wise sales projected by the Petitioner and as approved by the

Commission for the third Control Period is given in the Table below:



Table 3.6: Category Wise Sales Projections for third Control Period (MU) Consumer Category

FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved

RTS-1: Domestic 3310.54 3137.38 3601.33 3385.63 3917.67 3653.51 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1368.53 1325.79 1440.48 1378.24 1516.21 1432.77 RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 685.97 639.13 739.50 675.56 797.21 714.08 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells/ Pumping sets 288.33 282.91 297.21 294.23 306.36 306.00

RTS-5: LT & HT Industry Total LT 323.52 315.03 334.72 326.05 346.32 337.47 Total HT 6455.43 6445.84 6776.57 6768.14 7113.70 7106.54 Total 6778.94 6760.87 7111.29 7094.19 7460.02 7444.01

RTS-6: Mixed Load 188.75 185.46 191.99 189.17 195.29 192.95 RTS-7: Railway Traction 29.99 30.08 31.19 31.28 32.44 32.53 Total 12651.05 12361.61 13412.99 13048.30 14225.20 13775.85

3.5 Efficiency Parameters

3.5.1 Distribution Losses

The Petitioner submitted the year-wise status of the distribution losses as shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.7: Year wise distribution losses as submitted by the Petitioner

Year Approved by the Commission

Actual Estimated by the Commission

Actual as per UPCL’s record

2003-04 40.32% 35.55% 29.52% 2004-05 36.32% 36.63% 26.66% 2005-06 32.32% 33.38% 28.37% 2006-07 28.32% 32.84% 29.73% 2007-08 24.32% 30.98% 29.65% 2008-09 22.32% 31.02% 28.01% 2009-10 20.32% 25.09% 24.53% 2010-11 19.00% 22.72% 21.61% 2011-12 18.00% 21.27% 19.96% 2012-13 17.00% 21.70% 20.50% 2013-14 16.00% 20.66% 19.18% 2014-15 15.50% 19.06% 18.53% 2015-16 15.00% 18.81% 18.01% 2016-17 15.00% 17.10% 16.68% 2017-18 14.75% - 15.17% 2018-19 14.50% - -

The Petitioner submitted that at the time of approval of Business Plan for previous Control

Period, the loss trajectory approved for each year was based on the loss approved for FY 2016-17



resulting in a large gap between the actual and approved losses. The Petitioner further submitted

that due to the gap in opening loss level, inspite of significant reduction in past years, UPCL is not

able to meet the distribution loss targets for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. The Petitioner further

submitted that the non-achievement of the distribution loss target for the previous Control Period

has resulted into a financial loss to the company as the Commission has been considering deemed

revenue at the time of truing-up for respective years due to non-achievement of the loss target.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested the Commission to consider actual loss level of 15.17% for FY

2017-18 for approval of Distribution loss trajectory for the third Control Period.

The Petitioner submitted that loss reduction below 15% is very difficult to achieve going

forward and proposed to take following measures for loss reduction:

• Installation of Capacitor Bank at 33/11 kV substations.

• Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters.

• Replacement of Defective Meters to reduce the percentage of defective meters.

• 100% metering of consumers has been completed. Increase in meter reading.

• Implementation of AMR & Laying of LT ABC.

• LT Aerial Bunch Cable is being laid in theft prone areas.

• Prepaid metering has been made mandatory for new temporary LT connections, for

advertisements / hoardings and for Government connections upto 25 kW.

• Monitoring of high loss feeders by officers.

• Checking of consumer billing by Internal Audit Wing to detect errors/omissions/

malafides.

• Implementation of R-APDRP Part A & Part B scheme.

• Installation of Double metering in selected 11 kV & 33 kV consumers.

• Underground cabling of HT & LT electrical network in Haridwar Kumbh Area and

proposal for arterial roads of Dehradun.

• Procurement of High value consumer management system (HVCMS)

The Petitioner has proposed to reduce the distribution losses by 0.25% per annum during

each year of the Control Period considering the actual distribution loss in the base year FY 2017-18.

The proposed distribution loss trajectory for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

is as shown in the Table below:



Table 3.8: Distribution Loss trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Particulars FY 2017-18 (Actual) FY 2018-19 (Estimated)




Distribution Losses 15.17% 14.92% 14.67% 14.42% 14.17%

The distribution loss target approved by the Commission and the actual distribution loss

achieved for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.9: Distribution Losses for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Proposed Distribution Losses 15.00% 16.68% 14.75% 15.17% 14.50% 14.92%

As regards the Petitioner’s contention of opening gap in approved distribution loss

trajectory of UPCL, the Commission in its MYT Order dated April 05, 2016 for the previous Control

Period has already dealt with the issue and stated that to review and revise the loss reduction

trajectory, it has been repeatedly directing the Petitioner, in its previous Tariff Orders, to carry out

the energy audit study to ascertain actual losses in the system. However, the Petitioner has so far

not made any substantial progress in this regard and observed that the Petitioner has consistently

failed to address the issues of replacement of defective meters and meter reading in each billing

cycle. The Commission, in view of the above and rationale provided in earlier orders has already

opined that the under-achievement of losses by UPCL was not due to the stringent targets fixed by

the Commission but due to its own inefficiency and callous approach which in no way can be

passed on to the consumers.

However, in this regard the Commission would like to point out towards the loss reduction

initiatives proposed by UPCL. UPCL has been proposing the same initiatives over the years whose

results should have started accruing by now. However, from the submissions of the Petitioner as

given in the Table below it emerges that there are again 7 distribution divisons of UPCL which have

the distribution losses in excess of 30% which also includes EDD (U), Roorkee which is unacceptable

considering the fact that it is an urban division covered under R-APDRP Scheme.



Table 3.10: High Distribution Loss divisions in FY 2017-18 S. No. Distribution Division Loss (%)

1. EDD, Narayanbagar 54.72% 2. EDD, Tehri 31.45% 3. EDD (U), Roorkee 30.96% 4. EDD, Gopeshwar 31.97% 5. EDD Vikasnagar 31.46% 6. EDD, Uttarkashi 40.13% 7. EDD, Dharchula 31.90%

The Commission in its Order dated March 29, 2017 and March 21, 2018 had also observed

that there were seven divisions which had a loss level of more than 30% in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-

17 respectively. As is evident from above, still there are seven divisions where the losses are still

above 30%. The only inference that could be drawn here is that the Petitioner has not made any

serious and focussed efforts in reducing division wise losses despite the same being pointed out by

the Commission in its previous orders.

As has been held by the Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 29, 2017, losses in other

categories of consumers (excluding HT Consumers) as on March 31, 2016 were about 30.90%.

Moreover, the Commission in the said Order had also held that for past 3 years virtually there had

been no reduction in losses of other category of consumers which clearly suggests that the Petitioner

did not put in serious efforts in reducing the losses for other categories, thereby, failing to bring

these losses within acceptable limits. Further, to reduce the distribution losses at LT level and to

achieve loss level within acceptable limits, the Petitioner was required to take up certain works, like

replacement of all mechanical meters in a time-bound manner in all the divisions, removal of all

ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers from its billing database, ensuring that all the meters of

the consumers are read and their bills prepared and distributed within time and also that no

provisional bills namely NA/NR are issued for more than two billing cycles in accordance with the

provision of Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2007, etc. However, UPCL is yet to achieve its

target in ensuring compliances.

Moreover, the Petitioner is also a signatory of the GoI Ujwal Discom Assurance Yojana

(UDAY) wherein keeping in view the overall position, i.e. the actual losses of the Company,

investment is to be made to improve the operational performance, consumer habits and the

administrative situations. Further, the levels of AT&C Losses of the Petitioner Company fixed under

UDAY are as follows:



Table 3.11: AT&C Loss Target as per UDAY Year Level of AT&C Loss

2015-16 17% 2016-17 16% 2017-18 15% 2018-19 14.50%

Further, as already dealt by the Commission in its previous orders, Hon’ble ATE in its

Judgment dated May 18, 2015 in Appeal no. 180 of 2013 has also held that it did not find any

infirmity in fixing up of loss reduction targets by the State Commission as no instances were

produced where funds for capital works for strengthening of distribution system had been denied

by the State Commission in the ARR. Hence, the issue was decided against UPCL by Hon’ble ATE.

Hence, based on the above discussions and considering the ground realities, the

Commission decides not to revise the loss trajectory for FY 2018-19. UPCL’s inaction and

continuous high level of inefficiency does not allow it to seek revision of the loss trajectory

approved by the Commission, which if allowed would defeat the intent of the MYT framework.

Accordingly, the Commission decides to retain the distribution loss for FY 2018-19 at

14.50%. The Commission, however, agrees with the Petitioner’s contention that reduction of losses

beyond 14.50% will be gradual and, therefore, has set the target of marginal loss reduction to the

extent of 0.25% for each year of the third Control Period. The distribution loss trajectory proposed

by the Petitioner and that approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22 is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.12: Distribution Losses for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Particulars FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved

Distribution Losses 14.50% 14.67% 14.25% 14.42% 14.00% 14.17% 13.75%

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Commission has considered the entire distribution loss reduction target for each year of the Control

Period as reduction in commercial losses of the Petitioner and has, therefore, considered the impact

of distribution loss reduction in terms of increase in sales due to efficiency improvement.

Accordingly, the estimated energy requirement at distribution periphery, State periphery and

approved loss level for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 are given in the

Table below:



Table 3.13: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the third Control

Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Distribution Sales 12361.61 13048.30 13775.85 Loss level for Energy Input (MU) 14.50% 14.25% 14.00% Energy Input required at T-D interface (MU) 14458.03 15216.67 16018.43 Commercial Loss reduction (%) 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Commercial Loss reduction (Additional sales due to efficiency improvement) (MU) 36.15 38.04 40.05

Total sales with efficiency improvement (MU) 12397.76 13086.34 13815.89 Overall Distribution Loss (%) 14.25% 14.00% 13.75% PTCUL Loss (%) 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% Energy Input at State periphery (MU) 14663.31 15432.73 16245.87

3.5.2 Collection Efficiency

The Petitioner submitted that UPCL has achieved collection efficiency of 98.90% during FY

2017-18 as against the approved collection efficiency of 98.75%. The Petitioner submitted that UPCL

has undertaken several initiatives such as organizing revenue realization camps, agreement with

third parties for increasing payment centres, AMR billing for high value consumers, IT enablement

of day to day business processes of metering, billing and collection, etc. in the last few years for

improving the billing efficiency and collection of bills. Further, the Petitioner submitted that any

further improvement in collection efficiency beyond 99% may not be possible and achievable given

the increased LT consumers under Saubhagya scheme and large consumer base. Therefore, UPCL

has proposed an improvement of 0.05% in collection efficiency in FY 2018-19 and during each year

of the third Control Period considering the actual collection efficiency of 98.90% achieved during FY

2017-18.

The Petitioner submitted that following measures are planned to be carried out to achieve

the proposed collection efficiency for the third Control Period:

• Android based billing system

• Installation of pre-paid meters

• AMR based billing for high value consumers

• Instant Bill delivery on consumer premises using Spot Billing Machines

• Photo based billing started in some areas to remove meter reading malpractices &

improve customer satisfaction



• SMS based alerts on bill generation, payment reminders & other customer centric actions

• SMS based services using 8108114333

• Pre-Paid Metering for Temporary Connections

The collection efficiency trajectory proposed by the Petitioner is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.14: Collection efficiency trajectory proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Particulars FY 2017-18 (Actual) FY 2018-19 (proposed)




Collection Efficiency 98.90% 98.95% 99.00% 99.05% 99.10%

The collection efficiency (without arrears) achieved by the Petitioner against the approved

levels for the second Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.15: Collection efficiency for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19


Approved Actual Approved Actual Approved Proposed Distribution Losses 98.50% 94.67% 98.75% 96.30% 99.00% 98.95%

It is observed that the Petitioner has achieved collection efficiency of 96.30% of realisation of

current dues for FY 2017-18 as against the approved collection efficiency of 98.75%, whereas the

Petitioner has proposed collection efficiency of 98.95% for FY 2018-19 as against the approved

collection efficiency of 99.00%. The Petitioner has proposed improvement of 0.05% for each year of

the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2020-21. The Commission is of the opinion that the target

of collection efficiency of 99.00% as approved for FY 2018-19 is just and proper and, therefore, there

is no need to revise the same. The Commission has approved the collection efficiency of 99.05% for

FY 2019-20 same as claimed by the Petitioner. Further, for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, the

Commission has considered an improvement of 0.05% each year in collection efficiency. The

collection efficiency trajectory approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.16: Collection Efficiency for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Particulars FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved Proposed Approved

Collection Efficiency 99.00% 99.05% 99.05% 99.10% 99.10% 99.15% 99.15%

However, the Commission would like to point out that it does not determine the ARR and

Tariffs of UPCL based on the AT&C loss levels but based on the distribution loss levels. The



shortfall in collections is covered through an allowance in working capital for the distribution

licensee to the extent of collection inefficiency. The licensee should strive for maximum collections

so as to improve its financial health and prevent any receivables turning bad. Further, the scheme of

surcharge waiver should not be encouraged as it gives a wrong signal to the honest consumers who

pay their dues in time. The Petitioner is required and expected to improve its bill collection system

and also to monitor its receivables so as to prevent them from turning into bad and unrealizable.

3.6 Power Procurement Plan

The Petitioner submitted that the power requirement of UPCL is met from various sources

which includes the generating stations of:

• NTPC Ltd.

• NHPC Ltd.

• NPCIL

• SJVNL

• THDC Ltd.

• State generating stations of UJVN Ltd.

• UREDA

• Gas Generating Stations in the State

• Co-generation stations

• Independent Power Producers (IPPs)

• Other Renewable Sources

• Short-term power arrangements: Banking, open market purchase etc.

For projecting the availability of power for FY 2019-20, the Petitioner has considered the

average of the actual monthly energy generation during the past 3 years, i.e. FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-

18. For the stations which have not been operational for complete 3 years, the average of the actual

monthly generation during the years in which such stations have been fully operational has been

considered. The energy availability from various sources has been projected based on the following:

• UJVN Ltd. – The monthly availability from UJVN Ltd.’s 9 Large Hydro Plants,

Maneri Bhali-II and Small Hydro Plants based on generation projections of UJVN

Ltd. for FY 2018-19 and each year of the third Control Period. Further, normative



auxiliary consumption and share of Uttarakhand from each station has been applied

to arrive at the availability of power from UJVN Ltd.’s stations.

• NTPC Ltd. – For Singrauli, Unchahar- I, II & III, NCT Dadri II, Rihand STPS I, II &

III, Kahalgaon-II and Jhajjar Aravalli based on the average of actual monthly energy

generation during the past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18, normative

auxiliary consumption and share of Uttarakhand from each station. No energy has

been considered from Unchahar-IV for the third Control Period after its shutdown in

November, 2017. For Gas Power Plants like Anta, Auraiya & Dadri, the average of

actual month wise gross generation of last 2 years, i.e. FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 has

been considered after taking into consideration normative auxiliary consumption

and allocation to Uttarakhand from each station. For Koldam HPS the average of

actual month wise gross generation of last 2 years, i.e. FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 has

been considered after taking into consideration normative auxiliary consumption

and allocation to Uttarakhand from each station. Power from Singrauli has been

projected considering an average PLF of 40% and normative auxiliary consumption

and allocation to Uttarakhand from each station.

• NHPC Ltd. – For Salal, Tanakpur, Chamera- I, II & III, Uri I & II, Dulhasti,

Dhauliganga, Sewa-II, and Parbati Stage III, the average of actual monthly energy

generation during the past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 has been

considered after taking into consideration normative auxiliary consumption and

allocation to Uttarakhand from each station. Free power from Tanakpur and

Dhauliganga has been considered based on the average of actual monthly energy

generation during the past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18. For projecting the

power availability from Kishanganga HEP, the design energy as approved by CERC

in its order dated August 7, 2018 has been considered.

• NPCIL – For NAPP and RAPP, the average of actual monthly generation during the

past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 has been considered after taking into

consideration normative auxiliary consumption and allocation to Uttarakhand from

each station.



• SJVNL – For Naptha Jhakri and Rampur HEP energy availability has been

considered based on the average of actual monthly energy generation during the

past 2 years from FY 2015-16 and FY 2017-18 after taking into consideration

normative auxiliary consumption and allocation to Uttarakhand from each station.

• THDC - For Tehri HEP-I and Koteshwar, the average of actual monthly energy

generation during the past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 has been

considered after taking into consideration normative auxiliary consumption and

allocation to Uttarakhand from each station.

• Vishnu Prayag, GVK Srinagar & Rajwakti SHP Hydro Electric Project – For

Vishnuprayag and GVK Srinagar the average of actual monthly energy generation

during the past 2 years from FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 has been considered after

taking into consideration normative auxiliary consumption and allocation to

Uttarakhand from each station. FY 2015-16 has not been considered due to lower

generation in the year. For Rajwakti SHP energy availability has been considered

based on the average of actual monthly energy generation during the past 2 years

from FY 2016-17 to FY 2017-18 after taking into consideration normative auxiliary

consumption.

• UREDA stations and IPPs – For UREDA and IPP stations (except for Greenko

Budhil, Tanga, Sarju II, solar roof top, Solar IPPs, Uttam Sugar Mill, Gama &

Shravanti generators) the average of actual monthly energy generation during the

past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 has been considered after taking into

consideration normative auxiliary consumption and allocation to Uttarakhand from

each station. For Greenko Budhil Station availability has been considered based on

net saleable energy to Uttarakhand as approved by the Commission in the Tariff

Order dated March 21, 2018 for FY 2018-19. For Sarju II, the average of actual

monthly energy generation during the past 2 years from FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18

has been considered. For RBNS Sugar mill and Lakshmi Sugar mill the average of

actual monthly energy generation during the past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY

2017-18 has been considered and for Uttam Sugar mill the average monthly

generation of past 2 years from FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 has been considered. For



Gama and Shravanti Gas Plants, availability has been considered based on net

saleable energy approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order of FY 2018-19 for

the station dated March 21, 2018. For Solar IPPs and PV rooftop systems, availability

has been considered based on the existing capacity, new capacity expected to be

added in the next 3 years and at a average CUF of 16%.

• Upcoming stations – The energy availability from hydro stations expected to be

commissioned during the Control Period has been projected considering the likely

COD of such generating stations, normative performance parameters and share

allocation to UPCL.

• Forward banking of power – The Petitioner has proposed a forward banking of 283

MU, 334 MU and 733 MU in FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively,

which shall be returned under reverse banking during the same years in the months

of power deficit.

• Transmission Losses – The Petitioner has considered the ISTS losses on the basis of

actual station-wise losses for FY 2017-18 and intra- State transmission losses of 1.55%

for each year of the Control Period.

• Short term purchases - Based on the energy balance at UPCL periphery, after

considering the energy availability from firm sources, the Petitioner has projected a

shortfall of 1389 MU in FY 2019-20, 1186 MU in FY 2020-21, and 830 MU in FY 2021-

22.

• The Petitioner has proposed the total power purchase of 14827 MU in FY 2019-20,

15674 MU in FY 2020-21 and 16575 MU in FY 2021-22.

The Commission has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner. The Commission for

the projection purposes has considered the energy availability from various generating stations on

the basis of month-wise energy availability from all the generating stations. On the basis of monthly

energy availability and estimated energy requirement, the Commission has computed the deficit

quantum of power which the Petitioner would be required to purchase from open market, energy

exchange, medium/short term basis depending on its requirement. The Commission for projecting

power purchase has considered both the existing generating stations and upcoming stations to be



commissioned during the Control Period, in which UPCL has share allocation. The Commission,

however, has projected the power purchase cost only for FY 2019-20 in Chapter 5 of the Order while

determining the ARR for FY 2019-20 as projecting power purchase cost at this point of time for FY

2020-21 and FY 2021-22 will be of no relevance as the fuel costs varies significantly over a period of

time and further, CERC is also yet to issue the Orders for Central Generating stations for the tariff

period FY 2019-20 to FY 2023-24 . Further, as per UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, the Petitioner shall

be filing Petitions for tariff determination for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 alongwith the Annual

Performance Review for FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 and power purchase cost would require

detailed scrutiny while processing those Petitions. The detailed approach for approving the power

purchase quantum has been discussed below and the detailed approach for projecting power

purchase cost for FY 2019-20 is discussed in Chapter 5 of the Order.

For projecting the energy availability quantum from various sources, the Commission

sought the following information from the Petitioner:

• Copies of agreements executed with upcoming generating stations.

• Likely COD of the upcoming generating stations along with the basis.

• Economics of forward banking and reverse banking projected during the Control

Period.

• Actual ISTS losses for the past 52 weeks (1 year) based on bills received from Central

Sector Generating Stations (CSGS).

In reply, UPCL submitted the following:

• Copies of PPAs for the upcoming generating stations.

• Likely COD of the upcoming generating stations.

• Regarding banking of power, the Petitioner submitted that banking is an instrument

for safeguarding the distribution utility from the fluctuations in the short term power

market.

• The actual ISTS losses for FY 2017-18.

The Commission while projecting the quantum of energy available from various sources for

FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has made the assumptions as detailed below.



3.6.1 Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of UJVN Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.17: Power Purchase from UJVN Ltd. Stations of UJVN Ltd. Basis Rationale

UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs)

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18; The impact of loss in generation during the relevant months due to approved RMU works and DRIP closure for the respective stations in the 9 LHPs has been considered in FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.

FY 2018-19 not considered as the generation has been considerably lower due to poor monsoon. Maneri Bhali-II Average of actual month wise gross generation

in FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18; SHPs, viz. Pathri, Mohammadpur & Galogi

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18;

The Commission has estimated the energy availability from these generating stations to

UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary consumption and also excluding

the share allocation to Himachal Pradesh. Further, the Commission has also factored in the

upcoming RMU works to be undertaken by UJVN Ltd. for Dhalipur, MB-I and Dhakrani LHPs. The

summary of energy availability from UJVN Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as estimated by the

Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.18: Energy Availability from UJVN Ltd. For FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22(MU)

Station FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Estimated by UPCL

Estimated by Commission

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) 2441.83 2823.89 2563.27 2698.80 2602.99 2587.65 Maneri Bali II 1255.32 1249.00 1255.32 1249.00 1263.24 1249.00 Small Hydro

Pathri 119.24 126.18 119.24 126.18 119.24 126.18 Mohammadpur 54.45 53.90 54.45 53.90 54.45 53.90 Galogi 6.11 6.57 6.11 6.57 6.11 6.57

Total 3876.94 4259.54 3998.38 4134.45 4046.02 4023.30



3.6.2 Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of NHPC Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.19: Power Purchase from NHPC Ltd. Stations of NHPC Basis Rationale

Salal

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 & FY 2018-19 (actual for 9 months, projections

for 3 months)

In line with the previous approach of the

Commission.

Tanakpur Chamera I Chamera II Chamera III Uri Dhauliganga Dulhasti Sewa II Uri II Parbati III Kishanganga


UPCL at State Periphery after considering the normative auxiliary consumption, actual ISTS losses

for the respective generating stations for FY 2017-18 and considering share allocation to

Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as

estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.20: Energy Availability from NHPC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission

FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Salal 39.70 39.70 39.70 38.39 Tanakpur 16.46 16.46 16.46 16.39 Chamera I 80.83 80.83 80.83 76.80 Chamera II 29.42 29.42 29.42 26.01 Chamera III 56.07 56.07 56.07 53.30 Uri 93.42 93.42 93.42 88.37 Dhauliganga 58.87 58.87 58.87 57.23 Dulhasti 129.50 129.50 129.50 124.13 Sewa II 29.63 29.63 29.63 25.52 Uri II 63.71 63.71 63.71 67.16 Parbati III 37.89 37.89 37.89 36.52 Kishanganga 36.56 36.56 36.56 36.56 Free Power-Tanakpur 50.30 50.31 50.31 50.56 Free Power-Dhauliganga 120.86 120.87 120.87 122.06 Total 843.20 843.22 843.22 818.99



3.6.3 Power Purchase from THDC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of THDC Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.21: Power Purchase from THDC India Ltd. Stations of THDCIL Basis Rationale

Tehri HEP Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 & FY 2018-19 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

In line with the previous appoach of the Commission. Koteshwar HEP



for the respective generating stations for FY 2017-18 and considering the share allocation to

Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from THDC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 at

State periphery as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.22: Energy Availability at State periphery from THDC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Stations of THDCIL Estimated by UPCL Estimated by

Commission

FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Tehri HEP 109.82 109.82 109.82 109.72 Free Power-Tehri HEP 342.73 342.77 342.77 353.24 Koteshwar HEP 77.32 77.32 77.32 77.29 Free Power-Koteshwar HEP 136.08 136.09 136.09 138.48 Total 665.95 666.00 666.00 678.73

3.6.4 Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of NTPC Ltd. as

under:



Table 3.23: Power Purchase from NTPC Ltd. Stations of NTPC Basis Rationale

Singrauli STPS

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 & FY 2018-19 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Actual monthly generation of past 3 years

Rihand STPS Rihand I Rihand II Rihand III Unchahar TPS Unchahar I Unchahar II Unchahar III Anta CCPP Auraiya CCPP Dadri CCPP Dadri (NCTPP) Jhajjar Kahalgaon TPS Koldam



for the respective generating stations for FY 2017-18 and considering the share allocation to

Uttarakhand. The summary of energy availability from NTPC Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 at

State periphery as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.24: Energy Availability from NTPC Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission Singrauli STPS 710.01 668.90 Rihand STPS Rihand I 285.62 279.06 Rihand II 252.87 248.80 Rihand III 293.68 286.48 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 213.08 214.09 Unchahar II 99.78 96.78 Unchahar III 81.45 80.20 Anta CCPP 30.72 28.87 Auraiya CCPP 22.86 26.54 Dadri CCPP 83.83 79.20 Dadri (NCTPP) 21.77 26.23 Jhajjar 50.87 47.08 Kahalgaon TPS 175.77 277.32 Koldam 212.80 203.23 Total 2535.11 2562.77



3.6.5 Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the availability from generating stations of SJVN Ltd. as

under:

Table 3.25: Power Purchase from SJVN Ltd. Stations of

SJVNL Basis Rationale

Nathpa Jhakri HEP and Rampur HPS

Average of actual month wise gross generation in FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months)

Three Years Average Generation.



for the respective generating stations for FY 2017-18 and the share allocation to Uttarakhand. The

summary of energy availability from SJVN Ltd. for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as estimated by the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.26: Energy Availability from SJVN Ltd. at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)


Nathpa Jhakri HEP 98.72 68.03 Rampur HPS 221.66 211.89 Total 320.38 279.92

3.6.6 Power Purchase from Renewable Energy Sources

The existing renewable energy sources include the small hydro power stations, co-

generation plants and solar power plants within the State. For these generating stations, the

Commission has considered the energy availability at State periphery as projected by UPCL.

The summary of energy availability from existing renewable energy sources for FY 2019-20

to FY 2021-22 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.27: Energy Availability from Existing RE Sources For FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Station FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Existing RE Sources 976.44 976.44 994.11 994.11 994.11 994.11



3.6.7 Power Purchase from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar

For estimating the free power from Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar, the Commission

has considered the average of actual monthly generation for the years FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and

FY 2018-19 (actual for 9 months, projections for 3 months). The summary of energy availability from

Vishnu Prayag HEP and GVK Srinagar as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown

in the Table below:

Table 3.28: Energy Availability from Vishnu Prayag HEP at State Periphery (State Royalty Power) for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)


FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Vishnu Prayag HEP (State Royalty Power) 223.90 223.92 223.92 232.74

GVK Srinagar 138.45 138.47 138.47 134.16 Total 362.35 362.39 362.39 366.90

3.6.8 Power Purchase from Sasan UMPP

For estimating the energy availability from Sasan UMPP, the Commission has considered

the actual monthly generation of FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 (actual for 9 months,

projections for 3 months). The Commission has estimated the energy available from Sasan UMPP to


for the period FY 2017-18 and the share allocation to Uttarakhand. The summary of energy

availability from Sasan UMPP for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.29: Energy Availability from Sasan UMPP at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22(MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Sasan UMPP 673.92 673.99 673.99 707.43

3.6.9 Power Purchase from State Gas Generating Stations

The Commission vide its Order dated February 8, 2016 approved the PPA between UPCL

and Gama Infraprop (P) Ltd. (Kashipur CCPP), for sale of power corresponding to 107 MW (gross

capacity) to UPCL. Further, the Commission vide Order dated July 20, 2016 had approved the PPA



between UPCL and Sravanthi Energy Pvt. Ltd. for sale of power corresponding to 214 MW (gross

capacity) to UPCL. Further, the Commission has also approved the PPA between UPCL and Beta

Infraprop (P) Ltd. for sale of power corresponding to 107 MW (gross capacity) to UPCL.

Considering the present status of Beta Infraprop’s station, the Commission has not considered

energy availability for the station for the Control Period. The Commission has considered the

energy availability from two other stations considering the normative performance parameters in

accordance with the Regulations. The summary of energy availability from these stations for FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.30: Energy Availability from Kashipur CCPP at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)


Kashipur CCPP 757.38 776.80 Sharavanthi CCPP 1514.77 1553.61 Total 2272.15 2330.41

3.6.10 Power purchase from Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Ltd.

The Commission vide its Order dated December 26, 2016 approved the PPA between UPCL

and Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Ltd. for sale of power corresponding to 70 MW (gross capacity)

to UPCL. In light of the above, the Commission, accordingly, has considered the energy availability

from the generating station based on the month wise Design Energy. The Commission has

estimated the energy available from the generating station to UPCL at State Periphery after

considering the normative auxiliary consumption, ISTS losses for FY 2017-18 and also excluding the

free power share of Himachal Pradesh. The summary of energy availability from Greenko Budhil

Hydro for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as estimated by the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.31: Energy Availability from Greenko Budhil Hydro at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Station Estimated by UPCL Estimated by Commission FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Greenko Budhil Hydro 232.84 232.86 232.86 225.68

3.6.11 Power purchase from upcoming generating stations

The upcoming generating stations include the IPPs/hydro power plants within the State,



solar power plants within the State and Central Sector Generating Stations (CSGS) expected to be

commissioned during the third Control Period. For estimating the energy availability from CGS,

IPPs and hydro power plants within the State, the Commission has considered the actual progress

of these generating stations and the likely commissioning dates. With regard to the Petitioner’s

projection from Bhyunder Ganga and Khirao Ganga, the Commission observes that these plants

will not be able to achieve COD in the third Control Period as there is no progress on work as the

same are stuck in legal issues. The Commission has considered the energy availability from solar

generation capacity as projected by the Petitioner.

It is observed that the Petitioner has projected energy availability from upcoming Solar

plants (cumulative capacity of 200 MW) for which bidding is proposed by UREDA, however, as per

the schedule of procurement submitted by UREDA in its Petition No. 04 of 2019 it is observed that

the procurement of power shall commence only with effect from FY 2020-21 onwards and,

therefore, the Commission has considered energy availability of these stations from FY 2020-21

onwards. The summary of energy availability from upcoming generating stations expected to

achieve COD during the third Control Period as estimated by the Petitioner and the Commission is


Table 3.32: Energy Availability from upcoming generating stations at State periphery for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22(MU)

Station FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Meja Thermal 112.61 108.62 179.52 173.80 179.52 173.80 Tanda II 61.69 45.62 185.07 174.29 185.07 174.29 Bhyunder Ganga 83.45 0.00 83.45 0.00 83.45 0.00 Khairo Ganga 10.30 0.00 10.30 0.00 10.30 0.00 Vyasi 0.00 0.00 370.74 370.74 370.74 370.74 Tapovan Vishnugad 0.00 0.00 90.68 90.68 272.05 272.05 Tehri Pump Storage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.09 150.09 Vishnugad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.78 48.78 Melkhet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.47 27.47 SECI Solar 0.00 0.00 167.49 167.49 669.95 669.95 SECI Non-Solar 0.00 0.00 104.68 104.68 418.72 418.72 UREDA Solar 286.35 0.00 286.35 286.35 286.35 286.35 Total 554.41 154.24 1478.29 1368.03 2702.50 2592.24



3.6.12 Energy available from Firm Sources

The total energy available from firm sources estimated by the Petitioner and the

Commission is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 3.33: Energy available from Long Term Sources (MU)

Station FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


Estimated by UPCL


UJVN Ltd. 3876.94 4259.54 3998.38 4134.45 4046.02 4023.30 NHPC Ltd. 843.20 818.99 843.22 818.99 843.22 818.99 THDC 665.95 678.73 666.00 678.73 666.00 678.73 NTPC Ltd. 2535.11 2562.77 2535.11 2562.77 2535.11 2562.77 NPCIL 357.11 311.94 357.11 311.94 357.11 311.94 SJVN Ltd. 320.38 279.92 320.38 279.92 320.38 279.92 Existing Renewable sources 976.44 976.44 994.11 994.11 994.11 994.11 Free Power-Vishnu Prayag 223.90 232.74 223.92 232.74 223.92 232.74 Sasan UMPP 673.92 707.43 673.99 707.43 673.99 707.43 Kashipur CCPP 757.38 776.80 757.38 776.80 757.38 776.80 Shravanti CCPP 1514.77 1553.61 1514.77 1553.61 1514.77 1553.61 Greenko Budhil Hydro 232.84 225.68 232.86 225.68 232.86 225.68 GVK Srinagar 138.45 134.16 138.47 134.16 138.47 134.16 Upcoming Stations 554.41 154.24 1478.29 1368.03 2702.50 2592.24 Total 13670.81 13672.98 14734.08 14779.36 16005.93 15892.42

3.6.13 Power Purchase for fulfilling RPO

UPCL had proposed to fulfill the RPO over and above the estimated power purchase from

renewable energy sources by purchase of RECs. UPCL has projected shortfall in meeting only non-

solar RPO in FY 2019-20 and based on the power purchase portfolio there is no additional solar and

non-solar requirement projected for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22.

The Commission had specified the RPO target for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 in its UERC

(Tariff and Other Terms for Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources and non-fossil

fuel based Co-Generating Stations) Regulations, 2018.

The Commisson, based on the estimated power purchase from renewable energy sources,

has computed additional power procurement required from Solar and Non-Solar sources for FY

2019-20 only.



Table 3.34: Additional Purchase for fulfilling RPO for FY 2019-20 Particulars Units Estimated by

UPCL Estimated by Commission

Total Power Purchase at State Periphery excluding hydro MU 8049.39 8427.64 RPO

Solar % 7.25% 7.25% Non-Solar % 10.25% 10.25%

RPO Solar MU 583.58 611.00 Non-Solar MU 825.06 863.83

Purchase from Renewable Sources Solar MU 648.48 471.19 Non-Solar MU 799.68 712.18

Additional Energy to be purchased for fulfilment of RPO Solar MU - 139.81 Non-Solar MU 25.38 151.65

The Commission has considered additional power procurement amounting to 291.46 MU to

meet the RPO from solar and non-solar sources. The Commission has separately included the cost

towards meeting the above RPO through procurement of power from solar and non-solar sources in

Chapter 5 of this Order.

3.6.14 Deficit/(Surplus) Energy

The Petitioner, in its Petition has submitted that as per the monthly energy balance, the

Petitioner shall remain in surplus during the summer months and deficit during the winter months.

Therefore, the Petitioner has proposed to bank surplus power during the summer months and meet

the deficit by return banking during the winter months in each year under advance banking

arrangement.

The Commission has been encouraging the Petitioner to enter into banking arragements so

that the surplus energy during the summer months can be utilised during the winter months and,

therefore, for computing gap/surplus for the year the Commission has considered the same.

The energy deficit/surplus scenario estimated by the Commission for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-

22 after considering power procurement to meet RPO is as shown in the Table given below:



Table 3.35: Energy deficit/surplus Scenario for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU) Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Energy requirement at State periphery 14663.31 15432.73 16245.87 Total Energy available from firm sources 13672.98 14779.36 15892.42 Power Procurement to meet RPO 291.46 - - Deficit/(Surplus) 698.87 653.37 353.45

It is observed that the Petitioner has already tied up 247 MW power from short-term for the

month of April 2019 and 300 MW for the months of May and June 2019 which is estimated to

supply 524.48 MU of power in FY 2019-20. In addition to the same, it is observed that the Petitioner

shall also receive banked energy of 50.88 MU in the month of April and May 2019 for energy

banked in FY 2018-19. The Commission has, therefore, considered the same to meet the above

deficit. Therefore, the Petitioner will have to tie up 123.51 MU of power from other sources in FY

2019-20.

Further, the Commission while projecting the power purchase cost in Chapter 5, has first

projected the monthly power purchase requirement of the Petitioner and monthly availability from

various sources. Based on the monthly requirement and availability, it is observed that the surplus

power is available in summer months, while in winter months there is deficit. The Commission has

considered forward banking of surplus power available during the summer months of each year of

the third Control Period which would be returned in the winter months in the same year as

considered by the Petitioner. In case of forward banking in summer months when the other States

are having deficit, the Petitioner during winter months gets the banked energy with some extra

margin. Based on past trends, the Commission has considered return of forward banked energy in

winter months with 10% margin. Thus, during winter months, 110% of energy banked during

summer months is considered to meet the deficit.

Further, considering the banked energy available with 10% additional energy, the deficit

power purchase to be procured from other sources in FY 2019-20 works out to 36.84 MU.

In view of persistent deficit scenario during the Control Period, the Petitioner should put

its sincere efforts to procure the deficit energy through a mix of long term arrangements, medium

term arrangements and short term purchases optimizing the cost of power purchase and reliable

power. Further, the procurement should be through transparent process of bidding. UPCL is

directed to submit a comprehensive plan as to how it intends to meet the deficit for the next

Control Period within one month of the date of Order.



3.7 Capital Expenditure Plan and Capitalisation Plan

The Petitioner submitted that in order to achieve the anticipated load growth and targeted

loss reduction, it has carried out a detailed analysis of capital investment required for next three

years based on various technical and physical requirements. The capital expenditure plan proposed

for the third Control Period from FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.36: Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Capex Schemes FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Total

Capex A. Central Schemes

1. R-APDRP Part A 28.96 - - - 28.96 2. R-APDRP Part B 77.65 - - - 77.65 3. IPDS 182.06 48.29 299.02 175.17 704.54 4. DDUGJY 441.50 345.30 - - 786.80 5. SAUBHAGYA 84.67 64.63 - - 149.30

OtherWorks A. Load Growth 1. New Substation projects 122.06 100.00 80.00 70.00 372.06

2. Augmentation of Existing Substations 5.00 - - - 5.00

3. Release of New PTW Connections 27.50 33.00 36.30 36.60 133.40

4. Installation of meters for giving new connections 16.56 16.50 21.78 29.95 84.79

5. Installation of breakers (new) 3.25 1.60 1.21 1.73 7.79

6. CSS 990 kVA where two transformers are installed at the same place

5.06 7.43 8.17 13.48 34.14

7. Laying of LT lines for new connections 36.59 40.25 44.27 48.70 169.82

B. Loss Reduction 8. Implementation of AMR 5.50 6.05 - - 11.55

9.

Replacement of Mechanical Meters with Electronic Meters and Installation of Electronic meters in un-metered connections

9.86 - - - 9.86

10. Laying of 11kV & 33kV Covered conductor for forest area

2.54 4.29 4.72 5.20 16.76



Table 3.36: Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2018-19 to FY 2021-22 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Capex Schemes FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Total

Capex

11. Laying of LT ABC Cable in theft prone areas 102.60 156.75 172.43 189.67 621.44

12. Replacement of defective single phase and three phase meters

11.93 17.99 15.16 16.67 61.74

13. Pre-paid meters 4.43 4.46 6.20 6.81 21.90

14. Installation of 11kV & 33kV underground cables 30.01 32.97 36.27 39.90 139.15

C. System Reliability and Safety Improvement

15.

Additional Transformers installation with associated 11kV & LT lines

48.03 109.30 88.77 73.33 319.43

16. LT Protection System on Transformer 14.03 30.92 34.01 37.41 116.36

17. Safety measures 7.91 8.70 9.57 10.53 36.70

18. Smart Grid projects for industrial areas 2.78 5.00 5.00 5.00 17.78

D. Creation of infrastructure facilities & miscellaneous works

19.

Procurement of Sub-station and high value consumer meter testing and diagnostics equipment

11.85 11.85 11.85 11.85 47.40

20. Consumer care centres, E-payment of bills and Cash collection centres

1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 4.76

21. Miscellaneous (IT &R&M of Workshops & other)

A. Non R-APDRP (IT Expenses) 2.03 2.80 9.88 5.21 17.89

B. R&M/Capacity Augmentation of Workshops 0.07 4.00 4.00 4.00 12.00

C. Other misc. works 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.37 7.11 23. Grand Total 1287.99 1,055.63 892.16 784.76 4,020.53



The Petitioner has estimated that the new expenditure incurred towards central schemes, i.e.

IPDS, DDUGJY and Saubhagya in FY 2019-20 will be capitalized in the ratio of 60:40 in FY 2019-20

and FY 2020-21 respectively. Similarly, new expenditure under IPDS in FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22

will be capitalized in the ratio of 60:40 in year 1 and year 2 of the investment.

The balance capital expenditure of non-central schemes is split into 40%, 30% and 30% over

three years. Additionally, the opening CWIP at the beginning of FY 2018-19 has been estimated to

be capitalised in the ratio of 40:40:20 over three years during the third Control Period. The

capitalisation plan proposed by the Petitioner during the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to

FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.37: Capitalisation Plan for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Capital expenditure Capitalisation FY 2019-20 1055.63 1359.93 FY 2020-21 892.16 1110.20 FY 2021-22 784.76 825.71 Total 2732.54 3295.84

Regarding the proposed capital expenditure and capitalisation during the third Control

Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 the Commission sought the following information:

• Report identifying the capital expenditure need for its various operational

Circles/Divisions.

• Cost-Benefit Analysis

• Commission’s approval of the said schemes

• DPR for schemes

• Funds tied up for each scheme

In reply, UPCL submitted the following:

• The Capital Expenditure proposed is based both on analysis of historial trends and

multiple rounds of discussion held at several levels with UPCL staff. The nature of

review was thus, both in the form of open deliberations and a stocktaking exercise of

physical and financial progress of works undertaken in previous years. The Petitioner

further submitted that the capital expenditure for the third Control Period has been



proposed based on multiple inputs received from various

departments/Circles/Divisions. For Central Schemes, the Petitioner submitted that the

progress of each schemes were recorded followed by discussions on the future works to

be undertaken. The Petitioner further submitted that for other works, four sub-heads

were created based on broad objectives of the proposed works, i.e. load growth, system

modernization, reliability improvement and loss reduction to meet future requirements.

• With regard to cost benefit analysis, the Petitioner submitted the same for some of the

schemes.

• The Petitioner further submitted that the investement approval of the Commission shall

be sought once the DPRs are prepared.

• With regards to funds tie up, the Petitioner submitted that for schemes other than

Central Government schemes, the Petitioner based on the capital expenditure planned

for each year, approaches State Government and other funding agencies for funding.

The Commission observes that the actual gross GFA addition by UPCL during the last 3

years is as shown in the Table below:

Table 3.38: Actual Gross GFA addition of UPCL (Rs. Crore) Year Amount

FY 2015-16 370.13 FY 2016-17 321.61 FY 2017-18 464.99

In comparison to the actual capitalisation during the last 3 years, the year wise capitalisation

proposed during the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is substantially higher.

Further, the Distribution Licensee is required to seek prior approval of the Commission for all the

capital expenditure schemes of the value exceeding the ceiling specified by the Commission in the

distribution licence.

In view of the actual performance of the Petitioner in the past, the Commission finds the

proposed year wise capital expenditure and capitalisation by the Petitioner on a higher side. As

many of the schemes are also yet to be accorded investment approval by the Commission, the

Commission does not find it prudent to approve scheme wise capitalisation during the third

Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 based on the estimated cost submitted by the

Petitioner. Hence, the Commission for the purpose of approval of Business Plan has considered the



capitalisation for each year of the Control Period based on the approved total Capital Expenditure

and Capital Works in Progress (CWIP). However, during the Annual Performance Review/Truing-

up exercise, the Commission shall consider the Capitalisation on actual basis subject to

capitalisation of only those Schemes which fulfill the conditions as stipulated by the Commission.

The approach adopted by the Commission in approval of year wise capital expenditure and

capitalisation for the third Control Period is detailed below.

The Commission analyzed the trends of amount capitalised by the Petitioner as a percentage

of the sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure for the past 3 years from FY 2015-16 to FY

2017-18 based on the audited accounts submitted by the Petitioner. The same is shown in the Table

below:

Table 3.39: Capitalisation as % of sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Legend FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Opening CWIP A 382.64 629.77 812.90 Addition to CWIP (Capital Expenditure) B 617.26 504.74 530.04 Deduction from CWIP (Tfd. To GFA) C 370.13 321.61 464.99 Closing CWIP A+B-C 629.77 812.90 877.95 Capitalisation as % of opening CWIP plus capital expenditure C÷(A+B) 37% 28% 35%

Max of 3 years 37%

As discussed earlier, the capital expenditure proposed by the Petitioner during each year of

the third Control Period is substantially higher than the actual capital expenditure incurred during

the last three years. The maximum capital expenditure incurred during the last three years is Rs.

617.26 Crore which was incurred in FY 2015-16. Considering the past performance of the Petitioner

and the status of capital investment approval of the schemes, the capital expenditure plan

submitted by the Petitioner for the third Control Period appears to be over ambitious and is

unlikely to materialize. The Commission for the purpose of approval of Business Plan is approving

the capital expenditure of Rs. 617.26 Crore (equivalent to maximum actual capital expenditure in

any year during the last three years) for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY

2021-22.

The Commission further observed that the amount capitalised by the Petitioner during the

past 3 years is in the range of 28% to 37% of the sum of opening CWIP and Capital Expenditure

during the year. For approving the capitalisation for each year of the third Control Period from FY



2019-20 to FY 2021-22, the Commission has considered the maximum capitalisation as % of the

amount transferred from CWIP to GFA over the sum of opening CWIP and capital expenditure for

the past 3 years, i.e. 37%.

Further, based on the submissions of the Petitioner regarding the revised capitalisation for

FY 2018-19, the Commission has also worked out the allowable capitalisation for FY 2018-19 based

on the approach discussed above.

The year wise capital expenditure and capitalisation approved by the Commission for FY

2018-19 and for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.40: Capital expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved

Opening CWIP 877.95 877.95 1109.62 941.74 805.32 981.91 587.28 1007.22 Capital Expenditure 1287.99 617.26 1055.63 617.26 892.16 617.26 784.76 617.26 Capitalisation 1056.32 553.47 1359.93 577.09 1110.20 591.96 825.71 601.32 Closing CWIP 1109.62 941.74 805.32 981.91 587.28 1007.22 546.33 1023.15

The Commission will consider the actual capital expenditure/capitalization as a part of

Annual Performance Review/Truing-up exercise subject to prudence check in accordance with the

conditions stipulated by the Commission.

3.8 Financing Plan

The financing plan for the proposed capitalisation for the third Control Period as submitted

by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.41: Financing Plan proposed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Capitalisation Grant Debt Internal Resource/ State Govt. Equity

FY 2019-20 1359.93 665.29 473.72 220.92 FY 2020-21 1110.20 383.93 502.80 223.48 FY 2021-22 825.71 191.00 443.17 191.53

The Commission has approved the funding of the approved capitalisation for the third

Control Period by considering the average of the actual funding pattern of capitalisation during FY

2015-16 to FY 2017-18 as shown in the Table below:



Table 3.42: Actual funding of capitalisation for FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Average Capitalisation net of deletions/adjustments 284.78 142.15 397.55 Financing Debt 123.99 44% 71.23 50% 185.48 47% 47% Equity-State Government 53.14 19% 30.53 21% 79.49 20% 20% Grant-Central Government 107.65 38% 40.39 28% 132.58 33% 33% Total 284.78 100% 142.15 100% 397.55 100% 100%

Accordingly, the financing plan approved by the Commission for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.43: Financing Plan approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Capitalisation 577.09 591.96 601.32 Financing Debt 269.90 276.85 281.23 Equity-State Government 115.67 118.65 120.52 Grant-Central Government 191.53 196.46 199.57 Total 577.09 591.96 601.32

The Commission will consider the actual funding of schemes capitalized during the year as

part of Annual Performance Review/Truing-up exercise subject to the prudence check in

accordance with the conditions stipulated by the Commission.

3.9 Human Resouce Plan

The Petitioner submitted that as against the total sanctioned posts of 8579, the actual

employee strength as on March 31, 2018 is 2923. The employee strength has declined from 3929 in

FY 2012-13 to 2923 in FY 2017-18 due to limited recruitment and ongoing retirement over the period

of time which has led to difficulties in operation. The Petitioner has further submitted that owing to

shortage in staff in recent years and restriction imposed by the Government on direct recruitment,

UPCL has recruited personnel from the Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Limited (UPNL) on

contractual basis to fill a major portion of the vacant posts which are within the total number of

sanctioned posts.



The Petitioner further submitted that in order to fill up the vacant posts through direct

recruitment UPCL has taken following measures:

• Letters have been sent to GoU seeking permission to fill up the posts by direct

recruitment.

• A committee has been formed to submit a report to Secretary (Finance), GoU regarding

recruitment of AE/JE/other posts by direct recruitment.

• Meetings have been held at senior level for recruitment of AE/JE/other posts by direct

recruitment.

• Desired report has been sent to GoU regarding AE/JE/other posts by direct recruitment.

The Petitioner submitted that currently recruitment of 225 vacancies of Group C is under

process and is expected to be completed during FY 2018-19. Further, recruitment of 104 vacancies of

Group B is under process which is expected to be completed during FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20.

Accordingly, the employee addition plan as submitted by the Petitioner is as follows:

Table 3.44: Employee addition plan proposed by the Petitioner Particulars FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Opening number of employees 2923 2991 3428 3829 Add: Recruitment 273 600 537 1 Less: Retirement 205 163 136 119 Closing number of employees 2991 3428 3829 3711 Growth Factor 2.3% 14.6% 11.7% -3.1%

The Petitioner also submitted class wise list of employees retiring during the current year

and the third Control Period as follows:



Table 3.45: Retirement over the control period as submitted by the Petitioner S. No. Designation FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

1. Managing Director - - 1 - 2. Director (Project) 1 - - - 3. Director (Operation) - - - 1 4. Chief Engineer Level 1 1 - - 1 5. General Manager (F) - 1 2 0 6. Chief Engineer Level 2 (E&M) 2 - 2 1 7. Chief Engineer Level 2 (Civil) - - - 1 8. Superintendent Engineer (E&M) - 1 - 3 9. Executive Engineer (E&M) 2 2 2 -

SUB- TOTAL -1 6 4 7 7 10. Sr. Acct. Officer - - - 1 11. Sr. Personnel Officer - - 1 - 12. Assistant Engineer (E&M) 2 1 1 1 13. Acct. Officer 2 1 - 2 14. Asst. Acct. Officer 3 - - 1 15. Adm. Officer 1 - - - 16. Junior Engineer (E&M) 4 4 3 - 17. Junior Engineer (Civil) 1 - - - 18. Steno (SPG) - 2 - - 19. Steno Grade-I - - 1 3 20. Accountant 1 1 2 2 21. Asst. Accountant - - - 1 22. OS (SPG) 1 - 2 1 23. OS-I 1 3 1 1 24. OS-II 4 2 1 -

SUB- TOTAL -2 20 14 12 13 25. Tech Asst 1 1 1 1 26. OA-I 2 4 3 3 27. OA-II 21 11 12 10 28. Data Entry Operator/OA-III 1 1 2 - 29. Cable Jointer - 1 - - 30. TG-I (Elect) 40 7 9 16 31. TG-II (Elect) 4 13 10 13 32. TG-I (Line) 42 25 18 14 33. TG-II (Line) 33 41 30 18 34. Driver 1 2 2 - 35. Petrol Man/Skilled Coolie 9 6 4 5 36. Dafadaar 8 2 8 3 37. Coolie/Mate 6 14 14 4 38. Peon/Runner 6 5 1 9 39. Chowkidaar 2 3 1 1 40. Sweeper - 1 1 - 41. Dying Cadre 3 8 1 2

SUB- TOTAL -3 179 145 117 99

G. Total 205 163 136 119



Regarding the proposed HR plan for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22,

the Commission sought the following information:

• Category wise details of the employee to be recruited during the third Control

Period.

• Preparedness and approval of GoU on recruitment proposed during the third

Control Period.

• Actual numbers of employees recruited till 31.12.2018.

In reply, UPCL submitted as follows:

• UPCL submitted the category wise employee to be recruited during the control period as follows:

Table 3.46: Category wise employee addition proposed by the Petitioner for the control period

Designation Recruitment

from 01-04-2018 to 30-09-2018

Recruitment from 01-10-2018 to 31-03-2019 Expected




Managing Director - - - 1 - Director (Project) - 1 - - - Director (Operation) - - - - 1 Executive Engineer (E&M) 5 - - - -

Executive Engineer (Civil) 3 - - - -

Assistant Engineer (E&M) - - 72 - -

Assistant Engineer (Civil) - - 7 - -

Acct. Officer - - 15 - - Personnel Officer - - 8 - - Law Officer - - 2 - - TG-II (Elect) - - 496 280 - Jr. Engineer (E&M) - 160 - - - Jr. Engineer (Civil) - 6 - - - Asst. Accountant - 40 - - - Asst. Acct. Officer 1 - - - - Asst. Store Keeper - - - 11 - Draftsman - 19 - - - Data Entry Operator/OA-III 36 - - 245 -

Coolie/Mate 2 - - - - Sub-Total 47 226 600 537 1 Grand Total (47+226+600+537+1) 1411



• UPCL submitted that recruitment of 105 Class B and 225 Class C employees is at various

stages of recruitment which is expected to be completed during FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-

20. Further, the Petitioner submitted that the GoU has cancelled recruitment of 496

Technician Grade-2 employees and it has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High

Court.

• The Petitioner submitted various letter of correspondence to GoU seeking approval of

recruitment against the sanctioned posts.

The Petitioner in a specific query sought by the Commission submitted that the actual

number of employees added from 01 April, 2018 to 31 December 2018 is 49.

In light of the above submissions of the Petitioner, the Commission is of the view that most

likely the remaining positions to be filled in FY 2018-19 will get spill over to FY 2019-20 based on the

status of recruitment submitted by UPCL. Therefore, for FY 2018-19, the Commission has

considered the addition to employees as 49, equivalent to actual employee addition till December

2018. The balance of the proposed recruitment in FY 2018-19 has been carried forward to FY 2019-

20. The proposed recruitment in FY 2019-20 has been carried forward to FY 2020-21 based on the

preparedness and the current status of the proposed recruitment. Similarly, the proposed

recruitment in FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 has been considered in FY 2021-22. The Commission has

considered the retirement during each year as submitted by UPCL. The Petitioner shall put in all

efforts for meeting the proposed recruitment of employees during each year of the third Control

Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Commission shall consider the actual recruitment and

retirement status during the truing up for the respective years. Accordingly, the HR plan approved

by the Commission is shown in the Table below:

Table 3.47: HR Plan approved by the Commission

Particulars FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved Claimed Approved

Opening no. of employees 2923 2923 2991 2767 3428 2828 3829 3292 Recruitment during the year 273 49 600 224 537 600 1 538 Retirement during the year 205 205 163 163 136 136 119 119 Closing no. of employees 2991 2767 3428 2828 3829 3292 3711 3711


4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny

and Conclusion on Truing Up for FY 2017-18

4.1 Truing-up for FY 2017-18

Regulation 12(3) of the UERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)

Regulations, 2015 specifies as under:

“(3) The scope of the Annual Performance Review shall be a comparison of the actual performance of

the Applicant with the approved forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and expected revenue

from tariff and charges and shall comprise of following:

a) A comparison of the audited performance of the applicant for the previous financial year with the

approved forecast for such previous financial year and truing up of expenses and revenue subject

to prudence check including pass through of impact of uncontrollable factors;

b) Categorisation of variations in performance with reference to approved forecast into factors

within the control of the applicant (controllable factors) and those caused by factors beyond the

control of the applicant (un-controllable factors).

c) Revision of estimates for the ensuing financial year, if required, based on audited financial results

for the previous financial year;

d) Computation of the sharing of gains and losses on account of controllable factors for the previous

year.”

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission vide its MYT Order dated March 29, 2017 had

approved the expenses and revenues of the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 based on the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015, the historical trends and the revised projections of the Petitioner. Subsequently,

aggrieved by the Commission’s MYT Order dated March 29, 2017, the Petitioner filed a review

Petition on the grounds that there were some inadvertent errors in the Order. The Commission

passed the review order dated August 03, 2017, wherein the Petitioner was allowed to recover

Additional Energy Charge in last three quarters of FY 2017-18.

The Commission has analysed the head-wise elements of ARR and revenue for FY 2017-18 in

the succeeding paragraphs. The head-wise details of variations in expenses and revenues are

4. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on Truing Up for FY 2017-18


enumerated below.

4.1.1 Sales

The Commission had approved the energy sales for FY 2017-18 in its Tariff Order dated

March 29, 2017 as 11848.98 MU. The Petitioner in the current Petition has submitted the actual sales

for FY 2017-18 as 11208.82 MU and further submitted that as the Petitioner has metered all the

unmetered consumers and no sales have been recorded in the billing ledger against the unmetered

consumers, hence, there is no need of re-casting of sales for FY 2017-18.

The Commission continuing with its approach adopted in its Tariff Order for FY 2017-18

directed the Petitioner to submit the breakup of sales for all the consumer categories into two parts,

i.e. sales based on actual meter reading and sales billed on provisional/assessment basis for FY

2017-18 during the current proceedings. In reply to the Commission’s direction, the Petitioner

submitted the following:

Table 4.1: Break up of Sales submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 (MU)

S. No. Sub-Category

Based on Actual Meter Reading Based on Assessment Total

No.

of

Con

sum

ers

(No)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

No.

of

Con

sum

ers

(No)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

No.

of

Con

sum

ers

(No)

Con

nect

ed

Load

(KW

)

Sale

s (M

U)

1. Domestic

(i) BPL and Kutir Jyoti 358986 360470 222.65 13010 13070 8.32 371996 373540 230.97 (ii) Other Domestic Consumers 1505133 2378838 2346.14 56201 91390 85.61 1561334 2470228 2431.75

(iii) UPCL Employees and Pensioners 4868 14990 19.71 1129 3387 4.50 5997 18377 24.21

(iv) UJVNL Employees and Pensioners 877 1869 6.84 321 835 2.12 1198 2704 8.96

(v) PTCUL Employees and Pensioners 248 605 1.76 215 624 1.41 463 1228 3.17

(vi) Single Point Bulk Supply 108 27687 42.48 0 0 0.00 108 27687 42.48

Total Domestic 1870220 2784459 2639.58 70876 109305 101.95 1941096 2893764 2741.53 2. Non-domestic 226321 995367 1185.65 8014 27700 46.83 234335 995644 1232.48 3. PTW 31093 166293 260.73 1363 6569 10.64 32456 172862 271.37 4. LT Industry 9984 220885 294.78 245 5664 7.43 10229 226549 302.22 5. Public Lamps 1412 15257 55.06 58 626 2.26 1470 15883 57.31 6. Govt. Irrigation System 1710 62344 159.90 62 2261 5.80 1772 64605 165.70 7. Public Water Works 1553 93105 359.88 52 2880 7.34 1605 95985 367.23 8. HT Industry 2329 1762523 5858.05 0 0 0.00 2329 1762523 5858.05 9. Mixed Load 72 57946 182.43 0 0 0.00 72 57946 182.43

10. Railway Traction 2 15000 27.73 0 0 0.00 2 15000 27.73 11. Other State Supply 5 900 2.77 0 0 0.00 5 900 2.77

Total 2144700 6174079 11026.56 80671 155005 182 2225371 6301661 11208.82

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 29, 2017 had analysed division wise



commercial statement for FY 2015-16 and observed that like previous years, the average billing rate

(ABR) of certain categories of consumers in some divisions were even less than the energy charge

approved for that category and had directed the Petitioner as follows:

“The Commission re-iterates its direction and provides final opportunity to UPCL to rectify such

errors and, accordingly, directs UPCL to rectify such anomalies else the Commission would examine

the matter and if required necessary corrections to this extent would be made in the subsequent years.

Further, the Zonal Chiefs, the Circle Chiefs and the concerned Executive Engineers are hereby

directed to examine the data with reference to their Divisions for FY 2014-15 and for FY 2015-16 and

submit the justification to the Commission within 45 days of the date of Order on the above

discrepancies failing which action may be initiated against them individually by the Commission

under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also against the Directors of the Petitioner

Company.

The Commission further directs UPCL to submit the findings of the study being carried out on sales,

average load factor, average billing rate for FY 2015-16 within six months from the date of this Order

along with the detailed action plan to rectify such errors.”

The Commission again in its Order dated March 21, 2018 while analysing the ABR of

various consumer categories observed that the ABR of PTW consumer category was Rs. 1.41/kWh

which was substantially lower than the approved Energy charge of Rs. 1.55/kWh. The Commission,

therefore, directed the Petitioner to submit necessary justification for such anomaly. The Petitioner

in response submitted that the same was on account of withdrawal of previous billing without

carrying out appropriate adjustment in sales. The Commission in the above Order directed the

Petitioner as follows:

“However, the Petitioner is directed to instruct its field officers to carry out the

corresponding corections in sales also in cases where billing is withdrawn. In future if such

instances comes to the knowledge of the Commission, punitive action under Section 142 of

the Electricity Act, 2003 may be taken against the errant officers of UPCL.”

The Commission in the current proceedings also sought the commercial diary for FY 2017-18

to check division wise sales and revenue data. The Petitioner in its reply submitted the same. The

Commission while analysing the same found that the ABR of almost all the categories for some of

the divisions were abnormally low as compared to the ABR approved by the Commission. The



Commission has taken serious note of the same and the Petitioner’s continued non-compliance of

the repeated directions of the Commission to rectify such data distortion. The Commission is of the

view that enough opportunity and time has been provided to the Petitioner to rectify the same and,

therefore, the Commission in this tariff order has re-casted category wise sales of those divisions

that have abnormally low ABR. The approach adopted for re-casting the category wise sales of

UPCL for FY 2017-18 is discussed hereunder:

a) Domestic Consumers

Based on the detailed analysis of the division wise sales and ABR submitted by the

Petitioner for FY 2017-18, it is observed that the following divisions have abnormally low ABR.

Table 4.2: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Domestic Category

S.No. Name of Division/Circles

No. of Consumers

Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked (Rs. Lakh)

ABR Actual (Rs./kWh)

Domestic (Except RTS 1.1) 1. EDD, Nainital 38947 58008 36.48 1126.49 3.09 2. EDD, Jaspur 30093 38836 54.09 1706.29 3.15 3. EDD, Bageshwar 31845 32412 22.46 733.47 3.27 4. EDD, Rudrapur 86870 149040 189.733 6433.34 3.39 5. EDD, Pithoragarh 42919 43096 35.695 1174.14 3.29 6. EDD, Champawat 28973 29455 28.948 939.09 3.24 7. EDD, Dharchula 16197 16353 15.02 420.12 2.80

RTS 1.1 (BPL/Lifeline) 1. EDD, Tehri 34955 34955 16.484 511.41 3.10 2. EDD, Uttarkashi 15486 15486 9.514 294.01 3.09 3. EDD, Srinagar 8700 8700 4.220 115.39 2.73 4. EDD, Gopeshwar 12760 12760 5.366 153.34 2.86 5. EDD, Kotdwar 18554 18554 6.764 198.82 2.94 6. EDD, Rudraprayag 16908 17077 7.161 203.40 2.84 7. EDD (U), Haldwani 1108 1108 0.11 1.68 1.56 8. EDD, Nainital 14001 14001 4.240 97.61 2.30 9. EDD, Ramnagar 5822 5822 0.411 10.69 2.60

10. EDD, Kashipur 1022 1022 2.39 36.86 1.54 11. EDD, Bajpur 3317 3317 4.439 129.20 2.91 12. EDD, Jaspur 2300 2300 6.15 94.55 1.54 13. EDD, Bageshwar 17210 17210 6.969 171.91 2.47 14. EDD, Rudrapur 7387 7387 8.64 148.43 1.72 15. EDD, Sitarganj 23294 23294 23.121 479.84 2.08 16. EDD, Pithoragarh 21868 21868 9.557 236.33 2.47 17. EDD, Champawat 17878 17878 8.042 203.93 2.54 18. EDD, Dharchula 10283 10283 7.301 160.92 2.20



The Commission in its previous Tariff Orders has been recasting the assessed sales based on

the load factor of metered consumers. However, as discussed above, for FY 2017-18 division wise

re-casting has been done where the actual ABR is found to be considerably lower than the approved

tariffs. In order to assess normative ABR on the basis of Rate Schedule approved by the

Commission, the Commission has computed the same for Domestic Consumers including RTS 1.1

(BPL/Lifeline Consumers) considering the energy charges (including additional energy charge

allowed vide Review Order) and fixed charges applicable for the consumers considering the

consumption per kW per month for the respective division. Based on the normative ABR and

revenue booked, excess sales to be disallowed has been computed for each division. The excess sale

to be disallowed for the above Divisions is as shown below:

Table 4.3: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Domestic Category

S. No

Name of Division/Circles

Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)

ABR actual

(Rs./kWh)

Consumption /kW/month

ABR (Normative)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

Domestic (Except RTS 1.1) 1. EDD, Nainital 58008 36.48 1126.49 3.09 52.40 3.56 4.82 2. EDD, Jaspur 38836 54.09 1706.29 3.15 116.06 3.41 4.01 3. EDD, Bageshwar 32412 22.46 733.47 3.27 57.74 3.48 1.38 4. EDD, Rudrapur 149040 189.733 6433.34 3.39 106.09 3.40 0.68 5. EDD, Pithoragarh 43096 35.695 1174.14 3.29 69.02 3.35 0.67 6. EDD, Champawat 29455 28.948 939.09 3.24 81.90 3.25 0.08 7. EDD, Dharchula 16353 15.02 420.12 2.80 76.54 3.29 2.24

RTS 1.1 (BPL/Lifeline) 1. EDD, Tehri 34955 16.484 511.41 3.10 39.30 3.85 3.18 2. EDD, Uttarkashi 15486 9.514 294.01 3.09 51.20 3.58 1.30 3. EDD, Srinagar 8700 4.220 115.39 2.73 40.42 3.81 1.19 4. EDD, Gopeshwar 12760 5.366 153.34 2.86 35.04 3.98 1.52 5. EDD, Kotdwar 18554 6.764 198.82 2.94 30.38 4.18 2.01 6. EDD, Rudraprayag 17077 7.161 203.40 2.84 34.94 3.99 2.06 7. EDD (U), Haldwani 1108 0.11 1.68 1.56 8.12 3.87 0.06 8. EDD, Nainital 14001 4.240 97.61 2.30 25.24 2.36 0.11 9. EDD, Ramnagar 5822 0.411 10.69 2.60 5.88 4.71 0.18 10. EDD, Kashipur 1022 2.39 36.86 1.54 194.63 3.42 1.31 11. EDD, Bajpur 3317 4.439 129.20 2.91 111.52 3.41 0.64 12. EDD, Jaspur 2300 6.15 94.55 1.54 222.68 3.73 3.61 13. EDD, Bageshwar 17210 6.969 171.91 2.47 33.74 4.03 2.71 14. EDD, Rudrapur 7387 8.64 148.43 1.72 97.48 3.16 3.95 15. EDD, Sitarganj 23294 23.121 479.84 2.08 82.71 3.24 8.33 16. EDD, Pithoragarh 21868 9.557 236.33 2.47 36.42 3.94 3.55 17. EDD, Champawat 17878 8.042 203.93 2.54 37.49 3.90 2.81 18. EDD, Dharchula 10283 7.301 160.92 2.20 59.17 3.46 2.65 Total 55.06



Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for Domestic Category for FY

2017-18 works out to 2686.47 MU against 2741.53 MU submitted by UPCL.

b) Non Domestic:

Based on the detailed analysis of the division wise sales and ABR submitted for FY 2017-18,

it is observed that the ABR for the category for some of the Divisions was considerably lower than

the average ABR of the Category for the State as a whole. On excluding the sales and revenues of

the divisions having considerable low ABR, the average ABR for the category works out to Rs.

5.72/kWh. The Commission has re-casted the sales of following divisions for which the ABR has

been found to be considerably lower than Rs. 5.72/kWh.

Table 4.4: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Non-Domestic Category S.

No. Name of

Division/Circles No. of

Consumers Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)


ABR actual (Rs./kWh)

1. EDD, Jaspur 2817 9186 13.21 684.99 5.18 2. EDD, Rudrapur 12132 55889 64.14 3293.83 5.14 3. EDD, Champawat 3778 10031 12.15 559.15 4.60 4. EDD, Dharchula 1739 4761 9.25 426.56 4.61

Based on the normative ABR as discussed above and revenue booked, excess sales to be

disallowed has been computed for each division. The excess sales to be disallowed for the above

divisions is as shown below:

Table 4.5: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Non-Domestic Category

S. No.


Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)

ABR actual

(Rs./kWh)

Consumption /kW/ month

ABR (Normativ)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

1. EDD, Jaspur 9186 13.21 684.99 5.18 119.86 5.72 1.23 2. EDD, Rudrapur 55889 64.14 3293.83 5.14 95.64 5.72 6.53 3. EDD, Champawat 10031 12.15 559.15 4.60 100.93 5.72 2.37 4. EDD, Dharchula 4761 9.25 426.56 4.61 161.96 5.72 1.79

Total 11.93

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for Non-Domestic Category for FY

2017-18 works out to 1223.32 MU as against 1235.25 MU submitted by UPCL.

c) Public Lamp:

Similarly, for public lamps, normative ABR has been computed for each Division

considering the energy charges, additional energy charges and fixed charges approved by the

Commission and the same has been compared to the average division wise ABR and wherever the

actual division wise ABR is found to be lower than the normative ABR, sales has been re-estimated



based on the actual revenue and normative ABR. The excess sales worked out following the above

approach is 0.97 MU.

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for Public Lamp Category for FY

2017-18 work out to 56.34 MU as against 57.31 MU submitted by UPCL.

d) PTW Category:

Based on the detailed analysis of the division wise sales and ABR submitted for FY 2017-18,

it is observed that the ABR for the category was lower than the energy charge of Rs. 1.75/kWh and

additional energy charge approved in Review Order of Rs. 0.09/kWh approved by the Commission

for almost all the divisions.

Table 4.6: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for RTS 4 Category S.

No. Name of

Division/Circles No of

Consumers Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)



RTS 4 – Private Tube Well 1. EDD (R), Dehradun 65 364 1.06 18.99 1.80 2. EDD, Vikasnagar 383 3998 1.78 32.12 1.80 3. EDD, Rishikesh 163 883 0.93 16.60 1.79 4. EDD, Doiwala 74 542 0.36 6.45 1.81 5. EDD, Mohanpur 203 1365 0.89 16.19 1.81 6. EDD (S), Dehradun 23 149 0.138 2.50 1.81 7. EDD, Tehri 4 28 0.040 0.72 1.80 8. EDD, Kotdwar 10 51 0.056 1.01 1.80 9. EDD (U), Roorkee 1986 12020 23.99 404.30 1.68

10. EDD (R), Roorkee 3778 23261 37.17 650.67 1.75 11. EDD Bhagwanpur 3936 22837 22.39 391.30 1.75 12. EDD, Ramnagar Roorkee 911 4726 2.99 51.18 1.71 13. EDD (U), Hardwar 171 807 0.81 13.41 1.66 14. EDD, Laksar 3498 14893 22.13 387.18 1.75 15. EDD, Jwalapur 667 3369 2.20 32.99 1.50 16. EDD, Nainital 5 93 0.253 4.56 1.80 17. EDD, Ramnagar 671 2763 3.630 63.53 1.75 18. EDD (R), Haldwani 13 218 0.087 1.54 1.77 19. EDD, Kashipur 2445 13596 24.660 431.52 1.75 20. EDD, Bajpur 2785 19758 28.743 505.74 1.76 21. EDD, Jaspur 2326 9626 14.938 263.06 1.76 22. EDD, Almora 1 5 0.005 0.09 1.80 23. EDD, Rudrapur 4883 20923 27.144 478.99 1.76 24. EDD, Sitarganj 3384 14464 47.630 833.30 1.75 25. EDD, Champawat 59 223 0.260 4.67 1.80

RTS 4A – Agriculture Allied Activities 1. Total Uttarakhand 7 1872 6.04 108.48 1.80



The Commission in its previous Tariff Orders has been recasting the assessed sales based on

the load factor of metered consumers. However, as discussed above for FY 2017-18 re-casting is

done division wise where actual ABR is found to be considerably lower. Based on the normative

ABR equivalent to tariff for this category and revenue booked, excess sales to be disallowed has

been computed for each division. The excess sales to be disallowed for the above divisions is as

shown below:

Table 4.7: Excess Sales to be disallowed for RTS 4 Category

S. No.


Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)


Consumption /kW/ month

ABR (Normative)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

RTS 4 – Private Tube Well 1. EDD (R), Dehradun 364 1.06 18.99 1.80 241.53 1.82 0.01 2. EDD, Vikasnagar 3998 1.78 32.12 1.80 37.19 1.82 0.02 3. EDD, Rishikesh 883 0.93 16.60 1.79 87.49 1.82 0.01 4. EDD, Doiwala 542 0.36 6.45 1.81 54.74 1.82 0.00 5. EDD, Mohanpur 1365 0.89 16.19 1.81 54.58 1.82 0.00 6. EDD (S), Dehradun 149 0.138 2.50 1.81 77.18 1.82 0.00 7. EDD, Tehri 28 0.040 0.72 1.80 119.05 1.82 0.00 8. EDD, Kotdwar 51 0.056 1.01 1.80 91.50 1.82 0.00 9. EDD (U), Roorkee 12020 23.99 404.30 1.68 166.38 1.82 1.75

10. EDD (R), Roorkee 23261 37.17 650.67 1.75 133.16 1.82 1.37 11. EDD Bhagwanpur 22837 22.39 391.30 1.75 81.70 1.82 0.86 12. EDD, Ramnagar Roorkee 4726 2.99 51.18 1.71 52.72 1.82 0.17 13. EDD (U), Hardwar 807 0.81 13.41 1.66 83.33 1.82 0.07 14. EDD, Laksar 14893 22.13 387.18 1.75 123.81 1.82 0.82 15. EDD, Jwalapur 3369 2.20 32.99 1.50 54.42 1.82 0.39 16. EDD, Nainital 93 0.253 4.56 1.80 226.70 1.82 0.00 17. EDD, Ramnagar 2763 3.630 63.53 1.75 109.48 1.82 0.13 18. EDD (R), Haldwani 218 0.087 1.54 1.77 33.26 1.82 0.00 19. EDD, Kashipur 13596 24.660 431.52 1.75 151.15 1.82 0.92 20. EDD, Bajpur 19758 28.743 505.74 1.76 121.23 1.82 0.92 21. EDD, Jaspur 9626 14.938 263.06 1.76 129.32 1.82 0.46 22. EDD, Almora 5 0.005 0.09 1.80 83.33 1.82 0.00 23. EDD, Rudrapur 20923 27.144 478.99 1.76 108.11 1.82 0.79 24. EDD, Sitarganj 14464 47.630 833.30 1.75 274.42 1.82 1.78 25. EDD, Champawat 223 0.260 4.67 1.80 97.16 1.82 0.00

RTS 4A – Agriculture Allied Activities 1. Total Uttarakhand 1872 6.038 108.48 1.80 268.79 1.82 0.06

Total 10.56

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for PTW Category for FY 2017-18

works out to 260.81 MU as against 271.37 MU submitted by UPCL.



e) Government Irrigation System


Petitioner for FY 2017-18, it is observed that following divisions have abnormally low ABR.

Table 4.8: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Government Irrigation System

S. No.


No of Consumers

Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked (Rs.

Lakh)


State Tubewell 1. EDC, Dehradun 203 10490 29.382 1511.93 5.15 2. EDD, Uttarkashi 41 4025 1.778 85.44 4.81 3. EDD, Kotdwar 55 3445 7.661 405.51 5.29 4. EDD (U), Roorkee 94 2030 6.064 301.37 4.97 5. EDD (R), Roorkee 61 980 4.500 231.67 5.15 6. EDD Bhagwanpur 127 2419 4.270 219.76 5.15 7. EDD, Ramnagar 24 473 0.144 7.94 5.51 8. EDC, Haridwar 182 2811 9.746 461.88 4.74 9. EDD (U), Haldwani 33 2341 11.844 582.81 4.92 10. EDD, Ramnagar 183 9587 16.554 874.21 5.28 11. EDD (R), Haldwani 100 6425 27.102 1404.52 5.18 12. EDD, Kashipur 54 750 0.24 11.15 4.65 13. EDD, Bajpur 43 542 2.22 102.83 4.63 14. EDD, Jaspur 43 571 3.412 174.12 5.10 15. EDD, Sitarganj 139 2271 10.08 463.68 4.60

World Bank Tubewell 1. EDD (U), Haldwani 11 686 3.286 165.85 5.05 2. EDD (R), Haldwani 28 1890 8.08 389.65 4.83 3. EDD, Bajpur 19 213 1.06 53.00 5.00 4. EDD, Sitarganj 32 370 1.33 61.32 4.60

Pump Canal 1. EDD (N), Dehradun 2 39 0.028 1.34 4.79 2. EDD, Srinagar 4 304 0.181 9.90 5.47 3. EDD, Gopeshwar 3 120 0.10 4.88 4.83 4. EDD, Nainital 19 1201 0.570 29.02 5.09 5. EDC, Ranikhet 91 2645 4.331 225.49 5.21 6. EDD, Dharchula 12 520 0.656 34.13 5.20

In order to assess normative ABR on the basis of Rate Schedule approved by the

Commission, the Commission has computed the same considering the energy charges (including

additional energy charge of Rs. 0.25/kVAh allowed vide Review Order) and fixed charges

applicable for the consumers considering the consumption per kW per month for the respective

division. Based on the normative ABR and revenue booked, excess sales to be disallowed has been

computed for each division. The excess sales to be disallowed for the above divisions is as shown

below:



Table 4.9: Excess Sales to be disallowed for GIS Category

S. No Name of Division/Circles

Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)


Consumption /kW/month

ABR (Normative)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

State Tubewell 1. EDC, Dehradun 10490 29.382 1511.93 5.15 233.41 5.29 0.79 2. EDD, Uttarkashi 4025 1.778 85.44 4.81 36.81 6.61 0.49 3. EDD, Kotdwar 3445 7.661 405.51 5.29 185.32 5.35 0.08 4. EDD (U), Roorkee 2030 6.064 301.37 4.97 248.93 5.27 0.35 5. EDD (R), Roorkee 980 4.500 231.67 5.15 382.65 5.19 0.04 6. EDD Bhagwanpur 2419 4.270 219.76 5.15 147.11 5.43 0.23 7. EDD, Ramnagar 473 0.144 7.94 5.51 25.37 7.32 0.04 8. EDC, Haridwar 2811 9.746 461.88 4.74 288.92 5.24 0.93 9. EDD (U), Haldwani 2341 11.844 582.81 4.92 421.61 5.18 0.59

10. EDD, Ramnagar 9587 16.554 874.21 5.28 143.89 5.44 0.49 11. EDD (R), Haldwani 6425 27.102 1404.52 5.18 351.52 5.20 0.11 12. EDD, Kashipur 750 0.24 11.15 4.65 26.67 7.21 0.09 13. EDD, Bajpur 542 2.22 102.83 4.63 341.79 5.21 0.25 14. EDD, Jaspur 571 3.412 174.12 5.10 497.96 5.16 0.03 15. EDD, Sitarganj 2271 10.08 463.68 4.60 369.88 5.20 1.16

World Bank Tubewell 1. EDD (R), Haldwani 686 3.286 165.85 5.05 399.17 5.18 0.09 2. EDD (R), Haldwani 1890 8.08 389.65 4.83 356.04 5.20 0.58 3. EDD, Bajpur 213 1.06 53.00 5.00 414.32 5.18 0.04 4. EDD, Sitarganj 370 1.33 61.32 4.60 300.00 5.23 0.16

Pump Canal 1. EDD (N), Dehradun 39 0.028 1.34 4.79 59.83 6.01 0.01 2. EDD, Srinagar 304 0.181 9.90 5.47 49.62 6.21 0.02 3. EDD, Gopeshwar 120 0.101 4.88 4.83 70.14 5.86 0.02 4. EDC, Ranikhet 2645 4.331 225.49 5.21 136.45 5.46 0.20 5. EDD, Dharchula 520 0.656 34.13 5.20 105.13 5.59 0.05

Total 6.93

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for GIS for FY 2017-18 works out to

158.77 MU as against 165.70 MU submitted by UPCL.

f) Public Water Works





Table 4.10: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Public Water Works S.

No. Name of

Division/Circles No. of

Consumers Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)



Jal Nigam 1. EDC, Srinagar 23 5213 11.275 547.11 4.85 2. EDD (U), Hardwar 1 58 0.24 12.03 5.10 3. EDC, Haldwani 2 112 1.135 55.72 4.91 4. EDD, Almora 14 1615 1.93 93.29 4.84 5. EDD, Ranikhet 11 1565 6.83 324.89 4.76 6. EDD, Dharchula 1 52 0.03 1.77 5.21

Jal Sansthan 1. EDC, Dehradun 329 9368 45.748 2333.95 5.10 2. EDD, Tehri 28 8977 30.846 1,629.28 5.28 3. EDD, Uttarkashi 7 510 0.66 36.36 5.49 4. EDD, Srinagar 33 4438 19.409 1,011.56 5.21 5. EDD, Pauri 16 1613 15.679 777.57 4.96 6. EDD (R), Roorkee 12 271 1.15 57.52 5.01 7. EDC, Haridwar 130 6433 22.786 1143.02 5.02 8. EDD (U), Haldwani 43 2565 10.761 566.43 5.26 9. EDD, Nainital 112 6599 19.70 951.02 4.83 10. EDD, Ramnagar 32 1289 5.968 308.63 5.17 11. EDD (R), Haldwani 51 2900 10.917 576.93 5.28 12. EDD, Kashipur 27 513 8.17 391.97 4.80 13. EDD, Bajpur 18 217 0.912 47.57 5.22 14. EDD, Jaspur 15 290 1.965 99.41 5.06 15. EDD, Almora 14 1807 13.39 659.99 4.93 16. EDD, Bageshwar 10 812 2.55 125.94 4.93 17. EDD, Ranikhet 22 754 4.17 210.17 5.04 18. EDD, Bhikiyasar 20 1479 5.41 255.96 4.73 19. EDD, Rudrapur 39 992 3.13 141.51 4.52 20. EDD, Sitarganj 37 576 2.48 116.76 4.70 21. EDD, Pithoragarh 28 7998 14.374 748.10 5.20 22. EDD, Champawat 18 284 2.553 127.03 4.98



additional energy charge of Rs. 0.25/kVAh allowed vide Review Order) and fixed charges

applicable for the consumers considering the consumption per kW per month for the respective

division. Based on the normative ABR and revenue booked, excess sales to be disallowed has been

computed for each division. The excess sales to be disallowed for the above divisions is as shown

below:



Table 4.11: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Public Water Works Category S.

No. Name of

Division/Circles Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)


Consumption /kW/Month

ABR (Normative)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

Jal Nigam 1. EDC, Srinagar 5213 11.275 547.11 4.85 180.24 5.41 1.16 2. EDD (U), Hardwar 58 0.24 12.03 5.10 339.08 5.28 0.01 3. EDC, Haldwani 112 1.135 55.72 4.91 844.49 5.20 0.06 4. EDD, Almora 1615 1.93 93.29 4.84 99.54 5.62 0.27 5. EDD, Ranikhet 1565 6.83 324.89 4.76 363.42 5.28 0.67 6. EDD, Dharchula 52 0.03 1.77 5.21 54.49 6.01 0.01

Jal Sansthan 1. EDC, Dehradun 9368 45.748 2333.95 5.10 406.95 5.26 1.39 2. EDD, Tehri 8977 30.846 1,629.28 5.28 286.34 5.31 0.16 3. EDD, Uttarkashi 510 0.66 36.36 5.49 108.17 5.58 0.01 4. EDD, Srinagar 4438 19.409 1,011.56 5.21 364.45 5.27 0.23 5. EDD, Pauri 1613 15.679 777.57 4.96 810.03 5.20 0.73 6. EDD (R), Roorkee 271 1.15 57.52 5.01 353.01 5.28 0.06 7. EDC, Haridwar 6433 22.786 1143.02 5.02 295.17 5.30 1.24 8. EDD (U), Haldwani 2565 10.761 566.43 5.26 349.61 5.28 0.03 9. EDD, Nainital 6599 19.70 951.02 4.83 248.76 5.34 1.87

10. EDD, Ramnagar 1289 5.968 308.63 5.17 385.83 5.27 0.11 11. EDD (R), Haldwani 2900 10.917 576.93 5.28 313.71 5.30 0.02 12. EDD, Kashipur 513 8.17 391.97 4.80 1326.51 5.18 0.60 13. EDD, Bajpur 217 0.912 47.57 5.22 350.23 5.28 0.01 14. EDD, Jaspur 290 1.965 99.41 5.06 564.66 5.23 0.06 15. EDD, Almora 1807 13.39 659.99 4.93 617.51 5.22 0.75 16. EDD, Bageshwar 812 2.55 125.94 4.93 262.01 5.33 0.19 17. EDD, Ranikhet 754 4.17 210.17 5.04 460.88 5.25 0.21 18. EDD, Bhikiyasar 1479 5.41 255.96 4.73 305.05 5.30 0.16 19. EDD, Rudrapur 992 3.13 141.51 4.52 263.27 5.32 0.48 20. EDD, Sitarganj 576 2.48 116.76 4.70 359.38 5.28 0.27 21. EDD, Pithoragarh 7998 14.374 748.10 5.20 149.77 5.46 0.68 22. EDD, Champawat 284 2.553 127.03 4.98 749.12 5.21 0.11

Total 11.93

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for PWW for FY 2017-18 work out

to 355.30 MU as against 367.23 MU submitted by UPCL.

g) LT Industry

Based on the detailed analysis of the division wise sales submitted for FY 2017-18, it is

observed that the ABR for the category was abnormally lower in case of Rudrapur and Sitarganj

division. The ABR as per the commercial diary for the two division works out to be Rs. 4.84/kWh

and Rs. 5.27/kWh respectively. The normative ABR considering the energy charge of Rs. 4.20/kWh

as well as additional energy charge of Rs. 0.28/kWh & Rs. 0.26 kVAh and fixed charge of Rs.



140/kW/Month works out to Rs. 5.44/kWh and Rs. 5.79/kWh respectively for Rudrapur and

Sitarganj division considering average consumption of 135 kWh/kW/month and 101

kWh/kW/month for the two divisions. The Commission has, therefore, re-casted the sales

considering normative ABR and has computed excess sales of 8.98 MU.

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for LT Industry for FY 2017-18


h) HT Industry

The Petitioner submitted the sales to HT Industry of 5858.05 MU for FY 2017-18. The

Commission in this regard sought clarification from UPCL whether the sales made to HT Industrial

category has been adjusted for power consumed by HT Industrial consumers through open access.

The Petitioner in its reply submitted that the energy availed through open access energy by HT

Industrial consumers has been adjusted from the consumption units recorded in respect of HT

Industries.

The Commission further carried out detailed analysis of the division wise sales and ABR

submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18, and from the same it is observed that following

divisions have abnormally low ABR.

Table 4.12: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for HT Industries

S. No.


No. of Consumers

Load (K)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)


HT Industry (Upto 1000 kVA) 1. EDD, Nainital 5 1312 1.44 74.68 5.18 2. EDD, Rudrapur 357 141384 372.69 18183.60 4.88

HT Industry (Above 1000 kVA) 1. EDD, Ramnagar Roorkee 4 11900 18.69 960.34 5.14 2. EDD, Kashipur 24 121400 434.89 21938.68 5.04 3. EDD, Rudrapur 62 186962 809.44 40605.02 5.02


Commission, the Commission has computed the same considereing the energy charges (including

additional energy charge of Rs. 0.26/kVAh allowed vide Reveiw Order) and fixed charges

applicable for the consumer category considering the consumption per kW per month. Based on the

normative ABR and revenue booked, excess sales to be disallowed has been computed for each

division. The excess sales to be disallowed for the above divisions is as shown below:



Table 4.13: Excess Sales to be disallowed for HT industry

S. No.


Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)



ABR (Normative)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

HT Industry (Upto 1000 kVA) 1. EDD, Nainital 1312 1.441 74.68 5.18 91.53 6.78 0.34 2. EDD, Rudrapur 141384 372.690 18183.60 4.88 219.67 5.01 9.53

HT Industry (Above 1000 kVA) 1. EDD, Ramnagar, Roorkee 11900 18.690 960.34 5.14 130.88 6.65 4.25 2. EDD, Kashipur 121400 434.887 21938.68 5.04 298.52 5.21 13.79

Total 27.91

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for HT Industry for FY 2017-18


i) Mixed Load



Table 4.14: UPCL Divisions with Lower ABR for Mixed Load S.

No. Name of

Division/Circles No of

Consumers Load (KW) Energy Sold (MU)



1. UDC, Dehradun 9 13400 48.412 2492.89 5.15 2. EDD, Tehri 5 5127 16.593 842.60 5.08 3. EDD, Uttarkashi 1 315 0.592 30.86 5.21 4. EDD (U), Roorkee 5 12212 40.420 1,999.99 4.95 5. EDD, Nainital 2 448 1.870 89.62 4.79 6. EDD, Almora 5 996 1.846 97.63 5.29 7. EDD, Bageshwar 3 265 0.650 33.91 5.22 8. EDD, Ranikhet 4 1895 6.201 317.40 5.12 9. EDD, Rudrapur 6 6315 11.590 539.69 4.66

10. EDD, Dharchula 2 1175 1.357 66.91 4.93



additional energy charge of Rs. 0.26/kVAh allowed vide Reveiw Order) and fixed charges

applicable for the consumers considering the consumption per kW per month. Based on the

normative ABR and revenue booked, excess sales to be disallowed has been computed for each

division. The excess sales to be disallowed for the above divisions is as shown below:



Table 4.15: Excess Sales to be disallowed for Mixed Load

S. No.


Load (KW)

Energy Sold (MU)

Revenue Booked

(Rs. Lakh)



ABR (Normative)

Rs./kWh

Excess Sales (MU)

1. UDC, Dehradun 13400 48.412 2492.89 5.15 301.07 5.18 0.26 2. EDD, Tehri 5127 16.593 842.60 5.08 269.70 5.20 0.40 3. EDD, Uttarkashi 315 0.592 30.86 5.21 156.61 5.39 0.02 4. EDD (U), Roorkee 12212 40.420 1,999.99 4.95 275.82 5.20 1.95 5. EDD, Nainital 448 1.870 89.62 4.79 347.84 5.15 0.13 6. EDD, Almora 996 1.846 97.63 5.29 154.45 5.40 0.04 7. EDD, Bageshwar 265 0.650 33.91 5.22 204.40 5.29 0.01 8. EDD, Ranikhet 1895 6.201 317.40 5.12 272.69 5.20 0.10 9. EDD, Rudrapur 6315 11.590 539.69 4.66 152.94 5.40 1.60

10. EDD, Dharchula 1175 1.357 66.91 4.93 96.24 5.67 0.18 Total 4.69

Accordingly, based on the above, the total re-casted sales for Mixed Load for FY 2017-18


Based on the above analysis, the category wise sales for FY 2017-18 as re-worked by the

Commission is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.16: Category-wise Sales for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Categories Approved in the

Tariff Order dated March 29, 2017

Claimed in the Petition

Approved after Truing Up

Domestic (RTS - 1) 3068.93 2741.53 2,686.47 Non-domestic, incl. Commercial (RTS - 2) 1338.24 1235.25 1223.32 Public Lamps (RTS - 3) 51.69 57.31 56.34 Private Tubewell/Pump Sets (RTS - 4) 340.87 271.37 260.81 Government Irrigation System (RTS - 5) 129.34 165.70 158.77 Public Water Works (RTS - 6) 379.71 367.23 355.30 Industrial Consumers (RTS - 7) 6296.35 6160.27 6123.39 Mixed Load (RTS - 8) 225.16 182.43 177.74 Railway Traction (RTS - 9) 18.69 27.73 27.73 Total 11848.98 11208.82 11069.88

4.1.2 Distribution Losses

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted its distribution losses for FY 2017-18 as 15.17%.

The Commission for FY 2017-18 had approved the distribution losses of 14.75% based on the loss

reduction trajectory approved in the MYT Order for the Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-

19. However, as per the actual data submitted by the Petitioner and the re-casted sales approved by

the Commission, the actual distribution losses for FY 2017-18 works out to 16.22%.



The Commission, in accordance with the approach adopted in its previous Orders, has

allowed the actual quantum of power purchase made by the Petitioner. Considering the actual

energy input of 13,213.73 MU at distribution periphery (T&D interface) for FY 2017-18 and applying

the approved loss level of 14.75% for the year, the Commission re-estimated the sales of 11,264.70

MU for FY 2017-18. As against this sale of 11,264.70 MU, the actual re-casted sales approved by the

Commission for FY 2017-18 is 11,069.88 MU. Therefore, there is a loss of sales to the tune of 194.83

MU on account of commercial inefficiencies of the Petitioner resulting from its failure to achieve

distribution losses target approved by the Commission. The Commission has worked out the

average billing rate of Rs. 4.94/kWh on the approved re-casted sales of 11,069.88 MU. The

Commission has also adjusted the revenue from sale of power of Rs. 5462.34 Crore submitted by

UPCL for FY 2017-18, by adding the revenue corresponding to the sales recorded for UPCL, PTCUL

and UJVN Ltd. employees at an average ABR of other domestic consumers, since their Average

billing rate was much lower than the ABR of other domestic consumers. Accordingly, the adjusted

revenue for FY 2017-18 works out to Rs. 5468.51 Crore. Accordingly, the Commission has computed

the additional revenue on account of loss in sales due to higher distribution loss of Rs. 96.24 Crore

for FY 2017-18. The following Table shows actual distribution loss and approved distribution loss

along with efficiency loss for FY 2017-18 as explained above.

Table 4.17: Assessed Distribution Losses for FY 2017-18 (MU)

Particulars Approved in the

Tariff Order dated 29.03.2017

Revised Claim

Approved after Truing

Up Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface / Power Purchase Requirement (MU) 13939.98 13213.73 13213.73

Actual/ Recasted Sales (MU) 11848.98 11208.82 11069.88 Actual Distribution Loss (MU) 2091.00 2004.91 2143.85 Distribution Loss Level (%) 15.00% 15.17% 16.22% Commercial Loss Reduction (%) 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% (Loss)/Gain of sales due to inefficiency/efficiency (MU) (Normative Sales-Actual Re-casted Sales)

34.85 0.00 (194.83)

Approved Distribution Loss (%) 14.75% 14.75% 14.75% Total Normative Sales (MU) 11883.85 11264.70 11264.70

Further, since distribution loss is a controllable parameter, the Commission has carried out

the sharing of the impact of excess distribution loss in accordance with the provisions of UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2015.



4.1.3 Power Purchase Expenses (Including Transmission Charges)

The comparison of source wise power purchase quantum and cost as approved by the

Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18 and actual as claimed by UPCL for FY 2017-18 is as


Table 4.18: Power Purchase Cost approved in the Tariff Order Vs Actual Power Purchase Cost for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Source Approved in the Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL

Quantum (MU)

Total cost (Rs. Crore)

Rate (Rs./kWh)

Quantum (MU)

Total cost (Rs. Crore)

Rate (Rs./kWh)

UJVN Ltd.* 4488.24 733.60 1.63 3939.84 892.38 2.27 NHPC 790.09 246.11 3.11 787.26 302.79 3.85 THDC 659.77 185.82 2.82 686.49 177.03 2.58 NTPC 2756.88 947.25 3.44 2258.93 693.70 3.07 NPCIL 270.64 91.65 3.39 359.99 136.87 3.80 Vishnu Prayag 216.75 42.27 1.95 230.61 44.97 1.95 SJVNL 238.29 88.75 3.72 306.53 101.99 3.33 Other IPPs 4964.79 2082.65 4.19 4059.79 1652.00 4.07 Deficit Purchase including UI 0.00 0.00 0.00 742.08 393.33 5.30 Banking Received/(Paid) - 111.81 - 0.00 0.00 - STOA Charges - - - - 36.36 - RPO - 212.61 - - 7.62 - PTCUL - 252.78 - - 254.19 - PGCIL - 506.40 - - 381.04 - Total 14385.45 5501.70 3.82 13371.52 5074.27 3.29

*Including water tax, cess, royalty and recovery of past arrears.

The Commission observes that the Petitioner in the formats has submitted the total cost of

power purchase as Rs. 5074.27 Crore vis-à-vis Rs. 5082.25 Crore booked in the Audited Accounts.

The Petitioner, however, did not provide any reconciliation with regards to the difference in the

amount submitted in the Formats. The Commission for allowing the power purchase cost has relied

upon the cost booked in the audited accounts. The Petitioner is, however, required to maintain

consistency at all places in its future filings.

The Commission further observed that the Petitioner in its Form 4.7 has submitted the

details with regards to monthly UI charges paid during FY 2017-18. From the data submitted by the

Petitioner it is observed that it had paid an amount Rs. 10.19 Crore as additional UI charges for

overdrawing the power beyond permissible limits. The Commission in the past has not been

allowing the amount paid by the Petitioner towards UI penalty as the cost per unit was exorbitantly



higher. The Commission in the current proceedings also worked out the monthly UI Charges paid

which is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.19: Cost of UI Overdrawal for FY 2017-18

Month MU Cost Claimed (Rs. Cr.)

Actual rate of Drawal (Rs./kWh)

(A) (B) C= (Bx10/A) April 26.46 6.92 2.61 May 42.66 11.12 2.61 June 25.49 5.84 2.29 July 36.18 11.99 3.31 August 15.32 3.84 2.51 September 18.23 5.24 2.87 October 15.37 4.74 3.08 November 11.2 3.40 3.03 December 17.17 5.08 2.96 January 16.33 4.41 2.70 February 11.3 2.88 2.55 March 13.44 4.03 3.00 Total for the year 249.15 69.48 2.79

The Petitioner vide its letter no. 359/UPCL/Comm/MD dated 05.02.2019 submitted before

the Commission that due to delay in communication of real time data of grid parameters by SLDC,

the Petitioner has not been able to respond to Grid frequency due to which it has been incurring

additional UI charges and has sought appropriate directions in this regard. The Commission has

taken note of this and is examining the issue separately and appropriate view in this regard will be

taken separately based on the outcome of the investigation. The Commission, in view of the above,

has not adjusted the additional UI amount from the actual power purchase cost for FY 2017-18

considering the average cost per unit of overdrawal and reasons submitted by UPCL regarding

delay in communication of real time information by SLDC. The Petitioner, however, is required to

maintain grid discipline strictly as per the provisions of Grid Code and other relevant regulations.

The Petitioner in its current Petition submitted that the rate of free power approved for FY

2017-18 was Rs. 1.95/kWh on the basis of which the Petitioner has booked expenditure in its

accounts for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner in the current Petition has submitted that the rate of free

power on the basis of actual power procurement is similar to the rate of free power approved and,

therefore, has not sought any adjustment in the free power rate.

The Commission, observed that the free power rate worked out on the basis of actual rate of



power purchase from Large Hydro Generating Stations is same as that approved by the

Commission and hence, the Commission has not carried out any adjustment on account of variation

in rate of free power for FY 2017-18. Accordingly, the power purchase cost approved by the

Commission for truing up for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.20: Power Purchase Cost claimed by UPCL and approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved by the Commission Power Purchase Expenses 4439.04 4446.87 Transmission Charges-PGCIL 381.04 381.04 Intra-State Transmission & SLDC Charges 254.33 254.33 Total Power Purchase Cost 5074.27 5082.25

4.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses

O&M expenses comprises of Employee Expenses, A&G Expenses and R&M Expenses, i.e.

expenditure on staff, administration and general expenses and repairs and maintenance etc. For

estimating the O&M expenses for the second Control Period, Regulation 62 of UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2015 specifies as under:

“(1) The O&M expenses for the first year of the Control Period will be approved by the Commission taking into account the actual O&M expenses for last five years till Base Year subject to prudence check and any other factors considered appropriate by the Commission.

(2) The O&M expenses for the nth year and also for the year immediately preceding the Control Period, i.e. FY 2015-16, shall be approved based on the formula given below:-

O&Mn = R&Mn + EMPn + A&Gn

Where –

• O&Mn – Operation and Maintenance expense for the nth year;

• EMPn – Employee Costs for the nth year;

• R&Mn – Repair and Maintenance Costs for the nth year;

• A&Gn – Administrative and General Costs for the nth year;

(3) The above components shall be computed in the manner specified below:

EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (1+CPIinflation)

R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) and

A&Gn = (A&Gn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) + Provision

Where -



• EMPn-1 – Employee Costs for the (n-1)th year;

• A&G n-1 – Administrative and General Costs for the (n-1)th year;

• Provision: Cost for initiatives or other one-time expenses as proposed by the Transmission Licensee and approved by the Commission after prudence check.

• ‘K’ is a constant specified by the Commission in %. Value of K for each year of the control period shall be determined by the Commission in the MYT Tariff order based on Transmission Licensee’s filing, benchmarking of repair and maintenance expenses, approved repair and maintenance expenses vis-à-vis GFA approved by the Commission in past and any other factor considered appropriate by the Commission;

• CPI inflation – is the average increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) forimmediately preceding three years;

• WPI Inflation - is the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index (CPI) for immediately preceding three years;

• GFAn-1 – Gross Fixed Asset of the Transmission Licensee for the n-1th year;

• Gn is a growth factor for the nth year. Value of Gn shall be determined by the Commission in the MYT tariff order for meeting the additional manpower requirement based on Transmission Licensee’s filings, benchmarking and any other factor that the Commission feels appropriate:

Provided that in case of a transmission licensee is governed by Government pay structure, the Commission may consider allowing a separate provision in Employee expenses towards the impact of VIIth Pay Commission.

Provided that repair and maintenance expenses determined shall be utilised towards repair and maintenance works only.”

4.1.4.1 Employee Expenses

The Petitioner submitted that the actual gross and net employee expense as per audited

account is Rs. 348.13 Crore and Rs. 294.04 Crore respectively, which also includes actual payment of

of Rs. 20.64 Crore towards arrears of Seventh Pay Commission.

The Petitioner submitted that the normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18 has been

arrived at as per the methodology adopted by the Commission in its previous orders in accordance

with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The Petitioner further submitted that the opening EMPn-1 has

been considered as Rs. 334.63 Crore as approved by the Commission for truing up of FY 2016-17

and CPI inflation has been considered as the average increase in the consumer price index for the

preceding three years.



The Petitioner submitted that it has paid an additional amount of Rs. 7.48 Crore booked in

the audited account of FY 2017-18 for enhanced pension which was on account of pay revision in

the third time scale with effect from 01.01.1996 due to which pension and family pension was

revised for the employees who retired between 01.01.1996 and 20.07.2010. The Petitioner further

submitted that since the enhanced pension was not included in the base employee expenses and is a

statutory liability for the Petitioner, the same has been claimed additionally in FY 2017-18.

The Petitioner submitted that the number of employees has reduced to 2923 by the end of FY

2017-18 on account of retirements, therefore, the growth factor has been considered as zero. Further,

actual capitalization rate as per the audited accounts have been considered for arriving at the

normative employee cost.

The Petitioner has claimed the normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18 of Rs. 325.88

Crore as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.21: Revised Employee Expenses as claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2017-18 Empn-1 334.63 Inflation Factor 5.35% Growth Factor 0.00% Gross Employee Expenses 352.53 Capitalisation Rate 15.50% Less: Employee Expenses Capitalised 54.77 Net Employee Expenses 297.76 Impact of enhanced pension 7.48 Impact of Seventh Pay Commission 20.64 Total Employee Expenses 325.88

The Commission in its Order dated March 21, 2018 had re-worked the normative employee

expenses for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The

Commission in the said order had considered the gross normative employee expenses approved in

the true up for FY 2016-17 for projecting the employee expense for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. The

Commission had further directed in Order dated March 21, 2018 that the truing up of FY 2017-18

shall be carried out based on the actual impact of VII Pay Commission including arrears and no

sharing of gains and losses on this account would be allowed. The Commission had approved the

trued up normative gross employee expenses of Rs. 334.62 Crore for FY 2016-17. Considering the

same as the base and in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, the Commission has



computed the normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18. Regarding the growth factor, the

Commission observed that the number of employees of UPCL has reduced from FY 2016-17 to FY

2017-18 as the number of retirement of employees outpaced the recruitment of employees during

the year. The Commission has, therefore, considered Gn as zero. The employee expenses so

computed have then been escalated by the CPI inflation of 5.12%.

The Commission further observed that cost of Rs. 0.12 Crore was booked towards subsidised

electricity provided to employees and pensioners of UPCL. The Commission sought justification

from the Petitioner for booking only Rs. 0.12 Crore under the above head. The Petitioner, in

response submitted that in FY 2017-18 only one division EDD, Almora booked expenses in the

books of account, however, the same was not done by other divisions. The Petitioner further

submitted that as per the directions issued under Para 7.2.1 of the Tariff Order dated March 21,

2018, UPCL has directed all the Divisions to bill the concession provided to all the departmental

employees and pensioners in the books of account under separate head. The Commisison has

deducted the above amount for computing actual employee expenes for FY 2017-18. UPCL is once

again directed to ensure compliance of the directions of Commission given in the Tariff Order

dated March 21, 2018 in this regard.

The Petitioner has worked out the rate of capitalisation based on the actual employee

expenses capitalized and actual gross employee expenses (which include arrears paid towards

implementation of VII Pay Commission and enhanced pension) for FY 2017-18. However, for

working out the normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18, UPCL has applied this capitalisation

rate on gross employee expenses which does not include arrears paid towards implementation of

VII Pay Commission and enhanced pension. So there is a flaw in the methodology of UPCL.

Accordingly, the Commission has computed the capitalisation rate of employee expenses as worked

out on the basis of audited accounts of FY 2017-18 based on the actual employee expenses

capitalized and actual gross employee expenses excluding arrears paid towards implementation of

VII Pay Commission and enhanced pension for FY 2017-18. Further, in line with the approach

adopted by the Commission in the true up for FY 2016-17, the Commission has considered the

impact of enhanced pension as claimed by UPCL considering the statutory liability of the Petitioner.

However, the Commission would again like to caution the Petitioner that any further allowance or

incentives or benefits granted to its employees will have to be borne by UPCL from its own

resources or through increased efficiency.



The normative employee expense approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 is as shown

in the Table below:

Table 4.22: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in

the Tariff Order

Actual as per Audited Accounts

Actual for truing up

Normative Claimed by

UPCL Approved

EMPn-1 394.32

294.04 293.92

334.63 334.62 Gn 7.93% - 0 CPIinflation 7.21% 5.35% 5.12% EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (1+CPIinflation)

456.27 352.53 351.76

Capitalisation rate 20.18% 15.50% 16.90% Less: Employee expenses capitalised 92.06 54.77 59.46

Net Employee Expenses 364.21 297.76 292.30

Impact of enhanced Pension & Pay Commission

- 28.12 28.12

Total Employee Expenses 364.21 294.04 293.92 325.88 320.42

4.1.4.2 Repair and Maintenance

The Commission had approved the R&M expenses of Rs. 122.46 Crore for FY 2017-18 in its

MYT Order dated March 29, 2017. As against the same, the actual R&M expenses for FY 2017-18 as

per the audited accounts are Rs. 129.92 Crore. The Petitioner requested the Commission to consider

the net capitalization of Rs. 96.14 Crore disallowed in the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 dated March

21, 2018 on account of non-submission of Electrical Inspector Cerificates. The Petitioner stated that

the pending Electrical Inspector Certificate for FY 2016-17 shall be submitted during the present

tariff proceedings and, accordingly, submitted the revised computation of R&M Expenses for FY

2017-18 based on the revised ‘K’ factor arrived at by considering the disallowed capitalization of Rs.

96.14 Crore for FY 2016-17. Accordingly, the Petitioner has claimed the normative R&M expenses of

Rs. 124.44 Crore.

The Commission in its MYT Order had considered the ‘K’ factor of 2.67% for computation of

the normative R&M expenses for FY 2016-17 in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The Commission while carrying out the true up of FY 2016-17 had already provided enough



opportunity to the Petitioner for submission of Electrical Inspector Certificate for assets capitalized

during FY 2016-17. Further, the Petitioner has not submitted the Certificates even during the current

proceedings. The Commission has, therefore, not considered capitalization of Rs. 96.14 Crore

disallowed in true up of FY 2016-17 for computation of R&M Expenses.

The Commisison further observed that the Petitioner had booked certain Annual

Maintenance Contract (AMC) expenses amounting to Rs. 2.41 Crore in A&G Expenses. As these

expenses are of the nature of R&M Expenses, the same has been considered as a part of actual R&M

Expenses.

The Commission for truing up of FY 2017-18 has considered the same K factor and has

reworked the R&M expenses considering the Opening GFA for FY 2017-18. The Commission has

considered the inflation factor as NIL, as the average of WPI inflation for the preceding three years

of FY 2017-18 works out to be negative. The normative R&M expenses trued up by the Commission

for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.23: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)


the Tariff Order

Actual as per Audited

Accounts

Actual Approved


UPCL Approved

R&M Expenses 122.46 129.92 132.33 124.44 110.08

4.1.4.3 A&G Expenses

The Commission had approved the A&G expenses of Rs. 21.01 Crore for FY 2017-18 in its

Tariff Order dated March 29, 2017. As against the same, the actual net A&G expenses for FY 2017-18

as per the audited accounts were Rs. 42.71 Crore, which is inclusive of Rs. 6.29 Crore paid against

penalty imposed by the Commission on account of delay in releasing new LT connections. The

Petitioner has claimed the normative A&G expenses of Rs. 34.67 Crore for FY 2017-18, which

includes cost against data centre of Rs. 10.78 Crore and Licence fee of Rs. 2.50 Crore.

The Commission in its Order dated March 21, 2018 had re-worked the normative A&G

expenses for the second Control Period in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The

Commission had considered the normative A&G expenses approved in the true up for FY 2016-17

for projecting the A&G expense for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. The Commission in this Order has

considered the same approach for computing A&G expenses for FY 2017-18. The Commission had

considered WPI inflation as NIL which is the average of WPI Inflation for the preceding three years



of FY 2017-18, i.e. FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17. The Commission has considered the capitalisation of

expenses in the same proportion of actual capitalisation of expenses to the actual gross A&G

expenses excluding provision & licence fees.

In addition to the above, the Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that an amount of Rs.

10.78 Crore incurred against cost of data centre and other expenses relating to R-APDRP projects

have also been included under A&G expenses. The Petitioner further submitted that these expenses

are primarily towards annual maintenance charges for the software and hardware installed under

the various R-APDRP works, facility management system (FMS) etc.

The Commission with regards to actual A&G expenses sought following information from

the Petitioner:

• Reason for allowing compensation paid for death and damages of Rs. 0.98 Crore booked

in FY 2017-18.

• Copy of contracts corresponding to payments of Rs. 10.78 Crore made towards upkeep

and maintenance of data centre.

• Justification for increase in Electricity charges to Rs. 9.63 Crore in FY 2017-18 from Rs.

5.23 Crore in FY 2016-17.

• Organisation wise nature of break up of consultancy charges of Rs. 5.46 Crore along with

the nature of consultancy service availed.

• Details of the bandwidth, software, license renewal charges of Rs. 8.36 Crore paid in FY

2017-18.

• Justification for booking cost of Rs. 0.47 Crore paid as consultancy charges to M/s

Medhaj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. under IPDS Scheme.

In reply the Petitioner submitted as follows:

• UPCL is required to pay compensation to outsiders for fatal & normal electrical

accidents, fatal accidents of cattle and also to employees of UPNL, SHG’s & PRD

engaged in UPCL on contractual basis. Such expenses are incidental to the main activity

of distribution of electricity by UPCL. The compensation payable on account of the

above activities is duly approved by the BOD (OM No. 283 dated 24.01.2018).



• With regards to payment of Rs. 10.78 Crore made towards upkeep and maintenance of

data centre, the Petitioner submitted list of firms from which services were availed as

follows:

Table 4.24: List of firms from which services were availed for upkeep of data centres

Description Amount (Rs. Crore) Name of Company

Bandwidth Charges 2.54 M/S Tata Teleservices Ltd., BSNL, M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. Software Licence Renewal 5.82 M/S Infinite Computer Solutions (India) Ltd

AMC Hardware 2.41 M/S Qtel Comtech Ltd., M/S Redington India Ltd, M/S CCS Computers Ltd., M/S Wipro Ltd, Nikom Infrasolutions Pvt. Ltd

Total 10.78

• With regard to consultancy charges paid to M/s Medhaj Techno Concept (P) Ltd., the

Petitioner admitted that it has inadvertently booked the same under revenue

expenditure.

Further, the Petitioner in its reply submitted that it had incurred expenditure of Rs. 2.54

Crore on account of payment to M/s Quennext for providing data forecasting services which was

not included in the base for the Second Control Period and was not considered inadvertently in the

Petitioner’s claim and, therefore, submitted the revised computation of A&G Expense as follows:

Table 4.25: Revised A&G Expenses submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)


(Trued-up by Commission in TO)

(Trued-up by Commission in TO)

(Re-Submission)

A&Gn-1 28.53 29.99 30.54 WPI Inflation (%) 5.11% 1.83%* 1.73% Gross A&G Expenses 29.99 30.54 31.07* Capitalisation rate (%) 44.68% 40.86% 30.52% Less: A&G expenses capitalized 13.40 12.48 (9.48) Net A&G Expenses 16.59 18.06 21.58 Add: Cost against Data Centre 3.24 3.35 10.78 License Fee - 2.16 2.50 Consultancy for data forecasting - 3.05 2.54$ Net A&G Expense 19.83 26.62 37.40

* There was a computational error in the normative A&G expense which has been corrected $ Consultancy charges paid against data forecasting services



The Commission has considered cost incurred on upkeep of data centre of Rs. 8.36 Crore

and has not considered AMC of hardware as the same should be booked under the head of R&M

expenses. The Commission, as discussed above has already added the AMC cost of Rs. 2.41 Crore in

the R&M expenses. Further, the Commission has also considered a cost of Rs. 2.54 Crore paid to

M/s Quenext for providing data forecasting services as claimed by the Petitioner.

The past trends in few expenses booked under A&G expenses shows that these expenses are

increasing substantially as given in the Table below:

Table 4.26: Expenses booked under A&G expenses (Rs. Crore) S.No. Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

1. Compensation for death and damages - 0.36 0.44 0.67 - 0.98

2. Consultancy Charges 1.47 1.98 1.53 1.28 5.11 5.46 3. Electricity Charges To Offices 3.20 3.79 6.77 4.65 5.23 9.63

As can be seen from the Table above, compensation awarded for death and damages which

was Rs. 0.36 Crore in FY 2012-13 has increased to Rs. 0.98 Crore, meaning thereby that the number

of accidents have increased due to improper maintenance of lines/transformers or due to ignorance

of safety issues as has been the case with UPCL, as it is charging its HT works without getting them

cleared by Electrical Inspector. Similarly, consultancy charges which was Rs. 1.47 Crore in FY 2012-

13 has increased to Rs. 5.46 Crore without yielding any material benefits. Reference in this regard

can be made to the energy audit assignment conducted by M/s Feedback Ventures (P) Ltd. which

was nothing but a billing audit which did not yield effective results. Hence, UPCL is directed to

refrain from carrying out such ineffective consultancies which merely increases its expenditure.

UPCL is required to make a proper proposal requiring consultancy assignments to be carried out

and the benefits that would accrue from the same and then weigh the cost with the benefits failing

which the Commission will be constrained to disallow the costs of such assignments. Similarly, the

electricity charges to its offices are also increasing significantly which needs to be controlled and

should be corroborated by units billed in its subsequent tariff proceedings. At present, the

Commission is not adjusting the said amounts.

Further, the Commission has considered Licence fees of Rs. 2.50 Crore paid by the Petitioner

in FY 2017-18. The Commission would like to caution the Petitioner to control its A&G expenses

and exercise proper prudence in incurring the same.



The normative A&G expense including licence fees and data centre cost approved by the

Commission for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.27: Approved A&G expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)


the Tariff Order


Actual Approved*


UPCL Approved

A&G expenses 21.01 36.42 34.01 37.40 24.95

Accordingly, the Commission has allowed the O&M Expenses as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.28: Approved O&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars

Approved in the Tariff

Order


Actual Approved


UPCL Approved

1. Employee expenses 364.21 294.04 293.92 325.88 320.42

2. R&M expenses 122.46 129.92 132.33 124.44 110.08 3. A&G expenses 21.01 36.42 34.01 37.40 24.95

Total 507.68 460.38 460.25 487.72 455.45

The normative O&M expenses approved by the Commission in the true up are lower in

comparison to the normative O&M expenses approved in the Tariff Order mainly on account of

variation in CPI and WPI Inflation and Gn factor of employees becoming zero.

As O&M expenses are controllable in nature, the Commission has further carried out

sharing on account of actual and normative O&M expenses in the subsequent section of this Order.

4.2 Cost of Assets and Financing

4.2.1 Capital cost of Original Assets

As regards the capital cost of original assets, the Commission vide its Order dated April 11,

2015 held as under:

“3.2.5.1 Capital Cost of Original Assets

The Commission observed that the issue of original value of fixed assets for the Petitioner examined in

detail in Paras 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of the Order dated April 25, 2005. For reasons provided in the said

Order, the original value of GFA as on November 09, 2001 was fixed at Rs. 508 Crore for the

Petitioner, instead of the value of Rs. 1058.18 Crore assigned in the Provisional Transfer Scheme. The

Commission had already recorded the reasons for the same in its previous Tariff Orders. Since, there



is no change in the factual position and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble ATE, the

Commission decides to maintain Status-quo ante.”

In this regard, Hon’ble ATE in its Judgment dated May 18, 2015 in Appeal No. 180 of 2013

ruled as under:

“25. We feel that since it is matter of transfer scheme and apportioning of value of assets between two

States after reorganization, the Appellant should take up the matter with State Government for

issuance of notification on transfer of assets to Uttarakhand from UP. Accordingly decided.”

In light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble ATE, the Commission in its Tariff Order dated April

05, 2016 did not find the need to revise the capital cost of original assets from the earlier approved

value of Rs. 508 Crore for the Petitioner.

The Commission vide its Order dated April 05, 2016, March 29, 2017 and March 21, 2018 has

already carried out the truing up till FY 2016-17. The year wise GFA addition allowed by the

Commission till FY 2016-17 is as shown below:

Table 4.29: Assets base approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) Particulars FY

2007-08 FY

2008-09 FY

2009-10 FY

2010-11 FY

2011-12 FY

2012-13 FY

2013-14 FY

2014-15 FY

2015 -16 FY

2016-17 Opening Balance 1227.76 1540.46 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2787.04 3017.55 3202.56 3695.78 3980.56 Net additions 312.69 158.42 320.88 430.11 337.17 230.50 185.01 493.22 284.78 142.15 Closing Balance 1540.46 1698.88 2019.76 2449.87 2787.04 3017.55 3202.56 3695.78 3980.56 4122.71

With regard to FY 2017-18, the Petitioner has claimed a net capitalisation of Rs. 397.55 Crore

as per audited accounts. The Petitioner was directed to submit the segregation of fixed assets added

into HT and LT works and to submit the Electrical Inspector clearance for HT works. The Petitioner

did not submit the required details even after consistent reminders. The Commisison in its previous

tariff orders have been approving capital expenditure and capitalisation only once the assets have

been put to use and for HT Works post verification and certification by Electrical Inspector. It is

surprising to note that the Petitioner is commissioning and capitalising all HT works without

getting them inspected and approved by the Electrical Inspector which is in gross violation of the

Electricity Rules and the same cannot be allowed. The Petitioner should charge all the HT works

after getting clearances from the Electrical Inspector. The Petitioner is exhibiting a callous and

indifferent approach in furnishing the clearance of HT works by Electrical Inspector for FY 2016-17

& FY 2017-18 and also in segregation of LT & HT works, the delay is on account of the inefficiency

of the Petitioner, hence, no carrying cost will be allowed to the Petitioner for delayed approval of



pending capitalisation of FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18.

The Commission observes that the Petitioner has capitalised assets amounting to Rs. 6.53

Crore towards Furniture & Fixtures, Vehicles and office equipment for which Electrical Inspector’s

Certificate is not required. In the absence of detailed break-up of assets added into HT and LT

works and Electrical Inspector Certificates for HT works, the Commisison has, therefore, approved

additional capitalisation of only Rs. 6.53 Crore for FY 2017-18.

The Commission has, therefore, approved capital expenditure of Rs. 6.53 Crore for FY 2017-

18 as follows:

Table 4.30: Assets base approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount Opening Balance 4122.71 Net additions 6.53 Closing Balance 4129.24

4.2.2 Financing of Capital Cost

4.2.2.1 Truing Up of Capital Related Expenses for FY 2017-18

The Petitioner has claimed GFA addition of Rs. 397.55 Crore for FY 2017-18. The means of

finance submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.31: Means of Finance for FY 2017-18 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount R-APDRP Part A Loan 4.55 REC Loan 251.51 Deposit Works 128.03 Grant Internal resources 12.46 Total 397.55

As discussed above, the Commission has approved additional capitalisation of Rs. 6.53

Crore. The means of finance as approved by the Commission is as follows:

Table 4.32: Means of Finance as approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Normative Loan 4.57 Equity 1.96 Total 6.53



4.2.2.1.1 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner has claimed Interest and Finance Charges of Rs. 160.00 Crore for FY 2017-18

against the amount of Rs. 167.07 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated

March 29, 2017.

The Petitioner submitted that it has claimed interest expenses as per the audited accounts

after considering the following adjustments:

a) Interest on REC (Old) loans has been taken in accordance with the re-schedulement

package of REC (Old) loans determined by the Commission in its Tariff Order for FY

2009-10 dated 23rd October, 2009.

b) Government Guarantee fees has been considered as per audited accounts.

c) Interest on consumer security deposit has been claimed as per the actual interest paid.

d) The Petitioner has not considered the interest on GPF. However, the Petitioner requested

the Commission to allow interest on GPF as part of interest expense as this is the

statutory liability of the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted that the Government of

Uttarakhand (GoU) has in the past refused to provide support on account of Interest on

GPF. The Petitioner added that GoU is already bearing the terminal liability of the old

employees unlike other States. The Petitioner, further, requested the Commission that in

case the interest on GPF has to be borne by the State Government, the Commission

should issue suitable directions to GoU in this regard.

e) Provision for interest on PFC loans towards R-APDRP Part A and Part B has been

excluded as these loans shall be converted to grants after successful implementation of

the works.

f) Other financial and bank charges have been considered after reducing the interest on

overdraft / short term loans.

g) Actual interest accrued during the year has been claimed which is net off capitalisation

as follows:



Table 4.33: Inerest expense on capital loans as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars As per Accounts

Net Interest Expenses as per Accounts 209.91 Less:

Interest on GPF 32.44 Interest on Old REC Loans 13.57 Interest on Consumer Security Deposits 42.00 Guarantee Fee 10.73 Interest on Bank Short Term Loan/ Overdraft 32.53 Bank Charges & Other Commission 1.85

Net Interest Expense Claimed towards Capitalized Assets 76.79

h) The Petitioner further submitted that in addition to the above, the Petitioner has

computed revised opening of the normative loans in view of the revision in net

capitalization considered by the Petitioner for FY 2016-17.

i) The Petitioner has calculated the interest on normative loan based on the weighted

average rate of interest derived from the interest and opening and closing loan

outstanding for FY 2017-18.

Regulation 27 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 stipulates the methodology for

computation of interest expenses. The Commission in accordance with the above Regulations has

worked out the Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2017-18 considering the loan amount

corresponding to the assets capitalised in the year based on the approved means of finance, and the

interest rate of 11.04% has been computed on the basis of weighted average interest rate on the

actual loan portfolio.

The Petitioner has again requested the Commission to allow interest on GPF as part of

interest expenses as the same is a statutory liability of the Petitioner. The Commission in the past

has not allowed such expenses for reasons given in the respective Orders. Hence, the Commission

again disallows the interest claimed on GPF.

The Petitioner has claimed interest liability on consumers’ security deposits (CSD) for FY

2017-18 as Rs. 41.16 Crore which has actually been paid. The Commission has approved the interest

on CSD for FY 2017-18 as Rs. 41.16 Crore.



Further, the interest on REC Old Loan has been allowed as claimed by UPCL. The

Commission observed that the Petitioner has claimed substantially higher guarantee fee of Rs. 10.73

Crore as compared to Rs. 3.42 Crore approved in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18. The Commission,

accordingly, directed the Petitioner to submit the details of the guarantee fees paid. The Petitioner

in response submitted the breakup of guarantee fees claimed by it which is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.34: Guarantee Fee claimed by the Petitioner in FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Loan Outstanding at end of year

Guarantee fee/ commission

REC loans 129.00 1.29 R-APDRP Part A 93.85 0.94 R-APDRP Part A (SCADA)

8.25 0.08

R-APDRP Part B 505.33 3.05 Total 536.43 5.36

The Commission further sought details of how provisions of Rs. 5.36 Crore has been worked

out for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner in its reply submitted the computation of provisions of Rs. 5.36

Crore as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.35: Basis of computing provisions on account of Guarantee Fee (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Loan

Outstanding Loan Amount

as on 31.03.2018

Provision for Guarantee Fees for FY 2017-18

Provision for Interest due to

non-payment of Guarantee Fees

Total

1. Old REC Loan 129.00 1.29 1.29 2.58

2. R-APDRP (Part A)-PFC 93.85 9.38 9.38 1.88

3. RAPDRP-PART A (SCADA)-PFC 8.25 0.08 0.08 0.16

4. RAPDRP-PART B –PFC 505.33 3.05 3.05 6.11

Total 536.43 5.36 5.36 10.73

The Commission has only considered the guarantee fee of Rs. 5.36 Crore due for FY 2017-18

and has not considered the excess provision made by UPCL as well as provisions made for payment

of penalty on non-payment of guarantee fee as the Commission has been allowing guarantee fee to

UPCL in its previous Tariff Orders.



The Commission has worked out the Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2017-18

considering the loan amounts corresponding to the assets capitalised in the year based on the

approved means of finance, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.36: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Tariff Order

Claimed by UPCL Approved

Interest on Loan corresponding to assets capitalised 99.20 76.79 56.57

REC Old Loan 17.28 20.39 20.39 Interest on Normative Loans - 9.09 - Guarantee Fee & Financing Charges 3.42 10.73 5.36 Financing Charges 1.06 1.85 1.85 Interest on Security Deposit 46.11 41.16 41.16 Net Interest and Finance Charges 167.07 160.00 125.33

4.2.2.1.2 Depreciation

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that it has calculated depreciation considering

the closing GFA for FY 2016-17 and actual net capitalisation for FY 2017-18. Further, the rate of

depreciation considered by it was as specified in UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. The Petitioner has

computed depreciation at the rate of 5.21% for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner has, accordingly, claimed

total depreciation of Rs. 127.40 Crore as against Rs. 136.36 Crore approved by the Commission in

the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18.

The Commission has allowed depreciation at a weighted average rate of 5.20% based on the

audited balance sheet for FY 2017-18. As discussed in previous section, the Commission has not

considered the part capitalisation disallowed in FY 2016-17 on account of non-submission of

Electrical Clearance certificate. Further, the Commission has been allowing depreciation on the

value of opening GFA keeping in line with the practice being followed by the Petitioner of

capitalising the asset in its accounts on the last day of the financial year. The Tariff Regulations of

the Commission provides for depreciation on pro-rata basis, however, the Petitioner in its accounts

calculates depreciation on the opening GFA as is evident from its Notes to Accounts. Therefore, the

Commission finds no justification to depart from the practice adopted in the previous Tariff Orders

of allowing depreciation on the opening balance of GFA. The Commission directs the Petitioner to

claim depreciation in line with its practice followed in the accounts.



The Commission in its data gaps sent to the Petitioner required it to confirm that the

depreciation claimed is not in excess of 90% of its assets. The Petitioner in its reply confirmed that

depreciation in FY 2017-18 has been less than 90% of GFA for all assets in accordance with the

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015.

The depreciation approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4.37: Depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

Opening GFA 4504.00 4218.85 4122.71 Grants 1888.60 1768.46 1741.14 Depreciable opening GFA 2615.40 2,450.39 2381.56 Net addition during the year 350.07 397.55 6.53 Closing GFA 2965.47 4616.41 2388.09 Depreciation Rate 5.21% 5.20% 5.20% Depreciation 136.36 127.40 123.82

4.2.3 Provisions for Bad and Doubtful Debts

The Petitioner in its Petition has submitted that the Commission in the MYT Order dated

April 05, 2016 did not allow any provisioning of bad debts for earlier years.

The Petitioner submitted that annual provision towards bad & doubtful debts is an accepted

method of accounting and considering the peculiarity of retail supply business, the same has also

been recognized by other SERCs. The Petitioner added that the amount, if any, written off towards

bad debts is only adjusted against the accumulated provisions in the books, irrespective of the

actual amount of bad debts written off during any particular financial year.

The Petitioner requested the Commission to allow provision for bad and doubtful debts on

actual basis after considering the geographical spread of the large consumer base across the State

including a large part of the same prevailing in the difficult terrain and hilly region and the problem

of realizing energy dues from retail consumers.

The Petitioner further submitted that in line with the approach followed by the Commission

in the previous Tariff Orders, the Petitioner has not included any amount on account of

provisioning of bad debts in the ARR but has calculated the same and has requested the

Commission for its approval.



The Petitioner further submitted that the amount of Rs. 52.48 Crore has been written-off by

the Petitioner during FY 2017-18 and this amount has led to lowering of the provision from Rs.

103.31 Crore to Rs. 50.83 Crore. The Petitioner in its Petition has requested the Commission to allow

a reasonable provision towards bad and doubtful debts in the subsequent Control Period.

Regulation 31 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies as follows:

“(1) The Commission may allow a provision for bad and doubtful debts upto one percent (1%) of the

estimated annual revenue of the distribution licensee, subject to actual writing off of bad debts by it in

the previous years.

Provided further that where the total amount of such provisioning allowed in previous years for bad

and doubtful debts exceeds five (5) per cent of the receivables at the beginning of the year, no such

appropriation shall be allowed which would have the effect of increasing the provisioning beyond the

said maximum.”

As regards the bad and doubtful debts, the Commission sought consumer category wise bad

debt written off from the Petitioner. UPCL in response submitted the category wise bad debts

written off during FY 2017-18 as follows:

Table 4.38: Category wise Bad Debt written off as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Category Amount (Rs. Crore) Domestic 14.35 Non-domestic 9.47 PTW 0.42 LT Industry 1.07 HT Industry 21.86 Public Lamps 1.36 Public Water works 1.02 Govt Irrigation System 2.93 Total 52.48

The Commission has gone through the submissions of the Petitioner. It is observed from the

submissions made by the Petitioner time and again that the bad debt pertains to write off of

fictitious arrears which were created due to wrong or excess billings. In this regard, the Commisison

has been continuously directing UPCL to refrain itself from treating rectification of wrong billing

made in the earlier period as writing off the bad debts. The Commission again directs the

Petitioner to account its billing adjustment and writing off the bad debts properly in accordance



with the accounting policies. UPCL is also directed to submit the consumer wise details of bad

debts written off within one month form the end on each quarter.

The Commission in its previous Tariff Order dated March 21, 2018 had held as under:

“The Commission in the previous Tariff Order had directed the Petitioner to carry out an audit of

receivables and also identify and classify the same. Though the Petitioner has submitted a draft bad

debt policy, however, the same needs to be supported by audit report of receivables. The Commission

as of now has not considered the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the approval of ARR for FY

2018-19 in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Further, the Commission is not

approving the draft bad debt policy submitted by the Petitioner in these proceedings and will take a

view on the same separately. The Commission, therefore, directs the Petitioner to submit the audit

report of receivables identifying and classifying the same in detail within 6 months from the date of

this Order. The Commission shall consider writing off of bad debts for FY 2018-19 upon submission

of the same at the time of truing up of FY 2018-19.“

The Petitioner has not submitted the copy of its Draft Bad Debt Policy in the manner

required by the Commission. Further, audit report of receivables identifying and classifying the

same in detail has also not been submitted till date.

The Table below shows the ageing schedule of receivables with UPCL as on 31.03.2018.

Table 4.39: Ageing schedule of receivables with UPCL as on 31.03.2018 (Rs. Crore)

Consumer Category Receivables with age

< 6 months

6 months to 1 year

1 to 2 years

2 to 3 years

3 to 4 years

4 to 5 years

> 5 years Total

Domestic 26.13 39.19 54.92 38.44 53.52 21.86 311.54 545.61 Non-Domestic 3.92 5.88 18.79 22.47 34.43 29.38 180.89 295.76 LT Industry 1.64 2.45 6.66 1.73 0.91 0.68 29.49 43.55 HT Industry 3.25 4.88 12.22 24.08 84.19 2.35 221.46 352.45 Mixed Load 0.18 0.28 0.90 1.51 0.63 1.52 (4.04) 0.98 Private Tube-wells 8.15 12.23 15.82 12.17 23.21 8.78 65.65 146.00 Public Lamps 16.75 25.13 (0.00) 1.99 0.02 2.85 (16.79) 29.95 Public Water Works 10.11 15.17 1.33 (1.26) 21.78 3.75 74.48 125.36 Govt. Irrigation System 13.16 19.74 (23.74) 42.25 21.30 12.85 (2.59) 82.96 Railway Traction 0.61 0.92 (0.00) (0.00) 0.04 (0.00) (1.57) 0.00 Total 83.31 124.96 86.89 143.37 239.99 84.01 860.09 1,622.62

It is not clear as to without identifying the debtors, how the ageing schedule has been

prepared. This is evident from the negative receivables reflecting in the ageing schedule of Mixed

load category (with ageing greater than 5 years), Public Lamps (age over 5 years), Public water



works (age between 2 to 3 years), GIS (age between 1 to 2 years and over 5 years) and Railway

Traction which is a single consumer has a negative receivable having age over 5 years. It is

incomprehensible as to how the receivables can be negative, the same can only be in one situation

that the consumers may have paid more than what was due from it which is not imaginable.

Moreover, the receivables having age more than 5 years are to the tune of Rs. 860 Crore, i.e. more

than 50% of the total arrears as on 31.03.2018, in which industries accounts for about 29% dues. This

reflects towards the callous attitude of UPCL in realising its arrears from such categories where

monthly billing is being done and which are not in large numbers. Accordingly, the Commission

directs UPCL to submit the list of industries (both LT & HT) on whom the arrears are due having

age more than 5 years within 6 months of the date of the Order. UPCL is also directed to

reconcile the dues pending with railways within 6 months of the date of the Order and submit

the compliance before the Commission. UPCL is also directed to raise the issue of pending dues

on Government connections like Public Lamps, Public Water Works and GIS and settle the dues

before the end of FY 2019-20.

Hence, in the absence of firm compliance by UPCL with respect to the directions given the

Commission, the Commission has not allowed any provision for Bad Debts for FY 2017-18.

4.2.4 Interest on Working Capital (IoWC)

The Petitioner has submitted that it has computed interest on working capital as per UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2015. However, as per the computation submitted by the Petitioner the net

working capital is submitted as Rs. -4.12 Crore. The Petitioner has submitted that it has not claimed

any IoWC. The Petitioner has submitted that the actual interest on working capital is Rs. 32.53 Crore

as the amount towards overdraft facility is primarily utilized for the purpose of availing the

maximum rebate from the generators. However, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to

consider the interest on overdraft against the rebate earned from generators as detailed under non-

tariff income. Further, the Petitioner has submitted that since the normative interest on working

capital is less than actual working capital, the treatment of the same to be allowed as per “Sharing of

Gains and Losses” as per UERC Tariff Regulations.

In its subsequent submissions, the Petitioner submitted that in the computation of Working

Capital, the current methodology adopted by the Commission, is leading to undue loss to the

Petitioner as it is paying interest on security deposit to the consumer as well as paying interest on



over draft facility availed by it and the amount of security deposit invested in bank is also passed on

to the consumers. UPCL also referred to the provisions of Regulations prevailing in other States

regarding allowance of interest on the working capital wherein it contended that Security deposits

from the consumers are not reduced for computation of the working capital. Hence, it requested the

Commission not to reduce the amount of security deposits while computing the working capital

requirement of UPCL or since the interest on term deposits of security amount and interest paid on

bank overdraft is on account of working capital management, these two items should not be

considered while computing the ARR and their difference may be compared with the normative

value of interest on working capital and the resulting loss / gain may be shared with the consumers

as per the provisions of the Regulations.

The computation of interest on working capital as submitted by the Petitioner is detailed in

the Table below:

Table 4.40: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Operation and Maintenance Expenses (one month) 36.96 Maintenance Spares @ 15% of O&M Expenses 66.53 Receivables (2 months) 921.33 Capital required to finance such shortfall in collection of current dues 66.01 Sub-total 1090.82 Less: Adjustment for security deposits & Credit available for Power Purchase 1150.92 Net working capital -60.10 Interest on working capital 0.00

With regard to the Petitioner’s submission regarding provisions in the Regulations of other

States regarding computation of working capital, the Commission is bound by its own Regulations

till the time they are amended or modified. While framing the draft Regulations, the Commission

sought comments on the same from all the stakeholders including UPCL, however, this issue was

never agitated by UPCL. In its comments, UPCL submitted that it avails overdraft facilities from the

banks to meet its power purchase liabilities and the timely payment rebate should be adjusted by

the interest cost incurred for making early payment of power purchase bills which had been dealt

by the Commission in its SoR. As per the norms specified in the Regulations the Petitioner would

not require any working capital if it would have carried out its operations efficiently. The

requirement of overdraft arose as the Petitioner could not recover its dues from the consumers on

time. This is evident from the Chart no. 16 in Chapter 7 of the Order. Moreover, UPCL is also not



making timely payment to the State Government of its legitimate dues as is evident from the details

of outstanding liabilities submitted by UPCL itself wherein as on 31.12.2018, Rs. 2066.55 Crore were

payble to the State Government, towards cost of free power, water tax, Cess and Royalty, electricity

duty, etc. This merely suggests that either the collections of dues from consumers are not made

efficiently and promptly, but also reflects towards the fact that the revenues from electricity dues

realised from consumers and expenses withheld are diverted towards its inefficiencies or also

invested in capital expenditure which is evident from the fact that UPCL claims to have invested an

amount of about Rs. 533.37 Crore as internal resources for creation of assets, however, its net worth

is negative as on 31.03.2018. Hence, the purpose of availing bank overdraft is not ascertainable as on

one hand UPCL has substantial liability to pay to the Government, its collection efficiency is not

within the norms specified and, hence, the need of overdraft. Besides, the same can also be to create

new assets which UPCL claims to have created out of its internal resources on which RoE is being

allowed to it.

Accordingly, based on the above discussions, the Commission does not find it prudent to

deviate from its past practice and has, thus, computed the working capital requirement as per

UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015. Similar to the Petitioner’s submission, the net working capital as

worked out based on the approved expenses is negative, therefore, the Commission is not

approving any IoWC for FY 2017-18. However, actual interest on overdraft facility availed, which is

a working capital facility has been considered as loss and sharing of the loss has been done in

accordance with UERC MYT Regulations, 2015.


The Petitioner submitted that it has computed Return on Equity (RoE) for FY 2017-18 based

on actual equity invested in the business. The Petitioner further submitted that it has calculated RoE

on the basis of the following.

• Revised closing equity for FY 2016-17 has been arrived upon in the following manner:

i. Opening equity balance for FY 2016-17 as approved by the Commission in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 has been considered.

ii. Addition of equity in FY 2016-17 as per the funding of each scheme capitalized during FY 2016-17 has been considered to arrive at the closing balance for FY 2016-17 as shown under:



Table 4.41: Opening and closing equity for FY 2017-18 as submitted by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Opening Equity 402.71 453.88 Addition 51.17 79.49 Closing Equity 453.88 533.37

• The capitalisation for FY 2017-18 excluding the grants and deposit works has been

considered to be funded in the debt equity ratio of 70:30.

• Return on equity has been computed on the average equity at the rate of return of

16.50%.

The Commission has considered the closing equity approved for FY 2016-17 as the opening

equity for FY 2017-18. Accordingly, the Commission has approved the Return on Equity at the rate

of 16.50% on the opening equity in accordance with the Regulations. The Return on Equity

approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.42: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order Claimed by UPCL Approved

Return on Equity 50.54 74.89 71.48

4.2.6 Non Tariff Income

The Petitioner submitted that the Non-Tariff Income includes income from non-tariff sources

such as income from investments, delayed payment surcharge, etc. The Petitioner, in its Petition,

has claimed non-tariff income as Rs. 308.52 Crore as against the actual Non-Tariff Income as per the

audited accounts of Rs. 318.67 Crore.

The Petitioner with regard to material cost variance submitted that out of the total Rs. 30.41

Crore, contribution from grants (Rs. 10.14 Crore) has been deducted from the overall claim in line

with the methodology adopted by the Commission in the previous Tariff Orders.

The Petitioner further submitted that it has considered the prior period expense of Rs. 0.88

Crore for allowable prior period income /expenses such as prior period power purchase

income/expenses, assessment of prior period expenses and other prior period income excluding

non-allowable income/expenses such as prior period depreciation expense as per audited accounts



for consideration in non-tariff income.

The Commission agrees with the submissions made by the Petitioner with regard to the

material cost variance on the value of grants and also with the submissions made with regard to

adjustment of prior period income and expenses.

Accordingly, the non-tariff income claimed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission for the purpose of truing up for FY 2017-18 is as given in the Table below:

Table 4.43: Non-tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order


Interest on deposits

185.70

61.70 61.70 Income from staff welfare activities 0.14 0.14

Rebate/Incentive 22.47 22.47 Miscellaneous receipts 15.59 15.59 Material Cost Variance 20.27 20.27 Delayed Payment Surcharge 173.11 173.11 Sale of Surplus Power 0.00 0.00 Wheeling Charge, Cross Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge

16.13 16.13

Prior Period Expense 0.88 0.88 Total 185.70 308.52 308.52

4.3 Tariff Revenue

The Petitioner submitted the revenue at existing tariff as Rs. 5462.34 Crore as against the

revenue of Rs. 5841.64 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18.

The Petitioner further submitted that even after making significant improvements, the actual

distribution loss for FY 2017-18 were higher than the baseline value of 14.50% approved by the

Commission for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner further submitted the loss to be borne by it on account of

the same which is as shown in the Table below:



Table 4.44: Additional Revenue from Sale for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) S. No. Particulars Actuals

1. Actual Sales (MU) 11208.82 2. Approved Distribution Loss Level (%) 14.75% 3. Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface (MU) 13213.73 4. Sales at Actual Energy Input with 14.75% Loss (MU) 11264.70 5. Loss of Sales (MU) 55.88 6. Revenue at Existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) 5462.34 7. ABR (Rs./kWh) 4.87 8. Additional Revenue due to higher distribution losses (Rs. Crore) 27.23 9. Losses to be borne by the Petitioner (2/3 of 8) (Rs. Crore) 18.15

The Commission has considered the distribution loss for FY 2017-18 as approved by it in its

MYT Order and, accordingly, has computed the loss of sales as 194.83 MU due to commercial

inefficiencies of UPCL.

While approving the category wise sales for FY 2017-18, the Commission has recasted the

sales of all the categories of consumers except railways from the sales submitted by the Petitioner.

Since, the sale has been reduced, the ABR for other Domestic Consumer Category has increased to

Rs. 3.76/kWh from the earlier Rs. 3.73/kWh. As against the same it is observed that the ABR

corresponding to Departmental Employees of UPCL, UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL as submitted by the

Petitioner is Rs. 2.06/kWh. The Commission has, accordingly, adjusted the revenue on account of

difference in the ABR of Departmental employees based on the ABR of other domestic consumers.

The revenue corresponding to the assessed sale is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.45: Revenue for FY 2017-18 Corresponding to Assessed Sales

Particulars Sales (MU)

Actual Revenue

(Rs. Crore)

Actual ABR of deptt

employee (Rs./kWh)

Actual ABR of other

domestic consumers

after re-casted sales (Rs./kWh)

Additional Revenue from departmental

employees (Rs. Crore)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)=(i x iv) – (ii) UPCL Employees and Pensioners 24.21 3.35 1.39 3.76 5.74 PTCUL Employees and Pensioners 3.17 1.14 3.61 3.76 0.38 UJVNL Employees and Pensioners 8.96 2.98 3.33 3.76 0.05 Total 6.17

It is imperative to mention that the impact of concessional/subsidised electricity provided

by UPCL to its employees has to be borne by UPCL as the average consumption of the employees is



much higher than the consumption of other domestic consumers and, moreover, the charges which

are recovered from the employees towards the use of electricity is not commensurate with the price

charged from other domestic consumers. Hence, the same cannot be allowed to be passed on to the

consumers in the State and the Corporation will have to bear this burden.

Based on the above, the revenue from the sale of power, as worked out by the Commission

is shown in the Table below:

Table 4.46: Revenue from Sale of Power for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Amount

Actual Revenue 5462.34 Add: Revenue corresponding to recasted Sales 6.17 Total Revenue 5468.51

The Commission for the computation of ABR has considered an amount of Rs. 5468.51

Crore.

Further, as discussed above there is a loss of 194.83 MU on account of commercial

inefficiencies of the Petitioner failing to achieve target distribution loss approved by the

Commission. The Commission has considered the revenue of Rs. 96.24 Crore at an average billing

rate of Rs. 4.94 kWh for this additional loss of sale on account of higher distribution losses while

truing up the ARR for FY 2017-18 as shown in the Table below:

Table 4.47: Additional Revenue from Sale due to inefficiency for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

1. Actual/ Re-casted Sales (MU)

NIL

11069.98 2. Approved Distribution Loss Level (%) 14.75% 3. Actual Energy Input at T-D Interface (MU) 13213.73 4. Sales at Actual Energy Input with 14.75% Loss (MU) 11,264.70 5. Loss of Sales due to Inefficiency (MU) 194.83 6. Revenue at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore) 5468.51 7. ABR (Rs./kWh) 4.94

8. Additional Revenue due to higher distribution losses (Rs. Crore) 96.24

9. Losses to borne by Petitioner (2/3rdof 8) (Rs. Crore) 64.16

Accordingly, the Commission has considered tariff revenue of Rs. 5532.67 Crore including

Rs. 64.16 Crore as deemed revenue on account of excess loss for FY 2017-18 as against total revenue

of Rs. 5462.34 Crore claimed by the Petitioner.



4.4 Sharing of Gains and Losses

The Petitioner submitted that it has achieved better performance against the targets specified

on the performance parameters, i.e. employee expenses and A&G expenses.

The sharing of gains and losses claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2017-18 is as shown in the

Table below:

Table 4.48: Sharing of Gains and Losses for FY 2017-18 claimed by the Petitioner (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Amount (Gain/(Loss) Consumer Share UPCL

Share Gain 1/3rd 2/3rd Employee Expenses 31.84 10.61 21.22 A&G Expenses (5.48) (1.83) (3.66) R&M Expenses (1.75) (0.58) (1.17) IoWC (32.53) (10.84) (21.68) (Loss)/ profit Share 31.84 10.61 21.22

Regulation 12 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015 specifies as under:

“12. Annual Performance Review

…

(5) The “uncontrollable factors” shall include such of the factors which are beyond the control of,

the applicant, as determined by the Commission. Some examples of uncontrollable factors are as

follows:

…

c) Economy wide influences such as unforeseen changes in inflation rate, market interest rates,

taxes and statutory levies;

…

(6) Some illustrative variations or expected variations in the performance of the applicant which

may be attributed by the Commission to controllable factors shall include, but shall not be limited

to, the following:

…

f) Variations in working capital requirements;



…

j) Variation in operation & maintenance expenses

…

(10) Upon completion of the Annual Performance Review, the Commission shall pass on an order

recording-

a) The approved aggregate gain or loss to the Applicant on account of uncontrollable factors and

the mechanism by which the Applicant shall be allowed such gains or losses in accordance with

Regulation 13;

b) The approved aggregate gain or loss to the Applicant on account of controllable factors and

sharing of such gains or such losses that may be shared in accordance with Regulation 14;

c) The approved modifications to the forecast of the Applicant for the ensuing year, if any;

The surplus/deficit determined by the Commission in accordance with these Regulations on

account of truing up of the ARR of the Applicant shall be carried forward to the ensuing financial

year.”


“13. Sharing of Gains and Losses on account of Uncontrollable factors

(1) The approved aggregate gain or loss to the Applicant on account of uncontrollable factors shall be

allowed as an adjustment in the tariff/charges of the Applicant over such period as may be

specified in the Order of the Commission;

…”


“14. Sharing of Gains and Losses on account of Controllable factors

(1) The approved aggregate gain and loss to the Applicant on account of controllable factors shall

be dealt with in the following manner:

a) 1/3rdof such gain shall be passed on as a rebate or allowed to be recovered in tariff over such

period as may be specified in the Order of the Commission;

b) The balance amount of gain may be utilized or absorbed by the Applicant.”



Hence, in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2015, the O&M expenses, IoWC and

Distribution losses are controllable factors and any gain or loss on account of the controllable factors

is to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 14 of the above mentioned

Regulations.

The sharing of gains on account of controllable factors approved by the Commission for FY

2017-18 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 4.49: Sharing of Gains on Account of Controllable Factors approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Actual for truing up

Normative as Trued up

Aggregate gain/(loss)

Consumer’s Share

Petitioner’s Share of Gain/(Loss)

A B C=B-A (Gain): D=1/3 x

C Loss D=1/3 x C

E=C-D

O&M expenses 460.25 455.45 (4.80) (1.60) (3.20) Distribution Loss 16.22% 14.50% (96.24) (32.08) (64.16) IoWC 32.53 0.00 (32.53) (10.84) (21.68) Total (133.58) (44.53) (89.05)

The trued O&M Expenses is as shown below:

Table 4.50: O&M Expenses as Trued up by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Actual O&M Expense

Petitioners’s Share of Gain/(Loss)

Trued up O&M Expense

O&M Expenses 460.25 (3.20) 457.05

4.5 ARR and Revenue for FY 2017-18

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 29, 2017 had approved the Net Revenue

Requirement for FY 2017-18 as Rs. 5840.98 Crore. The Petitioner has now claimed an ARR of Rs.

5932.18 Crore for FY 2017-18. However, based on the various elements of the ARR as discussed

above and approved by the Commission, the summary of final Truing up for FY 2017-18 is given in

the Table below:



Table 4.51: Summary of true up for FY 2017-18 approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) S.

No. Particulars Tariff Order


1. Total Power Purchase Cost including Transmission Charges 5495.73 5082.25 5082.25

2. Interest on Loan & Financing Charges 167.07 160.00 125.33 3. Depreciation 136.36 127.40 123.82 4. O&M expenses after sharing of gains and losses 507.67 484.99 457.05 5. Interest on Working Capital 12.31 0.00 0.00 6. Impact of IoWC sharing - - 10.84 7. Return on Equity 50.54 74.89 71.48 8. Impact of Previous Year Funding adj. - 9. Aggregate Revenue Requirement 6369.68 5929.54 5870.76 10. Less: Non-Tariff Income 185.70 308.52 308.52 11. Gap/(Surplus) of previous year (203.85) (141.54) (141.54) 12. Past Year Adjustment (139.16) (139.16) (139.16) 13. Net ARR 5840.98 5340.31 5281.54 14. Revenue 15. Revenue at Existing Tariff 5841.64 5462.34 5468.51 16. Revenue from Addl. Sales. (after sharing) - 18.15 64.16 17. Total Revenue 5841.64 5480.49 5532.67 18. Other Adjustment 19. Sharing of Gains and Losses - (2.64) - 20. Adjusted Revenue (Surplus)/Gap 0.66 -137.54 -251.14

The Petitioner in its Petition had requested the Commission to approve the surplus of Rs.

137.54 Crore. However, the Commission has approved a surplus of Rs. 251.14 Crore for FY 2017-18.

The surplus for FY 2017-18 with carrying cost works out to Rs. 305.31 Crore which has been

considered by the Commission in the ARR of FY 2019-20.


5. Petitioner’s Submissions, Commission’s Analysis, Scrutiny and Conclusion on MYT Period for Third Control Period

5.1 Background

This Chapter deals with the determination of the projected ARR of the Petitioner for the

Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. To determine the ARR of the Petitioner for the

ensuing year FY 2019-20, the Commission has first projected the monthly power purchase

requirement of the Petitioner by estimating the category wise sales based on the past trends and

considering the normative distribution losses. After determining the monthly power purchase

requirement, the Commission has determined the overall power purchase cost. The Commission

has discussed the Sales Projections, Distribution loss trajectory, Power Purchase Plan and Capital

Expenditure in detail in Chapter 3 of this Order while approving the Business Plan components.

The Commission has, thereafter, estimated the other elements of ARR such as Depreciation, O&M

expenses, Interest and Finance Charges, Working Capital requirement and Return on Equity to

project the ARR of the Petitioner for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. Based on the

analysis and scrutiny of Petitioner’s projections in the Petition and considering the subsequent

submissions including actual data for the preceding years, the Commission has determined the total

ARR for first year of the third Control Period, i.e. FY 2019-20 and ARR excluding Power Purchase

Cost for the remaining two years of the Control Period from FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 as detailed

in the subsequent Paras of this Chapter.

5.2 Sales

The Commission has already discussed the approach adopted by it for approving the

consumer category wise sales for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-

22 in detail in Chapter 3 of the Order. The consumer category wise sale approved by the

Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table

below:



Table 5.1: Category Wise Sales approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (MU)

Consumer Category FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Claimed by UPCL Approved Claimed by

UPCL Approved Claimed by UPCL Approved

RTS-1: Domestic 3310.54 3137.38 3601.33 3385.63 3917.67 3653.51 RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1368.53 1325.79 1440.48 1378.24 1516.21 1432.77 RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 685.97 639.13 739.50 675.56 797.21 714.08 RTS-4: Private Tube-wells Pumping sets 288.33 282.91 297.21 294.23 306.36 306.00

RTS-5: LT & HT Industry Total LT 323.52 315.03 334.72 326.05 346.32 337.47 Total HT 6455.43 6445.84 6776.57 6768.14 7113.70 7106.54 Total 6778.94 6760.87 7111.29 7094.19 7460.02 7444.01

RTS-6: Mixed Load 188.75 185.46 191.99 189.17 195.29 192.95 RTS-7: Railway Traction 29.99 30.08 31.19 31.28 32.44 32.53 Total 12651.05 12361.61 13412.99 13048.30 14225.20 13775.85

The Commission would like to once again highlight that the Petitioner has projected the

restricted sales for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Commission as

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order has projected unrestricted sales for the third Control Period.

5.3 Distribution Loss Trajectory

The Commission has approved the Distribution Loss Trajectory for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order. The distribution loss

trajectory approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.2: Distribution Loss Trajectory approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22




Distribution Losses 14.67% 14.25% 14.42% 14.00% 14.17% 13.75%

In line with the approach adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Commission has considered the entire distribution loss reduction target for each year of the Control

Period as reduction in commercial losses of the Petitioner and has, therefore, considered the impact

of distribution loss reduction in terms of increase in sales due to efficiency improvement.



Accordingly, the estimated energy requirement at distribution periphery, State periphery

and approved loss level for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 are given in the

Table below:

Table 5.3: Energy Input requirement approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22

Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Distribution Sales (MU) 12361.61 13048.30 13775.85 Loss level for Energy Input (%) 14.50% 14.25% 14.00% Energy Input required at T-D interface (MU) 14458.03 15216.67 16018.43 Commercial Loss reduction (%) 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Commercial Loss reduction (Additional sales due to efficiency improvement) (MU) 36.15 38.04 40.05

Total sales with efficiency improvement (MU) 12397.76 13086.34 13815.89 Overall Distribution Loss (%) 14.25% 14.00% 13.75% PTCUL Loss (%) 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% Energy Input at State periphery (MU) 14663.31 15432.73 16245.87

5.4 Aggregate Revenue Requirement


“69. Aggregate Revenue Requirement for each Financial Year of the Control Period

(1) The total annual expenses and return on equity of the Distribution Licensee for each financial year

of the Control Period shall be worked out on the basis of expenses and return allowed in terms of these

Regulations.

(2) The retail supply tariff of a Distribution Licensee for each financial year of the Control Period shall

provide for recovery of Aggregate Revenue Requirement of the Distribution Licensee for each financial

year of the Control Period, as reduced by the amount of non-tariff income, income from wheeling in

respect of open access customers, income from Other Business and receipts on account of cross-

subsidy surcharge and additional surcharge for the relevant financial year, as approved by the

Commission, and subsidy from the State Government for the financial year, if any, and shall comprise

the following:

(a) Cost of power purchase;

(b) Transmission charges;

(c) System Operation Charges i.e. Fee and Charges paid to NLDC/RLDC/SLDC



(d) Interest and Finance charges on Loan Capital and on consumer security deposit;

(e) Depreciation, including and amortisation of intangible assets;

(f) Lease Charges

(g) Operation and Maintenance expenses;

(h) Interest on working capital; and

(i) Return on equity capital;

(j) Income-tax;

(k) Provision for Bad and doubtful debts

(3) Net Revenue Requirement from sale of electricity = Aggregate Revenue Requirement, as above,

minus:

(a) Non-Tariff Income;

(b) Income from wheeling charges recovered from open access customers;

(c) Income from Other Business, to the extent specified in these Regulations;

(d) Receipts from cross-subsidy surcharge from open access consumers; and

(e) Receipts from additional surcharge on charges of wheeling from open access consumers.

(f) Any revenue subsidy or grant received from the State Government other than the subsidy

under Section 65 of Electricity Act, 2003.”

The Commission in this Order has determined the Net Revenue Requirement for the first

year of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2019-20 and Net Revenue Requirement excluding Power Purchase

Cost for the remaining two years of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 as detailed in

the subsequent Paras of this Chapter.

5.5 Power Purchase Cost

The Power requirement of UPCL is met from various sources which include the generating

stations of:

• NTPC Ltd.

• NHPC Ltd.



• NPCIL

• SJVNL

• THDC Ltd.

• State generating stations of UJVNL

• UREDA

• Gas Generating Stations in the State

• Co-generation stations

• Independent Power Producers (IPPs)

• Other Renewable Sources

• Short-term power arrangements: Banking, open market purchase etc.

The Commission has approved the power procurement plan from various sources for each

year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 in Chapter 3 of the Order. As

discussed in Chapter 3, the Commission is only projecting the power purchase cost for the first year

of the Control Period, i.e. FY 2019-20 and for reasons mentioned in Chapter 3, the Commission finds

no relevance in approving the power purchase cost for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22.

5.5.1 Cost of Power Purchase

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase has been projected based on the

following assumptions.

For the procurement of power from 9 LHPs and MB-II LHP of UJVN Ltd., the Petitioner

submitted that the approved Tariff (AFC and Energy Charges) for FY 2018-19 has been escalated by

5% each year for projecting the cost of power purchase from UJVN Ltd. for each year of the third

Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Petitioner submitted that for projecting the cost

of power purchase from SHPs of UJVN Ltd. (except Mohammadpur & Pathri), the per unit cost as

per power purchase bills received during first six months of FY 2018-19 has been considered for

each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. For Mohammadpur & Pathri

SHPs, the Petitioner has considered the approved levelized tariff of Rs 2.04 per unit and Rs 1.53 per

unit as per Tariff Order 12 December, 2017 for the entire Control Period. The Petitioner has

submitted that it has considered Rs. 256.66 Crore as water tax for FY 2018-19 which has been

escalated by 5% each year for the third Control Period.



For NTPC and NHPC stations, the Petitioner submitted that the Tariff Orders for the next

Control Period starting FY 2019-20 are still to be issued by CERC. Hence, cost of power purchase

from NTPC stations and NHPC station have been projected by escalating the Annual Fixed Charges

for FY 2018-19 by 3% per annum and by escalating the actual variable charges for FY 2017-18 by 3%

per annum for thermal stations. The Petitioner further submitted that for NHPC stations where no

CERC Order was available, the AFC have been projected by escalating the AFC for FY 2017-18 by

3% per annum.

The Petitioner submitted that the energy charges for NPCIL stations have been projected by

escalating the actual energy chages for FY 2017-18 by 3% per annum.

For THDC and SJVNL stations, the Petitioner submitted that power purchase expenses have

been projected by considering the CERC approved tariff for FY 2018-19 or actual power purchase

cost if CERC Order is not available and escalating the same by 3% per annum.

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase from IPPs has been considered as

per the tariff determined by the Commission. The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power

purchase from Sasan UMPP has been considered as per the bid tariff.

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of free power has been calculated in line with the

methodology specified by the Commission. It also submitted that for upcoming generating stations,

the tariff of Rs. 4/kWh has been considered.

The Petitioner has proposed forward banking of power in case of surplus power available

during the summer months of each year of the third Control Period which would be returned in the

winter months in the same year. The actual open access charges for FY 2017-18 have been escalated

at 5% per annum for projecting the open access charges on such banking of power for the Control

Period.

The Petitioner submitted that the cost of power purchase from short term sources has been

considered @ Rs 4.50/kWh.

The Petitioner has projected the average power purchase cost of Rs. 3.57/kWh, Rs.

3.59/kWh and Rs. 3.62/kWh for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively.

The Commission has estimated the cost of power purchase from various sources for FY

2019-20 as detailed below:



Table 5.4: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase for FY 2019-20

Source Approach of the Commission in estimating the cost of power purchase

UJVN Ltd.

The Commission has considered the approved Tariff of UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) for FY 2019-20. As per the GoU Notification No. 601/1(2)/04(1)-1/2007 dated May 31, 2017, GoU imposed a cess of Rs. 0.30/kWh and royalty of Rs. 0.10/kWh on saleable energy generated from hydro generating stations which are under commercial operation for 10 or more years with cost of generation below Rs. 2/kWh with effect from the date of notification. Hence, additional impact on account of the same has been considered. For SHPs, the Commission has considered the applicable Tariff for such generating stations as specified in the Renewable Energy Regulations or Orders of the Commission. Further, the Commission has considered the Water Tax equivalent to actual Water Tax for FY 2017-18.

NHPC Ltd., THDC Ltd., SJVN Ltd.

The tariff for these stations has been considered equal to approved Annual Fixed Charges for FY 2018-19 as Tariff Orders for FY 2019-20 are yet to be issued.

NTPC Ltd.

The Annual Fixed Charges for these stations have been considered equal to approved Annual Fixed Charges for FY 2018-19 as Tariff Orders for FY 2019-20 are yet to be issued. For estimating the Energy Charges for FY 2019-20, to avoid substantial impact of quarterly FSA, the weighted average rate of actual Energy Charges for the months of April 2018 to September 2018 has been considered with an escalation of 4%.

NPCIL The tariff for NPCIL stations has been considered based on the actual billing during FY 2018-19 and escalated by 3% to determine the costs for FY 2019-20.

Renewable energy sources

The applicable tariffs for the respective generating stations within the State have been considered as per the Tariff Orders issued by the Commission in accordance with the Renewable Energy Regulations and the Tariff specified in the Renewable Energy Regulations.

Sasan UMPP The applicable tariff for FY 2019-20 as per the PPA has been considered.

Kashipur CCPP

The annual fixed charges for these stations have been considered as approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20. For estimating the Energy Charges for FY 2019-20, actual Energy Charges for the months of April 2018 to September 2018 has been considered with an escalation of 4%.

Shravanti CCCPP

The annual fixed charges for these stations have been considered as approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20. For estimating the Energy Charges for FY 2019-20, actual Energy Charges for the months of April 2018 to September 2018 has been considered with an escalation of 4%.

Greenko Budhil Hydro

The annual fixed charges for these stations have been considered as approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20.

Tied up Short Term Sources

UPCL has already tied up some short term power for the months of April 2019 to June 2019. The quantum and cost of such short term power has been considered based on arrangement made by UPCL

Additional purchase for fulfilling RPO

The Tariff for the additional purchase for fulfilling the RPO solar as well as non-solar has been considered as Rs. 4.75/kWh at State periphery and the Petitioner shoud seek to buy actual power in deficit months to meet the RPO.

Upcoming Stations

For upcoming renewable generating stations within the State, the applicable Tariff as per the Renewable Energy Regulations has been considered. For other upcoming stations, the tariff of Rs 4/kWh has been considered for FY 2019-20 at this stage.

Deficit purchase The tariff for deficit purchase has been considered as Rs. 4.00/kWh at State periphery.



Table 5.4: Approach of the Commission in estimating the Cost of Power Purchase for FY 2019-20

Source Approach of the Commission in estimating the cost of power purchase

Cost of free power

The cost of free power has been computed in line with the methodology adopted by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders as shown below:

Particulars Quantum Total Cost Average Cost MU Rs. Crore Rs. /kWh

UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) 2823.89 359.16 1.27 Maneri Bhali II 1249.00 216.88 1.74 NHPC 646.37 227.99 3.53 THDC 187.01 87.89 4.70 SJVNL 279.92 101.48 3.63 Greenko 225.68 87.44 3.87 Koldam 203.23 98.35 4.84 Average 5615.09 1179.19 2.10

The summary of estimated power purchase cost for FY 2019-20 is as shown in the Table

given below:

Table 5.5: Summary of Power Purchase Cost for FY 2019-20

Station

Claimed by UPCL Approved PP at State periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

PP at State periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

MU Rs. Crore Rs. /kWh MU Rs. Crore Rs. /kWh UJVN Ltd. UJVN Ltd. (9 LHPs) 2441.83 372.69 1.53 2823.89 472.12 1.67 Maneri Bhali II 1255.32 273.91 2.18 1249.00 266.84 2.14 Small Hydro 179.79 35.13 1.95 186.65 31.23 1.67 Total UJVN Ltd. 3876.94 681.74 1.76 4259.54 770.19 1.81 NHPC Salal 39.70 10.03 2.53 38.39 5.31 1.38 Tanakpur 16.46 6.26 3.81 16.39 6.14 3.75 Chamera I 80.83 17.81 2.20 76.80 15.47 2.01 Chamera II 29.42 6.53 2.22 26.01 5.50 2.12 Chamera III 56.07 28.53 5.09 53.30 28.14 5.28 Uri 93.42 22.85 2.45 88.37 16.26 1.84 Dhauliganga 58.87 19.69 3.34 57.23 13.95 2.44 Dulhasti 129.50 79.59 6.15 124.13 59.53 4.80 Sewa II 29.63 14.84 5.01 25.52 14.71 5.76 Uri II 63.71 36.66 5.75 67.16 26.40 3.93 Parbati III 37.89 23.13 6.10 36.52 21.96 6.01 Kishanganga 36.56 10.94 2.99 36.56 14.62 4.00 Free Power-Tanakpur 50.30 12.46 2.48 50.56 10.62 2.10 Free Power-Dhauliganga 120.86 29.93 2.48 122.06 25.63 2.10 Total NHPC 843.20 319.25 3.79 818.99 264.24 3.23 THDC Tehri HEP 109.82 60.61 5.52 109.72 55.02 5.01 Free Power-Tehri HEP 342.73 84.89 2.48 353.24 74.18 2.10 Koteshwar HEP 77.32 33.13 4.28 77.29 32.86 4.25 Free Power-Koteshwar HEP 136.08 33.70 2.48 138.48 29.08 2.10



Table 5.5: Summary of Power Purchase Cost for FY 2019-20

Station

Claimed by UPCL Approved PP at State periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

PP at State periphery

Total Cost

Average Rate

MU Rs. Crore Rs. /kWh MU Rs. Crore Rs. /kWh Total THDC 665.95 212.33 3.19 678.73 191.15 2.82 NTPC Singrauli STPS 710.01 155.09 2.18 668.90 157.58 2.36 Rihand STPS Rihand I 285.62 67.51 2.36 279.06 70.98 2.54 Rihand II 252.87 56.03 2.22 248.80 59.49 2.39 Rihand III 293.68 90.65 3.09 286.48 91.44 3.19 Unchahar TPS Unchahar I 213.08 94.20 4.42 214.09 95.35 4.45 Unchahar II 99.78 42.81 4.29 96.78 42.16 4.36 Unchahar III 81.45 37.79 4.64 80.20 38.21 4.76 Anta CCPP 30.72 22.18 7.22 28.87 24.21 8.38 Auraiya CCPP 22.86 25.75 11.26 26.54 27.12 10.22 Dadri CCPP 83.83 44.38 5.29 79.20 47.30 5.97 Dadri (NCTPP) 21.77 11.46 5.27 26.23 14.19 5.41 Jhajjar 50.87 33.24 6.53 47.08 31.54 6.70 Kahalgaon TPS 175.77 68.55 3.90 277.32 97.02 3.50 Koldam 212.80 93.40 4.39 203.23 98.35 4.84 Unchahar IV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NTPC 2535.11 843.04 3.33 2562.77 894.92 3.49 NPCIL Narora APP 178.23 47.87 2.69 158.67 44.79 2.82 Rajasthan APP 178.88 67.79 3.79 153.26 63.63 4.15 Total NPCIL 357.11 115.66 3.24 311.94 108.42 3.48 SJVNL Nathpa Jhakri HEP 98.72 25.03 2.54 68.03 21.98 3.23 Rampur HPS 221.66 81.22 3.66 211.89 79.50 3.75 Total SJVNL 320.38 106.25 3.32 279.92 101.48 3.63 Renewables 1,273.09 638.99 5.02 976.44 510.31 5.23 Free Power-Vishnu Prayag 223.90 55.46 2.48 232.74 48.88 2.10 Sasan UMPP 673.92 92.77 1.38 707.43 97.39 1.38 Kashipur CCPP 757.38 380.21 5.02 776.80 505.17 6.50 Shravanti gas plant 1514.77 1024.46 6.76 1553.61 1071.59 6.90 Bhyunder Ganga 83.45 33.71 4.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Meja Power Plant 112.61 47.12 4.18 108.62 43.45 4.00 Tanda-II 61.69 25.81 4.18 45.62 18.25 4.00 Greenko Budhil Hydro 232.84 101.38 4.35 225.68 87.44 3.87 GVK Srinagar- Free Power 138.45 34.29 2.48 134.16 28.17 2.10 Total Firm Sources 13670.81 13672.98 Short Term - Tied Up 524.48 219.90 4.19 Deficit Purchase 1389.14 625.11 4.50 36.84 14.74 4.00 Cost for meeting RPO 0.00 2.54 0.00 291.46 138.45 4.75 Banking including additional banked energy 0.00 40.09 0.00 137.54 62.07 Total 15059.95 5380.21 3.57 14663.32 5176.19 3.53



The Commission, further, directs the Petitioner to seek prior approval of the Commission,

in case the variation in power purchase quantum or total power purchase cost in any quarter

exceeds by more than 5% of the approved power purchase quantum and cost for the respective

quarter worked out on pro-rata basis from the total approved quantum and cost for FY 2019-20 as

indicated in the Table below, failing which, the Commission may disallow power purchases so

made while Truing up the ARR for FY 2019-20.

Table 5.6: Quarterly Power Purchase approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20

Quarter Power Purchase Quantum (MU)

Power Purchase Cost (Rs. Crore)

April – June 3611.61 1274.91 July – September 3868.84 1365.71 October – December 3670.60 1295.73 January – March 3512.26 1239.84 Total 14663.32 5176.19

Moreover, it has been observed that the Petitioner has been continuously resorting to short

term power purchase without adopting a transparent process and also does not seek approval of

the Commission. In this regard, third provison of Regulation 73(1) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018

is reproduced hereunder:

“Provided that the power procurement plan submitted by the Distribution Licensee may include long-

term, medium-term and short-term power procurement sources of power, in accordance with these

Regulations. However, the distribution licensee should as far as possible, not plan for short-

term purchases except for conditions specified in Regulations 75 and should endeavour to

meet its requirement from long term and medium term power procurement and make a plan

accordingly.”

(Emphasis added)

Regulation 75 specifies the circumstances under which short term power procurement may

be made by the distribution licensee without seeking prior approval of the Commission. However,

Regulation 75(5) specifies as under:

“(5) Within fifteen (15) days from the date of entering into an agreement or arrangement for short-

term power procurement for which prior approval is not required, the Distribution Licensee shall

provide the Commission, full details of such agreement or arrangement, including quantum, tariff

calculations, duration, supplier details, method for supplier selection and such other details as the

Commission may require with regard to such agreement/arrangement to assess that the conditions



specified in this Regulation have been complied with:”

While projecting the power purchase requirement of the Petitioner for each year of the third

Control Period, it has been observed that the Petitioner is having deficits in some of the month

particularly during winter months. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to prepare its power

purchase plan for the next three years and initiate the bidding process to meet the deficit, if any.

The Petitioner is directed to submit an action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of

Order. The Petitioner is also directed to ensure compliance of the Regulations issued by the

Commission from time to time, failing which any consequent liability would be to the account of

the Petitioner.

The base Energy Charges of thermal stations (base fuel cost) for the purpose of computation

of FCA is given in the Table below:

Table 5.7: Energy Charges of thermal generating stations for FY 2019-20

Generating Station Energy Charges (Rs. /kWh)

Singrauli STPS 1.665 Rihand I 1.653 Rihand II 1.653 Rihand III 1.677 Unchahar I 3.312 Unchahar II 3.312 Unchahar III 3.312 Anta CCPP 4.338 Auraiya CCPP 4.281 Dadri CCPP 3.991 Dadri (NCTPP) 3.745 Jhajjar 3.841 Kahalgaon TPS 2.711 Kashipur CCPP 5.060 Shravanti gas plant 4.970

5.6 Transmission Charges

5.6.1 Inter-State Transmission Charges Payable to PGCIL

The Petitioner submitted that it has considered actual inter-state transmission charges for

first six months of FY 2018-19 to compute the average per unit rate of PGCIL transmission charges

by dividing the total amount paid to PGCIL by the total units wheeled. The computed rate of Rs.



0.68/kWh in FY 2018-19 is escalated by 5% each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to

FY 2021-22 to arrive at the Inter-State Transmission Charges. The total PGCIL transmission charges

have been computed considering the escalated per unit transmission charge and projected total

units required to be wheeled through PGCIL network in each year of the Control Period. Further

the Petitioner submitted that CERC in its Order dated April 20, 2018 has determined AFC and

transmission tariff for 400 kV Srinagar substation which has to be recovered from the Petitioner.

PGCIL has already started raising bills against recovery of the approved amount. Therefore, the

Petitioner has considered an additional cost of Rs. 36.92 Crore during each year of the Control

Period along with impact of past arrears of Rs. 62.90 Crore in FY 2019-20 under PGCIL Charges. The

Petitioner has proposed the Inter-State Transmission Charges of Rs. 559.21 Crore, Rs. 564.54 Crore,

and Rs. 716.31 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively. The Commission has

computed the per unit transmission charges for FY 2017-18 on the basis of actual charges booked in

the accounts and has escalated the same at the rate of 4% per annum to arrive at the per unit

transmission charges for FY 2019-20 and has approved the PGCIL charges for FY 2019-20

considering the energy to be received from outside the State. The Commission in accordance with

the above approach has approved Inter-State transmission charges as Rs. 509.73 Crore which shall

be subject to true up based on actual expenses incurred which includes the impact of CERC’s Order

dated April 20, 2018 vide which AFC and transmission tariff for 400 kV Srinagar substation has

been determined.

As the Commission has not approved the power purchase cost for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-

22, the Commission in this Order has not considered the inter-State Transmission Charges for FY

2020-21 and FY 2021-22. The Commission will carry out the truing up of transmission charges based

on actual transmission charges paid to PGCIL during the year.

5.6.2 Intra-State Transmission Charges payable to PTCUL

The Petitioner submitted that the Intra-State Transmission Charges for FY 2019-20 has been

projected by escalating the approved Annual Transmission Charges of Rs. 275.89 Crore for PTCUL

for FY 2018-19 by applying an annual escalation of 5% for each year of the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.

The Commission has approved the Annual Transmission Charges for PTCUL of Rs. 255.01

Crore for FY 2019-20 vide its Order dated February 27, 2019. Hence, the Commission has considered



the same in the approval of ARR for FY 2019-20 for the Petitioner.

5.6.3 Transmission Charges

The Transmission Charges claimed by the Petitioner and approved by the Commission for

FY 2019-20 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.8: Transmission Charges for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved

Inter-State Transmission Charges 559.21 509.73 Intra-State Transmission Charges 289.68 255.01 Total 848.90 764.74

5.7 SLDC Charges

The Petitioner submitted that the SLDC Charges for each year of the third Control Period

have been projected by escalating the approved SLDC charges for FY 2018-19 by applying an

annual escalation of 4% for each year. The Petitioner has proposed SLDC Charges of Rs. 17.51

Crore, Rs. 18.21 Crore, and Rs. 18.94 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively.

The Commission has approved the SLDC charges of Rs. 11.35 Crore for FY 2019-20 vide its

Order dated February 27, 2019. Hence, the Commission has included the same in the ARR for FY

2019-20 for the Petitioner.

5.8 Water tax

The Petitioner submitted that the water tax for each year of the third Control Period have

been projected by escalating the water tax of Rs. 256.66 Crore for FY 2018-19 by applying an annual

escalation of 5% for each year. The Petitioner has proposed water tax of Rs. 269.49 Crore, Rs. 282.97

Crore, and Rs. 297.12 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively. The

Commission has approved the water tax of Rs. 226.72 Crore for FY 2019-20 equivalent to water tax

booked in the accounts for FY 2017-18 which shall be subject to true up based on actuals.

5.9 GFA and Additional Capitalisation

5.9.1 GFA base for FY 2018-19

The Commission vide its Order dated March 21, 2018 on approval of ARR for FY 2018-19

had approved the capitalisation of Rs. 557.26 Crore for FY 2018-19. As against the same, the



Petitioner has proposed the capitalisation of Rs. 1056.32 Crore for FY 2018-19.

The Commission has considered the scheme wise closing GFA approved for FY 2017-18 as

the opening GFA for FY 2018-19. The Commission, in Chapter 3 of the Order, on approval of

capitalisation plan for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has considered the

capitalisation of Rs. 553.47 Crore in FY 2018-19.

Based on the above, the GFA base approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 is as shown

in the Table below:

Table 5.9: GFA base approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Particulars Approved in the Tariff Order


1. Opening Value 4668.73 4616.41 4129.24 2. Total addition during the year 557.26 1056.32 553.47 3. Less: Deletions during the year 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Closing value 5225.98 5672.73 4682.71

5.9.2 Capitalisation during the third Control Period

The Commission, in the approval of the Business Plan for the third Control Period as

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has approved the capitalisation

of Rs. 577.09 Crore in FY 2019-20, Rs. 591.96 Crore in FY 2020-21 and Rs. 601.32 Crore in FY 2021-22.

The Commission has considered the year wise capitalisation for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as approved in the Business Plan at Chapter 3. The GFA base approved by the

Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table

below:

Table 5.10: GFA base approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)


Claimed by UPCL Approved Claimed

by UPCL Approved Claimed by UPCL Approved

Opening GFA 5672.73 4682.71 7033.56 5259.80 8145.34 5851.76 GFA addition during the year 1359.93 577.09 1110.20 591.96 825.71 601.32

Closing GFA 7032.66 5259.80 8142.86 5851.76 8968.56 6453.08

5.10 Means of Finance

The Commission, in the approval of Business Plan for the third Control Period from FY



2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order has approved the Financing Plan of the

approved capitalisation for the third Control Period. The Commission has considered the Financing

Plan for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as approved in the Business Plan.

The Financing Plan for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 approved by the Commission is as shown in the

Tables given below:

Table 5.11: Details of financing for capitalisation for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2019-20 Grants etc. Loan Equity Total

Opening Value 1924.84 1960.23 797.65 4682.71 Addition during the year 191.53 269.90 115.67 577.09 Deletions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Closing Value of GFA 2116.36 2230.13 913.32 5259.80







5.11 Interest and Finance Charges

The Petitioner submitted that the interest on capital loan for the third Control Period from

FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has been computed by considering the revised closing balance of FY 2017-

18 based on the addition in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. The Petitioner further submitted that new

loans for FY 2018-19 and for each year of the third Control Period has been considered as per the

means of financing of capitalization, while the repayment has been considered equivalent to the

depreciation for FY 2018-19 and for each year of the Control Period in line with the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2018. A weighted average rate of interest of 11.04% has been applied which is

equivalent to the weighted average rate of interest on capital loans as per audited accounts of UPCL



for FY 2017-18 in line with the approach adopted by the Commission in previous Tariff Orders.

The Petitioner submitted that it has considered interest against REC (Old Loans) during each

year of the third Control Period as per the repayment schedule in accordance with Tariff Order for

FY 2009-10 dated October 23, 2009 and as shown in the Table below.

Table 5.14: Repayment Schedule for REC old loans (Rs. Crore) Particulars Repayment Schedule for REC old loans

FY 2018-19 18.33 FY 2019-20 16.06 FY 2020-21 13.56 FY 2021-22 10.80

The Petitioner has claimed financing charges of Rs. 1.85 Crore for each year of the third

Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Petitioner has claimed the guarantee fee of Rs.

10.73 Crore for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. Accordingly,

the Petitioner has claimed the total interest and financing charges of Rs. 135.64 Crore, Rs. 166.64

Crore and Rs. 191.60 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively.

For computing the interest on security deposit, the Petitioner has considered addition in

consumer security deposit for FY 2017-18 and for each year of control period has escalated the same

by 3% per annum. The Petitioner has considered interest rate of 7.14% and has, accordingly,

claimed the interest on consumer security deposit of Rs. 61.95 Crore, Rs. 67.18 Crore and Rs. 72.56

Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively.


“27. Interest and finance charges on loan capital and on Security Deposit

(1) The loans arrived at in the manner indicated in Regulation 24 shall be considered as gross

normative loan for calculation of interest on loan.

(2) The normative loan outstanding as on 01.04.2019 shall be worked out by deducting the

cumulative repayment as admitted by the Commission up to 31.03.2019 from the approved gross

normative loan.

(3) The repayment for each year of the Control Period shall be deemed to be equal to the

depreciation allowed for that year…

…



(5) The rate of interest shall be the weighted average rate of interest calculated on the basis of the

actual loan portfolio of the previous year after providing appropriate accounting adjustment for

interest capitalised:

…

(6) The interest on loan shall be calculated on the normative average loan of the year by applying

the weighted average rate of interest.

…”

The Commission has considered the closing loan balance of Government of Uttarakhand

loans for FY 2017-18 as opening loan balance for FY 2018-19 as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order.

Thereafter, the Commission has considered the loan addition during FY 2018-19 as per the

approved means of finance for FY 2018-19. The Commission has considered the depreciation for FY

2018-19 as the normative repayment for the year. The Commission has considered the closing loan

balance for FY 2018-19 as the opening loan balance for FY 2019-20. The Commission has considered

the loan addition during each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as per

the approved Financing Plan. The Commission has considered the normative repayment equivalent

to the approved depreciation for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-

22. The Commission has considered the interest rate of 11.04% which is the weighted average rate of

interest for FY 2017-18. The Commission has determined the interest on loan by applying the

interest rate of 11.04% on the amount of average of the opening loan & closing loan excluding the

loan additions corresponding to the assets capitalised during the year for each year of the third

Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Commission has not allowed interest on

additions during the year as the Petitioner capitalises the assets at the end of the financial year and

during the year, whatever interest accrues on the loan portion corresponding to the capital

expenditure, the same is Interest during construction and is capitalised as CWIP. The interest on

loan approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as

shown in the Table given below:



Table 5.15: Interest on Loan approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




Opening Loan balance 815.83 589.77 1122.84 716.29 1422.73 829.71 Drawal during the year 473.72 269.90 502.80 276.85 433.17 281.23 Repayment during the year 166.72 143.38 202.91 163.43 240.75 183.99 Closing Loan balance 1122.84 716.29 1422.73 829.71 1625.15 926.95 Interest Rate 11.04% 11.04% 11.04% 11.04% 11.04% 11.04% Interest 107.00 57.20 140.50 70.06 168.22 81.44

In addition to above, the Commission has considered interest on account of REC Old Loan

of Rs. 16.06 Crore. With regard to guarantee fee, the Commission has considered the same amount

as approved for FY 2017-18, i.e. Rs. 5.36 Crore. The financing charges of Rs. 1.85 Crore as considered

for FY 2017-18 has also been considered for FY 2019-20. Interest on security deposit has been

considered as Rs. 61.95 Crore as claimed by the Petitioner. Thus, the total interest expenses

approved for FY 2019-20 works out to Rs. 142.42 Crore as against the claim of Rs. 197.59 Crore.

5.11.1 Depreciation

The Petitioner submitted that the asset class wise depreciation has been computed

considering the proposed GFA for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-

22 and the rates of depreciation specified in the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018. The Petitioner

submitted that the average depreciation rate of 5.21% has been applied on the opening GFA for each

year computed as per actual capitalization for FY 2017-18 and proposed capitalization for FY 2018-

19 and each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. Assets created from

grants and deposit works have been excluded for the purpose of depreciation as per the provisions

of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the depreciation of Rs. 166.72 Crore, Rs. 202.91

Crore, and Rs. 240.75 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively.


“28. Depreciation

(1) The value base for the purpose of depreciation shall be the capital cost of the asset admitted by

the Commission.



Provided that no depreciation shall be allowed on assets funded through Consumer Contribution

and Capital Subsidies/Grants.

(2) The salvage value of the asset shall be considered as 10% and depreciation shall be allowed up

to maximum of 90% of the capital cost of the asset.

...

(4) Depreciation shall be calculated annually based on Straight Line Method and at rates specified

in Appendix - II to these Regulations.

…”

In the absence of complete Fixed Asset Register, the Commission at this stage has considered

the weighted average rate of 5.20% computed for FY 2017-18 and has applied the same on the

opening depreciable GFA for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.

The depreciation approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20

to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.16: Depreciation approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




Opening GFA - 4682.72 - 5259.80 - 5851.76 Grants - 1924.84 - 2116.36 - 2312.82 Depreciable opening GFA 3199.92 2757.88 3894.56 3143.44 4620.83 3538.94 Net addition during the year 694.64 385.56 726.27 395.50 634.70 401.75 Closing GFA 3894.56 3143.44 4620.83 3538.94 5255.54 3940.69 Depreciation rate 5.21% 5.20% 5.21% 5.20% 5.21% 5.20% Depreciation 166.72 143.38 202.91 163.43 240.75 183.99

5.11.2 Operation and Maintenance expenses

Regarding the Operation and Maintenance expenses, Regulation 84 of the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2018 specifies as follows:

“84. Operation and Maintenance Expenses

(1) The O&M expenses for the first year of the Control Period will be approved by the Commission

taking into account actual O&M expenses for last five years till Base Year subject to prudence

check and any other factors considered appropriate by the Commission.



(2) The O&M expenses for the nth year and also for the year immediately preceding the Control

Period i.e., FY 2018-19 shall be approved based on the formula given below: -

O&Mn = R&Mn + EMPn + A&Gn

Where –

• O&Mn – Operation and Maintenance expense for the nth year;

• EMPn – Employee Costs for the nth year;

• R&Mn – Repair and Maintenance Costs for the nth year;

• A&Gn – Administrative and General Costs for the nth year;

(3) The above components shall be computed in the manner specified below:

EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (1+CPIinflation)

R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) and

A&Gn = (A&Gn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) + Provision

Where –

• EMPn-1 – Employee Costs for the (n-1)th year;

• A&Gn-1 – Administrative and General Costs for the (n-1)th year;

Provision: Cost for initiatives or other one-time expenses as proposed by the Distribution

Licensee and approved by the Commission after prudence check.

• “K” is a constant specified by the Commission in %. Value of K for each year of the

control period shall be determined by the Commission in the MYT Tariff order based on

licensee’s filing, benchmarking of repair and maintenance expenses, approved repair and

maintenance expenses vis-à-vis GFA approved by the Commission in past and any other

factor considered appropriate by the Commission;

• CPI inflation – is the average increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for

immediately preceding three years;

• WPI inflation – is the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index (CPI) for

immediately preceding three years;



• GFAn-1 - Gross Fixed Asset of the distribution licensee for the n-1th year;

• Gn is a growth factor for the nth year. Value of Gn shall be determined by the

Commission in the MYT tariff order for meeting the additional manpower requirement

based on licensee’s filings, benchmarking and any other factor that the Commission feels

appropriate:

Provided that repair and maintenance expenses determined shall be utilised towards repair and

maintenance works only.”

The O&M expenses include Employee expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expenses. In

accordance with Regulation 84 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, the O&M expenses for the first

year of the Control Period shall be determined by the Commission taking into account the actual

O&M expenses of the previous years and any other factors considered appropriate by the

Commission. The submissions of the Petitioner and the Commission’s analysis on the O&M

expenses for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is detailed below.

5.11.2.1 Employee expenses

The Commission has approved the employee expenses of Rs. 351.80 Crore for FY 2018-19 in

its Order dated March 21, 2018 on approval of ARR for FY 2018-19. As against the same, the

Petitioner has computed the employee expenses for FY 2018-19 as Rs. 354.15 Crore as per the UERC

Tariff Regulations, 2018 considering the actual employee expenses for FY 2017-18.

The Petitioner submitted that the employee expenses for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has been proposed as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 considering the

actual employee expenses for FY 2017-18. The Petitioner has first estimated the employee expenses

for FY 2018-19 considering the actual employee expenses during FY 2017-18 (excluding arrears of

Seventh Pay Commission paid during FY 2017-18) and adding the arrears which are to be paid

towards Seventh Pay Commission in FY 2018-19. The Petitioner has considered the CPI inflation of

4.28% per annum which is the average increase in CPI for preceding three years till the base year

(FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18). The Petitioner has considered the growth factor for each year based on

the net addition in employees during each year. Further, the Petitioner has considered actual

capitalisation of 15.54% for base year, i.e FY 2017-18 for projections of third Control Period.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the employee expenses of Rs. 402.94 Crore, Rs. 469.35




The Commission, in the approval of Business Plan for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as discussed in Chapter 3 of the Order has approved the HR Plan. Based on

the approved HR Plan, the Commission has computed the Gn factor as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.17: Gn approved by the Commission Particulars FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22

Closing no. of employees 2923 2767 2828 3292 3711 Gn 0.00% 2.20% 16.41% 12.73%

The UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies that the normative O&M expenses for the third

Control Period is to be approved taking into account the actual O&M expenses for last five years.

The Commission observed that the Seventh Pay Commission was implemented w.e.f. January 01,

2016 and the salaries were raised to the level of Seventh Pay Commission w.e.f. December 01, 2017.

The Commission observes that all the employees of the Petitioner Company have not have opted for

Seventh Pay Commission and, therefore, the actual impact of Seventh Pay Commission cannot be

estimated at this point of time.

Regulation 103(2) of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies as under:

“Nothing in these Regulations shall bar the Commission from adopting in conformity with provisions

of the Act, a procedure which is at variance with any of the provisions of these Regulations, if the

Commission, in view of the special circumstances of a matter or a class of matters, deems it just or

expedient for deciding such matter or class of matters.”

In view of the special circumstances in this case, in exercise of powers conferred by the

above stated Regulation, the Commission finds it prudent to deviate from the methodology

specified in the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 for approval of normative employee expenses for the

third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 to the extent of consideration of actual

employee expenses for the preceding five years.

The Commission has considered the normative gross employee expenses (without the

impact of Seventh Pay Commission) approved in the true up of FY 2017-18 as the opening gross

employee expenses. This normative opening gross employee expenses have been adjusted for the

Gn factor approved for FY 2018-19 and escalated with CPI Inflation of 4.34% to arrive at the

normative employee expenses for FY 2018-19. To the gross employee expenses so computed, the

Commission has considered additional 15% expenses to be the impact of Seventh Pay Commission.



The gross employee expenses so arrived have been considered as the gross employee expenses

(EMPn-1) for FY 2018-19. From FY 2019-20 onwards, the Commission has computed the normative

employee expenses in accordance with the Regulation 62(3) considering the Gn factor approved for

the corresponding year and the CPIinflation of 4.34%. Further, the Commission has considered the

actual capitalisation rate of employee expenses for FY 2017-18 to be the capitalisation rate for each

year of the third Control Period.

The Commission shall consider the actual impact of Seventh Pay Commission for FY 2018-19

and FY 2019-20 during the true up of FY 2018-19. Further, the Commission opines that the employee

expenses shall be allowed at actuals for FY 2019-20 subject to prudence check at the time of true up

without any sharing of gains and losses. Accordingly, the normative employee expenses approved

by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the

Table below:

Table 5.18: Employee expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




EMPn-1 399.15 422.08 477.06 450.10 555.69 546.69 Gn 14.6% 2.20% 11.7% 16.41% 0.0% 12.73% CPIinflation 4.28% 4.34% 4.28% 4.34% 4.28% 4.34% EMPn = (EMPn-1) x (1+Gn) x (1+CPIinflation) 477.06 450.10 555.69 546.69 579.49 643.02

Capitalisation rate 15.54% 16.90% 15.54% 16.90% 15.54% 16.90% Less: Employee expenses capitalised 74.12 76.08 86.34 92.41 90.03 108.69

Net Employee expenses 402.94 374.02 469.35 454.29 489.45 534.33 Impact of Seventh Pay Commission - - - - - -

Total Employee expenses 402.94 374.02 469.35 454.29 489.45 534.33

5.11.2.2 R&M expenses

The Commission has approved the R&M expenses of Rs. 125.98 Crore for FY 2018-19 in its

Order dated March 21, 2018 on approval of ARR for FY 2018-19. As against the same, the Petitioner

has computed the R&M expenses for FY 2018-19 as Rs. 142.68 Crore as per the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2018.

The Petitioner submitted that the R&M expenses for the third Control Period from FY 2019-



20 to FY 2021-22 has been proposed as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018. The Petitioner has

considered the K factor of 3.02%. Further, the Petitioner has considered the WPI inflation of 2.33%

considering the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for FY 2016-17 to FY 2017-18.

The Petitioner requested the Commission to adjust the inflation rate considered for third Control

Period. Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the R&M expenses of Rs. 175.32 Crore, Rs. 217.35


The Commission has determined the R&M expenses for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 in accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018. The Commission has

computed the percentage of actual R&M expenses upon approved opening GFA for each year of FY

2015-16 to FY 2017-18 and accordingly, the Commission has considered the average of such

percentages as K factor which works out to 3.06%. The Commission has considered the opening

GFA for each year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. The Commission has

considered the WPI inflation of 0.33% which is the average increase in the Wholesale Price Index

(WPI) for FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18.

The R&M expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-

20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.19: R&M expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




K 3.02% 3.06% 3.02% 3.06% 3.02% 3.06% GFAn-1 5672.73 4682.71 7032.66 5259.80 8142.86 5851.76 WPIinflation 2.33% 0.33% 2.33% 0.33% 2.33% 0.33% R&Mn = K x (GFAn-1) x (1+WPIinflation) 175.32 143.95 217.35 161.69 251.67 179.88

5.11.2.3 A&G expenses

The Commission has approved the A&G expenses of Rs. 27.79 Crore for FY 2018-19 in its

Order dated March 21, 2018 on approval of ARR for FY 2018-19. As against the same, the Petitioner

has computed the A&G expenses for FY 2018-19 as Rs. 44.26 Crore as per the UERC Tariff

Regulations, 2018.

The Petitioner submitted that the A&G expenses for the third Control Period from FY 2019-



20 to FY 2021-22 has been proposed as per the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018. Accordingly, the

estimated A&G expenses for FY 2018-19 has been considered as ‘A&Gn-1’. The ‘A&Gn-1’ has been

escalated by WPI inflation of 2.33% (which is the average increase in WPI for the immediately

preceding two-year period between FY 2016-17 to FY 2017-18) to arrive at the expenses for each year

of the Control Period. Further, the Petitioner submitted that in addition to the normative A&G

expenses there are few new expenses which are not included in the expenditure of base year and

shall be incurred for the first time during the third Control Period. These expenses are primarily

towards cost of data centre and other new initiatives being implemented by the Petitioner in the

current/ subsequent years. Therefore, the Petitioner has proposed an additional ‘Provision’ needed

for activities that shall be introduced during the third Control Period such as mobile based billing,

ERP implementation etc. under the R-APDRP scheme. These additional expenses are being

proposed over and above the recurring cost already being incurred against facility management

system, AMC of hardware, license renewal, bandwidth charges in the previous years. The impact of

recurring expenses of the latter kind has already been considered in the revised base of FY 2017-18.

The Petitioner submitted that in addition to the above-mentioned cost, the Petitioner has

implemented Android based billing from FY 2018-19 in view of high manpower requirement in

meter and billing related activities. The Android based billing is being implemented for all

categories of consumers except the high value consumers across the State of Uttarakhand. The

system would not only help in reducing the overall cost associated with metering and billing

activities but also increase the accuracy in meter reading, regularize the process for meter reading

and better management of manpower to other activities. Since, the cost associated with this scheme

has only been initiated from FY 2018-19, the same is not included in the base year A&G cost. The

Petitioner requested the Commission to approve the cost proposed against the Android based

Billing system separately under provisions for the third Control Period.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the A&G expenses of Rs. 57.50 Crore, Rs. 60.71


The Commission has considered the normative gross A&G expenses approved in the true up

of FY 2017-18 as the gross base A&G expenses. This normative opening gross A&G expenses have

been escalated by the WPI inflation of 0.33% to arrive at A&G expenses for FY 2018-19. The gross

A&G expenses so arrived at have been considered as the gross A&G expenses (A&Gn-1) for FY



2018-19. From FY 2019-20 onwards, the Commission has computed the normative A&G expenses in

accordance with the Regulation 84(3) considering the WPI inflation of 0.33%. Further, the

Commission has considered the actual capitalisation rate of A&G expenses for FY 2017-18 to be the

capitalisation rate for each year of the third Control Period. In addition, the Commission has

considered the license fee as Rs. 3.00 Crore for FY 2019-20, Rs. 3.25 Crore for FY 2020-21 and Rs. 3.50

Crore for FY 2021-22.

As regards the additional provisioning toward the new expenses proposed during each year

of the control period towards the data centre, the Commission agrees with the Petitioner that these

expenses were not there in previous Control Period and hence, provisioning of these expenses

needs to be allowed in addition to the A&G expenses approved based on previous years A&G

expenses. Accordingly, the Commission has considered the provisioning of additional A&G

expenses for data centre as claimed by the Petitioner for each year of the third Control Period.

However, the Commission would like to clarify that the actual expenses towards provisioning of

such costs shall be considered upon truing up subject to prudence check and any expense found

unreasonable or unwarranted may be disallowed and any savings in provisioning of these costs

shall not be considerd towards sharing of gains. Moreover, the Petitioner is directed to properly

account for these provisions in appropriate heads of accounts.

The normative A&G expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.20: A&G expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




A&Gn-1 53.65 28.61 54.89 28.71 56.17 28.81 WPIinflation 2.33% 0.33% 2.33% 0.33% 2.33% 0.33% A&Gn = A&Gn-1 x (1+WPIinflation) + Provision 54.89 28.71 56.17 28.81 57.48 28.90

Capitalisation rate 30.5% 59.50% 30.5% 59.50% 30.5% 59.50% Less: A&G expenses Capitalised 16.76 17.08 17.14 17.14 17.54 17.20 Net A&G expenses 38.14 11.63 39.03 11.67 39.93 11.70 Provisioning towards additional Data Centre expenses 19.36 19.36 21.69 21.69 24.34 24.34

License Fee - 3.00 - 3.25 - 3.50 Total A&G expenses 57.50 33.99 60.71 36.61 64.28 39.54



5.11.2.4 O&M Expenses

The summary of O&M expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.21: O&M Expenses approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




Employee Expenses 402.94 374.02 469.35 454.29 489.45 534.33 R&M Expenses 175.32 143.95 217.35 161.69 251.67 179.88 A&G Expenses 57.50 33.99 60.71 36.61 64.28 39.54 Total O&M Expenses 635.77 551.96 747.42 652.58 805.39 753.77

5.11.3 Interest on Working Capital

The Petitioner has submitted that the interest on working capital for the third Control Period

from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has been proposed in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations,

2018. Accordingly, the Petitioner has proposed the IWC of Rs. 14.38 Crore, Rs. 21.74 Crore and Rs.

25.54 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively.

Regulation 33(2) of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 specifies as follows:

“(2) Distribution

a) The Distribution Licensee shall be allowed interest on the estimated level of working capital

for the financial year, computed as follows:

(i) Operation and maintenance expenses for one month;

(ii) Maintenance spares @ 15% of operation and maintenance expenses; plus

(iii) Two months equivalent of the expected revenue from sale of electricity at

prevailing tariffs;

(iv) Capital required to finance such shortfall in collection of current dues as may be

allowed by the Commission; minus

(v) Amount held as security deposits under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section

(1) of Section 47 of the Act from consumers and Distribution System Users; minus



(vi) One month equivalent of cost of power purchased, based on the annual power

procurement plan.”

The Commission has determined the interest on working capital for the third Control Period

in accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018.

Since the Commission has not approved the power purchase cost for FY 2020-21 and FY

2021-22, the Commission has determined the interest on working capital for FY 2019-20 only in this

Order.

5.11.3.1 One Month O&M Expenses

The annual O&M expenses approved by the Commission are Rs. 551.96 Crore for FY 2019-

20. Based on the approved O&M expenses, one month’s O&M expenses work out to Rs. 46.00 Crore

for FY 2019-20.

5.11.3.2 Maintenance Spares

The Commission has considered the maintenance spares as 15% of annual O&M expenses in

accordance with UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, which works out to Rs. 82.79 Crore for FY 2019-20.

5.11.3.3 Receivables

The Commission has approved the receivables for two months equivalent to the expected

revenue from the sale of electricity at the net revenue requirement of Rs. 6549.39 Crore for FY 2019-

20, which works out to Rs. 1091.57 Crore for FY 2019-20.

5.11.3.4 Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues

The Petitioner has claimed Rs. 73.29 Crore towards the capital required to finance the

shortfall in collection of current dues for FY 2019-20.

The Commission has approved the collection efficiency of 99.05% for FY 2019-20 while

approving the Business Plan of UPCL for the third Control Period of FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. In

accordance with the provisions of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018 the Commission has approved

the capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues as 0.95% of the net revenue

required which work out Rs. 62.22 Crore.



5.11.3.5 Adjustment for security deposits and credit by power suppliers

The Petitioner has proposed the amount held as security deposit as Rs. 867.49 Crore and one

month of power purchase cost as Rs. 470.60 Crore totalling to Rs. 1338.09 Crore for FY 2019-20.

Considering the same amount of security deposit as proposed by the Petitioner and estimating one

month of power purchase cost as Rs. 423.26 Crore, the Commission has approved the total amount

of Rs. 1297.82 Crore for FY 2019-20 as the amount held as security deposits and credit by power

suppliers.

Based on the above, the total working capital requirement of the Petitioner for FY 2019-20,

works out to Rs. -7.14 Crore. As the total working capital requirement estimated for FY 2019-20 is

negative, the interest on working capital works out to Rs. 0.00 Crore for FY 2019-20. The interest on

working capital for FY 2019-20 approved by the Commission is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.22: Interest on working capital approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved O&M expenses for 1 month 52.98 46.00 Maintenance Spares 95.36 82.79 2 months of expected revenue at prevailing tariffs 1221.4 1091.57 Capital required to finance shortfall in collection of current dues 73.29 62.22

Minus: Amount held as security deposits and credit by power suppliers 1338.09 1297.82

Net Working Capital 104.98 -15.24 Rate of Interest on Working Capital 13.70% 13.75% Interest on Working Capital 14.38 0.00


The Petitioner has considered the opening Equity for FY 2019-20 as Rs. 691.69 Crore. The

Petitioner has considered the equity addition during each year of the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as per the proposed financing plan for the respective year. The Petitioner has

proposed the Return on Equity at the rate of 16.50% on the average equity for the year. Accordingly,

the Petitioner has proposed the Return on Equity of Rs. 114.13 Crore, Rs. 150.58 Crore, and Rs.


Regarding the Return on Equity, Regulation 26 of the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018




“26. Return on Equity

(1) Return on equity shall be computed on the equity base determined in accordance with Regulation

24.

Provided that, Return on Equity shall be allowed on account of allowed equity capital for the assets

put to use at the commencement of each financial year.

(2) Return on equity shall be computed on at the base rate of 15.50% for thermal generating stations,

transmission licensee, SLDC and run of river hydro generating station and at the base rate of 16.50%

for the storage type hydro generating stations and run of river generating station with pondage and

distribution licensee on a post-tax basis.”

In accordance with the UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, Return on Equity is allowable on the

opening equity for the year. Hence, the Commission has determined the Return on Equity for each

year of the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 considering the eligible opening

equity for return purposes for the respective year.

The Commission has considered the closing eligible equity for return purposes approved for

FY 2017-18 as the opening balance for FY 2018-19 as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order. Thereafter,

the Commission has considered the equity addition during FY 2018-19 as per the approved means

of finance for FY 2018-19. The Commission has considered the closing balance for FY 2018-19 as the

opening balance for FY 2019-20.

The Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY

2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.23: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the third Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)




Opening Equity 691.69 546.12 912.61 661.78 1136.09 780.43 Addition during the year 220.92 115.67 223.48 118.65 191.53 120.52 Closing Equity 912.61 661.78 1136.09 780.43 1327.62 900.95 Rate of Return 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% 16.50% Return on Equity 114.13 90.11 150.58 109.19 187.45 128.77

5.11.5 Income Tax

The Petitioner has not claimed any Income Tax in its ARR proposals for the third Control



Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.


“34. Tax on Income

Income Tax, if any, on the income stream of the regulated business of Generating Companies,

Transmission Licensees, Distribution Licensees and SLDC shall be reimbursed to the Generating

Companies, Transmission Licensees, Distribution Licensees and SLDC as per actual income tax paid,

based on the documentary evidence submitted at the time of truing up of each year of the Control

Period, subject to prudence check.”

As stated above, Income Tax is admissible at the time of truing up and hence, the

Commission has not considered any Income Tax in the approval of ARR for the third Control

Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.

5.11.6 Provision for Bad and doubtful debts


“31. Bad and doubtful debts

(1) The Commission may allow a provision for bad and doubtful debts upto one percent (1%) of

the estimated annual revenue of the distribution licensee, subject to actual writing off bad debts

by it in the previous years.

Provided further that where the total amount of such provisioning allowed in previous years for

bad and doubtful debts exceeds five (5) per cent of the receivables at the beginning of the year, no

such appropriation shall be allowed which would have the effect of increasing the provisioning

beyond the said maximum.”

The Petitioner submitted that the Commission has not been approving any additional write-

off during the truing-up of recent years. In the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 under Clause 3.3.3

Provisions for Bad and Doubtful Debts, the Commission had stated the following:

“The Commission has already allowed the Petitioner a total provision of Rs. 333.75 Crore till FY

2008-09 which also includes the opening balance of the provision inherited from UPPCL. Even

considering the actual write off debt of Rs. 230.44 Crore till FY 2016-17, the Petitioner is still

left with a provision of about Rs. 103.31 Crore. The closing debtors of UPCL as on 31.03.2016



were to the tune of Rs. 1,789.05 Crore as per the Commercial Diary of UPCL. Hence, the

provision available with UPCL is to the extent of 5.77% for FY 2016-17 of the existing debtors

and any additional provision is not allowable in accordance with the Regulations as referred

above.”

The Petitioner submitted that that an amount of Rs. 52.48 Crore has been written-off by the

Petitioner in the audited accounts for FY 2017-18 resulting in lowering of the balance provision from

Rs. 103.31 Crore to Rs. 50.83 Crore. In the subsequent years as well, the Petitioner would be

undertaking write-off related to bad and doubtful debt which would exhaust the balance provision

as well.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that the receivables for sale of power equivalent to Rs.

629.25 Crore were transferred to UPCL on November 09, 2001 under the scheme of division of

assets and liabilities between UPPCL & UPCL. As against these receivables an amount equivalent to

Rs. 230.01 Crore was also transferred to UPCL towards provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. Most

of these receivables received under the transfer scheme are irrecoverable and needs to be written

off. As the provision allowed in the ARR has been exhausted, additional provision would be

required during the 3rd Control Period for writing off of these bad and doubtful debts.

The Petitioner requested the Commission to allow 1% of the ARR towards provision for Bad

and Doubtful Debts during the third Control Period in accordance with Regulation 31 of the MYT

Regulations, 2018.

The Commission vide its Order dated March 21, 2018, directed the Petitioner as follows:

“In this regard, UPCL is again directed to refrain itself from treating rectification of wrong billing

made in the earlier period as writing off the bad debts.”

In compliance to this directive the Petitioner submitted that any amount of billing which has

to be withdrawn by UPCL at the direction of Hon’ble Courts / Forums or if found not correct is

adjusted from the provision for bad and doubtful debts and this is as per accounting practices in

other Discoms.

The Commission as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order has not allowed any amount

towards provision of bad and doubtful debts while carrying out the truing up for FY 2017-18 as the

Petitioner has not complied with the directions given by the Commission in this regard.



Accordingly, the Commission has not considered the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the

approval of ARR for FY 2019-20.

5.11.7 Non-Tariff Income

The Petitioner has proposed non-tariff income of Rs. 149.29 Crore, Rs. 156.76 Crore and Rs.


The Commission observed that the actual non-tariff income earned by UPCL during FY

2017-18 is Rs. 308.52 Crore which has been considered by the Commission while carrying out the

truing up as discussed in Chapter 4 of the Order. The Commission in order to assess the non-tariff

Income for FY 2019-20 analysed the non-tariff income claimed by UPCL in its previous Tariff

Petitions and actual/trued up non-tariff income during the last 3 years which is as shown in Table

below:

Table 5.24: Summary of Non-Tariff Income for last 3 years (Rs Crore)

S.No.

Item

FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Claimed Actual / Trued up Claimed Actual /

Trued up Claimed Actual / Trued up

1. Interest on deposits 65.59 57.09 61.70

2. Income from staff welfare activities 0.15 0.16 0.14

3. Rebate/Incentive 45.69 44.07 22.47 4. Misc receipts 37.14 22.37 15.59 5. Material Cost Variance 36.78 26.86 20.27 6. Delayed payment surcharge 183.92 173.11

7. Revenue from sale of surplus power outside State 17.20 -

8. Wheeling charges recovery (L&H Power above 100 HP) 1.64 16.13

9. CSS (L&H Power above 100 HP) (including additional surcharge) 15.68 -

10. Prior Period Income 12.38 -0.88 Total 73.54 185.35 178.60 381.38 185.70 308.52

It is observed that the actual non-tariff income is substantially higher as compared to non-

tariff income projected by Petitioner in its Tariff Petition. Further, while projecting the non-tariff

income for FY 2019-20, the Petitioner has projected the non-tariff income under most of the heads

except income from Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS). The actual income from DPS during FY

2016-17 and FY 2017-18 is Rs. 183.92 Crore and Rs. 173.11 Crore respectively. It is not possible that



there will be no income from DPS in FY 2019-20. Considering the trends of actual non-tariff income

during last 3 years, the Commission at this stage has provisionally considered the non-tariff income

of Rs. 250 Crore which shall be trued up based on actuals subject to prudence check.

5.11.8 Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20

Based on the above, the net Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY

2019-20 is as shown in the Table below:

Table 5.25: Revenue Requirement approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore)

Particulars Claimed by UPCL Approved Power Purchase Cost including RPO 5380.20 5176.19 Water Tax 269.49 226.72 UJVN Ltd. Arrears/(Surplus) - -2.17 Transmission Charges PGCIL 559.21 509.73 PTCUL 289.68 255.01 SLDC Charges 17.51 11.35 Interest on Loan & Consumer Security Deposit 197.59 142.42 Depreciation 166.72 143.38 O&M expenses 635.77 551.96 Interest on Working Capital 14.38 0.00 Return on Equity 114.13 90.11 Provision for Bad and doubtful debts 0.00 0.00 Aggregate Revenue Requirement 7644.69 7104.70 Less: Non-Tariff Income 149.29 250.00 True up impact GAP/(SURPLUS) (166.77) (305.31) Free Power Adjustment - - Previous Year Adjustment - - Net Revenue Requirement 7328.63 6549.39

5.11.9 Revenue at Existing Tariff

The Petitioner has projected the revenue of Rs. 6445.22 Crore for FY 2019-20 at the existing

Tariff.

By applying the approved Tariff for FY 2018-19 in Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018, the

Commission has estimated the total consumer category wise revenue for FY 2019-20 as Rs. 6371.56

Crore.

The revenue at existing Tariff as proposed by the Petitioner and estimated by the

Commission is shown in the Table given below:



Table 5.26: Revenue for FY 2019-20 at existing Tariff (Rs. Crore)

S. No. Consumer Category

Proposed by the Petitioner Estimated by the Commission

Sales (MU)

Revenue (Rs. Crore)

Average Billing Rate (Rs./kWh)

Sales (MU)

Revenue (Rs. Crore)

Average Billing Rate (Rs./kWh)

1. RTS-1: Domestic 3311 1306.54 3.99 3137 1279.62 4.08 2. RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1369 812.32 5.96 1326 772.28 5.83 3. RTS-3: Govt Public Utilities 686 366.27 5.34 639 339.59 5.31 4. RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 288 53.04 1.84 283 52.06 1.84 7. RTS-7: Industry 6779 3794.14 5.49 6761 3798.30 5.62 LT Industry 324 183.10 5.68 315 178.13 5.65 HT Industry 6455 3611.04 5.48 6446 3620.17 5.62

8. RTS-8: Mixed Load 189 95.88 5.08 185 94.32 5.09 9. RTS-9: Railway Traction 30 17.03 5.63 30 16.78 5.58 Revenue from Incremental Sales 36 18.61 5.14

Total 12651 6445.22 5.04 12398 6371.56 5.14

5.11.10 Revenue Gap for FY 2019-20 at existing Tariff

Based on the net revenue requirement of Rs. 7328.63 Crore (including the proposed True up

amount for FY 2017-18) and revenue at existing Tariff of Rs. 6445.22 Crore, the Petitioner has

proposed the revenue gap of Rs. 883.41 Crore to be recovered by way of proposed Tariff for FY

2019-20.

Considering the net revenue requirement of Rs. 6549.39 Crore and revenue at existing Tariff

of Rs. 6371.56 Crore, the Commission has approved the revenue gap of Rs. 177.83 Crore for FY 2019-

20. The Commission has approved the Retail Tariff for FY 2019-20 to cover the approved revenue

gap of Rs. 177.83 Crore.The revenue gap for FY 2019-20 proposed by the Petitioner and approved by

the Commission is as shown in the Table given below:

Table 5.27: Revenue Gap for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) Particulars Proposed by the Petitioner Approved

Net Revenue Requirement 7328.63 6549.39 Revenue at existing Tariff 6445.22 6371.56 Revenue Gap 883.41 177.83


6. Tariff Rationalisation, Tariff Design and Related Issues

6.1 Tariff Rationalisation and Tariff Design for FY 2019-20

6.1.1 General

In Chapter 5 of this Order, it has been concluded that the revenue projected to be earned by

UPCL during FY 2019-20 at tariffs approved vide Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 will be Rs. 6371.56

Crore. Against this, the ARR approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 including gap and

surplus on account of truing up of previous years works out to Rs. 6549.39 Crore, leaving a total gap

of Rs. 177.83 Crore.

In view of the objections received and the Petitioner’s submissions, the Commission

considers it appropriate to first take a view on the tariff rationalisation measures suggested by the

Petitioner and the concerns voiced by other stakeholders.

6.1.2 Petitioner’s Proposals

The Petitioner submitted that the tariff proposal has been formulated with an attempt to

keep the impact on the consumers to the minimum possible extent and at the same time not defer a

large portion of recovery of the tariff for the coming years. The Petitioner further submitted that

Section 61(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003 states that the appropriate Commission should be guided

by the objective that the tariff progressively reflects the efficient and prudent cost of supply of

electricity.

The Petitioner also proposed the following amendment in the Tariff structure for FY 2019-20:

6.1.2.1 Shift from kWh billing for LT Industry and Non-Domestic consumers with load of more

than upto 10 kW and upto 25 kW

The Petitioner submitted that as per the current tariff structure, the LT Industry and Non-

Domestic consumers with load of more than 25 kW are billed on kVAh tariff. The Petitioner

proposed to revise the threshold from 25 kW to 10 kW for these consumer categories in view of

energy conservation and its coordinated efforts to reduce the distribution loss below 15%.



Therefore, the Petitioner proposed to shift consumers under LT Industry and Non-Domestic with a

load greater than 10 kW and upto 25 kW to kVAh tariff.

6.1.2.2 Tariff Categorisation for Gaushalas/Gausadans

The Petitioner vide its letter dated January 18, 2019 submitted that it had received

communication from Govt. of Uttarakhand Ref:145/I(2)/2019-11/42(Writ)/2018 dated January 14,

2019 vide which the Govt. has forwarded a copy of Hon’ble High Court Judgment dated August 8,

2018 in Writ Petition No. 112/2017 and GoU has directed to comply with the said Hon’ble High

Court Judgment. Para 80 K of Hon’ble High Court Judgment stipulates as follows:

“The “gaushalas’/gausadans’ or shelters should be constructed on scientific lines, taking into

consideration the comfort of animals to be housed there. No commercial charges shall be levied for

supplying the electricity and water conservations in Gaushalas/Shelters.”

The Petitioner submitted that as per current tariff structure “Gaushalas/Shelters” are

covered under RTS-2 Non-Domestic category. The Petitioner requested the Commission to clarify

the tariff category under which “Gaushalas/Shelters” are to be categorised considering the Hon’ble

High Court Judgment.

6.1.2.3 Prepaid metering

The Petitioner submitted the Tariff proposal for prepaid metering. The salient features of

Prepaid Metering proposed by Petitioner are as follows:

1. The option of Pre-paid metering shall be available for all categories of consumers upto 25

kW load under LT category. Prepaid Metering shall be mandatory for new Temporary

LT connections, for Advertisements/Hoardings and for Government connections upto

25 kW.

2. There shall be a minimum recharge of Rs. 100 and the maximum limit of recharge shall

be Rs. 15,000 for both single phase and three phase connections. Validity of the recharge

shall be continued till the amount is available in the account of the consumer. Any

recharge shall be allowed only when the 20 digit special meter reading code shall be

made available by the consumer.

3. As regards the charges for testing of meter, the Petitioner shall recover the amount as

approved by the Commission under Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges directly from



such prepaid consumers as is done for postpaid consumers and shall not be charged

from the recharge amount.

4. In case, the consumer opting for Prepaid Metering have outstanding arrears, the

Petitioner shall adjust 20% of the past arrears or 50% of the recharge amount, whichever

is higher from the recharge voucher, subject to the maximum of the outstanding arrears.

Further, the maximum limit of recharge as mentioned above, shall not be applicable in

case of consumers having outstanding arrears and accordingly, such consumers having

past arrears will have to take minimum recharge of more than 20% of the outstanding

arrears.

5. The Petitioner shall make necessary provisions to provide friendly credit hours/limit to

the consumers, in order to ensure uninterrupted supply to the consumer in the event of

expiry of the balance during non-working hours, i.e. night time or during holiday, so as

to provide reasonable time to the consumer to procure the recharge voucher at the next

possible working hours or working day. However, the charges for the electricity

consumed between expiry of balance during non-working hours and subsequent

recharge voucher shall be adjusted from the recharge voucher.

6. All the Prepaid meters will be provided with an alarm to indicate low credit.

7. As per the guiding principles and Section 47(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Petitioner

shall not charge any security deposit as is required in post-paid connections but price

equivalent to the material cost, i.e. cost of meter and associated equipment’s shall be

charged as material security which shall be returned after adjusting for the depreciation

at the time of permanent disconnection. The material security deposit for FY 2019-20

shall be Rs. 5000/- for single phase connection and Rs 10,000/- for three phase

connection.

8. The consumer shall be allowed only one transfer from postpaid to prepaid or otherwise

in a financial year.

9. Voltage rebate/surcharge, low power factor surcharge and excess load penalty shall not

be applicable for prepaid connections.

10. A rebate of 4% of Energy Charges for Domestic Category and 3% of Energy Charges for

other categories shall be applicable as per tariff schedule for the consumers availing this



scheme and the rebate shall only be applicable after installation and operationalization of

Prepaid meters.

Provided that no rebate shall be applicable on (i) of Para 1 of RTS-8, i.e., Temporary

Supply for Illumination/Public Address/ceremonies and festivities/functions/

temporary shops not exceeding 3 months.

Provided further that the fixed charge in respect of other domestic consumers [(1.2) of

para 2 of RTS-1] shall be Rs. 70/kW/month.

11. The solar water heater rebate shall be adjusted as follows:-

a. The rebate for first month of implementation of prepaid metering scheme shall be

credited immediately on the first recharge. Thereafter, rebate shall be credited on

monthly basis if recharge is done every month.

b. In case recharge is not being done on monthly basis, then based on the capacity of

Solar Water Heater installed by the consumer, solar water heater rebate would be

credited for all the past months for which the rebate was due either at the time of

recharge or when the consumer approaches UPCL.

6.1.2.4 Miscellaneous Charges

The Petitioner has proposed an increase of around 20% in the Miscellaneous Charges.

6.1.3 Commission’s Views on Tariff Rationalisation Measures

The Commission believes that tariff rationalisation is a dynamic and ongoing process and is

essential to accommodate the socio-economic and technological changes taking place in the system

over a period of time.

The following Sections discuss the tariff rationalisation measures suggested by the

Petitioner, Respondents, and the Commission’s views on the same.

6.1.3.1 Shift from kWh billing for LT Industry and Non-Domestic consumers with load of more

than upto 10 kW and upto 25 kW

With regard to changing the threshold level for applicability of kVAh based tariff for LT

Industry and Non-Domestic category, the Petitioner submitted the proposal to change the threshold

level from 25 kW to 10 kW. In this regard, the Petitioner submitted the category wise number of



consumers and load that would be impacted from shifting to kVAh billing from kWh billing for LT

and non-domestic consumers having load more than 10 kW and up to 25 kW. UPCL in this regard,

submitted the following:

Table 6.1: Consumers having load above 10 kW and upto 25 kW (as on Sep 2018) Category Consumers (No.) Load (kW)

RTS-2 Non-Domestic 5357 96507 RTS-5 LT & HT Industry 1199 20567

However, the impact of the conversion on consumption and revenue and the status of

required metering for consumers having contracted load between 10 kW-25 kW etc. have to be

assessed. The Commission, therefore, at this stage is not changing the threshold level for

applicability of kVAh based tariff for LT Industry and Non-Domestic category and is retaining the

same for consumers with 25 kW and more contracted load. The Commission, however, directs the

Petitioner to submit the complete details for changing the threshold level for applicability of

kVAh based tariff for LT Industry and Non-Domestic category including consumption in kWh

and kVAh, revenue assessed from such consumers, their Maximum demand, etc. in its next

Tariff Petition and the Commission will take a view based on details submitted by the

Petitioner.

6.1.3.2 Tariff Category for Gaushalas/Gausadans

As regards the tariff categorisation for Gaushalas/Gausadans, the Commission observed

that the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in its Judgment dated August 8, 2018 in Writ Petition

No. 112/2017 has issued mandatory directions to Govt. of Uttarakhand in the welfare of cows and

other stray cattle which includes that no commercial charges shall be levied for supplying electricity

to Gaushalas/Shelters.

The Commission observed that the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory

Commission in its Tariff Order dated May 4, 2018 for FY 2018-19 has included the Community

gausadans managed by institutions/ government with connected load up to 5 kW in Domestic

Category.

The Commission considering the Hon’ble High Court direction to Govt. of Uttarakhand has

decided to change the Tariff Category for Gaushalas/Gausadans used for shelter of cows and other

stray cattles. However, the Commission is of the view that this provision should only be applicable

for Gaushalas/Gausadans created for shelter of cows and other stray cattles and should not be



misused. Accordingly the Commission has decided to include the Gaushalas/Gausadans having

load upto 2 kW and consumption upto 200 units per month in RTS-1 Domestic Category.

6.1.3.3 Tariff Category for Home-Stay Units

The Petitioner vide its letter dated February 22, 2019 forwarded the copy of the letter of

Govt. of Uttarakhand dated February 1, 2019 regarding notification dated April 20, 2018 of Tourism

Department with respect to “Deendayal Upadhyay Home-Stay Development Policy Rules, 2018”.

UPCL submitted that the “Deendayal Upadhyay Home-Stay Development Policy Rules, 2018” have

been implemented and as per these Rules, non-commercial rates for electricity and water shall be

chargeable on Home-Stays registered under “Deendayal Upadhyay Home-Stay Development

Policy Rules, 2018”. The Petitioner requested the Commission to take an appropriate view on tariffs

to be applicable for Home-Stay considering the GoU notification.

The Commission has gone through the “Deendayal Upadhyay Home-Stay Development

Policy Rules, 2018” and Clause 4 of these Rules clearly specify the exemptions to be provided to

Home-Stay which includes that the electricity/water charges etc. shall be charged at non-

commercial tariffs.

The Commission observed that the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory

Commission in its Tariff Order dated May 4, 2018 for FY 2018-19 has included the “Home-Stay

Units in rural areas duly registered with the District Tourism Development Officer” in Domestic

Category.

The Commission considering the Govt. of Uttarakhand notification has decided to include

the Home-Stay Units which fulfils the following criteria as per the Rules in the Domestic category:

• The premise should be a residential premise;

• The owner of the premise should reside with his/her family in the premise;

• Owner makes the arrangements for food and lodging in the premise;

• The Premise has at least one room and maximum six rooms for stay of guests ;

• The premise is registered under the Rules.



6.1.3.4 Fixed Charges, Minimum charges and Minimum Consumption Guarantee

It is a well-accepted economic principle that the fixed costs of the Utility should be

recovered to a certain extent through fixed charges to ensure revenue stability. At the same time, the

Commission recognises that if the entire fixed cost is recovered through fixed charges, then the

utility shall have no incentive to be concerned about the sales and, hence, quality of supply may

suffer. Historically, the recovery of fixed costs has been done through a mix of minimum charges

and fixed charges. Levy of Minimum Consumption Guarantee Charges (MCG) is a way of ensuring

minimum revenue to the utility from the consumers, however, if the consumption exceeds the

specified units, then no MCG charges are levied on the consumers and the entire charges are

recovered by the utility through energy/fixed charges.

The fixed charge component reflecting the fixed cost of providing the service to the

consumer and the energy charge component reflecting the cost of energy actually consumed should

ideally be taken in the two-part tariff structure.

Section 45(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 also provides for levy of fixed charges. The relevant

Section is reproduced below:

“The charges for electricity supplied by a distribution licensee may include:

(a) a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied;

...”

Further, the licensee is incurring fixed cost directly attributable to individual consumers

such as meter reading, bill preparation, bill distribution and collection, which should ideally be

allocated to and recovered from each consumer. One of the guiding factors mentioned in Section 61

of the Electricity Act, 2003 for specifying terms and conditions of tariffs is that the tariff has to be

gradually cost reflective. Considering that levy of higher fixed charges should not impact the

consumers adversely, the Commission, in its Tariff Order dated March 18, 2008, introduced a

nominal fixed charge for all the categories as a progression towards designing a two part tariff

structure linked to the cost structure. Further, in its subsequent Tariff Orders for FY 2009-10 to FY

2018-19, considering the level of proportion of fixed costs as a percentage of total costs of UPCL and

level of revenue recovery from fixed charges, the Commission had marginally increased the fixed



charges for most of the categories to increase the revenue recovery from fixed charges and at the

same time avoiding tariff shock to any consumer category.

At the approved tariffs, the recovery from Fixed Charges from the consumers for FY 2019-20

is estimated to be around 15% against the total fixed cost incidence on the Petitioner of around 37%

of the licencee’s ARR for FY 2019-20.

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 18, 2008 had re-introduced the Minimum

Consumption Guarantee (MCG) Charges for the industrial category and in its Tariff Order dated

October 23, 2009 had re-introduced the Minimum Consumption Guarantee (MCG) Charges for the

Non-Domestic Category. The Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2012 had introduced MCG

for metered PTW category also. The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018, considering

the fact that the that Fixed/Demand Charges are applicable for all the categories and considering

the progress towards distribution loss reduction and commercial performance improvement

achieved by UPCL with respect to metering and billing issues, had abolished the levy of MCG

charges for entire Industrial category and for Non-Domestic consumers and as of now no MCG

charges are applicable in any category of consumers.

6.1.3.5 Continuous Supply Surcharge

The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated October 23, 2009, had approved continuous

supply surcharge @ 15% of the Energy Charge for consumers opting for supply during restricted

hours (continuous). Further, all the consumers had an option to opt for continuous supply

irrespective of whether they were on dedicated independent feeder or on mixed feeder. In

accordance with the above provision, even if a single consumer in mixed feeder opted for

continuous supply, its benefit got extended to all the consumers on that mixed feeder. This was a

sort of discrimination amongst the consumers who had opted for continuous supply on mixed

feeder and those who had not opted for continuous supply on mixed feeder as both enjoyed the

benefit of continuous supply irrespective of the fact that they were paying any continuous supply

surcharge or not. On the other hand, if the supply on the mixed feeder was required to be cut

during rostering, the supply of continuous supply consumer also got unintentionally cut.

The Commission in order to rectify this anomaly had taken a view in its Tariff Order dated

April 10, 2010 that the option of continuous supply should be made available only to consumers

who are connected on a dedicated independent feeder or industrial feeder provided that all the



industrial consumers on such feeder opt for continuous supply option. The Commission was also of

the view that considering the supply shortage position, this option was to be provided only to the

continuous process industries requiring continuous supply due to continuous nature of their

process. In this connection, the Commission would like to refer to Regulation 3(2) of UERC (Release

of new HT & EHT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2008, which

provides that loads for all HT consumers having continuous processes, irrespective of load applied

for, shall be released through independent feeder only. The Commission in its Tariff Order dated

April 10, 2010 had, therefore, decided that with effect from May 1, 2010, the option of continuous

supply shall remain available only to continuous process industries operating twenty four hours a

day and for seven days in a week without any weekly off. Further, this option was only to be

available to continuous process industries connected through an independent feeder or industrial

feeder provided that all the industrial consumers on such feeder opted for continuous supply

option and for availing such an option, they were required to pay 15% extra energy charges at

revised tariff with effect from May 1, 2010 or from the date of connection, whichever is later till 31st

March, 2011 irrespective of actual period of continuous supply option. Further, the Commission in

its Tariff Order dated April 10, 2010 also decided that the load shedding would be applicable for all

the consumer categories except continuous process industries availing continuous supply option

and, hence, the Commission abolished the mechanism of allowing utilisation of power upto 15% of

the contracted load by industrial consumers who did not opt for continuous supply.

In its Tariff Order for FY 2011-12 dated May 24, 2011, Tariff Order for FY 2012-13 dated April

11, 2012, MYT Order dated May 06, 2013 and APR Order dated April 10, 2014 the Commission

decided to continue with the same provisions for Continuous Supply as approved in its Order

dated April 10, 2010.

The Commission in its ARR/Tariff Order dated April 11, 2015 after detailed deliberations on

the issue after floating the in-house paper extended the option of continuous supply to non-

continuous process industries in addition to the continuous process industries. The Commission in

its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 considering the fact that the deficit in winter months had reduced

as compared to previous years revised the continuous supply surcharge from 15% of energy

charges to 10% of energy charges.



In these tariff proceedings, the Commission has received mixed responses from various

stakeholders. Some of the industries submitted that the continuous supply surcharge be reduced or

abolished.

The Commission would like to clarify that the State of Uttarakhand is still facing power

shortage and UPCL is procuring short term power from market to meet the demand. Even for FY

2019-20, the Commission has estimated a deficit of about 1281.62 MU in winter months during

October to March in the requirement of UPCL which is of substantial nature. The Commission has

estimated a surplus of about 866.64 during April, 2019 to September, 2019 in the requirement of

UPCL for FY 2019-20 which would be banked with other States to offset the deficit during winter

months. Hence, the Commission does not find any reason to abolish the continuous supply

surcharge altogether as during winters UPCL is still having deficit. The Commission at this stage

has decided to continue with the continuous supply surcharge equivalent to 10% of energy charges

as approved in Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018. The Commission will review the same once the

aforesaid deficit in UPCL’s requirement is wiped off.

The option of continuous supply shall only be available to continuous and non-continuous

industries connected on an independent feeder or industrial feeder provided that all the industrial

consumers on such feeder opt for continuous supply option. The existing non-continuous process

industrial consumers opting for continuous supply shall pay 10% extra energy charges with effect

from April 01, 2019 or in case of new consumers from the date of new connection, till March 31,

2020 irrespective of actual period of continuous supply. However, in case of re-arrangement of

supply through independent feeder, the Continuous Supply Surcharge shall be applicable from the

date of energisation of aforesaid independent feeder till March 31, 2020, irrespective of actual period

of continuous supply option.

In this regard, the Commission would like to clarify certain key issues, pertaining to

applicability conditions for existing and new continuous and non-continuous supply consumers in

order to avoid any misinterpretation of the conditions, and the same are discussed as under:

• Consumers who have opted for Continuous supply shall continue to remain

Continuous Supply Consumers and they need not to apply again for seeking continuous

supply option. Such consumers shall pay 10% extra energy charges, in addition to the

energy charges approved, w.e.f. April 01, 2019 till March 31, 2020. However, in case of



any pending dispute with UPCL in the matter of continuous supply on certain feeders,

those consumers will have to apply afresh, for availing the facility of continuous supply

by April 30, 2019.

• The existing consumers who are new applicants for continuous supply of power

(including those who are applying afresh as per above condition) can apply for seeking

the continuous supply option at any time during the year. However, continuous supply

surcharge for such existing consumers shall be applicable with effect from May 01, 2019

till March 31, 2020. UPCL shall provide the facility of continuous supply within 7 days

from the date of application, subject to fulfilment of Conditions of Supply as mentioned

in Clause 6 under Tariff Schedule of RTS-5. However, in case of re-arrangement of

supply through independent feeder, UPCL shall provide the facility of continuous

supply from the date of completion of work of independent feeder subject to fulfilment

of Conditions of Supply and the continuous supply surcharge on such consumers shall

be applicable from the date of energisation of aforesaid independent feeder till March

31, 2020, irrespective of actual period of continuous supply option.

• The existing consumers availing continuous supply option, who wish to discontinue the

continuous supply option granted to them earlier, will have to communicate, in writing,

to UPCL latest by April 30, 2019 and they shall continue to pay continuous supply

surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order till April 30, 2019. Further, in this

regard, if due to withdrawal by one consumer from availing continuous supply option

on a particular feeder, the status of other continuous supply consumers in that feeder is

affected, then UPCL shall inform all the affected consumers in writing, well in advance.

• UPCL shall not change the status of a continuous supply feeder to a non-continuous

supply feeder.

• UPCL/PTCUL shall take up augmentation, maintenance and overhauling works on top

priority, specially in the sub-stations where circuit breakers, other equipments, etc. are

in dilapidated condition and, thereby, shall ensure minimisation of interruptions of the

continuous supply feeders.

• UPCL/PTCUL shall carry out periodical preventive maintenance of the feeders

supplying to continuous supply consumers. The licensees shall prepare preventive



maintenance schedule, in consultation with continuous supply consumers, well in

advance, so that such consumers can plan their operations, accordingly.

• Continuous supply surcharge shall not be applicable on power procured by industrial

consumers through open access.

6.1.3.6 Tariff Categorisation for HT Industries and Load Factor based Tariff

The Commission has considered the stakeholders/industries responses and observed that

some of the consumers have again raised the issue of load factor based tariff for HT Industries.

Some of the stakeholders submitted that the load factor based tariff for HT Industries is

discriminatory as well as against the provisions of the Act, Tariff Policy and the Commission’s

Tariff Regulations.

The Commission would like to highlight Section 62(3) of the Act, which empowers the

Appropriate Commission, while determining the tariff, to differentiate according to the consumer’s

load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity etc. Section 62(3) of the Act is

reproduced below:

“The Appropriate Commission shall not, while determining the tariff under this Act, show undue

preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumer's load

factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during any specified period or the time

at which the supply is required or the geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and the

purpose for which the supply is required” (emphasis added).

Regulation 92(2) of UERC Tariff Regulations, 2018, specifically empowers the Commission

to design load factor based tariffs for any category of consumers and is reproduced below:

“The Commission, shall not, while determining the tariff, show undue preference to any consumer of

electricity but may differentiate according to consumer’s load factor, voltage, total consumption of

electricity during any specified period or time at which the supply is required or the geographical

position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is required. “

The Commission in its Order dated April 11, 2015 after detailed deliberations in response to

the in-house paper had modified the slabs for load factor based tariff from three slabs to two slabs.

Further, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the Order, some of the stakeholders submitted that the

principle applied for the categorisation of the industry on the basis of load factor should be on the



principle of higher the load factor, lower the tariff as prevalent in other States. They further

expressed that the higher load factor implies that the consumer consumes nearly as much as it has

contracted for and has paid the demand charges accordingly, and the Utility stands to benefit by

higher load factor because the utility is able to sell more electricity which it has arranged for

meeting the demand of the consumer. They further opined that if the load factor is lower, the utility

would find itself having contracted more power from generating companies than it would be able

to sell to the consumers and in this process may suffer loss.

The Commission does not agree with the views of the stakeholders that higher load factor

implies that the Utility stands to benefit from selling more electricity which it has arranged for

meeting the demand of the consumer and load incidence on the system matches with the contracted

demand/load of the consumers of the State. The Commission would like to clarify that there is

diversity in time of usage of electricity by different consumers and, hence, the actual simultaneous

maximum demand of all the consumers put together shall always be less than the summation of

their contracted loads. Further, nowhere, the Utility makes the power purchase arrangement

equivalent to the contracted demand of its consumers. Further, increase or decrease of the

contracted load, and/or, the load factor, by consumer does not actually influence the consumption

pattern of consumers including diversity factor and, hence, the actual simultaneous maximum

demand is the basis for contracting power from different sources by the licensee rather than the

contracted load/load factor of the consumers. Further, the utilisation of the contracted capacity for

State consumption from firm sources of generation by UPCL is more than 90% and balance surplus,

the Petitioner uses for Banking during summer/monsoon months in order to take it back during

winter months when it has apparent deficit supply vis-a-vis demand. With the increase in load

factor of consumers, the energy requirement of the Utility will further increase, and the Petitioner

will be left with no surplus power to Bank during summer/monsoon months in order to take back

during deficit winter months. This inability of the Petitioner will require to purchase power at

marginal price, i.e. the Petitioner will have to purchase costlier power to meet the increase in energy

requirement at higher load factor.

The two part tariff tends to encourage high consumption as the same reduces the effective

per unit composite rate. Accordingly, to correct this, tariff also needs to increase in a manner so as

to achieve a near uniform composite rate. To achieve this, demand and energy charges will have to

increase with every small increase in contracted demand or load utilization percentage. Although



theoretically possible, such an approach would make the tariffs too complex, incomprehensible and

will pose serious problems in implementation. There is, therefore, a trade-off between the simplicity

of the tariff structure and precision in correcting the above distortion. The Commission’s attempt

has been to strike a balance between the two by choosing a uniform rate of demand charge and

different rates of energy charges linked to the consumption levels represented by the Load Factor.

The Commission has avoided sharp increases in energy charges and has infact modified the three

slabs in HT industry category prevalent earlier to only two slabs in its previous Tariff Order dated

April 11, 2015.

As had been illustrated by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders in case of single

energy charge, without any load factor slabs, the effective tariff of an intended cross-subsidising

consumer goes down steeply with increasing load factor, thereby reducing the quantum of cross-

subsidy charged from it. After a threshold level of load factor, this structure leads to an undesirable

anomaly that the effective tariff becomes lower than the average Cost of Supply and the consumer

instead of being subsidising consumer becomes subsidised consumer. Thus, this structure apart

from leading to the above said anomaly is highly inequitable amongst the consumers of the same

category with consumers having low load factor being loaded with much higher effective tariff and

making up for loss on account of lower effective tariff even below the average cost of supply paid

by high load factor consumers. Transition from subsidising consumer to subsidised consumer with

increasing load factor is not only incorrect but is also highly undesirable.

Some of the stakeholders represented that the tariff structure for HT Industries should also

be telescopic. In Uttarakhand, as the cross-subsidies are very low, the tariff needs to be corrected at

different load factors to ensure that steepness of the effective tariff curve does not reduce the cross-

subsidies to very low level or make them negative (subsidised). Further, there is a practical

difficulty in implementing slabs of tariffs for excess consumption only, due to ToD tariffs in vogue.

Apportionment of various slabs of consumption for different time slots would be very complicated

and would result in disputes between licensee and consumers as consumer would like to book

cheapest load factor slab (1st slab) against peak hour consumption and highest load factor slab (last

slab) against off-peak hour consumption. The licensee, on the other hand, would like to book first

load factor slab against off-peak consumption and the last load factor slab under peak hour

consumption. Thus, this structure would unnecessarily complicate the billing process and would



also lead to disputes. Due to these reasons, the Commission is not implementing telescopic slab

based tariff for HT industrial consumers.

The above reasoning can be easily explained by taking an example with the figures of

approved tariff (Demand Charges Rs. 320/kVA/month and Energy Charges in two slabs of Rs. 3.50

and 3.85/kVAh for FY 2016-17, where Average Cost of Supply was taken as Rs. 4.70/kWh and

average tariff from HT industrial consumers including ToD surcharge and rebate was designed to

be Rs. 5.17/kWh. It is evident that in case of single energy charge of Rs. 3.60/kVAh and demand

charge of Rs. 320/kVA/month, without any load factor slabs, the effective tariff of an intended

cross-subsidising consumer goes down steeply with increasing load factor, thereby reducing the

quantum of cross-subsidy charged from it. After a threshold level of load factor, this structure leads

to an undesirable anomaly that the effective tariff becomes lower than the average Cost of Supply

and the consumer instead of being subsidising consumer becomes subsidised consumer. Thus, this

structure apart from leading to the aforesaid anomaly is highly inequitable amongst the consumers

of the same category with consumers having low load factor being loaded with much higher

effective tariff and making up for loss on account of lower effective tariff even below average Cost

of Supply paid by high load factor consumers. The same applies to the condition if telescopic slab

energy charges for HT industries [Demand Charges: Rs. 320/kVA/monthly, Energy Charges: for

consumption upto LF 40%: Rs. 3.50/kVAh & for consumption exceeding LF 40%: Rs. 3.85 kVAh] are

considered the reduction in effective tariffs is almost similar to the case where single energy charges

are approved without any slab. The Table & Graph below shows these anomalies of consumers

getting cross-subsidised falling below average cost of supply after a particular load factor and wide

range of tariffs over different load factors with the single energy charge without any slab and

telescopic slabs. Increase of cross-subsidisation of HT industry with increasing load factor

(particularly > 45%) is not only incorrect but also highly undesirable.



Table 6.2: Effective Tariff & Cross-subsidy for HT Industry having contracted load 1 kVA Lo

ad F

acto

r

Con

sum

ptio

n (k

VA

h)

Dem

and

Cha

rge

(Rs.

/ kV

A)

Ener

gy

Cha

rge

(Rs.

/kV

ah)

Tota

l A

mou

nt

Effe

ctiv

e Ta

riff

(R

s.kW

h)

Cos

t of

Supp

ly

Cro

ss

Subs

idy

%

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60 /k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60/ k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60/k

Vah

Te

lesc

opic

Ta

riff

A

ppro

ved

Tari

ff

Rs.

/ kW

h

Sing

le E

C o

f R

s.3.

60 /k

Vah

Tele

scop

ic

Tari

ff

App

rove

d Ta

riff

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

(7)=

(3)+

(4)

(8)=

(3)+

(5)

(9)=

(3)+

(6)

(10)

=(7)

/(2x

0.95

75)

(11)

=(8)

/(2x

0.95

75)

(12)

=(9)

/(2x

0.95

75)

-13

(14)

=(10

/13)

-1

(15)

=(11

/13)

-1

(16)

=(12

/13)

-1

25% 180 320 648 630 630 968 950 950 5.62 5.51 5.51 4.70 19.50% 17.28% 17.28% 30% 216 320 778 756 756 1098 1076 1076 5.31 5.20 5.20 4.70 12.92% 10.69% 10.69% 35% 252 320 907 882 882 1227 1202 1202 5.09 4.98 4.98 4.70 8.21% 5.99% 5.99% 40% 288 320 1037 1008 1008 1357 1328 1328 4.92 4.82 4.82 4.70 4.69% 2.46% 2.46% 45% 324 320 1166 1147 1247 1486 1467 1567 4.79 4.73 5.05 4.70 1.94% 0.58% 7.50% 50% 360 320 1296 1285 1386 1616 1605 1706 4.69 4.66 4.95 4.70 -0.25% -0.92% 5.30% 55% 396 320 1426 1424 1525 1746 1744 1845 4.60 4.60 4.86 4.70 -2.05% -2.15% 3.51% 60% 432 320 1555 1562 1663 1875 1882 1983 4.53 4.55 4.79 4.70 -3.54% -3.17% 2.01% 65% 468 320 1685 1701 1802 2005 2021 2122 4.47 4.51 4.73 4.70 -4.81% -4.04% 0.74% 70% 504 320 1814 1840 1940 2134 2160 2260 4.42 4.48 4.68 4.70 -5.90% -4.78% -0.34% 75% 540 320 1944 1978 2079 2264 2298 2399 4.38 4.44 4.64 4.70 -6.84% -5.43% -1.28% 80% 576 320 2074 2117 2218 2394 2437 2538 4.34 4.42 4.60 4.70 -7.66% -5.99% -2.10% 85% 612 320 2203 2255 2356 2523 2575 2676 4.31 4.39 4.57 4.70 -8.39% -6.49% -2.83% 90% 648 320 2333 2394 2495 2653 2714 2814 4.28 4.37 4.54 4.70 -9.03% -6.93% -3.48% 95% 684 320 2462 2533 2633 2782 2853 2953 4.25 4.36 4.51 4.70 -9.61% -7.33% -4.05%

100% 720 320 2592 2671 2772 2912 2991 3092 4.22 4.34 4.49 4.70 -10.13% -7.68% -4.57%

Graph 1 : Effective HT Industrial Tariff



Hence, in view of the above, the Commission is continuing with the existing load factor

based tariff structure for HT Industry.

6.1.3.7 Time of Day Tariff

Regarding Time of Day Tariff, the stakeholders requested the following:

• Abolish the morning peak hours.

• Reduce the peak hours timings in such a manner that the Single Shift Industry can

operate for 8 hours with normal tariff

• The ToD charges should be retained at existing levels.

• The rebate for consumption during off-peak hours should be increased

The Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2010-11 dated April 10, 2010 approved the peak

hour rate as 50% higher than the normal hour rate for Industrial Category. Further, in case of HT

industries, the Commission has specified the peak hour rate as 50% higher than the normal hour

rate applicable for highest load factor slab, i.e. energy charge for load factor above 50% for all the

HT industrial consumers. The Commission kept the rebate during off peak hours to 10% to

incentivise the shift in consumption from peak hours to off peak hours. The Commission in its Tariff

Order dated 21.03.2018 in order to incentivise the consumers for shifting the demand from Peak

hours to Off Peak hours, increased the off-peak hour rebate from existing level of 10% to 15% in

energy charges.

The Commission, in each of its tariff determination exercise, has been analysing the shift

from the peak hours to normal and off-peak as well as the consumption pattern during the peak

and off-peak hours in the State. The Commission has analysed the unrestricted load curves of

summer as well as the winter month to assess the consumption during peak hour period during

these months. The load curves for the days having highest peak load in the months of summer and

winter season, have been examined and the same are graphically presented below:



Chart 1: Load Curve for 29h January 2019 (MW) [Winter Month]

Morning Peak Demand – 2196 MW at 8.00 AM

Evening Peak Demand - 2028 MW at 7.00PM

Chart 2: Load Curve for 29th Dec 2018 (MW) [Winter Month]

Morning Peak Demand – 2160 MW at 8.00 AM

Evening Peak Demand – 2041 at 6.00 PM



Chart 3: Load Curve for 12th May, 2018 (MW) [Summer Month]

Peak Demand – 2097 MW at 7.00 PM

No Morning Peak

Chart 4: Load Curve for 27th June, 2018 (MW) [Summer Month]

Peak Demand – 2134 MW at 9.00 PM

No Morning Peak

It is observed from the above graphical presentations that during the winter season both

morning as well as evening peak demand exists in the State. Infact, in the months of December and

January, the morning peak demand has been found to be even more pre-dominant than the evening

peak demand. From Chart 1 & 2 illustrating the load curve for January 29, 2019 and December 29,

2018 respectively, it can be observed that the demand starts rising from 6.00 a.m. till it reaches the

peak at about 8.00 a.m. and then starts falling around 9.00 a.m. in the morning and flattens by



around 11.00 a.m. Hence, the request of the stakeholders regarding abolishing the morning peak

hours cannot be accepted since it would defeat the demand side management through tariffs in

vogue in the State. Further, it is seen from the above graphs that the overall system peak of

Uttarakhand State during the year is significantly observed in the morning hours also besides

evening peak.

The Commission feels the need for DSM and having ToD tariff as a measure for ensuring

curtailment of morning as well as evening peaks. Considering all these aspects, the Commission in

the present Order is continuing with the morning peak hours during winter season and evening

peak hours for the entire year. Some of the stakeholders requested that the peak hour slots shall be

modified in such a way that the General Single Shift Industry should get clear 8 hours of operations

at normal tariff. The Commission considering this request analysed the load curves and observed

that morning peak continues till 9 AM and gradually starts reducing after 9 AM and similarly

evening peak picks up generally after 6 PM. Therefore, considering the requests of stakeholders and

load pattern during peak hours, the Commission has decided to modify the Peak, Normal and Off

Peak hour duration for ToD metering slots as follows:

Table 6.3: Effective Tariff & Cross-subsidy for HT Industry Season/Time

of day Morning Peak

hours Normal hours

Evening Peak Hours

Off-peak Hours

Winters 01.10 to 31.03 0600-0900 hrs 0900-1800 hrs 1800-2200 hrs 2200-0600

hrs Summers

01.04 to 30.09 -- 0700-1800 hrs 1800-2300 hrs 2300-0700 hrs

With this change in ToD slots, the General Industry will get nine hours for working at

normal tariff and they will be able to operate eight hours in General Shift with one hours break.

Considering the load curves, the Commission has kept the surcharge during peak hours and

incentive for Off-peak hours at the same level as approved in previous Order dated 21.03.2018.

6.1.3.8 Prepaid metering

The Commission recognises that Prepaid Metering is expected to provide better services to

the consumers, improve and secure the cash flow of the Petitioner and also lead to reduction in

consumer grievance and dissatisfaction to the consumers. Hence, after detailed deliberations on the



proposals of the Petitioner, the Commission approves the following conditions for Pre-Paid

Metering:

a) The option of Pre-paid metering shall be available for all categories of consumers upto 25

kW load under LT category. Prepaid Metering shall be mandatory for new Temporary

LT connections, for Advertisements/Hoardings and for Government connections upto

25 kW.

b) There shall be a minimum recharge of Rs. 100 and the maximum limit of recharge shall

be Rs. 15,000 for both single phase and three phase connections. Validity of the recharge

shall be continued till the amount is available in the account of the consumer. Any

recharge shall be allowed only when the 20 digit special meter reading code shall be

made available by the consumer.

c) As regards the charging for testing of meter, the Petitioner shall recover the amount as

approved by the Commission under Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges directly from

such prepaid consumers as is done for postpaid consumers and shall not be charged

from the recharge amount.

d) The Petitioner shall issue an advertisement in the newspapers within 15 days of the issue

of this Order, briefly mentioning salient features of the Prepaid Metering Scheme for LT

consumers upto 25 kW to provide an option to the consumer to express their interest to

opt for the Prepaid metering scheme latest by June 15, 2019.

It may be noted that the objective of calling applications for Prepaid metering shall be

primarily for the purpose of estimation of the requirement of such meters based on the

demand of the Scheme. Based on the requests received from the consumers opting for

Prepaid metering, UPCL shall implement the Prepaid metering in a phased manner.

Further, the Petitioner may also allow prepaid metering services to even those

consumers who could not submit their request within the above stipulated time given in

the advertisement and wish to opt for it subsequently.

e) The Petitioner is also directed to prepare a Salient Features of the Prepaid Metering

Scheme (in 1-2 pages) and circulate the same along with the bills of May, 2019 to all the

eligible consumers, i.e. LT consumers upto 25 kW, to facilitate wide circulation as well as

to provide salient features of the proposed mechanism of the Prepaid Metering Scheme.



f) In case, the consumer opting for Prepaid Metering have outstanding arrears, the

Petitioner shall adjust 20% of the past arrears or 50% of the recharge amount, whichever

is higher from the recharge voucher, subject to the maximum of the outstanding arrears.

Further, the maximum limit of recharge as mentioned above, shall not be applicable in

case of consumers having outstanding arrears and accordingly, such consumers having

past arrears will have to take minimum recharge of more than 20% of the outstanding

arrears.

g) The Petitioner shall make necessary provisions to provide friendly credit hours/limit to

the consumers, in order to ensure uninterrupted supply to the consumer in the event of

expiry of the balance during non-working hours, i.e. night time or during holiday, so as

to provide reasonable time to the consumer to procure the recharge voucher at the next

possible working hours or working day. However, the charges for the electricity

consumed between expiry of balance during non-working hours and subsequent

recharge voucher shall be adjusted from the recharge voucher.

h) All the Prepaid meters will be provided with an alarm to indicate low credit.

i) As per the guiding principles and Section 47(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Petitioner

shall not charge any security deposit as is required in post-paid connections but price

equivalent to the material cost, i.e. cost of meter and associated equipment’s shall be

charged as material security which shall be returned after adjusting for the depreciation

at the time of permanent disconnection. The approved material security deposit for FY

2019-20 is Rs. 5000/- for single phase connection and Rs 10,000/- for three phase

connection.

j) The consumer shall be allowed only one transfer from postpaid to prepaid or otherwise

in a financial year.

k) Voltage rebate/surcharge, low power factor surcharge and excess load penalty shall not

be applicable for prepaid connections.

l) A rebate of 4% of Energy Charges for Domestic Category and 3% of Energy Charges for

other categories shall be applicable as per tariff schedule for the consumers availing this

scheme and the rebate shall only be applicable after installation and operationalization of

Prepaid meters.



Provided that no rebate shall be applicable on (i) of Para 1 of RTS-8, i.e. Temporary

Supply for Illumination/Public Address/ceremonies and festivities/functions/

temporary shops not exceeding 3 months.

Provided further that the fixed charge in respect of other domestic consumers [(1.2) of

para 2 of the RTS -1] shall be Rs. 55/kW/month.

m) The solar water heater rebate shall be adjusted as follows:-

i. The rebate for first month of implementation of prepaid metering scheme shall be

credited immediately on the first recharge. Thereafter, rebate shall be credited on

monthly basis if recharge is done every month.

ii. In case recharge is not being done on monthly basis, then based on the capacity of

Solar Water Heater installed by the consumer, solar water heater rebate would be

credited for all the past months for which the rebate was due either at the time of

recharge or when the consumer approaches UPCL.

6.1.3.9 Miscellaneous Charges

The Petitioner has merely proposed to increase the Miscellaneous Charges by around 20%

without any reasons and justification for the same. In the absence of proper justification, the

Commission has decided to retain the Miscellaneous Charges at the same level. The Commission

directs the Petitioner to submit the complete details for increasing the Miscellaneous Charges,

i.e. reasons and justification for increase and annual revenue at current level of miscellaneous

charges in the next Tariff Petition.

6.1.4 Treatment of Revenue Gap

As concluded in Chapter 5 of the Order, the revenue at existing tariffs leaves a revenue gap

of Rs. 177.83 Crore to meet the Net Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20, post adjustment of the

revenue surplus and gap determined after truing up of expenses and revenue based on the audited

accounts for FY 2017-18.

The Commission had approved the tariffs applicable for various categories with effect from

April 01, 2018 vide its Order dated March 21, 2018.



The Commission in order to recover the gap has revised the tariffs for FY 2019-20. The

approved tariff will be applicable from April 1, 2019 and will be effective till revised by the

Commission.

6.1.5 Cross Subsidy

As per the provisions of Tariff Policy, the Regulatory Commission has to reduce the cross

subsidies with respect to the cost of supply in a gradual manner. The Commission in its Tariff Order

for FY 2018-19 had computed the cross subsidies for different category of subsidising consumers

which were in accordance with the Tariff Policy.

The Commission has now revised the tariffs and has ensured that the cross subsidies have

broadly reduced or maintained with respect to previous levels with few exceptions as discussed

while discussing the cross subsidy levels at approved tariffs.

6.1.6 Category-wise Tariff Design

The Commission has designed the category-wise tariffs for full recovery of approved Net

Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20. The category-wise tariffs approved by the Commission are

discussed below and are also shown in the Approved Rate Schedule placed at Annexure-1. These

rates shall be effective from April 1, 2019 and shall continue to be applicable till further revised by

the Commission.

6.1.6.1 RTS-1: Domestic Tariff

The Commission, while recognising the fact that BPL/lifeline consumers were one of the

most economically weaker sections of the consumers, in its Tariff Order for FY 2003-04 had

approved a tariff of Rs. 1.50/kWh for such consumers when the average cost of supply was Rs.

2.28/kWh. Considering the fact that the Tariff Policy permits that the tariffs for such BPL/lifeline

consumers can be determined at 50% of the average cost of supply, the Commission in order to

gradually reduce the cross subsidy and also to enable the licensee to recover some of its Fixed Cost,

in its Tariff Order for FY 2011-12 dated May 24, 2011 had introduced a Fixed Charges of Rs.

5/connection/month which was further nominally increased every year.

As overall tariff increase required for meeting the revenue requirement of UPCL for FY

2019-20 is marginal, the tariff for BPL consumers have been retained at same level with no change.



For other domestic consumers, the fixed charges have been marginally increased to enhance

the recovery from fixed charges except for small end consumers with consumption upto 100 units

per month for which the fixed charges have been retained at same level. The energy charges for

lowest slab, i.e. consumption upto 100 units/month have been nominally increased from the

existing level of Rs. 2.65/kWh to Rs. 2.75/kWh. The energy charges for the second slab, i.e. for

consumption between 101-200 units/month have been fixed as Rs. 3.55/kWh. The energy charges

for the third slab, i.e. for consumption between 201-400 units/month have been fixed as Rs.

4.90/kWh and for consumers having consumption above 400 units/month, the energy charges have

been fixed at Rs. 5.65/kWh.

For single point bulk supply connections, the energy charges have been increased to Rs.

4.40/kWh from Rs. 4.25/kWh and fixed charges have been increased to Rs. 75/kW/month from Rs.

70/kW/month.

A comparison of the tariff, i.e. existing, proposed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission, is given in the Table below:

Table 6.4: Tariff for Domestic Consumers

S. No. Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved

Fixed Charge (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed Charge (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed Charge (Per

Month

Energy Charges

RTS-1: Domestic 1.1 Life Line Consumers Rs. 18/

Connection Rs.

1.61/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs.

1.61/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs.

1.61/kWh 1.2 Other Domestic Consumers

(i) 0-100 Units/Month Rs. 55/ Connection

Rs. 2.65/kWh

Rs. 55/ Connection

Rs. 2.75/kWh

Rs. 55/ Connection

Rs. 2.75/kWh

(ii) 101-200 Units/Month Rs. 80/ Connection

Rs. 3.45/kWh

Rs. 85/ Connection

Rs. 3.60/kWh

Rs. 85/ Connection

Rs. 3.55/kWh

(iii) 201-400 Units/Month Rs. 135/ Connection

Rs. 4.70/kWh

Rs. 145/ Connection

Rs. 5.10/kWh

Rs. 145/ Connection

Rs. 4.90/kWh

(iv) Above 400 Units/Month Rs. 220/ Connection

Rs. 5.40/kWh

Rs. 245/ Connection

Rs. 6.05/kWh

Rs. 230/ Connection

Rs. 5.65/kWh

2 Single point bulk supply Rs. 70/kW Rs. 4.25/kWh Rs. 80/kW Rs.

4.75/kWh Rs. 75/kW Rs. 4.40/kWh

6.1.6.2 RTS 1-A: Concessional Snowbound Area Tariff

A comparison of the tariff, i.e. existing, proposed by the Petitioner and that approved by the

Commission, is given in the Table below:



Table 6.5: Concessional Tariff for Snowbound Areas

S. No Description


Fixed Charge (Per Month) Energy Charges Fixed Charge

(Per Month) Energy

Charges Fixed Charge (Per Month) Energy Charges

RTS-1A: Snowbound

1 Domestic Rs. 18/ Connection Rs. 1.61/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs.

1.61/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs. 1.61/kWh

2 Non-Domestic upto 1 kW

Rs. 18/ Connection Rs. 1.61/kWh Rs. 18/

Connection Rs.

1.61/kWh Rs. 18/


3 Non-Domestic above 1 kW &upto 4 kW


Connection Rs.

2.36/kWh Rs. 18/


4 Non-Domestic above 4 kW


Connection Rs.

3.51/kWh Rs. 30/


6.1.7 RTS-2: Non-Domestic Tariff

For Non-domestic consumers, the Commission has marginally increased the energy charges

and fixed charges to enable the licensee to recover its fixed cost and revenue gap. The Commission

has separately specified the tariff for concessional sub-category of educational institutions, hospitals

and charitable institutions, which shall include:

• Government/Municipal Hospitals;

• Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions; and

• Charitable Institutions registered under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and

whose income is exempted from tax under this Act.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Table below:



Table 6.6: Tariff for Non Domestic

S. No. Description


Fixed / Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

1 Government, Educational Institutions and Hospitals etc. 1.1 Upto 10 kW Rs. 60/ kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh Rs. 70/ kW Rs 4.95/ kWh Rs. 65/ kW Rs. 4.50/ kWh

1.2 Above 10 kW & upto 25 kW Rs. 60/ kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh Rs. 80/ kVA Rs 4.60/ kVAh Rs. 65/ kW Rs. 4.50/ kWh

1.3 Above 25 kW Rs. 70/ kVA Rs. 4.05/ kVAh Rs. 80/ kVA Rs. 4.60/kVAh Rs. 75/ kVA Rs. 4.25/ kVAh 2 Other Non-Domestic Users

2.1 Upto 4 kW and

consumption upto 50 units per month

Rs. 65 / kW Rs. 4.55/ kWh Rs. 70 / kW Rs. 5.00/ kWh Rs. 70 / kW Rs. 4.70/ kWh

2.2 Others upto 10 kW not covered in 2.1

above Rs. 70 / kW Rs. 5.35/ kWh Rs. 80 / kW Rs. 6.10/ kWh Rs. 75 / kW Rs. 5.60/ kWh

2.2 Above 10 kW and Upto 25 kW Rs. 70 / kW Rs. 5.35/ kWh Rs. 80 / kVA Rs. 6.05/kVAh Rs. 75 / kW Rs. 5.60/ kWh

2.3 Above 25 kW Rs. 70 / kVA Rs. 5.25/ kVAh Rs. 80 / kVA Rs. 6.05/kVAh Rs. 75 / kVA Rs. 5.45/ kVAh

3 Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW Rs. 70 / kVA Rs. 5.15/ kVAh Rs. 80 / kVA Rs. 5.90/kVAh Rs. 75 / kVA Rs. 5.50/ kVAh

4 Independent

Advertisement Hoardings

Rs. 85/ kW Rs. 5.80/kWh Rs. 100/ kW Rs. 6.65/kWh Rs. 90/ kW Rs. 6.10/kWh

6.1.8 RTS-3: Government Public Utilities

The tariff for this category has been approved in such a manner so that the average billing

rate for this category is close to average cost of supply. The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the

licensee and that approved by the Commission is given in the Table below:

Table 6.7: Tariff for Government Public Utilities

Description


Fixed / Demand Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

Urban (Metered) Rs. 60/kVA Rs. 4.85/ kVAh Rs. 70/kVA Rs. 5.60/ kVAh Rs. 60/kVA Rs. 5.20/ kVAh

Rural (Metered ) Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 4.85/ kVAh Rs. 60/kVA Rs. 5.60/ kVAh Rs. 50/kVA Rs. 5.20/ kVAh

6.1.9 RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/Pump Setsand Agriculture Allied Activities

The Commission in order to gradually reduce the cross subsidy in this category has

increased the energy charge from Rs 1.84/kWh to Rs 1.95/kWh for this category of consumers.



The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission are

given in the Table below:

Table 6.8: Tariff for Private tube Wells/ Pump Sets

Category

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved Fixed/ Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed/ Demand Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed/ Demand Charges (Per

Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-4: Private Tube-wells / Pumping sets

Metered Nil Rs. 1.84/ kWh Nil Rs. 2.10/

kWh Nil Rs. 1.95/ kWh

RTS-: 4A: Agriculture Allied Activities

Metered Nil Rs. 1.84/ kWh Nil Rs. 2.10/

kWh Nil Rs. 1.95/ kWh

6.1.10 RTS-5: Industry

The Commission while determining the tariff of HT and LT Industries has taken into

consideration the average cost of supply and cross subsidy.

Further, as discussed above, the Commission has decided to retain the peak hour rate as 50%

higher than the normal hour rate applicable for highest slab, i.e. with load factor above 40% for all

the HT industrial consumers and retain the off peak hour rebate as 15%. Further, consumers opting

for continuous supply as per eligibility given in this Order shall have to pay 10% additional energy

charges as continuous supply surcharge only on energy supply made by UPCL, i.e. the surcharge

will not be applicable if power is sourced through open access. Further, as discussed earlier the

MCG for this category has been abolished.

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission for

LT Industry is given in the Table below:

Table 6.9: Tariff for LT Industry

Category


Fixed Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed Charges (Per Month) Energy Charges

RTS-5: Industry LT Industry 1. LT Industries (upto 10 kW) Rs. 145/ kW Rs. 4.25/ kWh Rs. 165/ kW Rs. 4.85/ kWh Rs. 145/ kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

2 LT Industries (Above 10 kW and upto 25 kW)

Rs. 145/ kW Rs. 4.25/ kWh Rs. 165/ kVA Rs. 4.45/ kVAh Rs. 145/ kW Rs. 4.35/ kWh

3. LT Industries (above 25kW & upto 75 kW)

Rs. 145/ kVA Rs. 3.90/ kVAh Rs. 165/ kVA Rs. 4.45/ kVAh Rs. 145/ kVA Rs. 4.00/ kVAh



The existing tariff and tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission

for HT Industry is given in the Table below:

Table 6.10: Existing, Proposed and Approved Tariff for HT Industries

S. No. Category Load Factor

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved Tariff

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)

Fixed /Demand Charges

(Rs./kVA)

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)


(Rs./kVA)

Energy Charges

(Rs./kVAh)


(Rs./kVA)

1 HT Industry having contracted load above 88kVA/75 kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.85 Rs. 295/kVA of the billable

demand

4.46 Rs. 340/kVA of the

billable demand

3.95 Rs. 300/kVA of the billable

demand Above 40% 4.20 4.86 4.35

1.2

Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA

Upto 40% 3.85 Rs. 355/kVA of the billable

demand

4.46 Rs. 410/kVA of the

billable demand

3.95 Rs. 360/kVA of the billable

demand Above 40% 4.20 4.86 4.35

6.1.10.1 RTS-6: Mixed Load

The Commission has increased the tariff for this category to reduce the level of cross

subsidy. The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in the Table below:

Table 6.11: Tariff for Mixed Load

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Approved Tariff Fixed /

Demand Charges

Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand Charges

Per Month)

Energy Charges

Fixed / Demand Charges

(Per Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-6: Mixed Load Mixed Load Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW including MES as deemed licensee

Rs. 75/kW Rs. 4.80/kWh Rs. 85/kW Rs. 5.50/kWh Rs. 80/kW Rs. 5.05/kWh

6.1.11 RTS-7: Railway Traction

The existing tariff, tariff proposed by the licensee and that approved by the Commission is

given in Table below:



Table 6.12: Tariff for Railway Traction

Description

Existing Tariff UPCL Proposed Tariff Tariff Design Fixed / Demand

Charges (Per Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges


Month)

Energy Charges

RTS-7: Railway Traction Rs. 245/kVA Rs. 4.35/

kVAh Rs. 280/kVA Rs. 5.00/ kVAh Rs. 250/kVA Rs. 4.40/

kVAh

6.2 Revenue for FY 2019-20

Considering the revised tariffs, the Commission has computed the projected revenue at the

approved tariffs from each category for FY 2019-20. The summary of category-wise projected

revenue for FY 2019-20 is given in the following Table:

Table 6.13: Summary of Category Wise Projected Revenue

S. No. Category Sales Revenue

Average Billing Rate

(ABR) MU Rs. Crore Rs./Unit

1. RTS-1: Domestic 3137.38 1328.67 4.23 2. RTS-2: Non Domestic 1325.79 808.34 6.10 3. RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 639.13 348.52 5.45 4. RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 282.91 55.17 1.95 5. RTS-5: Industry LT Industry 315.03 181.50 5.76 HT Industry 6445.84 3734.76 5.79

6. RTS-6: Mixed Load 185.46 99.30 5.35 7 RTS-7: Railway Traction 30.08 17.01 5.65 8. Additional Sales (Efficiency improvement) 36.21 19.25 5.32

Total 12397.83 6592.52 5.32

The estimated revenue for FY 2019-20 at approved tariffs works out to Rs. 6592.52 Crore, as

against the net ARR of Rs. 6549.39 Crore worked out after adjusting trued-up surplus/gaps of

previous years leaving a surplus of Rs. 43.13 Crore with UPCL. The Commission has left some

surplus while designing the tariffs as the exact impact of all the tariff rationalisation measures

approved by the Commission cannot be estimated at this stage. The Commission will consider the

actual sales and revenue while carrying out the truing up for FY 2019-20.

6.3 Cross Subsidy

As discussed above, the Commission has designed the tariffs for various categories with an

objective of gradually reducing the cross subsidy with respect to average cost of supply. The extent

of category-wise cross-subsidy at approved tariffs computed at average cost of supply is given in



the Table below:

Table 6.14: Cross Subsidy at Average Cost of Supply Category Approved Average

Billing Rate (ABR) Average Cost of Supply (ACoS)

ABR / ACoS Cross Subsidy

Rs./kWh Rs./kWh % % RTS-1: Domestic 4.23 5.28 80.21% -19.79% RTS-2: Non Domestic 6.10 5.28 115.47% 15.47% RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 5.45 5.28 103.28% 3.28% RTS-4: Private Tube Wells 1.95 5.28 36.93% -63.07% RTS-5: Industry LT Industry 5.76 5.28 109.11% 9.11% HT Industry 5.79 5.28 109.74% 9.74% RTS-6: Mixed Load 5.35 5.28 101.41% 1.41% RTS-7: Railway Traction 5.65 5.28 107.07% 7.07%

The comparison of Cross Subsidy at approved tariffs with respect to the average cost of

supply in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 and as approved in this Tariff Order for FY 2019-20 is given

below:

Table 6.15: Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariffs in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20

Category Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariff for FY 2018-19

Cross Subsidy at Approved Tariff for FY 2019-20

RTS-1: Domestic -19.84% -19.79% RTS-2: Non Domestic 15.63% 15.47% RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities 4.61% 3.28% RTS-4: Private Tube Wells -63.55% -63.07% RTS-5: Industry LT Industry 9.17% 9.11% HT Industry 9.78% 9.74% RTS-6: Mixed Load 1.42% 1.41% RTS-7: Railway Traction 7.02% 7.07%

The Commission while designing the tariffs for FY 2019-20 has reduced the cross subsidies

for most of the categories with respect to approved tariffs for FY 2018-19 and has ensured to bring

the cross-subsidy levels within the range specified in the National Tariff Policy.

Further, it can be seen from the Table above, cross-subsidies of all the subsidising consumers

is within the range of 120% as required in the Tariff Policy.

Further, once the cross-subsidy level has been reduced to be within +20%, there is no

mandate under the Act or Tariff Policy to reduce it further. The criteria of ± 20 % of the average cost

of supply for all the categories including subsidised categories depends upon the consumption mix



of the Licensee. However, in case of the Petitioner, the consumption mix is skewed towards

subsidising categories having almost two third of total sales, while the consumption by subsidised

categories is around one third of the total consumption. Therefore, in case of Petitioner, though the

tariff for all the subsidising categories have been within 120% of the overall average cost of supply

of the Petitioner, the average tariff for some of the subsidised categories is less than 80% of the

overall average cost of supply of the Petitioner.

Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity, in its Judgment dated February 28, 2012, in

Appeal No. 159 of 2011 has expressed similar views. The relevant extract given in Para 16 of the

Judgment is reproduced as under:

“... Provision of restricting cross subsidy to +/- 20% in Tariff Policy is applicable to areas where

proportion of both the categories, subsidizing and subsidized, are comparable. The same yard stick

cannot be applied in areas where consumer mix is highly biased in favour on one category.”

6.4 Open Access Charges

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra State Open

Access) Regulations, 2015 inter-alia specify wheeling charges applicable on the customers seeking

open access through distribution system, based on the category/nature of open access these

customers come under in accordance with the Regulations.

In this regard, Regulation 20(2) specifies as under:

“Wheeling charges payable to distribution licensee, by an open access customer for usage of its system

shall be as determined as under:

Wheeling Charges = (ARR–PPC–TC) /(PLSD X365) ( Rs./MW/Day)

Where,

ARR=Annual Revenue Requirement of the distribution licensee for the relevant year

PPC= Total Power Purchase Cost of distribution licensee for the relevant year

TC = Total transmission charges paid by distribution licensee for State and Inter-State

transmission system for the relevant year

PLSD= Total Peak load served by the concerned distribution system for the previous year



Provided where Open Access is allowed up to contracted load, embedded open access consumer shall

pay wheeling charges as determined by the Commission in the following

manner:

WC Embedded consumer = WC – [FC*0.85*12*1000/365] (in Rs./MW/day)

Where,

WC Embedded consumer = Net wheeling charges for embedded consumers

WC= Wheeling charges as determined by the Commission in accordance with the methodology

specified in Regulation 20(2) contained in Chapter 5 of these regulations.

FC= Fixed/demand charges in Rs/kVA/month as per rate schedule approved in the Tariff Order for

the relevant year. For the purpose of conversion of kVA into kW power factor of 0.85 has been taken.

Note: In case Wheeling Charges for Embedded consumer worked out as above becomes negative, such

charge shall be zero.

Provided that wheeling charges shall be payable on the basis of Approved Capacity.

Provided where open access is allowed beyond the contracted load, embedded open access consumer

shall pay wheeling charges for the excess load as determined by the Commission in the following

manner:

WC For excess load allowed= (ARR–PPC–TC) /(PLSD X365) (Rs./MW/Day)”

Thus, as can be seen from the above reading of the Regulations wheeling charges for the

open access consumers shall be determined as under:

Wheeling Charges = (ARR–PPC–TC) /(PLSD X365) ( Rs./MW/Day)

ARR as approved by the Commission in the Table 5.25 is Rs. 7104.70 Crore and after

excluding the power purchase cost and Transmission Charges, the net amount works out to Rs.

927.87 Crore.

The PLSD during FY 2018-19 is 2216 MW.

Hence, in accordance with the methodology provided in the aforesaid Regulations, the

wheeling charges payable by customers seeking open access for FY 2019-20 (applicable upto 31st

March, 2020) shall be:



Table 6.16: Wheeling Charges approved for FY 2019-20 Description Rs./MW/day

Wheeling Charges 11472.00

“Embedded open access consumers” who have been allowed open access up to the

contracted load shall not pay the wheeling charge as above who shall otherwise pay net wheeling

charges calculated in accordance with the methodology specified in the regulations and the same

works out to Rs. 1411/MW/day for HT industry consumers having contracted load above 1000

kVA and Rs. 3088/MW/day for HT industry consumers having contracted load upto 1000 kVA.

Non-Domestic consumers shall pay wheeling charges of Rs. 9376/MW/day. Moreover, “embedded

open access consumers” who have been allowed open access beyond the contracted load shall pay

wheeling charges for the excess load equal to Rs. 11472/MW/day. However, where a dedicated

distribution system for open access has been constructed for exclusive use of an open access

customer, the wheeling charges for such dedicated system shall be worked out by the distribution

licensee for its respective system and shall get it approved by the Commission and will be borne

entirely by such open access customer till such time the surplus capacity is allotted and used by

other open access customers, where after, the cost of the above system will be shared on pro-rata

basis depending upon open access capacity allotted to them. Provided that wheeling charges shall

not be levied on the open access customers connected to the transmission system at 132 kV and

above voltage levels. The distribution losses applicable to open access customers for FY 2019-20

shall be the pooled average system distribution losses, i.e. 14.25% considered in this Order. Cross

subsidy surcharge applicable, in accordance with the Regulations, to open access customers for FY

2019-20 have been determined as Rs. 0.51/kWh for HT industrial consumers and Rs. 0.82/kWh for

non-domestic consumers.

The Petitioner is hereby directed that the wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharge

recovered from open access customers shall be shown separately under the separate head of

income in its ARR/Tariff filings.

The Petitioner in its Petition had submitted that the consumers shifting to open access

impact the power off take of the utility from the generating stations. Such consumers should be

liable to pay an additional surcharge to meet the fixed cost of the distribution licensee arising from

the obligation to supply. Absence of suitable additional surcharge levied to the open access

consumer would result in undue burdening on the other licensee consumers. Therefore, the



Petitioner requested the Commission to propose an appropriate methodology for determining the

additional surcharge for FY 2019-20.

In this regard, the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 for FY 2018-19 had

already held as under:

“The Commission, had pointed out deficiencies in the submissions made by UPCL with reference to

calculation of additional surcharge. During the Meeting of Advisory Committee, submitted that they

have proposed an additional surcharge of Rs. 1.42 per kWh based on the average fixed cost of the total

power purchase and the issue of levying additional surcharge would be examined in accordance with

the provisions of the Regulations and also the practices being followed in other States and modify its

proposal accordingly. However, no revised proposal has been submitted till date.

The Commission accordingly, advises the Petitioner to submit a fresh Petition, if required, in

accordance with the Regulations clearly demonstrating that some power remained stranded due to

open access consumers.”

Thus, the Commission has already suggested the methodology to the Petitioner in its

previous Tariff Order. Further, Regulation 23 of UERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra State Open

Access) Regulations, 2015 also specifies that the additional surcharge shall become applicable only if

the obligation of the licensee in terms of power purchase commitments has been and continues to be

stranded or there is an unavoidable obligation and incidence to bear fixed costs consequent to such

a contract. Thus, the licensee has to demonstrate clearly that some power remained stranded due to

open access consumers.


7. Review of Commercial Performance of UPCL

7.1 General

Uttarakhand, the 27th State of India was created on 09.11.2000 as the 10th Himalayan State of

the country blessed with abundant natural resources with an approx. 53,483 sq. km area and

presently having a population of approximately 103.93 Lakh. The Electricity Distribution Network

is managed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) the sole distribution licensee in the

State. UPCL was entrusted to cater to the Transmission & Distribution Sector inherited after the de-

merger from UPPCL (erstwhile UPSEB) since 01.04.2001. The Electricity Act, 2003 mandated the

separation of Transmission functions under Power Sector Reforms. Consequently, on 01.06.2004, the

Power Transmission Corporation Limited (PTCUL) was formed to maintain & operate EHV

Transmission lines & substations in the State.

Today UPCL, the sole power distribution utility in the State caters to the sub–transmission &

distribution network which includes substations & distribution lines in 13 districts of Uttarakhand

namely Dehradun, Pauri, Tehri, Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag, Chamoli, Haridwar, Pithoragarh,

Bageshwar, Almora, Nainital, Champawat, & Udhamsingh Nagar, details of which are given below

in Table 7.1 & 7.2.

Table 7.1: Detail of Substations (S/s) maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2018 S.

No. Name of District 66/11 KV S/s 33/11 KV S/s 11/0.415 KV S/s

Nos. No. of Transformers

Total MVA capacity Nos. No. of

Transformers Total MVA

capacity Nos. Total MVA capacity

Garhwal Zone 1. Dehradun 62 122 938.50 7350 718.54 2. Uttarkhashi 11 20 78..15 1608 73.41 3. Pauri 31 51 218.15 5816 793.51 4. Tehri 14 27 128.00 3814 149.90 5. Chamoli 3 5 38 16 21 97 2093 77.23 6. Rudraprayag 7 9 39 1775 57.06

Total Garhwal Zone 3 5 38 141 250 1498.80 22456 1869.64 Haridwar Zone

7. Haridwar 1 2 30 58 125 1111 17278 1070.28 Total Haridwar Zone 1 2 30 58 125 1111 17278 1070.28 Kumaon Zone

8. Nainital 28 50 357.50 5666 505.62

9. U.S.Nagar (Kashipur, Bazpur Jaspur) 23 49 352.50 6448 368.96

10. Almora 26 44 150.00 4195 152.36 11. Bageshwar 9 13 42.5 1734 56.47

Total Kumaon Zone 0 0 0 86 156 902.5 18043 1083.40 Rudrapur Zone

12. U.S.Nagar (Rudrapur, Sitarganj) 32 67 595 8410 503.18

13. Pithoragarh 18 29 130.5 3515 118.76 14. Champawat 7 11 45 1498 49.77

Total Rudrapur Zone 0 0 0 57 107 770.5 13423 671.71 Total UPCL 4 7 68 342 638 4282.8 71200 4695.02



Table 7.2: Detail of Lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2018 S.No. Name of District 66 KV Line

(In Km.) 33 KV Line

(In Km.) 11 KV Line

(In Km.) LT Line (In Km.)

Garhwal Zone 1. Dehradun 752.15 4594.26 11109.48* 2. Uttarkhashi 285.30 2053.93 2122.88 3. Pauri 606.47 5260.55 8109.36 4. Tehri 364.00 4141.84 6453.39 5. Chamoli 121 267.34 2389.11 3062.92 6. Rudraprayag 136.19 1257.73 1769.55

Total Garhwal Zone 121 2411.45 19697.42 32627.58 Haridwar Zone

7. Haridwar 0.6 581.52 4260.43 6116.54.41 Total Haridwar Zone 0.6 581.52 4260.43 6116.54 Kumaon Zone

8. Nainital 0 386.86 2863.33 4557.47

9. U.S.Nagar (Kashipur, Bazpur Jaspur) 0 265.37 1669.88 1850.99

10. Almora 0 545.65 4790.77 7251.38 11. Bageshwar 0 185.78 1670.10 2205.00

Total Kumaon Zone 0 1383.67 10994.07 15864.84 Rudrapur Zone

12. U.S.Nagar (Rudrapur, Sitarganj) 373.90 2310.16 2837.08

13. Pithoragarh 68.5* 280.65 3106.10 3763.01 14. Champawat 141.00 1743.90 2342.80

Total Rudrapur Zone 68.5 795.55 7160.16 8942.89 Total UPCL 190.1 5172.19 42112.10 63551.84

* Charged at 33 kV

On examination of the details of sub-stations and lines maintained by UPCL as on 31.12.2018

vis-a-vis as on 31.12.2017, it has been observed that UPCL was able to increase its total

transformation/sub-station capacity and total line length by 878 MVA and 3,458 kms. respectively

in last one year as detailed below:

Table 7.3: Increase in Assets of UPCL in last one year (31.12.17 to 31.12.2018) Description 33 kV 11 kV LT Total

Substation Capacity as on 31.12.2018 (in MVA) 4283 4695 - 9046 Substation Capacity as on 31.12.2017 (in MVA) 4048 4081 - 8167 Net increase in Substation Capacity (in MVA) 234 614 - 878 Line length as on 31.12.2018(in Km) 5172 42112 63552 111026 Line length as on 31.12.2017(in Km) 5001 39123* 63254 107568 Net increase in Line length (in Km) 171 2989 298 3458

*The length 11 KV network has been considered as on 31.12.2016, 11 KV line length data as on 31.12.2017 for District-Dehradun was incorrectly reported by UPCL .

The Distribution network of UPCL as on 31.12.2018 contains four Zones namely Garhwal,

Haridwar, Kumaon & Rudrapur having total eleven Circles containing 43 Divisions. The new

divisions which has been formed in FY 2018-19 upto 31.12.2018 are Gairsain & Barkot. The State has

a distinct advantage over other comparable States as a small number of consumers consume major



share of power for which a Key Consumer Cell (KCC) has been constituted. Hence, a large portion

of revenue of the Petitioner comes from these KCC consumers. There were 20.94 Lakh consumers as

on 31.03.2017 and 22.25 Lakh consumers as on 31.03.2018. This increase of total 1,30,837 consumers

during the year was primarily in Domestic category (86.2%). The Consumer Mix, Consumption

pattern & Revenue pattern for FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 are elaborated below:

7.1.1 Consumer Mix during FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18

In FY 2016-17, out of the total approximately 20.94 Lakh consumers in the State, there were

87.29%-Domestic consumers, 10.46%-Non-Domestic consumers and only 0.58% consumers of the

Industrial category. It is seen that these industrial (HT+LT Industries) consumers accounted for

around 54.92% of the total consumption of the State and contributed to about 61.76% of Petitioner’s

revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumer mix in the State during FY 2016-17.

CHART 1: Consumer Mix (FY 2016-17)

In FY 2017-18, out of the total approximately 22.25 Lakh consumers in the State, there were

87.23%-Domestic consumers, 10.53%-Non-Domestic consumers and only 0.56% consumers of the

Industrial category. It is seen that these industrial (HT+LT Industries) consumers accounted for

around 54.96% of the total consumption of the State and contributed to about 61.21% of Petitioner’s

revenue. The following Chart depicts the consumer mix in the State during FY 2017-18.



CHART 2: Consumer Mix (FY 2017-18)

7.1.2 Consumption Pattern during FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18

In FY 2016-17, it was observed that with respect to total consumption of the State, the

consumption of Industrial consumers (HT+LT Industries) was 54.92% and for Domestic & Non-

Domestic consumers the consumption was 23.51% & 11.10% respectively. The following Chart

shows the consumption pattern in the State during FY 2016-17.

CHART 3: Consumption Pattern during FY 2016-17

In FY 2017-18, it was observed that with respect to total consumption of the State, the

consumption of Industrial consumers (HT+LT Industries) was 54.96% and for Domestic & Non-

Domestic consumers the consumption was 24.46% & 11.00% respectively. The following Chart

shows the consumption pattern in the State during FY 2017-18.



CHART 4: Consumption Pattern during FY 2017-18

Comparison of consumption pattern in FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 depicts that %age share of

Industrial consumption has slightly increased by 0.04%, whereas, %age share of domestic

consumption has increased by 0.95% and the %age share of non-domestic consumption has

decreased by 0.10%.

With regard to the slight increase in energy consumption of Industrial consumers, the

Commission has observed that as industries are subsidising consumers and any reduction in

revenue from industries would affect the commercial viability of distribution business, therefore,

the Petitioner should ensure the quality and reliability of power supply at competitive rates to its

consumers otherwise the consumers would be utilising the option of Open Access for meeting its

demand at market rates from the Power Exchanges. The quantum of power traded through

exchanges (Open Access) by the embedded Open Access consumers is increasing year on year as

detailed in Table below:

Table 7.4: Quantum of Power Traded through Open Access Year Quantum (MU)

FY 2011-12 10.34 FY 2012-13 100.93 FY 2013-14 281.03 FY 2014-15 181.37 FY 2015-16 274.52 FY 2016-17 385.81 FY 2017-18 440.37



7.1.3 Revenue Pattern during FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18

With regard to the revenue from sale of energy during FY 2016-17, the contribution of

Industrial consumers was 61.76% [HT Industrial consumers was 58.55%, LT industrial consumers

was 3.21%] whereas Domestic consumers and Non-domestic consumers were contributing around

16.60% & 12.52% respectively. The following Chart shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer

categories in the State.

CHART 5: Revenue Mix in FY 2016-17

With regard to the revenue from sale of energy during FY 2017-18, the contribution of

Industrial consumers was 61.21% [HT Industrial consumers was 58.09%, LT industrial consumers

was 3.12%] whereas Domestic consumers Non-domestic consumers were contributing around

17.83% & 12.41% respectively. The following Chart shows the Revenue Pattern of various consumer

categories in the State.

CHART 6: Revenue Mix in FY 2017-18



On comparing the revenue pattern of FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, it is noticed that the %age

revenue share of Industrial Consumers & Non-domestic consumers with respect to the total

revenue had decreased by 0.55% & 0.12% respectively. This is an alarming signal that %age revenue

from the subsidising category of consumers, i.e. Industrial & Non-domestic consumers has slightly

decreased in FY 2017-18.

7.2 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Commercial Performance

The Commission has been monitoring & reviewing the performance of the Petitioner based

on the information/reports submitted by it. Infact, higher distribution losses in distribution system

are detrimental to financial and commercial viability of the Petitioner. Therefore, analysis of

Petitioner’s performance especially in respect of metering, billing and revenue collection is vital

with the focus on reducing the Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) losses of the

Petitioner. The Commission from its very first Tariff Order has been issuing various

directions/Orders in this regard from time to time. However, the Petitioner has not been complying

with all the directions fully. The Commission had, therefore, decided to monitor the commercial

performance of the Petitioner in a more structured manner on a monthly basis and, accordingly,

various formats were issued to the Petitioner vide Commission’s letter UERC/7/CL/152/2008-

09/284 dated 17.05.2012 with the direction to submit the above information in these Formats

regularly for each month by 15th day of the next month.

Despite, the specific directions issued by the Commission in its previous Tariff Orders, the

Petitioner had neither been submitting the periodical reports timely nor in accordance with the

prescribed formats.

Considering the fact that the Petitioner encompasses 35 number of Distribution Divisions in

the State, the Commission felt the need to monitor UPCL on Distribution Division basis and to

quantify the improvement on month on month basis of any of the performance indicators, it would

be necessary that Division-wise targets on each parameter be provided by the licensee which would

make the whole monitoring process more meaningful. Hence, the Commission vide its letter no.

UERC/5/Tech/112/2014-15/1622 dated 27.11.2014 issued following revised Commercial

Performance Monitoring formats directing UPCL to submit information on such formats in hard as

well as in soft copy (MS-excel file in CD) on regular basis latest by 25th day of the next month from

January, 2015 onwards.



Table 7.5: Revised Formats prescribed by the Commission vide letter dated 27.11.2014

S. No. Description Format 1. No. of Consumers 1 2. Quarterly Targets of NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF 2 3. Status of Not Accessible (NA) Consumers (in Percentage) 2(A) 4. Status of Not Read (NR) Consumers (in Percentage) 2(B) 5. Status of Identified Defective Meters (IDF) (in Percentage) 2(C) 6. Status of Appeared Defective Meters (ADF) (in Percentage) 2(D) 7. Status of Reading Defective Meters (RDF) (in Percentage) 2(E)

8. Quarterly Targets of IDF Meters/Mechanical Meters/Un-metered Consumers/Ghost Consumers 3

9. Status of Identified Defective Meters (IDF) 3(A) 10. Status of Un-metered Consumers 3(B) 11. Status of Mechanical Meters 3(C) 12. Status of Ghost Consumers 3(D) 13. Status of Not Billed (NB)/Stop Billed (SB) Cases 4 14. Status of Outstanding Arrears 5 15. MRI Status of KCC Consumers 6 16. Status of Revenue realisation per unit of Energy Sold 7 17. Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL 8

However, the Commission has observed that the Distribution Licensee has been inconsistent

in furnishing the Commercial Performance Monitoring reports on the aforesaid formats in hard as

well as in soft copy (MS-excel file in CD) on regular basis in accordance with the directions, i.e.

latest by 25th day of the next month.

The Commission has observed that the Petitioner has not only been inconsistent in

furnishing the Commercial Performance Monitoring reports within the stipulated time frame but

also has failed to submit Format - 2 & Format- 3 alongwith the report of the first month of the

Financial Year, i.e. alongwith the report of April, 2018. The Commission has observed that despite

categorically mentioned in the guidelines of the prescribed Formats regarding submission of

Quarterly Targets in the first month of the Financial Year, i.e. April, 2018, the Petitioner submitted

the Quarterly Targets in Format-2 & Format-3 to the Commission vide its letter no. 3015 dt.

02.08.2018.

The Commission is of the view that the basic purpose of advance target setting for each

quarter is to enable analysis of actual performance vis-a-vis target performance of the licensee. In

the absence of advance target setting, comparative analysis is rendered impossible which clearly

shows a lackadaisical approach of the Petitioner towards compliance of the provisions of the

Act/Regulations and directions of the Commission.



Therefore, the Commission again directs Petitioner to submit monthly Commercial

Performance Monitoring reports strictly in the prescribed formats on regular basis, so as to reach

the Commission latest by 25th day of the following month and without fail furnish the Quarterly

Targets as per prescribed Format - 2 & 3 alongwith the Commercial Performance Monitoring

report for the month of April, 2019.

The Commission’s analysis on the information submitted by the Petitioner for the period

01.04.2018 to 31.12.2018 through its various submissions is being discussed in the following

paragraphs:

7.2.1 Metering

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been repeatedly giving directions to the

Petitioner to energise new connections with the static/electronic meters and to replace all old

mechanical meters with new electronic/static meters in accordance with CEA Regulations.

However, the Commission has observed Petitioner’s lackadaisical approach in furnishing

correct report in this regard before the Commission in the prescribed formats. The reports

pertaining to various performance parameters on metering and other issues have been analysed and

findings thereof are being discussed below:

7.2.1.1 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018, had issued directions to the

Petitioner to reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2% in the entire State latest by

30.09.2018, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer

(Distribution), Executive Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held

responsible for non-compliance of the Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the

Act/Rules/ Regulations may be initiated.

UPCL in compliance of directives has submitted that UPCL vide its letter No. 1324 dated

04.04.2018 has directed all its field officers to reduce the %age NA/NR cases to below 2% latest by

30.09.2018 and has informed that subsequently in a review meeting its Managing Director has

directed the field officers to achieve the level of NA/NR cases to below 2% latest by 30.09.2018.



However, on examination of the Quarterly Targets submitted by UPCL in Format-2, it is

observed that the target set for NA/NR cases at the end of 2nd quarter of FY 2018-19 was 2% each

for NA and NR cases. It is observed that the Petitioner has targeted reduction of NA/NR as two

separate cases, whereas, the Commission has set NA/NR as one single case. Therefore, the

Commission is of the opinion that the Petitioner has not only failed in complying with the directions

of the Commission but also has failed to set the targets for the same in accordance with directions of

Commission. Hence, the Commission is of the view that the Petitioner indeed requires

improvement at division level in order to reduce provisional billing cases and aim for achievement

of overall target set for NA/NR cases in the State in accordance with the Orders of the Commission.

Hence, UPCL is required to diligently monitor & pursue each Distribution Division rigorously so as

to align its actual percentage of NA/NR billing with the targets in accordance with the

Commission’s Orders/directions.

The Commission has observed that the percentage of provisional billing cases namely

NA/NR, RDF/ADF/IDF, furnished in prescribed formats 2(A), 2(B), 2(C), 2(D) & 2(E) for FY 2018-

19 are still at alarmingly high levels vis-a-vis total number of billed consumers as shown in the

Table given below:

Table 7.6: Status of Provisional Billing viz. NA/NR/IDF/ADF/RDF Status As on 31st

March 2014 As on 31st




March 2018 As on 31st Dec 2018

NA (%) 3.3 4.09 3.19 3.27 3.54 3.25 NR (%) 5.7 4.79 2.85 2.10 4.64 5.98 IDF (%) 8.6 7.59 6.22 4.94 3.37 4.54 ADF (%) 0.5 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RDF (%) 1.0 1.62 1.34 1.02 0.98 1.51 Total (%) 19.2 18.44 13.6 11.33 12.53 15.28 Total Billed Consumers Nos. 16,64,159 17,42,507 18,15,454 19,15,855 20,24,578 21,27,651

From the above Table, it is observed that there has been an increase in total percentage of

NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF cases in FY 2018-19 (upto 31.12.2018) which is not at all close to the

directions/provisions of the SOP Regulations issued by the Commission. The total provisional

billing cases should be within 3% of the total number of consumers of the licensee, whereas as per

the Table above, the IDF cases itself are 4.54% which is one of the constituents of provisional billing

basis and constitute only a portion of such billing basis, therefore, it can be said that the Petitioner



has to put in concerted efforts to bring the overall provisional billing percentage to within 3% of the

total number of consumers in plain as well as hill areas of the State.

On further examination of Quarterly Targets furnished by UPCL vis-a-vis actual progress

made in the field as on 31.12.2018, it has been observed that UPCL was not able to comply with the

directions of the Commission to bring NA/NR cases below 2% in the entire State by 30.09.2018, but

has also failed to achieve its own Quarterly Targets by the end of 2nd Quarter of FY 2018-19. In only

1 division namely Haldwani (R), the Petitioner was able to comply with the directions of the

Commission for bringing NA/NR cases below 2% by 31.12.2018, this shows that the Petitioner has

conducted in a lackadaisical manner in reducing NA/NR cases despite specific Orders/directions

of the Commission.

The Commission is of the view that despite numerous directions issued to the Petitioner for

reducing and bringing the provisional billing cases within 3%, the Provisional billing cases are still

15.28% as on 31.12.2018. Moreover, NA/NR cases alone are around 9.23% which reflects abysmal

performance of the Petitioner in bringing down the provisional billing percentage in the State.

Therefore, giving last opportunity to the licensee, the Commission again directs the Petitioner to

reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2% in the entire State latest by 30.09.2019, failing

which the concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution),

Executive Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-

compliance of the Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/

Regulations would be initiated. The Commission directs Company Secretary of UPCL to issue a

copy of these directions to concerned officers, as mentioned hereinabove, for information and

necessary compliance.

7.2.2 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective meters (referred

to as Identified defective meters (IDF))

In this regard, the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the

Petitioner to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to 3% in plain as well as in hilly areas of the

State upto 30.09.2018, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending

Engineer (Distribution), Executive Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held

responsible for non-compliance of the Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the

Act/Rules/Regulations may be initiated.



UPCL in its compliance of directives has submitted that UPCL vide its letter No. 1325 dated

04.04.2018 has directed all its field officers to reduce the %age IDF cases to below 3% latest by

30.09.2018 and subsequently in a review meeting the Managing Director has directed the field

officers to achieve the level of IDF cases with in stipulated time.

On examination of the Quarterly Targets submitted by UPCL in Format-2, it is observed that

the target set for IDF cases at the end of 2nd quarter of FY 2018-19 was 3% which shows that the

Petitioner has not only failed in achieving its own targets but has also failed in complying with the

directions of the Commission issued in the Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018. Taking a strong exception,

the Commission is of the view that the Petitioner indeed requires improvement at division level in

order to reduce provisional billing cases and aim for achievement of overall target set for IDF cases

in the State in accordance with the Orders of the Commission.

Circle-wise number of defective meters reported by the Petitioner in the prescribed format

3(A) is shown in the Table given below:

From the above Table, it can be seen that the number of defective meter has increased by

28,309 in FY 2018-19 (upto 31.12.2018) which shows that the activity of replacement of defective

meters was not taken seriously at the Petitioner’s end due to which as on 31.12.2018 the percentage

defective meters in UPCL’s network were 4.54 % of the total number of billed consumers, i.e.

21,27,651 as on the aforesaid date.

Table 7.7: Status of Defective Meters

S. No. Name of Circle

No. of Defective

Meters as on 31.03.2015

No. of Defective


No. of Defective


No. of Defective


No. of Defective


% of Defective


1. EDC Dehradun (R) 17263 5868 5094 3926 6254 2.50% 2. EDC Roorkee 11048 7366 6668 4604 13081 6.79% 3. EDC Haridwar 7217 4552 3480 2237 10607 6.20% 4. EDC Srinagar 43236 34056 27986 20807 18452 5.80% 5. EDC Dehradun 551 770 809 565 1966 1.03% 6. EDC Kashipur 1947 996 1064 839 9878 7.52% 7. EDC Rudrapur 12293 7290 6320 5223 9495 4.62% 8. EDC Ranikhet 30095 12434 14059 11608 9879 5.33% 9. EDC Haldwani 8641 6246 4044 2361 4956 2.28%

10. EDC Tehri - 16366 12666 8019 6620 5.53% 11. EDC Pithoragarh - 16963 12494 8057 5367 3.71%

Total 132291 112907 94684 68246 96555 4.54%



It is observed that the Petitioner has failed to comply with the directions of the Commission

as the total percentage of defective meters as on 30.09.2018 was 3.94% which is more than the

targeted 3% IDF cases as directed by the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018.

It is an admitted fact that by expeditious replacement of defective meters on the basis of well

laid down defective meter replacement programme, the Petitioner will not only be able to control

this menace but will also comply with the provisions of SOP Regulations.

Moreover, on examination of actual progress made in the field as on 30.09.2018, it has been

observed that in only 23 divisions out of 43 divisions in the State as on 30.09.2018, the Petitioner was

able to achieve actual IDF (%) cases below the target level of 3% IDF cases. However, as on

31.12.2018, instead of improving in other remaining divisions the IDF cases exceeded 3% in 28 out

of 43 divisions. This clearly shows arbitrariness in the meter replacement programme of the

Petitioner.

The Commission is of the view that although there has been an improvement in IDF cases,

but still the overall progress made by the Petitioner does not comply with the directions of the

Commission. Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to

3% in plain as well as in hilly areas of the State by 30.06.2019, failing which the concerned Chief

Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive Engineer

(Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-compliance of the

Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be

initiated. The Commission directs Company Secretary of UPCL to issue a copy of these

directions to concerned officers, as mentioned hereinabove, for information and necessary

compliance.

7.2.2.1 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission vide its Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner to ensure

complete replacement of mechanical meters by electronic meters well before 31.03.2019. From

Format-3, i.e. quarterly targets of mechanical meters it is observed that UPCL had targeted to

replace all the mechanical meters by electronic meters by 31st December 2018.

The status of mechanical meters furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed format 3 (C) is

given below:-



Table 7.8: Status of Mechanical Meters

Status As on 31st

March 2013

As on 31st March 2014





As on 31st Dec 2018

Balance Mechanical Meters to be replaced by Electronic Meters

199730 183005 152560 127074 113499 71382 54576

From the above Table, it is observed that only 16,806 mechanical meters were replaced in FY

2018-19 (upto 31.12.2018) while as per direction of the Commission issued in its Tariff Order dated

21.03.2018, the Petitioner was required to replace all 78,315 mechanical meters (as on 31.12.2017) by

31.03.2019 whereas, still 54576 number of mechanical meters are to be replaced.

It is an established fact that by replacing the mechanical meters with electronic meters, the

Petitioner will not only comply with the prevailing SOP Regulations but will be able to record its

energy supplied more accurately/precisely and, thus, billed energy. Therefore, the Petitioner will

have an incentive in terms of increase in its revenue if it takes all necessary steps for replacing all

remaining mechanical meters including those not covered under R-APDRP/IPDS/DDUGJY funded

schemes in a planned and time-bound program.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner cannot absolve itself from complying with

the provisions of the CEA Regulations on meters and directives issued by the Commission in this

regard from time to time.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to ensure complete replacement of Mechanical

Meters by Electronic Meters well before 30.06.2019, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer

(Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive Engineer (Distribution) shall

be held responsible for non-compliance of the Commission’s directions and appropriate action

under the Act/Rules/ Regulations would be initiated. The Commission directs Company

Secretary of UPCL to issue a copy of these directions to concerned officers, as mentioned

hereinabove, for information and necessary compliance.

7.2.3 Billing

The Commission, vide its earlier Tariff Orders, and various directions issued from time to

time in this regard has been directing the Petitioner to improve its quality of billing, bill distribution

and revenue collection system. It is noted that the Petitioner has made a beginning in this direction

and has developed a system for internet based online view/payment of electricity bill besides bill



payment/collection facility also through Common Service (CSCs) situated across the State for its

consumers which has not only benefitted the consumers of the State but has also improved the

overall billing and bill collection system of the Petitioner. However, the Commission is of the view

that still a majority of consumers are located in remote hilly/rural areas and they may not avail

internet based online facilities, hence, a lot of scope for improvement in billing, bill distribution and

bill collection system is required at the Petitioner’s end for consumers residing in such areas.

7.2.3.1 NB & SB Cases

The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018, had taken a considerate view and had

directed the Petitioner to liquidate and finalise atleast 5% of the NB/SB cases in each quarter and

submit quarterly report before the Commission. In absence of the same, action under the provisions

of Act/Rules/Regulations may be initiated against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner, in its instant Tariff Petition under status of compliance of directives has

submitted that all the field officers have been directed to liquidate and finalize atleast 5% of NB/SB

cases in each quarter. The Petitioner’s submission in the prescribed Format-4 of Commercial

Performance Monitoring Report pertaining to Not Billed (NB) and Stop Billed (SB) is being

presented in the Table given below:

Table 7.9: Status of NB & SB Cases Status As on 03/14 As on 03/15 As on 03/16 As on 03/17 As on 03/18 As on 12/18

No. of NB/SB Cases

NB 139614 144480 152485 166877 160409 159728 SB

From the above Table, it is evident that the no. of NB/SB cases has decreased only by 0.42%

in FY 2018-19 (upto 31.12.2018) w.r.t. the cases in FY 2017-18, which indicates that the Petitioner has

shown least interest in reducing these NB/SB cases. In this regard, the Commission had

categorically directed the Petitioner to liquidate and finalise atleast 5% of such cases in each quarter

whereas, the trend shows no significant improvement which clearly indicates that the Petitioner has

failed to comply with the directions of the Commission.

Therefore, taking a serious note on the continued non-compliance by the Petitioner with

regard to non-liquidation and finalisation of NB/SB cases, the Commission again directs the

Petitioner to liquidate and finalise atleast 5% of the NB/SB cases in each quarter and submit

quarterly report before the Commission. In absence of the same, action under the provisions of

Act/Rules/Regulations may be initiated against the Petitioner.



7.2.3.2 Outstanding Arrears

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner to make

sincere efforts in mobilizing its resources throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a

structured receivable management programme besides taking corrective actions against the

habitual defaulters.

The Petitioner in its instant Tariff Petition under status of compliance of directives has

submitted vide letter dated 17.01.2019 that division-wise action plan has been prepared for recovery

of revenue arrears and for improvement in Collection Efficiency. Further, the Petitioner has

submitted that a separate list related to the Government Departments is prepared, which is as

follows:

Table 7.10: Status of Govt. Arrears submitted by the Petitioner Arrear Amount No. of Defaulters Arrears (Rs. Crore)

Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000 397 1.41 Rs. 50,000 to Rs 1 lakh 278 1.99 Rs. 1 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakh 313 6.6 Above Rs. 5 lakh 129 84.79 Arrears as per R-APDRP Billing 51444 290.06 Total 52561 384.85

The status of Outstanding Arrears furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed Format- 5 is

given below:-

Table 7.11: Status of Outstanding Arrears Description As on 03/15 As on 03/16 As on 03/17 As on 03/18 As on 12/18

Arrear No. Amount (Rs. Lac) No. Amount

(Rs. Lac) No. Amount (Rs. Lac) No. Amount

(Rs. Lac) No. Amount (Rs. Lac)

Arrear>=5 Lac 1141 49782 1400 66890 1161 45682 1430 59586 1584 64821.38 1=<Arrear<5 Lac 5538 10136 3079 5345 3555 6131 4028 7180 6438 10659.95

0.5 Lac=<Arrear <1 Lac 15449 10475 11749 8106 13164 9214 10326 7226

18061

12434.49 0.1 Lac= <Arrear<0.5 Lac 88900 18846 84165 17474 89984 18867 70715 14876

133685

28274.41 0.05 Lac= <Arrear<0.1 Lac 69730 4951 67004 4761 78657 5563 58949 4173

108160

7695.98 Total 180758 94190 167397 1025767 186521 85457 145484 93042 267928 123886.21

From the above Table, it is evident that the Petitioner has not been able to reduce number of

defaulting consumers/arrear cases and rather the same are increasing on year-on-year basis and has

reached to an all time high of 2,67,928 in FY 2018-19 (upto 31.12.2018).

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has been lackadaisical towards collection

of arrears and lacks seriousness in laying down a planned programme/roadmap. This is a grave



concern for the financial health of the Petitioner and may weed away the Petitioner’s financial

viability since 2.67 Lakh cases of arrears (which is around 12.59% of the total consumers of the

Petitioner) have been pending as on 31.12.2018 with a staggering amount of Rs. 1238.86 Crore

pending recovery by the Petitioner which is about 20.66% of the Petitioner’s approved Net ARR for

FY 2018-19, i.e. Rs. 5997.50 Crore.

The comparison of Outstanding Arrears furnished by the Petitioner in the above Table vis-a-

vis Outstanding Arrears shown in the Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-4 is given below:-

Table 7.12: Comparison of Outstanding Amount of Arrears (Rs. Crore) Description As on

31.03.2015 As on

31.03.2016 As on

31.03.2017 As on

31.03.2018 As on

30.09.2018 As per Commercial Performance Monitoring report (excluding Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000)

941.90 1025.77 854.57 930.41 1238.86

As per CS-4 report (including Arrears of amount below Rs. 5,000) 2147.25 1789.05 1613.26 1622.62 2232.00

From the above Table, it has been observed that the Petitioner has not made enough efforts

in recovering its arrears in FY 2018-19 (upto 30.09.2018) due to which the total arrear to be realized

as on 30.09.2018 as per CS-4 report is Rs. 2232.00 Crore which is approx. 37.2% of its approved Net

ARR for FY 2018-19. Further, from the above Table, it is observed that total amount of arrears below

Rs. 5000 to be recovered by the Petitioner as on 31.03.2017 & 31.03.2018 were Rs. 758.69 Crore & Rs.

692.21 Crore respectively, which shows that the Petitioner is not only failing in collecting its high

arrear amounts (Rs. 5,000 & above) but has also failed to collect the low arrear amounts (below Rs.

5000). Moreover, on examination of CS-4 Reports vis-à-vis Commercial Performance Monitoring

Report as mentioned in Table above, it has been observed that the Petitioner was able to

liquidate/decrease its arrear 9.83% in FY 2016-17 which marginally increased by 0.58% in FY 2017-

18, however, its performance has significantly, deteriorated in FY 2018-19 (upto 30.09.2018) as the

amount of arrears instead of decreasing in FY 2018-19 (upto 30.09.2018) have actually increased by

37.55% which shows that the Petitioner has not taken enough measures for early recovery of the

arrears.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has to understand the gravity of the

situation and should abstain from its legacy practice of remaining callous about arrears throughout

the year and waking up in the last quarter of the Fiscal Year. This by all standards in any

commercial organization is not a conducive practice and inculcates un-professional/unethical work



culture in the organisation especially for the young field officers who adapt the same and are

misguided by the false belief in the wrong historical practice.

Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to make sincere efforts in

mobilizing its resources throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a structured

receivable management programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual

defaulters.

7.2.3.3 Load Factor of KCC Consumers

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner that KCC

consumers having less load factor should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern

and abnormality in consumption pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission

also directed the Petitioner to check KCC consumers who were repeatedly exceeding their

sanctioned/contracted demand and take corrective action in such cases.

The Petitioner in its instant Tariff Petition under status of compliance of directives has

submitted that monitoring of KCC consumers is being done on a regular basis at Key Consumer

Cell.

The load factor of the KCC consumers, as submitted by the Petitioner in the prescribed

Format-6 of Commercial Performance Monitoring Report has been shown in Table given below:

Table 7.13: Load Factor of the KCC Consumers

Description As on 03/14

As on 03/15

As on 03/16

As on 03/17

As on 03/18

As on 12/18

Total KCC Consumers 18668 19997 21119 22120 23206 23668 *Abnormal cases 2554 2709 3271 3232 3390 3615 L.F<10% 7513 8430 9063 9884 10335 10787 L.F>10% 11155 11567 12056 12236 12871 12881

*Abnormal cases- Consumers exceeding sanctioned demand, Consumers having CT, PT by-pass Tamper Report, unbalanced Tamper Report & any other Tamper Report.

From the above Table, it can be observed that as on 31.12.2018, number of consumers having

load factor less than 10% were 10787, which is around 45.57% of the total number of KCC

consumers. To this the Commission is of the view that the consumers having load factor less than

10% are alarmingly high numbers. Moreover, 3615 consumers (which is 15.27% of the total number

of KCC consumers) are falling under abnormal cases out of which majority comprises of consumers



who have exceeded their sanctioned/contracted demand. Both these issues reflect lack of proper

monitoring/analysis of KCC consumer’s parameter by the licensee.

The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner has total billed consumer base of about

21.27 Lakh consumers in the State, out of which 23,688 consumers (Industrial category consumers

having load 5 kW & above and Commercial category consumers having load 10 kW & above) as on

30.12.2018, have been identified as Key Consumers (KCC). These key consumers which are only

about 1% of the total consumer base of the Petitioner contribute nearly 70% of its total annual

revenues.

Therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner that KCC consumers having less load

factor should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern and abnormality in

consumption pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission also directs the

Petitioner to check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted

demand and take corrective action in such cases.

7.2.3.4 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner to ensure

that the data furnished in Commercial Performance Monitoring report should match with its

Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-4 data and the Petitioner should ensure that in all future submissions of

Commercial Performance Monitoring reports the Average Realisation Rate should be calculated on

the basis of recoveries on account of Realisation Against energy dues only and the realisation

shown should exclude recoveries from duties/cess, etc. Further, the realisation against energy dues

should clearly bifurcate realisation against current dues & realisation against past dues, failing

which appropriate action shall be initiated against the Petitioner/Licensee.

However, on examination of the monthly commercial performance report, it has been

observed that despite Commission’s specific directions, the Petitioner has not bifurcated the

revenue realisation against the current dues and past dues and thus computing the revenue

realisation per unit sold on the total realisation i.e. including the arrear amount.

The status of Revenue Realisation per unit sold furnished by the Petitioner in the prescribed

Format-7 is given below:-



Table 7.14: Status of Revenue Realisation per unit sold

Year Sold Energy (MU)

Total Revenue Realization (Rs. Lac)*

Average Realization

Rate (Rs./unit)

Average Power Purchase Cost per Unit sold

(Rs./unit)

Approved /Trued-up

Average Cost of Supply (Rs./Unit)

FY 2014-15 9685.16 418388 4.32 3.76 4.08 FY 2015-16 10298.14 524286 5.09 4.11 4.54 FY 2016-17 10575.544 555300 5.25 4.63 4.69 FY 2017-18 11208.82 603052 5.38 4.58 4.77

*Including Duties/Cess/DPS & other recoveries

On examination, it has also been observed that in FY 2017-18, the total Revenue Realization,

i.e. Rs. 603052 Lakh submitted by the Petitioner in Format-7 of Commercial Performance

Monitoring reports is actually inclusive of arrears of Rs. 15905.65 Lakh as shown in CS-4 Report of

March,2018.

Further, the Petitioner in its instant Tariff Petition under status of compliance of directives

has submitted that formats of Commercial Diary have been revised in accordance with the

Commission’s directives and from December 2018 onwards the same shall be submitted to the

Commission based on Commercial Diary. Since, as on date, the Commission has received the

periodical report in format 7 & 8 of the monthly commercial performance report only upto

September 2018, therefore, the Commission directs the Petitioner to ensure that the data furnished

in Commercial Performance Monitoring report should match with its Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-

4 data and the Petitioner should ensure that in all future submissions of Commercial

Performance Monitoring reports the Average Realisation Rate should be calculated on the basis

of recoveries on account of Realisation Against energy dues only and the realisation shown

should exclude recoveries from duties/cess, etc. Further, the realisation against energy dues

should clearly bifurcate realisation against current dues & realisation against past dues, failing

which appropriate action shall be initiated against the Petitioner/Licensee.

7.2.4 Billing and Bill Collection System

Taking cognizance of various consumer complaints received by the Commission in writing

and also during public hearing, the Commission earlier had directed the Petitioner to improve its

existing Bill Collection System. Further, the Commission vide its Order dated 01.09.2005 had

imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 and recurring additional penalty of Rs. 2,500 per day



on UPCL for non-compliance of its directions with respect to bill collection system. However, not

much has improved except for new Bill Collection Centers constructed under R-APDRP schemes.

The Commission in its Order dated 07.01.2016 in the matter of Petitioner’s request on waiver

and refund of penalty imposed by the Commission vide its Order dated 01.09.2005, had held as

under:

“as a last attempt to induce Petitioner to work in right earnest for meeting the requirement of Order

dated 01.09.2005, the recovery of penalty due after 31.03.2011 is kept in abeyance till final disposal of

this Petition. A view on waiver or recovery would be taken after assessing performance of the

Petitioner on following: (a) actions taken to augment and upgrade its prevailing Bill Collection

System in order to make it consistent with the Commission’s Order dated 01.09.2005 within six

months from the date of issuance of this Order. Bimonthly report of action taken to be furnished to the

Commission. (b) actions taken to extend the bill collection facility/services integrating all the

Common Service (CSC) situated across the State within six months from the date of issuance of this

Order and submit monthly progress report with number of CSCs integrated during the month latest

by 15th day of next month (c) submit comprehensive Action Plan latest by 25.01.2016 including

distinct focus/plan for Bill Collection System in rural and urban areas of the State in accordance with

the orders/direction by the Commission in this regard for effective implementation of the direction

issued at para (a) above.“

Thereafter, the Commission vide its Tariff Order dated 05.04.2016 had directed the Petitioner

to comply with the directions issued in the Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016, failing which

appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be taken against the Petitioner for the

continued non-compliance of the directions of the Commission. Further, the Commission had also

directed the Petitioner to expedite integrating Common Service Centers (CSCs) available in State

with its billing system under the agreement executed between UPCL & Common Service Center E-

Governance Services India Ltd., New Delhi.

However, in the absence of compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Commission issued a

show cause notice and, thereafter, the Commission in its Order dated 11.01.2017 had observed that

the Petitioner’s response to the issue was inadequate and routine and that the Petitioner even after

an elapse of more than 11 years had failed to implement the directions of the Commission issued in

the matter of Bill Collection System. Further, the Commission in its aforesaid Order had also



observed that even after a passage of almost a year since Commission’s Order dated 07.01.2016, the

total number of CSCs integrated with UPCL’s system were only 909 which were not even 50% of the

total 2000 number of CSCs situated across the State.

Accordingly, the Commission in its Order dated 11.01.2017 had directed the Petitioner to

deposit the outstanding penalty amount from 01.04.2011 upto 30.11.2016 and continue paying daily

penalty of Rs. 2500/- within 30 days of close of the each calendar month till such time each of the

directions as given in the Order dated 09.07.2004 & 01.09.2005 of the Commission in the matter of

Bill Collection System has been fully complied with.

In compliance to the same, the Petitioner vide its letter No. 1023 dated 01.03.2017 deposited

an amount of Rs. 53,30,000/- against the penalty amount for the period from 01.04.2011 to

31.01.2017.

The Petitioner, in its earlier Tariff Petition, under status of compliance of directives had

submitted that the amount of penalty paid by it upto 31.08.2017 is Rs. 1.108 Crore and on its request,

the Commission vide letter no. 1039 dated 18.09.2017 withheld the penalty for next six months

subject to completion of bill collection facilities and integration of all functional CSCs in the State by

the said period. Further, the Petitioner had submitted that tender for developing facilities at Bill

Collection Centers have been invited and the work is expected to get completed within 6 months

from the date of the LOA.

Thereafter, actively monitoring the matter, the Commission through its various letters

sought the progress of creation of new Bill Collection Centers and integration of CSCs situated

across the State with UPCL’s system. Meetings with regard to integration of CSCs with the

Petitioner and Additional Secretary (IT), GoU were held in the Commission’s office on 21.12.2017

and 02.01.2018, wherein several pertinent issues were raised and resolved. The Commission during

the aforesaid meeting also directed the Petitioner to make widespread publicity/

Advertisement/workshop of the bill collection facilities & list of Villages Level Entrepreneurs

(VLEs) under CSC operating in the vicinity of various electricity Sub-division/division officers of

UPCL across the State.

Accordingly, the Commission in its Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner to

complete the works of bill collection facilities and integration of all CSCs in the State latest by

30.04.2018, in absence of which, stern action under the provisions of the Act/Rules/Regulations



would be initiated against it. Moreover, the Commission had directed the Petitioner to make

widespread publicity/ Advertisement/workshop of the bill collection facilities & list of VLEs

operating in the vicinity of various electricity Sub-division/division officers of UPCL across the

State.

UPCL vide its letter dated 12.09.2018 submitted the status of construction of Bill Collections

as follows:

1. In Garhwal Zone out of total 53 Centers, work has been completed at 04 Centers and

work is in progress at remaining centers.

2. In Haridwar Zone out of total 22 Centers, work is yet to be completed at all 22 Centers.

3. In Kumaun Zone out of total 65 Centers, work has been completed at only 01 center and

work is in progress at remaining Centers.

4. In Rudrapur Zone out of total 18 Centers, work has been completed at 04 Centers only

and work is in progress at remaining Centers.

Further, the Petitioner has submitted that UPCL and M/s CSC both are conducting the

promotional activities and making the efforts to increase number of transactions from the Bill

Collection Centers.

Thereafter, a meeting was held in the Commission’s office on 23.10.2018, wherein UPCL had

assured to complete the pending Bill Collection Centers within 02 months.

UPCL vide its letter dated 17.01.2019 with respect to compliance of directives has submitted

the status of construction of Bill Collections as follows:

1. In Garhwal Zone out of total 53 Centers, work has been completed at 08 Centers and


2. In Haridwar Zone out of total 22 Centers, work has been completed at 21 Centers and

work is in progress at 01 Center.

3. In Kumaun Zone out of total 65 Centers, work has been completed at 07 Centers only

and work is in progress at remaining Centers.

4. In Rudrapur Zone out of total 18 Centers, work has been completed at 09 Centers and




Further, UPCL has submitted that a reward scheme for VLEs has been introduced in order

to encourage the CSC VLEs. The number of active CSC counters, transaction count and transaction

amount for December, 2018 were 1258, 24147 and 170.02 lakh respectively. Further, UPCL has

submitted that continuous efforts are being made by them along with M/s CSC for conducting

promotional activities and increasing number of transactions and amount collected from CSC

transactions.

On examination, of the above submission of UPCL, it is observed that although progress

have been made w.r.t. Billing collections at CSC VLEs, however, still considerable progress is

required to operationalise bill payment/collection facilities in all the existing CSCs in the State. Also

the Petitioner is directed to expedite completion of all works undertaken by the licensee with regard

to bill collection centre in the State.

In this regard, the Commission is of the view that ample opportunity has been provided to

UPCL w.r.t. of Bill Collection in the State and such laxity on part of distribution licensee is an act of

non-compliance of Commission’s directions. Hence, the Petitioner is again directed to complete

the works of bill collection facilities and integration of all CSCs in the State latest by 30.04.2019,

in absence of which, without prejudice to earlier penal actions stern action under the provisions

of the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated against it. Further, the Commission directs the

Petitioner to make widespread publicity/ Advertisement/workshop of the bill collection facilities

& list of VLEs operating in the vicinity of various electricity Sub-division/division officers of

UPCL across the State.

7.3 Energy Audit

The Commission in its earlier Tariff Orders had been reiterating its direction for conducting

the energy audit of 11 kV feeders and submit the audit report before the Commission. Moreover,

the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner directed to

provide/maintain the metering system at each feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its

distribution network for effective energy auditing and accounting. The Petitioner was also directed

to submit compliance report in this regard by 30.09.2018, failing which appropriate action may be

taken against the Petitioner in accordance with the Act/Rules/Regulations.



The Commission is of the view that proper energy accounting can throw-up several

actionable issues which, when addressed, shall result in marked reduction in distribution losses in

the Petitioner’s network.

The Petitioner in its submission dated 17.01.2019 w.r.t. status of compliance of directions of

the Commission issued in the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 has submitted that Metering has been

completed at all 33 kV and 11 kV points. The Board of Directors of UPCL in the 87th Meeting

granted approval for engagement of consultant for Concurrent Audit of Billing parameters for two

years i.e. FY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in respect of 16 high distribution loss divisions i.e. EDD, Dehradun

(South), EDD, Dehradun (Rural), EDD, Kotdwar, EDD, Haridwar (Urban), EDD, Haridwar (Rural),

EDD, Laksar, EDD, Roorkee (Rural), EDD, Ramnagar (Roorkee), EDD, Roorkee (Urban), EDD,

Bhagwanpur, EDD, Haldwani (Rural), EDD, Rudrapur, EDD, Sitarganj, EDD, Kashipur, EDD,

Jaspur and EDD, Bajpur

Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to provide/maintain the metering system at each

feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network for effective energy auditing

and accounting. The Petitioner is directed to submit compliance report in this regard by

30.09.2019, failing which appropriate action may be taken against the Petitioner in accordance

with the Act/Rules/Regulations.

7.4 AT&C Losses

From the above comprehensive analysis of metering, billing & collection activities of the

Petitioner, it is evident that still a lot of improvement, especially in the areas of provisional billing,

replacement of Mechanical Meters, replacement of Defective Meters and Outstanding Arrears is

required. The AT&C losses of the Petitioner as on 30.09.2018 as per Commercial Performance

Monitoring report are 32.59%. The reason for such high AT&C loss is primarily high distribution

losses and low collection efficiency till 30.09.2018. The Commission in its previous Orders had also

categorically directed the Petitioner to ensure completion of the R-APDRP works within the

specified time lines and also to achieve the specified target for reduction of AT&C losses to the

extent of 15% in the selected towns within the stipulated timeframe for availing the benefits of

conversion of loan into grant. In case, the Petitioner fails to do so, the servicing cost/cost of the loan

in whole or part may not be allowed as pass through in the ARR. Similar directions were issued by



the Commission in its Order dated 05.10.2016 pertaining to Capital Investment for the Integrated

Power Development Scheme (IPDS) Project, Ministry of Power (MoP), Government of India (GoI).

Therefore, the Commission is of the view that with the above linkage of cost of funding with

the AT&C loss achievement, such programs can be construed as a double edged sword, which

might cause adverse financial impact in case the Petitioner fails to achieve the required reduction in

AT&C losses of the target area.

The status of AT&C losses of UPCL for the last six financial years furnished by the Petitioner

in the prescribed Format-8 is given below:

It is evident from the above Table, that Petitioner’s distribution loss levels are higher than

the approved levels. Further, the actual AT&C losses for the above period are higher than computed

AT&C losses on the basis of approved level of distribution losses & collection efficiency in

respective Tariff Orders except in case of FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 where substantial amount of

Government dues were recovered by the Petitioner.

From the above Table, it is observed that the collection efficiency in FY 2017-18 was 98.89%,

in this regard, as discused in above section of Revenue realisation per unit sold, the petitioner has

included the realisation against arrears of Rs. 15905.65 Lakh in its total revenue realisation for

calculating its AT&C losses.

Further, with regard to the performance during FY 2018-19 (upto 30.09.2018), the

Commission has observed that despite Commission’s specific directions for recovery of revenue

Table 7.15: Status of AT&C Losses of UPCL

Year

Inpu

t Ene

rgy

(MU

)

Ener

gy S

old

(MU

)

Ass

essm

ent (

Rs

Lac)

Col

lect

ion

(Rs

Lac)

Dis

trib

utio

n Lo

ss (%

)

App

rove

d D

istr

ibut

ion

Loss

(%)

Col

lect

ion

Effi

cien

cy

(%)

Act

ual A

T&C

Loss

(%)

Com

pute

d A

T&C

lo

sses

(Bas

ed o

n A

ppro

ved

Nor

ms)

(%)

FY 2012-13 10789.11 8577.01 356995 346873 20.50 17.00 97.16 22.76 19.49 FY 2013-14 11216.31 9065.02 393412 387651 19.18 16.00 98.54 20.36 18.10 FY 2014-15 11888.23 9685.16 418940 418388 18.53 15.50 99.87 18.64 17.19 FY 2015-16 12559.60 10298.14 493267 524286 18.01 15.00 106.29 12.85 16.28 FY 2016-17 12780.32 10575.54 540075 555300 17.25 15.00 102.82 14.92 16.28 FY 2017-18 13213.73 11208.82 609821 603052 15.17 14.75 98.89 16.11 15.82 FY 2018-19 ( Upto Sep 2018) 7282.87 6025.32 332409 270861 17.27 14.50 81.48 32.59 15.36



whole through the year still the collection efficiency data is depicting that the revenue collection

drive would be conducted rigorously during the fag end of the financial year only and sincere

efforts at petitioner’s end are missing during the regular months of the financial year.

The Commission is of the view that the major component of AT&C losses are the

distribution losses which basically comprises of Technical and Commercial losses. Further, the

Commission is of the view that since Technical & Commercial losses are more in LT network in

comparison to HT network, hence, it is apparent that in order to substantially reduce AT&C losses,

the Petitioner needs to strengthen its LT network. Further, during the field visits of the officers of

the Commission in EDD- Pauri & EDD- Kotdwar, it came to the notice that some of the villages in

rural areas of the hill district are being supplied power through GI wire instead of ACSR conductors

which are generally being used in the distribution network. In this regard, it is observed that such

installations not only contribute in increasing line losses but at the same time are hazardous

towards safety of the men and material. Moreover, the dilapidated condition of the GI wires of the

rural netwoks and improper maintenance of protection system at 33/11 kV sub-station, leads to a

situation of grave concern.

Accordingly, the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018 had directed the Petitioner

to indentify such feeders/spans where the power distribution network is on GI wire and replace

them with the ACSR or better conductors latest by 30.09.2018 and submit a compliance report under

affidavit on the same. Moreover, the Petitioner was also directed to prepare and submit an action

plan for checking and refurbishment of protection systems at various 33/11 kV substations latest by

30.06.2018.

The Petitioner in its submission dated 17.01.2019 w.r.t. status of compliance of directions of

the Commission issued in the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 has submitted that all the field officers

have been directed to identify such feeders/spans where the power distribution network is on GI

wire and to replace this wire with ACSR conductor.

In this regard, the Commission has observed that neither Petitioner has submitted any

compliance w.r.t. replacement of GI wire nor has submitted any action plan for checking and

refurbishment of protection system at various 33/11 kV sub-stations. The Commission is of the

view that presence of a robust distribution network plays an important role in ensuring

Availability, Accessibility and Quality of Power Supply to the consumers of the State.



Hence, the Petitioner is again directed to indentify such feeders/spans where the power

distribution network is on GI wire and replace them with the ACSR or better conductors latest

by 30.09.2019 and submit a compliance report under affidavit on the same. The Petitioner is also

directed to prepare and submit an action plan for checking and refurbishment of protection

systems at various 33/11 kV substations latest by 30.06.2019.

The Commission has observed that the percentage losses indicated in the Commercial

Performance Monitoring Report are an average of losses occurring in HT/EHT and LT consumers.

The Commissions is of the view that the marginal AT&C losses occurring at HT/EHT consumers

end are compensating the losses occurring at LT consumers end, therefore, the actual losses

occurring against LT consumers would be way above the AT&C losses shown in the Table namely

“status of AT&C losses” given above.

In light of the above, it should be the foremost endeavour of the licensee to reduce the

distribution losses at LT level within the acceptable limits. The Petitioner should take up the

following works at the earliest for reducing the AT&C losses:

1. The Petitioner must replace all mechanical meters in a time-bound manner in all the

divisions on a war footing. It is a known fact that the cost incurred in purchasing the

electronic meter shall be recovered within no time as there shall be substantial increase

in the revenue of the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner must ensure that no ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumers exist in its

billing database.

3. The Petitioner must conduct planned regular actions for early recovery of outstanding

arrears.

4. The Petitioner must analyse KCC consumers having load factor less than 10% on a

regular basis and lay down mechanism for checking inspection/tamper

analysis/condition monitoring of MRI reports and metering equipments.

5. The Petitioner must ensure that all the meters of the consumers are read and their bills

prepared and distributed within time. The Petitioner shall also ensure that no

provisional bills namely NA/NR are issued for more than two billing cycles in

accordance with the provision of Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2007 and



amendments issued from time to time. Divisional head must be held accountable for not

controlling provisional billings. The Petitioner should make efforts to always issue

computerized bills to its consumers requiring no human intervention.

6. The Petitioner should prepare a time bound plan/programme to replace all the bare

overhead conductors with insulated aerial bunched conductors (AB conductor) in theft

prone areas alongwith effective monitoring mechanism for its implementation.

7. The Petitioner should also prepare a time bound plan/programme for segregation of

rural feeders into Agriculture and Non-Agriculture load basis which would be an

effective measure for segregation of theft/pilferage of electricity in Agriculture and Non-

Agricultural usage in villages/rural areas.

8. The Petitioner should make extra efforts to get the arrears realised from the defaulting

Government departments. The Commission is of the view that the Petitioner should

promote and implement the pre-paid metering so that revenue recovery can be

enhanced and problems related to accumulation of arrears is resolved.

9. Replace the GI wire based power distribution system with suitable conductor so that

technical losses in the system can be reduced and the same would also help in improving

the quality of power supply to the consumers.

10. The Petitioner have to ensure that meters are installed at each point of energy accounting

and are kept in proper working condition.

11. The Petitioner should also develop GIS based consumer indexing database in areas other

than the areas covered under R-APDRP/IPDS, which shall be helpful in providing

prompt services to consumer and shall be helpful in planning the new connections,

transformer augmentation, phase change, localising fault, supply restoration and other

services to consumers necessarily provided by any distribution utility having consumer

services orientation as its vision & mission.



7.5 Commission’s Analysis and Directions on Financial Performance

The Commission has been monitoring & reviewing the performance of the Petitioner based

on the information/reports submitted by it. The Commission in its Tariff Order dated 29.03.2017

and 21.03.2018 carried out the analysis of financial performance of UPCL based on its statement of

accounts in certain key areas. In line with the same methodology, the key performance ratios after

taking into account the financial performance of UPCL in FY 2017-18 based on the audited financial

statements are detailed below.

7.5.1 Liquidity Ratio

Liquidity ratio analyzes the ability of a company to pay off both its current liabilities as they

become due as well as their long-term liabilities as they become current. In other words, these ratios

show the cash levels of a company and the ability to turn other assets into cash to pay off liabilities

and other current obligations.

Liquidity is not only a measure of how much cash a business has. It is also a measure of how

easy it will be for the company to raise enough cash or convert assets into cash. Assets like accounts

receivable, trading securities, and inventory are relatively easy for many companies to convert into

cash in the short term. Thus, all of these assets go into the liquidity calculation of a company.

7.5.1.1 Quick Ratio or Acid Test Ratio

It is the ratio of (current asset – inventories) and current liabilities. The quick ratio or acid

test ratio is a liquidity ratio that measures the ability of a company to pay its current liabilities when

they become due with only quick assets. Quick assets are current assets that can be converted to

cash within 90 days or in the short-term. Cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments or

marketable securities and current accounts receivable are considered quick assets excluding

inventories.

The quick ratio is often called the acid test ratio. The acid test shows how well a company

can quickly convert its assets into cash in order to pay off its current liabilities. It also shows the

level of quick assets to current liabilities.

Higher quick ratios are more favourable for companies because it shows that there are more

quick assets than current liabilities. A company with a quick ratio of 1 indicates that quick assets

http://www.myaccountingcourse.com/financial-ratios/liquidity-ratios

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset



equals current liabilities. This also shows that the company could pay off its current liabilities

without selling any long-term assets.

Chart 7: UPCL Quick Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from above graph, UPCL’s Quick Ratio was almost 1 in the FY 2002-03 & FY

2003-04 and thereafter, shows a downward linear trend in the ensuing years, thus, showing the

Corporation’s inability to maintain its liquidity over a period of time, the primary reasons for the

same could be its inability to realise its dues from the consumers and in turn its inability in

discharging the current liabilities which are also increasing. Further, based on the financial

performance of UPCL in FY 2017-18, the situation has further deteriorated and the ratio has

declined from 0.32 in FY 2016-17 to 0.30 in FY 2017-18.

7.5.1.2 Current Ratio

It is the ratio of current assets and current liabilities. The current ratio is a liquidity and

efficiency ratio that measures a firm's ability to pay off its short-term liabilities with its current

assets. The current ratio is an important measure of liquidity because short-term liabilities are due

within the next year, thus, implying that a company has a limited amount of time in order to raise

the funds to pay for these liabilities. Current assets like cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities

and inventories can easily be converted into cash in the short term. This means that companies with

larger amounts of current assets will more easily be able to pay off current liabilities when they

become due without having to sell off long-term (revenue generating) assets.



A higher current ratio is always more favourable than a lower current ratio because it shows

the company can more easily discharge the current liabilities. A Current Ratio of less than 1

indicates a high working capital leveraging and highly risky position since it indicates that the

Current Liabilities are not fully backed up by the Current Assets and in the event of default, the

Company may resort to selling its Assets to meet out its debts.

Chart 8: UPCL Current Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from the above graph, apart from initial few years upto FY 2004-05, UPCL is

not able to maintain its current assets in proportion to its current liabilities, thus, showing a highly

leveraged position on the part of the Corporation. The current ratio mainly indicates that how much

times the short term liabilities are backed by the current assets, in case of UPCL as can be seen from

above graph, in the past five years UPCL is not able to maintain the said ratio to even as low as 0.5

which is way low than the industry standard of 1.

This indicates that for discharging its current liabilities, UPCL will either have to resort to

liquidating its long term assets or borrow additional working capital loans. This also is an indicator

that on one side UPCL has failed to recover its current and past dues from the consumers efficiently

and on the flip side the current liabilities have been used to finance the long term assets of UPCL.

The Commission has been pointing out towards this issue in its previous Tariff Orders that assets

are being financed through current liabilities. UPCL has been claiming every year that internal

resources are being used to finance certain asset additions. The internal resources in UPCL’s case

are nothing but funds which should have been used to discharge its current liabilities like Govt.

Dues (Royalty, duties, PDF etc), instead have been utilised in creation of long term assets.



In this regard, the Petitioner is directed to carry out the age-wise analysis of its current

liabilities outstanding as on 31.03.2018 and based on the ageing analysis determine how much of

the same would be required to be discharged and how much excess provision exists in the same

so that the same may be reversed and submit the same to the Commission within 3 months from

the date of Order.

7.5.1.3 Operating Cash Flow Ratio

It is the ratio of cash flow from operation and the current liabilities. It is a measure of how

well current liabilities are covered by the cash flow generated from a company's operations.

The operating cash flow ratio can gauge a company's liquidity in the short term. Using cash flow as

opposed to income is considered a cleaner, or more accurate measure to analyse the financial health

of a company & also its operations. The operating cash flow ratio is a measure of the number of

times a company can pay off current debts with cash generated in the same time period. A higher

number means a company can cover its current debts more times, which is a good thing.

Companies with a high or increasing operating cash flow ratio are in good financial health. Those

that are struggling to cover liabilities may be in trouble, at least in the short term.

Chart 9: UPCL Operating Cash Flow Ratio from FY 2008-09 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from the above graph, cash flow from operating activities is hardly able to

meet its current liabilities. UPCL is struggling to cover its current liabilities, at least in the short

term. In FY 2009-10 and FY 2011-12, cash flow operating ratio is negative due to huge losses on

account of high distribution losses and poor collection efficicency resulting into negative Cash flow

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currentliabilities.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/operatingcashflow.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortterm.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-health.asp



from Operating Activities. Further, in FY 2017-18 this ratio has dipped down to 0.01 from 0.02 in FY

2016-17. In all the years the ratio is less than 1 which indicates that the company has generated

less cash in the period than it needed to pay off its short-term liabilities. This may signal a need for

more capital.

7.5.2 Solvency Ratio

Solvency ratios, also called leverage ratios, measures a company's ability to sustain

operations indefinitely by comparing debt levels with equity, assets, and earnings. In other words,

solvency ratios identify going concern issues and a firm's ability to pay its bills in the long term.

Solvency ratios focusses more on the long-term sustainability of a company instead of the current

liability payments. Better solvency ratios indicate a more creditworthy and financially sound

company in the long-term.

7.5.2.1 Interest Coverage Ratio

It is a ratio of EBIT (operating Income) during a given period and the amount a company

spends in interest payment on its debts during the same period. The interest coverage ratio is used

to determine how easily a company can pay interest on outstanding debt. Essentially, the interest

coverage ratio measures how many times over a company could pay its current interest payment

with its available earnings. In other words, it measures the margin of safety a company has for

paying interest during a given period, which a company needs in order to survive future (and

perhaps unforeseeable) financial hardship, if any, should it arise. A company’s ability to meet its

interest obligations is an aspect of a company’s solvency, and is, thus, a very important factor in

the return for shareholders. The lower a company’s interest coverage ratio is, the more its debt

expenses burden on the company. When a company's interest coverage ratio is 1.5 or lower, its

ability to meet interest expenses may be questionable. 1.5 is generally considered to be a bare

minimum acceptable ratio for a company and a tipping point below which lenders will likely refuse

to lend the company more money, as the company’s risk for default is too high. Moreover, an

interest coverage ratio below 1 indicates the company is not generating sufficient revenues to

service its interest expenses. If a company’s ratio is below 1, it will likely need to spend some of its

cash reserves in order to meet the difference or borrow more, which will be difficult for reasons

stated above. Otherwise, even if earnings are low for a single month, the company risks falling

http://www.investinganswers.com/node/5011

http://www.investinganswers.com/node/5749

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interest.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnings.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/solvency.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/return.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lender.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/risk.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/default2.asp



into bankruptcy. Generally, an interest coverage ratio of 2.5 is often considered to be a warning

sign, indicating that the company should be careful not to dip further.

Chart 10: UPCL Interest Coverage Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from the above graph, UPCL was suffering losses in most of the financial

years and was hardly able to meet its interest liability. The standard ratio is 1.5 times and it can be

seen from the above graph, that only in FY 2013-14 UPCL earned sufficient profit to maintain the

interest coverage ratio of 3.43 i.e. above the standard ratio.

7.5.3 Profitability Ratio

Profitability ratios compares income statement accounts to show a company's ability to

generate profits from its operations. Profitability ratios focus on a company's return on investment

in inventory and other assets. These ratios basically show how well companies can achieve profits

from their operations. Profitability is also important to the concept of solvency and going concern.

7.5.3.1 Return on Total Assets

It is a ratio of EBIT during a given period and average Fixed Assets. The ratio is considered

to be an indicator of how effectively a company is using its assets to generate earnings before

contractual/statutory obligations are paid. The greater a company's earnings in proportion to its

assets (and the greater the coefficient from this calculation), the more effectively that company is

said to be using its assets. This ratio allows to see the relationship between organisation’s resources

and its income, and it can provide a point of comparison to determine if an organization is using its

assets more or less effectively than it had done previously.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bankruptcy.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asset.asp



Chart 11: UPCL Return on Assets Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from the above graph, UPCL earnings through its operations is not in parity

with the investment made in building up its fixed assets over a period of time.

7.5.3.2 Gross Margin Ratio

Gross margin is the difference of average sales revenue and the average direct cost, ie.

Power purchase cost in case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, gross margin ratio is the ratio of gross

margin and the operating expenses of the company. Higher gross margin ratios are more favorable

indicating that the company will have more money to pay its operating expenses.

Chart 12: UPCL Gross Margin Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from above graph, UPCL is having a positive gross margin ratio except for

FY 2009-10. This indicates that the company is able to sell power at a rate higher than the



procurement cost of the same, however, the overall ratio is not on the much higher side, with a

maximum going upto 0.51 in FY 2002-03, indicating that the company would be left with meagre

funds to meet its operational cost other than power procurement expense, and may land up in

facing losses over a period of time.

7.5.4 Operating or Activity Ratio

7.5.4.1 Repair & Maintenance to Net Fixed Assets

The maintenance expense to fixed assets ratio allows to understand the age or condition of

the company's equipment. An increase to a company's repairs and maintenance expense to fixed

assets ratio over time can signal ageing equipment or assets that are being pushed to their operating

limits.

Chart 13: UPCL R&M to Net Fixed Asset Ratio from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

It can be seen from the above graph, that UPCL is incurring R&M expenses on an average of

3% of the Net Fixed Assets. UPCL appears to be performing fairly on this ratio aspect merely on

account of the reason that it has been continuously receiving funds (grants) from GOI under various

schemes of MOP, GOI namely APDRP, RAPDRP, IPDS etc. which besides covering development of

new substaions/lines also include funding on augmentation/strengthening of old/existing assets,

thus, reducing the requirements of Repair & Maintenance of old assets, as the same are either

replaced by new assets or are augmented & strengthened.



7.5.4.2 Repair & Maintenance to Inventory Ratio

This ratio depicts the relation between the R&M expenses to Net Inventory maintained by

the Corporation. In case of UPCL, being an Electricity Distribution Company, the inventory is not

converted into sales as part of the operations carried out by the entity. Further most of the project

works are getting done by the Corporation on turn-key basis, wherein the material and labour is

supplied by the Contractor, thus denying the need for maintenance of inventory for said purpose.

The maintenance of inventory would be required by the Corporation for the purposes of meeting its

requirement of Repair & Maintenance works as may be carried out from time to time during the

course of its operation. In view of the above, the calculation of inventory turnover ratio would not

hold good for the discoms like UPCL wherein the inventory is being maintained not for the

purposes of sale, but to meet out the expenses arising in the course of operation. Hence, a

customized ratio has been worked upon to analyse the relation between the inventories maintained

by the entity and how much of the same is being actually used during the year for meeting the

R&M expenses while carrying out the operations of the entity.

The formulae for the same is as follows: R&M Expenses/Average Inventory.

Chart 14: UPCL R&M to Inventory Ratio Trend from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

As can be seen from above graph UPCL is having an average inventory ratio between 0.30 to

0.40, which indicates that almost 40% of the average inventory maintained by the company is being

consumed for meeting out the R&M expenses during the year which also suggests that inventory

being maintained by UPCL is at a very high level. The capital inventory of Rs. 314.62 Crore as on



31.03.2018 is very high considering the net additions to the GFA of Rs. 397.55 Crore during FY 2017-

18 and R&M expenses of Rs. 129.92 Crore during the year. The Commission finds inventory levels

maintained by UPCL as very high.

As can be seen from the above graph, during FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 the

aforesaid ratio has shown an absurd variation. This is because of the reason that in FY 2015-16, FY

2016-17 and FY 2017-18, UPCL has shown nil inventory under Current Assets in its audited

financial statements, rather it had shown the entire amount under the Fixed Assets as inventory for

Capital Works.

In this regard, UPCL has given disclosure in its audited financial statements for showing the

entire inventory under Fixed Assets as reproduced below:

“Based on the consumption pattern of inventory comprising of stores and spares in the past, company is of the view that substantial portion of such inventory shall be consumed in future for construction/erection of the capital assets. Since the identification/determination of inventory to be consumed for other than capital purpose is not possible at this stage, the whole inventory of stores and spares has been classified as "Inventory for Capital Works.

The company has not identified any obsolete, slow moving and dead stock except for those lying in the Centralised Stores Division as all the items in the store are useable in spite of the fact that they are very old.”

It appears that inventory levels have been so maintained so as to consume them in future for

construction/erection of the capital assets. For future consumption maintaining such inventory

level is a risky proposition as not only funds are blocked in purchasing the inventory but also the

inventories carry holding costs. There is also a risk of loss/damages and obsolescence in technology

if the inventories remain in stock for a long period of time as in power sector technologies are

evolving with time.

The Petitioner vide its letter dated 21.04.2018, in compliance to the direction given in this

regard at para 7.2.15 and 6.5.4 of the Tariff Order dated 21.03.2018, submitted the information with

respect to inventory as on 31.03.2016 and also submitted that it was not carrying out the ABC

classification of inventory as no past practice existed with respect to the same in the organization.

In this regard, the Commission noted that the date of physical verification was either too

early from the close of financial year or way beyond the close of financial year for the divisions as

summarized below:



Table 7.16: Division-wise details where Physical Verification Date is at variance from the close of Financial Year

Division Physical Verification Date ESC Kashipur 27.04.2017 ESSC Pithoragarh 20.04.2017 ESSC Masi 16.04.2017 ESC Haldwani 12.04.2017 ESSC Tanakpur 14.04.2017 ESC Rudrapur 09.04.2017 ESC Almora 15.04.2017 ESC Rishikesh 19.03.2017 ESSC Tehri 23.03.2017 ESSC Uttarkashi 24.03.2017 ESC Rishikesh 22.03.2017 ESC Haridwar 17.03.2017 ESC Roorkee 10.03.2017 ESC Dehradun 24.03.2017 ESC Kotdwar 27.03.2017 ESC Srinigar 29.03.2017 ESSC Chamoli 28.03.2017

The Commission, accordingly, vide its letter dated 07.05.2018 had directed UPCL to submit

an action plan towards classification of inventories into ABC category within a month and further

submit the practice followed by UPCL to record the inventory count during the intervening period,

i.e. between the date of physical verification and close of financial year for the purpose of taking the

inventory values in its books of accounts, however UPCL has not submitted any response in this

regard till the date of Order.

Here it is pertinent to note that UPCL is showing huge amount of inventory in its books of

accounts running into crores of rupees. For such a high value inventory having numerous items of

different value, the management and monitoring in an effective and useful manner might not be

possible. Where the inventory consists of mix of items of different values and criticality, the same

needs to be classified into different categories based on value and criticality so that an efficient

control and monitoring system could be put in place, which in turn would help in effective cost

management and on time availability of the required items.

The ABC analysis (or Selective Inventory Control) is an inventory categorization

technique which divides an inventory into three categories-"A items" with very tight control

and accurate records, "B items" with less tightly controlled and good records, and "C items"

with the simplest controls possible and minimal records, such a categorization not only helps in



identifying the wasteful expenditure on dead or slow moving inventory but also helps to

optimize the requirement and availability of the critical or most consumed inventory items.

From the submissions of the Petitioner, it appears that they are not willing to implement

any classification system for inventories held by the corporation, which is very detrimental to

management and optimum utilization of the resources available with the company both in

material as well as financial terms.

Considering this as a prima-facie lapse on the part of the Petitioner with regard to

inventory management, the Petitioner is directed to submit the following details within one

month of the date of Order failing which appropriate action will be initiated under the Act:

a) List of inventory as on 31.03.2017.

b) The accounting policies adopted in measuring inventories, including the cost

formula used;

c) Basis on which inventories issued: FIFO/LIFO/etc. and reason for choosing the same.

d) Whether any inventory classification has been carried out by UPCL in compliance to

the direction given by the Commission vide its letter dated 07.05.2018? If yes the same

may be submitted and if no, reason for the same may be furnished?

e) Whether the inventories are verified physically? If yes, the periodicity of the same,

alongwith the report of last physical verification. If physical verification is not being

conducted reasons for the same?

f) Practice followed by UPCL to record the inventory count during the intervening

period, i.e. between the date of physical verification and close of financial year for the

purpose of taking the inventory values in its books of accounts.

7.5.5 Efficiency Ratio

The efficiency ratio is typically used to analyze how well a company uses its assets and

liabilities internally. An efficiency ratio can calculate the turnover of receivables, the repayment of

liabilities, the quantity and usage of equity, and the general use of inventory and machinery.

7.5.5.1 Average Collection Period

Number of days of receivable represents collection period or age of receivables for

distribution utilities. This measures effectiveness of a distribution utilities credit and collection



efforts in allowing credit to customers, as well as its ability to collect cash from them. This

comparison is used to evaluate how long customers are taking to pay a company. A low figure is

considered best, since it means that a business is locking up less of its funds in accounts receivable,

and so can use the funds for other purposes. Also, when receivables remain unpaid for a reduced

period of time, there is less risk of payment default by customers. It is calculated based on the

following formulae:

Average Collection Period: 365x(Average account receivables÷Revenue from sale of power).

Chart 15: UPCL Number of days of Receivable from FY 2001-02 to FY 2017-18

Although, the collection period of receivables of UPCL shows a trend of improvement, it has

come down from 520 days in FY 2004-05 to 101 days in FY 2017-18, which is well within the national

average of receivables in FY 2013 of 117 days. The collection period of 101 days reflects that UPCL

takes almost 3 months to collect its dues. This is an area of concern and needs immediate and

corrective action which is not a good sign for utility like UPCL, which is facing cash crunches to

meet its obligations of power purchase and other operational expenses. There are other utilities in

the country which have a collection period of less than 60 days. The Petitioner is directed to

submit within 3 months, an action plan to improve its collection period.

7.5.5.2 Collection Efficiency Ratio

The Collection efficiency ratio represents the efficiency and effectiveness of the dues

recovery processes of the entity on periodic basis. With respect to power distribution/retail sector, a

higher ratio represents that there are well established procedure for recovery mechanism and the



sales of the company are being channelled through metered connections. On the contrary, a lower

ratio may represent a very lenient approach of the Corporation in recovering its due from the

consumers and lack of stringent processes to deal with the defaulting consumers.

The Commission in its MYT Order dated 05.04.2016, while approving the Business Plan of

UPCL for second control period, has approved the collection efficiency for FY 2017-18 as 98.75%.

In the present case, the Commission has calculated the Collection Efficiency ratio of UPCL

for FY 2017-18 under the four broad Tariff categories, viz. Domestic Consumers, Non-Domestic

Consumers, Industrial Consumers and Govt. Utilities, based on the CS-4 report submitted by UPCL.

The Collection Efficiency ratio has been calculated based on the following formulae =

Realisation of (Current Assessment+Arrears)÷Current Assessment

Chart 16: UPCL Collection Efficiency for FY 2017-18

As can be seen from the above graph, compared to overall Collection Efficiency approved by

the Commission for FY 2017-18 of 98.75%, UPCL has not been able to meet the same only in the

month of March’ 2018 ie. towards the losing of the financial year. Further as can be seen from

above, the rising graphs on monthly basis clearly indicates that during the initial months of the year

the collection efficiency ranges between 50% to 60%, which is gradually increasing towards the later

parts of the year. Moreover, as far as collection from Govt. Utilities is concerned, the same too lower

in the initial months and is ranging in the average of 30%-40% during the year and going upto a

maximum of 83% in the month of March’18.



This trend clearly shows that the organization will be facing financial crunches during the

initial months due to lack of adequate collection, and may have to resort to outside borrowings to

meet the cost of operations. This in turn will lead to imposition of additional financial burden on the

organization in the form of interest cost and ultimately the effect of inefficiency would have to be

borne by the consumers. If proper measures to ensure the timely collection of revenues from the

consumers is taken right from the beginning and also timely action against the defaulters are taken

then a discipline in collections could have been maintained and the required funds to meet the

operational needs of the organization would be readily available in the form of revenue from sales

at no extra cost.

It has been observed based on the Petitions submitted by the UPCL and also on the basis of

audited financial statements of various years, that UPCL has been resorting to over draft (OD)

funding at high rate of interest to meet its operation cost which could surely be avoided if a proper

discipline in collection of the assessed revenue is maintained on periodic basis. In this regard, the

Commission directs UPCL to submit a plan to demonstrate as to how it will work in the direction

of improving its actual collection even during initial quarters during a financial year so that the

gap between the actual collection efficiency and the collection efficiency approved by the

Commission may be brought to minimum.

7.5.6 Conclusion

The Commission in Tariff Order for every year carries out the detailed review of commerical

performance of UPCL and highlights the areas of improvement for UPCL. However, no significant

improvement has been observed over a period of time in reducing Provisional billing cases

(NA/NR/IDF), replacing mechanical meters, reduction in defective meters, improvement in

collection period, etc.

The Commission is of the view that the time has come for senior management of the UPCL

to look into all these aspects and take immediate corrective actions. The performance improvement

can be achieved by allocating the specific responsibilities for each aspect at the Head Office level as

well as field level.

Considering the business spread of the Petitioner among its constituent divisions, the

Commission is of the view that performance monitoring of the Petitioner should be done at each of



its Distribution Division levels. For this purpose, it is imperative that Division-wise target setting on

each parameter for the ensuing financial year should be done by the Petitioner before the start of the

next financial year itself, i.e. by March of the current financial year, so that the whole Technical &

Commercial monitoring process becomes meaningful with conclusive inference on quantitative

improvement on month on month basis. The senior management of UPCL should review the actual

performance at the end of every month with respect to target set for each division.

Further, the Commercial Performance Monitoring Report in the prescribed formats shall be

submitted to the Commission on regular basis by 25th day of the next months and such formats

should be duly signed by Managing Director of UPCL.


8. Commission’s Directives

The Commission in its previous Orders had issued a number of specific directions to the

Petitioner with an objective of attaining operational efficiency, efficient manpower deployment and

streamlining the flow of information. These objectives would be beneficial not only for the sector

but also for the Petitioner’s company, both in terms of short and long term perspective. These

directions aim at creating a conducive, competitive and healthy environment for the Petitioner to

provide good quality of electricity supply and service to the consumers of Uttarakhand at optimum

and affordable costs. This Chapter deals with the compliance status and the Commission’s views

thereon on the directives issued vide APR Order for FY 2017-18 dated March 21, 2018 as well as the

summary of new directions (given in preceding Chapters of this Order) for compliance and

implementation by the Petitioner.

8.1 Compliance to the Directives Issued in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 dated

March 21, 2018

8.1.1 Performance Report

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the monthly as well as quarterly status

report as per the directions of the Commission by 10th of following month/quarter without fail.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The commercial performance monitoring report in the prescribed formats for the month of

August, 2018 has been submitted to the Commission vide letter no. 3879/UPCL/RM/UERC-10

dated 22 October, 2018. The quarterly targets were also submitted vide letter no.

3015/UPCL/RM/UERC-10 dated 21 August, 2018.

The Commission has noted the submissions of the Petitioner. The Commission directs the

Petitioner to submit the monthly as well as quarterly status report as per the directions of the

Commission by 10th of following month/quarter without fail.

8.1.2 Sales

The Commission directed the Petitioner to instruct its field offices to carry out the

corresponding corrections in sales also in cases where billing is withdrawn. In future if such



instance comes to the knowledge of the Commission, punitive action under Section 142 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 may be taken against the errant officers of UPCL.

Petitioner’s Submission

UPCL vide its letter no. 1313/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated April 04, 2018 directed all its

concerned filed officers to carry out the corresponding corrections in sales (units) in cases where

sales / billing is withdrawn. The instructions to this effect had also been circulated to the field

officers vide O.M. dated July 01, 2017.

The Commission has noted the submissions of the Petitioner. The Commission as discussed

in Chapter 4 of this Order while approving sales for FY 2017-18 observed similar anomalies wherein

the ABR for some of the categories was less than the energy charge. The Commission has therefore

carried out necessary adjustment in the revenue and sales in this regard. However, the Petitioner is

directed to instruct its field offices to carry out the corresponding corrections in sales also in

cases where billing is withdrawn. In future if such instance comes to the knowledge of the

Commission, punitive action under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 may be taken against

the errant officers of UPCL.

8.1.3 Load Shedding

The Commission directed the Petitioner to obtain the prior approval of the Commission for

load shedding to be carried out continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more

days.

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner submitted that no load shedding has been carried out by UPCL in any area

continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days. Further, prior approval of

the Commission shall be obtained as and when required as per direction of the Commission. The

Petitioner has further stated that UPCL has also prepared a policy on power cuts. The policy was

approved by the Board of UPCL in the meeting held on July 23, 2015 and submitted the same to the

Commission.

8. Commission’s Directions


The Commission has taken note of the Petitioner’s reply. The Commission, hereby, once

again directs the Petitioner to obtain the prior approval of the Commission for load shedding to

be carried out continuously for certain number of hours in a day for 15 or more days.

8.1.4 AT&C Losses

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit division wise action plan to reduce the

losses in EDD, Narayanbagar, Rudraprayag, Roorkee, Bageshwar, Vikasnagar, Uttarkashi, EDD,

Dharachulla to below 20% within one month from the date of issuance of the Tariff Order for FY

2018-19.

The Commission directed the Petitioner to abstain from seeking relaxation in distribution

loss in every ensuing Tariff Petition once the issue has been settled by the Commission.


The Petitioner submitted that the division wise target of distribution losses for FY 2018-19

has been fixed and circulated to the field officers. All the distribution divisions have been directed

to achieve 100% collection efficiency for FY 2018-19.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the division wise target distribution losses

for FY 2018-19 and actual distribution losses for FY 2018-19 by June 30, 2019. Further, the

Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the division wise actual collection efficiency achieved

during FY 2018-19 by June 30, 2019.

8.1.5 Power Purchase Quantum and Cost

The Commission directed the Petitioner to seek prior approval of the Commission, in case

the variation in power purchase quantum or power purchase cost in any quarter exceeded by more

than 5% of the approved power purchase quantum and cost for the respective quarter worked out

on pro-rata basis from the total approved quantity and cost for FY 2018-19, failing which, the

Commission may disallow such additional power purchases so made while truing up the ARR for

FY 2018-19.

The Commission directed the Petitioner that it should neither overdraw power at frequency

below 49.90 Hz nor resort to load shedding due to improper procurement planning. Further, any

drawal below 49.90 Hz shall not be allowed by the Commission.




In compliance with the above directions, the Petitioner submitted that the details of actual

power purchases for the first quarter of FY 2018-19 were submitted to the Commission vide UPCL’s

letter no. 3253/UPCL/CE(Commercial)/PP quarterly data, dated 25 August, 2018. The details of

which are as under:

Table 8.1: Power Purchase for 1st Quarter of FY 2018-19 as submitted by the Petitioner

S. No. Particulars MU Rs. Crore 1. Power Purchase approved in the Tariff Order 3696.97 1252.11 2. Power Purchase allowed up to 105% of ‘1’ 3881.82 1314.72 3. Actual power purchase 3699.36 1381.95

The excess power purchase cost was mainly on account of higher gas price and consequently

higher variable charges of power purchase from intra State generating stations. Further, an arrear

amounting to Rs. 38.63 Crore pertaining to the period from July 2015 to March, 2018 was also paid

to M/s NTPC (Koldam) due to revision of tariff.

UPCL has made arrangement to meet its demand of electricity during FY 2018-19. However,

some times the demand supply gap arises due to some unforeseen circumstances such as

unplanned shutdown of the generating station(s) and sudden increase in demand due to weather

conditions etc. In such uncontrollable conditions, UPCL is required to draw power from the grid

through unscheduled interchange to meet the demand of electricity and to provide continuous

supply to its consumers. In order to comply with the Commission’s direction, UPCL has planned

not to draw power below 49.90 Hz and accordingly instructed SLDC but in the circumstances

mentioned above, this drawl may be at some lower frequency. UPCL requested the Commission to

consider the power purchases accordingly at the time of tariff determination.

Due to malfunctioning of SCADA at SLDC since long time, only hourly data that is entered

manually in log books of SLDC is available for grid monitoring. This results in unavailability of

reliable and correct real time data in SLDC and this issue has been raised with PTCUL.

Further, the Petitioner vide its letter No. 359/UPCL/Comm/MD dated 05.02.2019 submitted

before the Commission that due to delay in communication of real time data of grid parameters by

SLDC, the Petitioner has not been able to respond to Grid frequency due to which it has been

incurring additional UI charges and has sought appropriate directions in this regard. The



Commission has taken note of this and is examining the issue separately and appropriate view in

this regard will be taken separately based on the outcome of the investigation.

The Commission, directs the Petitioner to seek prior approval of the Commission, in case

the variation in power purchase quantum or total power purchase cost in any quarter exceeds by

more than 5% of the approved power purchase quantum and cost for the respective quarter

worked out on pro-rata basis from the total approved quantum and cost for FY 2019-20 as

indicated in the Table below, failing which, the Commission may disallow power purchases so

made while Truing up the ARR for FY 2019-20.

The Commission directs the Petitioner that it should neither overdraw power at

frequency below 49.90 Hz nor resort to load shedding due to improper procurement planning.

Further, any drawal below 49.90 Hz shall not be allowed by the Commission.

8.1.6 Fixed Assets Register

The Commission directed the Petitioner to expedite the process and submit the Fixed Assets

Register updated upto March 31, 2016 within 1 month of the date of the Order and the Fixed Assets

Register updated upto March 31, 2017 within 3 months of the date of the Order and start

preparation of Fixed Assets Register for FY 2017-18.


The Fixed Assets Register for FY 2013-14 to FY 2015-16 was submitted to the Commission

vide letter no. 1774/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated April 28, 2018. The Fixed Assets register for FY 2016-17

was submitted vide letter no. 1199/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated May 15, 2018.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the Fixed Asset Register updated upto

FY 2017-18 within 3 months from the date of this Order.

8.1.7 Bad &Doubtful Debts

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the audit report of receivables identifying

and classifying the same in detail within 6 months from the date of the Order.


The tender for engagement of consultant to conduct the Audit of Receivables has been

floated on October 15, 2018. The date of opening of Part I has been extended to November 30, 2018.



The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the audit report of receivables

identifying and classifying the same in detail within 6 months from the date of this Order. The

Commission shall consider writing off of bad debts only upon submission of the same at the

time of truing up.

8.1.8 Reliability Indices

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit monthly report on Reliability Indices on

regular basis.


Steps have been taken at Corporate Office to ensure that the said report is timely submitted

to the Commission on regular basis. The report for the month of September, 2018 has been

submitted to the Commission vide letter no. 4120/UPCL/RM/M-SSM, dated November 15, 2018.

The details of SAIFI, SAIDI & MAIFI are as follows:

Table 8.2: Details of SAIFI, SAIDI & MAIFI for April to September, 2018

Particulars SAIFI (No.) SAIDI (Minutes) MAIFI (Minutes) Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

April, 2018 35 23 1120 643 9 6 May, 2018 49 29 1631 883 10 8 June, 2018 47 33 9918 904 11 11 July, 2018 49 35 1350 986 11 11 August, 2018 45 31 1303 917 11 11 September, 2018 43 30 1704 965 9 8

The Commission has noted the Petitioner’s reply on Reliability Indices. The Commission

once again directs the Petitioner to submit the monthly report on Reliability Indices on regular

basis.

8.1.9 Voltage wise Cost of Supply

The Commission directed the Petitioner to expedite the activities with regards to Voltage

wise Cost of Supply and submit quarterly report on the status of metering alongwith an Action Plan

to conduct Energy Audit & also related costs to determine the Voltage-wise Cost of Supply by the

end of FY 2018-19.

The Commission directed the Petitioner to provide/maintain the metering system at each

feeder, ‘T’ points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network for effective energy auditing and



accounting. The Petitioner is directed to submit compliance report in this regard by September 30,

2018, failing which appropriate action may be taken against the Petitioner in accordance with the

Act/Rules/Regulations.


The Petitioner submitted that Metering has been completed at all 33 kV and 11 kV points.

The BoD of UPCL granted approval for engagement of consultant for Concurrent Audit of Energy /

billing parameters for two years i.e., FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 in respect of 16 divisions with loss

levels viz. (1) Dehradun (South), (2) Dehradun (Rural), (3) Kotdwar, (4) Haridwar (Urban), (5)

Haridwar (Rural), (6) Laksar, (7) Roorkee, (8) Ramnagar (Roorkee), (9) Roorkee (Urban), (10)

Bhagwanpur, (11) Haldwani (Rural), (12) Rudrapur, (13) Sitarganj, (14) Kashipur, (15) Jaspur, and

(16) Bajpur. Tender for engagement of consultant has been floated in November, 2018. Part I is

scheduled to be opened on December 21, 2018. The appointment of consultant, for advisory support

to evolve a mechanism for computation of other related cost to determine the voltage wise cost of

supply, is in process.

The Commission has noted the Petitioner’s reply. The Commission once again directs the

Petitioner to expedite the activities with regards to Voltage wise Cost of Supply and submit

quarterly report on the status of same.

8.1.10 Demand Side Management Measures

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the report on various Demand Side

Management measures at regular quarterly intervals to the Commission.


The Petitioner submitted that upto March, 2017 a total of 38.845 Lakh LED bulbs have been

distributed in the State. Out of which 2.02 Lakh 7W LED bulbs to BPL consumers and 1.98 Lakh 7W

LED bulbs to other domestic consumers, having consumption upto 100 units have been distributed

on subsidized rates. Further, distribution of 9W LED bulbs, 20W LED Tube Light and 50W Energy

Efficient Ceiling Fans has also been initiated in the State with effect from April 10, 2017 onwards.

The status of distribution is as follows:



Table 8.3: Status of Distribution of Energy Efficient Equipment Month 9W

LED Bulbs 20W EE

Tube Lights 50W 5 Star Rated Fans

April, 2017 20376 323 23 May, 2017 73771 899 376 June, 2017 89892 1865 688 July, 2017 51633 1999 141 August, 2017 93605 3914 711 September, 2017 95476 4885 595 October, 2017 80530 2487 158 November, 2017 77352 828 37 December, 2017 75387 1544 33 January, 2018 108243 2169 336 February, 2018 66282 1206 137 March, 2018 198655 11636 230 April, 2018 96085 267 51 May, 2018 82110 595 227 June, 2018 34959 2975 783 July, 2018 41370 17 45 August, 2018 120570 181 62 September, 2018 43576 78 20 Total 1449872 37868 4653

The Commission has taken note of the submissions of the Petitioner. The Commission,

hereby, re-directs the Petitioner to submit the report on various Demand Side Management

measures at regular quarterly intervals to the Commission.

8.1.11 Deficit/Surplus Power

The Commission directed the Petitioner to bank the surplus energy during the month of

May 2018 to September 2018 and withdraw the same in the month of October 2018 to March 2019.


Banking arrangement has been made with M/s PTC and M/s APPCPL as follows:

Table 8.4: Details of Banking Arrangement done in FY 2018-19 Period Quantum of power to be

banked (MW) Return period Quantum of power to be taken back (MW)

June 16 to June 30 200 October 50 July 350 November 200 August 300 December 250 September 1 to September 15 200 January 250 September 16 to September 30 100 February 200 - - March Balance



The above banking arrangement was approved by the Commission. The energy of 756.40

MU has been banked upto September 30, 2018. Further, UPCL has made forward banking

arrangement on availability basis with M/s MPPL and M/s APPCPL. UPCL will get 107% from

M/s MPPL and 112.50% from M/s APPCPL. The period of return shall be decided between the

parties as per mutual agreement.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to bank the surplus energy available during the

months of April 2019 to September 2019 and withdraw the same in the months of October 2019 to

March 2020.

8.1.12 Status of NA/NR, IDF/ADF/RDF

The Commission directed the Petitioner to reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to below 2%

in the entire State latest by September 30, 2018, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer

(Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive Engineer (Distribution) &

Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-compliance of the Commission’s

directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated.


UPCL vide its letter no. 1324/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated April 4, 2018 directed all the field

officers to reduce the percentage of NA/NR cases to below 2% latest by September 30, 2018. The

NA and NR cases as on March 31, 2018 were 3.54% and 4.64% respectively while the same as on

August 31, 2018 were 3.61% and 6.94% respectively.

The Commission again directs the Petitioner to reduce the percentage NA/NR cases to

below 2% in the entire State latest by 30.09.2019, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer



directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/ Regulations would be initiated. The

Commission directs Company Secretary of UPCL to issue a copy of these directions to concerned

officers, as mentioned hereinabove, for information and necessary compliance.



8.1.13 Replacement of Improper, Non-Functional, Stop/Stuck up defective or IDF Meters

The Commission directed the Petitioner to restrict the percentage defective meters (IDF) to

3% in plain as well as in hilly areas of the State upto September 30, 2018, failing which the

concerned Chief Engineer (Distribution), Superintending Engineer (Distribution), Executive

Engineer (Distribution) & Executive Engineer (Test) shall be held responsible for non-compliance of

the Commission’s directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be

initiated.



officers to reduce the percentage of IDF cases in each division to below 3% latest by September 30,

2018. The defective meters in hilly area as on March 31, 2018 were 6.02% while the same as on June

30, 2018 were 5.32%. The defective meters in plain area as on March 31, 2018 were 1.44% while the

same as on June 30, 2018 were 2.98%.

The Petitioner is directed to restrict percentage defective meters (IDF) to 3% in plain as

well as in hilly areas of the State by 30.06.2019, failing which the concerned Chief Engineer



directions and appropriate action under the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated. The

Commission directs Company Secretary of UPCL to issue a copy of these directions to concerned

officers, as mentioned hereinabove, for information and necessary compliance.

8.1.14 Replacement of Mechanical Meters

The Commission directed the Petitioner to ensure complete replacement of Mechanical

Meters by Electronic Meters well before March 31, 2019.



officers to replace all the mechanical meters with electronic meters by March 31, 2019. The

mechanical meters as on March 31, 2018 were 71,382 while the same as on August 31, 2018 were

60,533.









hereinabove, for information and necessary compliance.

8.1.15 Ghost/Fictitious Consumers

The Commission directed the Petitioner to ensure that no new ghost/fictitious/non-existent

consumers should appear in its billing database.


As per the reports received from the field offices, there is no ghost/fictitious consumer in the

billing data base and all the field officers vide letter no. 1327/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated April 4, 2018

have been directed to ensure that no new ghost/fictitious/non-existent consumer is added in the

billing data base.

8.1.16 NB & SB Cases

The Commission directed the Petitioner to liquidate and finalise atleast 5% of the NB/SB

cases in each quarter and submit quarterly report before the Commission.



officers to liquidate and finalise atleast 5% of NB/SB cases in each quarter. NB/SB cases as on

March 31, 2018 were 1,60,409 and the same as on August 31, 2018 were 1,60,054.

The Commission again directs the Petitioner to liquidate and finalise atleast 5% of the

NB/SB cases in each quarter and submit quarterly report before the Commission. In absence of

the same, action under the provisions of Act/Rules/Regulations may be initiated against the

Petitioner.



8.1.17 Outstanding Arrears

The Commission directed the Petitioner to make sincere efforts in mobilizing its resources

throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a structured receivable management

programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual defaulters.

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit within 3 months, an action plan to

improve its collection period.


A division wise action plan has been prepared for recovery of revenue arrears and for

improvement in collection efficiency which inter-alia includes: (1) collection efficiency for FY 2018-

19 has been fixed as 100% for each division, (2) filed officers have been directed to provide verified

bills in respect of all revenue arrears outstanding against Government Departments, (3) consumer

wise separate lists of arrears have been prepared in respect of consumers having arrears of Rs.

25,000 to Rs. 50,000, Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 and more than Rs. 5,00,000.

Chief Engineers (Distribution) have been made responsible to monitor the recovery of arrears in

respect of arrears upto Rs. 5,00,000. Director (Operation) is monitoring the list of consumers having

arrears more than Rs. 5,00,000. The details of arrears are as follows:

Table 8.5: Details of arrears as submitted by UPCL Arrear Amount No. of defaulters Arrears (Rs. Crore)

Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000 397 1.41 Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 278 1.99 Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 313 6.6 Above Rs. 5,00,000 129 84.79 Arrears as per R-APDRP billing 51444 290.06 Total 52561 384.85

The Commission hereby directs the Petitioner to make sincere efforts in mobilizing its

resources throughout the year for collection of Arrears under a structured receivable

management programme besides taking corrective actions against the habitual defaulters.

8.1.18 Status of KCC Consumers

The Commission directed the Petitioner that the KCC consumers having less load factor

should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern and abnormality in consumption

pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission also directed the Petitioner to check



KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted demand and take

corrective action in such cases.


The Petitioner submitted that the monitoring is being done on regular basis.

The Commission directs the Petitioner that KCC consumers having less load factor

should be closely monitored and average consumption pattern and abnormality in consumption

pattern should be checked and duly analysed. The Commission also directs the Petitioner to

check KCC consumers who are repeatedly exceeding their sanctioned/contracted demand and

take corrective action in such cases.

8.1.19 Status of Revenue realisation per unit sold

The Commission directed the Petitioner to ensure that the data furnished in Commercial

Performance Monitoring report should match with its Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-4 data and the

Petitioner should ensure that in all future submissions of Commercial Performance Monitoring

reports the Average Realisation Rate should be calculated on the basis of recoveries on account of

Realisation Against energy dues only and the realisation shown should exclude recoveries from

duties/cess, etc. Further, the realisation against energy dues should clearly bifurcate realisation

against current dues & realisation against past dues, failing which appropriate action shall be

initiated against the Petitioner/Licensee.


Formats of Commercial Diary have been revised so as to include the information as required

by the Commission. All commercial data for the period from April, 2018 shall be submitted to the

Commission based on commercial diary and under the heads as per the directions of the

Commission.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to ensure that the data furnished in Commercial

Performance Monitoring report should match with its Commercial Diary, i.e. CS-4 data and the

Petitioner should ensure that in all future submissions of Commercial Performance Monitoring

reports the Average Realisation Rate should be calculated on the basis of recoveries on account

of Realisation Against energy dues only and the realisation shown should exclude recoveries

from duties/cess, etc. Further, the realisation against energy dues should clearly bifurcate



realisation against current dues & realisation against past dues, failing which appropriate action

shall be initiated against the Petitioner/Licensee.

8.1.20 Billing and Collection System

The Commission directed the Petitioner to complete the works of bill collection facilities and

integration of all CSCs in the State latest by April 30, 2018, in absence of which, stern action under

the provisions of the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated against it. Moreover, the

Commission directs the Petitioner to make widespread publicity/ Advertisement/workshop of the

bill collection facilities & list of VLEs operating in the vicinity of various electricity Sub-

division/division officers of UPCL across the State.


The Petitioner submitted the status of construction of bill collection centre as follows:

Under Package A (Garhwal Zone), collection centre facilities are to be provided in 53 centres

of 4 Electricity Distribution Circles. The work is completed at 6 centres and more than 95% work is

completed at 2 centres. More than 50% work is completed at 16 centres and at the remaining

centres, work is in progress. Due to heavy rains, the progress is slow and the remaining centres are

expected to be completed by December 31, 2018.

Under Package B (Haridwar Zone), collection centre facilities are to be provided in 22

centres of 2 Electricity Distribution Circles. The work is completed at 18 centres and at the

remaining centres, work is expected to be completed by December 31, 2018.

Under Package C (Kumaon Zone), collection centre facilities are to be provided in 65 centres

of 3 Electricity Distribution Circles. The work is completed at 3 centres and more than 95% work is

completed at 15 centres. More than 50% work is completed at 14 centres and at the remaining

centres, work is in progress. Due to heavy rains, the progress is slow and the remaining centres are

expected to be completed by December 31, 2018.

Under Package D (Rudrapur Zone), collection centre facilities are to be provided in 18

centres of 2 Electricity Distribution Circles. The work is completed at 4 centres and more than 85%

work is completed at 13 centres. More than 50% work is completed at Kanalichhina, Pithoragarh

and the remaining work is expected to be completed by December 31, 2018.



UPCL is taking all measures to promote the payment of electricity bills by the consumers to

be paid through the CSC counters by sending the bulk SMS to all the consumers whose mobile nos.

are registered with UPCL consumer data base. UPCL is inviting limited quotation tender to print

the flex and vinyl sheet boards to fix at all bill collection centres in order to create awareness among

consumers regarding the services provided by UPCL. UPCL is also getting the printed pamphlets

displaying the information regarding the electricity bill payment facility through CSC without any

additional charges. At the level of M/s CSC, the promotional activities are being conducted by the

district level managers which include the awareness of the CSC vendors about the increase in CSC

charges and introduction of new incentives/scheme for collection of electricity bill payments.

District level managers of M/s CSC are conducting workshops at the block levels to promote the

services being provided by CSC to UPCL consumers for payment of electricity bills. UPCL and M/s

CSC both are conducting the promotional activities and making efforts to increase the no. of

transactions. The details of number of transactions and amount collected are shown in the Table

below:

Table 8.6: Status of CSC transactions as submitted by UPCL

Month Active CSC counters Transaction count Transaction amount (Rs. Lakh)

June, 2018 605 10592 66.41 July, 2018 734 14683 100.27 August, 2018 899 15962 126.09 September, 2018 1167 18167 143.92 October, 2018 1162 17784 143.06

The Petitioner is again directed to complete the works of bill collection facilities and

integration of all CSCs in the State latest by April 30, 2018, in absence of which, stern action

under the provisions of the Act/Rules/Regulations would be initiated against it. Moreover, the

Commission directs the Petitioner to make widespread publicity/ Advertisement/workshop of

the bill collection facilities & list of VLEs operating in the vicinity of various electricity Sub-

division/division officers of UPCL across the State.

8.1.21 Transfer of Distribution Business from UJVN Ltd. to UPCL

The Commission directed both the utilities i.e., UPCL & UJVN Ltd. to complete the taking

over/handing over of distribution business in all respect by June 30, 2018 and submit the

compliance report in the matter by July 15, 2018, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated



against the concerned Nodal Officers responsible for the same in accordance with the provisions of

the Act/Regulations.


The Commission had initiated suo-moto proceedings in this matter on June 19, 2018 under

Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for non-compliance of the Commission’s directions

in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18. The Commission directed the Managing Directors of both the

utilities to personally ensure the compliance of the same latest by September 30, 2018 and to submit

the report latest by October 10, 2018. The status of takeover by UPCL is as follows:

Table 8.7: Takeover of UJVN Ltd. connections by UPCL Region No. of connections

Dakpathar circle 131 Koti colony 30 Dhakrani region 12 Dhalipur region 92 Kulhal region 31 Dakpathar region 566 Total 862

UPCL has taken over all the 862 connections for which the requisite details have been

provided by UJVN Ltd. The remaining 382 connections shall be taken over after the requisite details

are provided by UJVN Ltd. UJVN Ltd. submitted that in some of its colonies, UJVN Ltd.’s

employees, irrigation employees and others are living together and requested three months’ time

for segregating the supply to its employees.

The Commission has noted the Petitioner’s submission in this regard.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to complete the taking over/handing over of

balance 382 connections by June 30, 2019 and submit the compliance report in the matter by July

15, 2019, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated against the concerned Nodal Officers

responsible for the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act/Regulations.

8.1.22 Departmental Employees

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the bills of all the departmental

employees for FY 2016-17 within 2 months of the date of the Order before the Commission. The

Commission also directed the Petitioner to reconcile the figures of departmental employees in the



commercial data as well as that claimed for calculation of employee expenses and submit the same

to the Commission within 2 months of the date of the Order.


The billing ledgers of the departmental employees for the period April 2016 to March 2017

were submitted to the Commission vide letter no. 2618/UPCL/RM/C-13 dated June 28, 2017. The

filed officers were also asked to provide copies of bills in respect of each employee and for each

month but this could not be done due to shortage of manpower. The Petitioner requested the

Commission to consider the information provided in the billing ledgers. The Petitioner further

submitted that the reconciliation of the figures of departmental employees as show in the

commercial diary with the information maintained in the HR section is in the process and shall be

submitted to the Commission on completion.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the bills of all the departmental

employees for FY 2017-18 within 2 months of the date of the Order before the Commission. The

Commission also directs the Petitioner to reconcile the figures of departmental employees in the

commercial data as well as that claimed for calculation of employee expenses and submit the

same to the Commission within 2 months of the date of the Order. As regards the concession

provided to these consumers, the Petitioner is directed to show the same separately as expenses

in its accounts.

8.1.23 Location of Installation of Meters

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit quarterly status report with regards to

shifting of meters for all divisions to the Commission.


UPCL vide its letter no. 1336/UPCL/RM/C-14, dated April 4, 2018 directed all the field

officers to ensure compliance to the Commission’s direction.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit quarterly status report with regards to

shifting of meters for all divisions to the Commission.

8.1.24 Transfer of Petitioner’s Personnel

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the status of number of employees that



have been posted in the same department for a period more than that stipulated in the aforesaid

Policy to the Commission by April 30, 2018.


The Petitioner submitted that the requisite information has been submitted vide its letter no.

2960/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated July 27, 2018.

8.1.25 Water Tax

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit all the relevant information along with

supporting documents for substantiating the actual expenses incurred on account of Water Tax for

FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 along with its proposals for True up.


The Petitioner submitted the requisite information for FY 2017-18 has been submitted in the

MYT Petition and that for FY 2018-19 shall be submitted in the Tariff Petition for FY 2020-21.

The Petitioner is directed to submit all the relevant information along with the

supporting documents for substantiating the actual expenses incurred on account of Water Tax

for FY 2018-19 along with its proposals for True up.

8.1.26 Open Access Charges

The Commission directed the Petitioner that the wheeling charges and cross subsidy

surcharge recovered from open access customers shall be shown separately under the separate head

of income in its ARR/Tariff filings.


The Petitioner further submitted that these charges have been shown separately in the MYT

Petition.

8.1.27 Tariff Hike

The Commission directed the Petitioner to follow up for the balance payments pending from

GoU and intimate the receipt to the Commission.




As per the directions of GoU, UPCL waived off the electricity bills of the consumers affected

in Deviya Aapada – 2013 amounting to Rs. 1542.52 Lakh. Out of this amount, Rs. 784.48 Lakh has

been received by UPCL. UPCL is regularly pursuing the balance payment in this regard. UPCL vide

its letter dated May 25, 2018 requested Secretary (Energy), GoU to adjust the said amount from the

electricity duty payable by UPCL to GoU.

8.1.28 Service Charge from consumers on payment of bills

The Commission directed the Petitioner not to charge any service charges from the

consumers on payment of bills using its payment gateway & submit the compliance on the same to

the Commission within one month of the date of the Order.


UPCL vide its letter no. 1771/UPCL/COMM/HT-39 dated April 28, 2018 issued instructions

to M/s Tech Process Solution Ltd. (operator of payment gateway of electricity bills) not to charge

any transaction charges from the consumers for payment of electricity bills using payment gateway.

8.1.29 Metering & Billing

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the status of implementation of adjusting

the open access energy through the software under R-APDRP Cell latest by May 31, 2018.


As regards direction issued in the matter of adjusting open access energy in the consumer

bill in the same month / billing cycle, the Petitioner submitted that presently the work of adjusting

open access energy is being done manually by the field units. This adjustment is being given in the

next month of transaction. This work has been planned through software under R-APDRP Cell,

which is taking time due to non-standardization of input formats from IEX regarding daily

scheduling data. Thereafter the open access energy will be adjusted through software in the same

month / billing cycle. However, field units vide O.M. dated July 01, 2017 have been directed to

adjust the open access energy in the bill for the month of the transaction.



8.1.30 Departmental Employees

The Commission directed the Petitioner to bill all departmental employees’ consumers on

the basis of rates approved for the RTS-1 Domestic Category from April 01, 2018. The Commission

directed the Petitioner to include the consumption and revenue details of these consumers at the

Domestic Tariff Rate in the monthly CS-3 and CS-4 statements. As regards the concession provided

to these consumers, the Commission directed the Petitioner to show the same separately as

expenses in its accounts.


The Petitioner submitted that instructions have been issued to the concerned officers to bill

all the departmental employees and pensioners of UPCL, UJVN Ltd. and PTCUL on the basis of

rates approved for domestic category from April 01, 2018. Directions have also been issued to book

the concession provided to the departmental employees and pensioners in the books of accounts

under a separate head.

8.1.31 Temporary Connection

The Commission directed the Petitioner to issue instructions to its field/ distribution

division officers to issue the proper temporary connections with prepaid meters for functions like

marriages, ceremonies and other similar purposes and should not provide any illegal connection.



officers to issue proper temporary connections with prepaid meters for functions like marriages,

ceremonies and other similar purposes.

8.1.32 Views of State Advisory Committee

The Commission directed UPCL to address the concerns raised by the Members of the

Advisory Committee and submit an Action Taken Report within one month of the date of Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the report has been submitted to the Commission vide its

letter no. 1570/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated April 16, 2018.



8.1.33 Cost of Free Power

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the details of cost of free power as booked

in the accounts, cost of free power trued up by the Commission and the amount remitted to GoU by

the Petitioner in this regard from FY 2001-02 to FY 2010-11 within 3 months of the date of the Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the information as directed by the Commission was submitted

vide its letter no. 3641/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated September 29, 2018.

8.1.34 Depreciation

The Commission directed the Petitioner to claim depreciation in line with its practice

followed in the accounts.


The Petitioner submitted that the depreciation has been claimed as per the directions of the

Commission.

8.1.35 Bad Debt

The Commission directed the Petitioner to refrain itself from treating rectification of wrong

billing made in the earlier period as writing off the bad debts.


Any amount of billing which has to be withdrawn by UPCL at the direction of

Courts/Forums or if found incorrect, is adjusted from the provision for bad and doubtful debts as

per the accounting practices in other Distribution companies.

The Commission again directs the Petitioner to account its billing adjustment and writing

off the bad debts properly in accordance with the accounting policies.

8.1.36 Impact of VII Pay Commission

The Commission directed the Petitioner to maintain separate details of the amount paid as

arrears to its employees on account of implementation of the recommendations of VII Pay

Commission.




The Petitioner submitted that the said information is being maintained as per the directions

of the Commission.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the details of VII Pay Commission

arrears paid to its employees in FY 2018-19 in the true up of FY 2018-19.

8.1.37 Additional A&G Expenses

The Commission directed the Petitioner to book these expenses separately under the

relevant accounting head, i.e. R&M expenses or A&G expenses and claim the same during truing

up of the respective years.


The Petitioner submitted that the Commission’s directions are complied with.

8.1.38 Adjustment of Free Power

The Commission directed the Petitioner to refrain from such financial engineering in its

future proposals in the absence of firm assurances/commitments from the State Government which

results in misleading all the stakeholders.


The Petitioner submitted that it has not made any claims in this regard in the MYT Petition.

8.1.39 Consumer Mix

The Commission directed the Petitioner not to indicate any un-metered category in its

commercial diary and should ensure that no energy should be booked, in this account. In absence of

the corrective action at UPCL’s end, action under provisions of Act/Rules/Regulations would be

initiated.


The Petitioner submitted that the format of Commercial Diary has been revised and there is

no head of unmetered category in the same.



8.1.40 Conductor Augmentation

The Commission directed the Petitioner to identify such feeders/spans where the power

distribution network is on GI wire and replace them with the ACSR or better conductors latest by

September 30, 2018 and submit a compliance report under affidavit on the same.

The Commission also directed the Petitioner to prepare and submit an action plan for

checking and refurbishment of protection systems at various 33/11 kV sub-stations latest by June

30, 2018.


The Petitioner submitted that its filed officers have been directed to identify such

feeders/spans where the power distribution network is on GI wire and to replace the same with

ACSR conductor.

The Petitioner is again directed to indentify such feeders/spans where the power

distribution network is on GI wire and replace them with the ACSR or better conductors latest

by 30.09.2019 and submit a compliance report under affidavit on the same. The Petitioner is also

directed to prepare and submit an action plan for checking and refurbishment of protection

systems at various 33/11 kV substations latest by 30.06.2019.

8.1.41 Inventory Management

The Commission directed the Petitioner to submit the details regarding the inventory

maintained by it within one month of the date of Order.


The Petitioner submitted that the requisite information was submitted vide its letter no.

1670/UPCL/RM/C-14 dated April 21, 2018.

The Petitioner is directed to submit the following details within one month of the date of

Order failing which appropriate action will be initiated under the Act:

a) List of inventory as on 31.03.2017.

b) The accounting policies adopted in measuring inventories, including the cost

formula used;

c) Basis on which inventories issued: FIFO/LIFO/etc. and reason for choosing the same.



d) Whether any inventory classification has been carried out by UPCL in compliance to

the direction given by the Commission vide its letter dated 07.05.2018? If yes the same

may be submitted and if no, reason for the same may be furnished?

e) Whether the inventories are verified physically? If yes, the periodicity of the same,

alongwith the report of last physical verification. If physical verification is not being

conducted reasons for the same?

f) Practice followed by UPCL to record the inventory count during the intervening

period, i.e. between the date of physical verification and close of financial year for the

purpose of taking the inventory values in its books of accounts.

8.2 Fresh Directives

8.2.1 Scrutiny of KCC Data

As regards the suggestion for scrutiny of KCC data, the Commission directs UPCL to

constitute a cell in its commercial wing for analysis and monitoring of KCC data including low

load factor cases, meter tamper cases etc. The Commission directs UPCL to submit the report on

analysis and monitoring of KCC data on monthly basis by 15th of every month. (Refer 2.25.1.3)

8.2.2 Scrutiny of KCC Data

The Commission directs UPCL to make efforts to achieve the collection efficiency targets

approved by the Commission and also submit the details of number of defaulting consumers

disconnected and amount of arrears realized within one month of the end of each quarter. (Refer

2.29.1.3)

8.2.3 Procurement of Deficit Energy

In view of persistent deficit scenario during the Control Period, the Petitioner should put

its sincere efforts to procure the deficit energy through a mix of long term arrangements, medium

term arrangements and short term purchases optimizing the cost of power purchase and reliable

power. Further, the procurement should be through transparent process of bidding. UPCL is

directed to submit a comprehensive plan as to how it intends to meet the deficit for the next

Control Period within one month of the date of Order. (Refer 3.6.14)



8.2.4 Depreciation

The Commission directs the Petitioner to claim depreciation in line with its practice

followed in the accounts. (Refer 4.2.2.1.2)

8.2.5 Bad and Doubtful Debts

The Commission directs UPCL to submit the list of industries (both LT &HT) on whom

the arrears are due having age more than 5 years within 6 months of the date of the Order. UPCL

is also directed to reconcile the dues pending with railways within 6 months of the date of the

Order and submit the compliance before the Commission. UPCL is also directed to raise the

issue of pending dues on Government connections like Public Lamps, Public Water Works and

GIS and settle the dues before the end of FY 2019-20. UPCL is also directed to submit the

consumer wise details of bad debts written off within one month form the end on each quarter.

(Refer 4.2.3)

8.2.6 Power Pruchase Plan to meet the Deficit

The Petitioner is directed to prepare its power purchase plan for the next three years and

initiate the bidding process to meet the deficit, if any. The Petitioner is directed to submit an

action plan in this regard within 15 days of the date of Order. The Petitioner is also directed to

ensure compliance of the Regulations issued by the Commission from time to time, failing

which any consequent liability would be to the account of the Petitioner. (Refer 5.5.1)

8.2.7 Details for changing the threshold level for applicability of kVah based tariff for LT

Industry and Non-Domestic Category

The Commission, however, directs the Petitioner to submit the complete details for

changing the threshold level for applicability of kVAh based tariff for LT Industry and Non-

Domestic category including consumption in kWh and kVAh, revenue assessed from such

consumers, their Maximum demand, etc. in its next Tariff Petition and the Commission will take

a view based on details submitted by the Petitioner. (Refer 6.1.3.1)



8.2.8 Miscellaneous Charges

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the complete details for increasing the

Miscellaneous Charges, i.e. reasons and justification for increase and annual revenue at current

level of miscellaneous charges in the next Tariff Petition. (Refer 6.1.3.9)

8.2.9 Replacement of Mechanical Meters







hereinabove, for information and necessary compliance. (Refer 7.2.2.1)

8.2.10 Energy Audit

The Petitioner is directed to provide/maintain the metering system at each feeder, ‘T’

points, DTs and consumers in its distribution network for effective energy auditing and

accounting. The Petitioner is directed to submit compliance report in this regard by 30.09.2019,

failing which appropriate action may be taken against the Petitioner in accordance with the

Act/Rules/Regulations. (Refer 7.3)

8.2.11 Analysis of Current Liabilities

The Petitioner is directed to carry out the age-wise analysis of its current liabilities

outstanding as on 31.03.2018 and based on the ageing analysis determine how much of the same

would be required to be discharged and how much excess provision exists in the same so that the

same may be reversed and submit the same to the Commission within 3 months from the date of

Order. (Refer 7.5.1.2)

8.2.12 Average Collection Period

The Petitioner is directed to submit within 3 months, an action plan to improve its

collection period. (Refer 7.5.5.1)



8.2.13 Collection Efficiency Ratio

The Commission directs UPCL to submit a plan to demonstrate as to how it will work in

the direction of improving its actual collection even during initial quarters during a financial

year so that the gap between the actual collection efficiency and the collection efficiency

approved by the Commission may be brought to minimum. (Refer 7.5.5.2)

8.3 Conclusion

Having considered the submissions made by the Petitioner, the responses of various

stakeholders and the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations of the

Commission, the Commission hereby approves that:

(i) Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., the distribution and retail supply licensee in the

State will be entitled to charge the tariffs from consumers in its licensed area of supply as

given in the Rate Schedule for FY 2019-20 annexed hereto as Annexure-1. These Tariffs

will be effective from April 01, 2019.

(ii) Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., the distribution and retail supply licensee in the

State will realize from consumers of electricity in the State, miscellaneous charges as

listed out in Annexure- 2 of this Order and shall not recover any other charge, fee,

deposit etc., unless approved by the Commission.

(iii) The above tariffs shall continue to be applicable till revised by the Commission.

The Petitioner shall forward a report on compliance of the directions given in this Order

within the time stipulated for compliance.

(Subhash Kumar) Chairman


9. Annexures

9.1 Annexure 1: Rate Schedule Effective from 01.04.2019

A. General Conditions of Supply

1. Character of Service

i) Alternating Current 50 Hz., single phase, 230 Volts (with permissible variations) up to a

load of 4 kW.

ii) Alternating Current 50 Hz, three phase, 4 wire, 400 Volts or above (with permissible

variations) for loads above 4 kW depending upon the availability of voltage of supply.

2. Conditions for New Connections

i) Supply to new connections of more than 75 kW (88 kVA) and up to 2550 kW (3000

kVA) shall be released at 11 kV or above, loads above 2550 kW (3000 kVA) and upto

8500 kW (10000 kVA) shall be released at 33 kV or above and loads above 8500 kW

(10000 kVA) shall be released at 132 kV or above.

ii) All new connections shall be given with meter conforming to CEA Regulations on

Installation and Operation of Meters.

iii) All new 3 phase connections above 4 kW shall be released with Electronic Tri-vector

Meter having Maximum Demand Indicator.

iv) All new Single Point Bulk Connection shall be given only for Load of more than 75 kW.

v) Consumers having motive loads of more than 5 BHP shall install Shunt Capacitor of

appropriate rating and conforming to BIS specification.

vi) All new connections at HT/EHT should be released only with 3 phase 4 wire meters.

3. Point of Supply

Energy will be supplied to a consumer at a single point.

4. Billing in Defective Meter (ADF/IDF), Meter Not Read/Not Accessible (NA/NR)

and Defective Reading (RDF) Cases

9. Annexures


In NA/NR cases, the energy consumption shall be assessed and billed as per average

consumption of last one year average consumption (as per the Electricity Supply Code) which shall

be subject to adjustment when actual reading is taken. Such provisional billing shall not continue

for more than two billing cycles at a stretch. Thereafter, the licensee shall not be entitled to raise

any bill on provisional basis. In case of Appear defective meter (ADF) Identified defective meter

(IDF) and Reading defect (RDF) cases, the consumers shall be billed on the basis of the average

consumption of the past three billing cycles immediately preceding the date of the meter being

found or being reported defective (as per the Electricity Supply Code). These charges shall be

leviable for a maximum period of three months or two billing cycle in case of bi-monthly billing

only during which time the licensee is required to replace the defective meter. Thereafter, the

licensee shall not be entitled to raise any bill without correct meters.

The checking and replacement of defective meter cases namely IDF and ADF and defective

reading cases namely RDF shall be done by the licensee in accordance with the provisions of the

Electricity Supply Code as applicable.

5. Billing in case of domestic metered consumers in rural/hilly areas whose meters

are not being read

For cases relating to domestic metered consumers in rural/hilly areas, where meter reading

is either not being taken regularly or taken randomly over delayed interval of time, the provisional

billing under these circumstances for such consumers shall be done at the normative levels of

consumption as given below, which shall be subject to annual adjustment based on actual meter

reading.

Category Normative Consumption Domestic (Rural-Hilly Areas) 30 kWh/kW/month Domestic (Rural-Other Areas) 50 kWh/kW/month

For this purpose, the contracted load shall be rounded off to next whole number. Billing on

this basis is subject to annual adjustment and the licensee is to ensure meter reading of such

consumers at least once a year.

6. Billing in New Connection

For cases such as new connections, where past reading is not available, the provisional

billing shall be done at the normative levels of consumption as given below, which shall be subject



to adjustment when actual reading is taken.

Category Normative Consumption Domestic (Urban) 100 kWh/kW/month Domestic (Rural-Hilly Areas) 30 kWh/kW/month Domestic (Rural-Other Areas) 50 kWh/kW/month Non-domestic (Urban) 150 kWh/kW/month Non-domestic (Rural) 100 kWh/kW/month Private Tube Wells 60 kWh/BHP/month Industry LT Industry 150 kWh/kW/month HT Industry 150 kVAh/kVA /month

For this purpose, the contracted load shall be rounded off to next whole number. Billing on

this basis shall continue only for a maximum period of 2 billing cycles, during which the licensee

should ensure actual reading. Thereafter, the licensee shall not be entitled to raise any bill without

correct meter reading. In all other categories, 1st bill shall be raised only on actual reading.

7. Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) (for all categories except PTW)

In the event of electricity bill rendered by licensee, not being paid in full within 15 days’

grace period after due date, simple interest in the form of a surcharge @ 1.25% per month on the

principal amount of the bill which has not been paid, shall be levied from the original due date for

each successive month or part thereof until the payment is made in full without prejudice to the

right of the licensee to disconnect the supply in accordance with Section 56 of the Electricity Act,

2003. The licensee shall clearly indicate in the bill itself the total amount, including DPS, payable for

different dates after the due date, after allowing for the grace period of 15 days, taking month as the

unit as shown exemplified below:

EXAMPLE:

Amount payable by Due date Due Date

Rs. 100/-

1st May 2019

Amount Payable

On or Before 16th May 2019

Rs. 100/-

After 16th May 2019

Rs. 101.25

After 1st June 2019

Rs. 102.50

9. Annexures


8. Solar Water Heater rebate

If a consumer installs and uses solar water heating system, rebate of Rs. 100/- p.m. for each

100 litre capacity of the system or actual bill for that month whichever is lower shall be given

subject to the condition that consumer gives an affidavit to the licensee to the effect that he has

installed such system, which the licensee shall be free to verify from time to time. If any such claim

is found to be false, in addition to punitive legal action that may be taken against such consumer,

the licensee will recover the total rebate allowed to the consumer with 100% penalty and debar him

from availing such rebate for the next 12 months.

9. Prepaid Metering

Prepaid metering scheme approved by the Commission in this Order shall be applicable. A

rebate of 4% of energy charges for Domestic category (RTS-1 and RTS-1A) and 3% of energy charges

for other LT consumers shall be allowed to the consumers under the Prepaid Metering Scheme from

the date of installation and operationalisation of Prepaid Meters. However, no rebate shall be

applicable on RTS-8, i.e. Temporary Supply. Solar water rebate as provided above in the Rate

Schedule shall be applicable on prepaid consumers also subject to fulfillment of conditions

provided therein.

10. Rebate/surcharge for availing supply at voltage higher/lower than base voltage

(i) For consumers having contracted load upto 75 kW/88 kVA - If the supply is given at

voltage above 400 Volts and upto 11 kV, a rebate of 5% would be admissible on the

Energy Charge.

(ii) For consumers having contracted load above 75 kW/88 kVA – In case the supply is

given at 400 Volts, the consumer shall be required to pay an extra charge of 10% on the

bill amount calculated at the Energy Charge.

(iii) For consumers having contracted load above 75 kW/88 kVA – In case of supply at 33

kV the consumer shall receive a rebate of 2.5% on the Energy Charge.

(iv) For consumers having contracted load above 75 kW/88 kVA and receiving supply at

132 kV and above, the consumer shall receive a rebate of 7.5% on the Energy Charge.

(v) All voltages mentioned above are nominal rated voltages.



(vi) No rebate or surcharges would be applicable on consumers having pre-paid

connections.

11. Low Power Factor Surcharge (not applicable to Domestic, PTW categories and also

to other categories having kVAh based Tariff)

(i) On the consumers without Electronic Tri Vector Meters, who have not installed shunt

capacitors of appropriate ratings and specifications, a surcharge of 5% on the current

energy charges shall be levied.

(ii) On consumers with Electronic Tri Vector Meters, a surcharge of 5% on current energy

charges will be levied for having power factor below 0.85 and upto 0.80 and a

surcharge of 10% of current energy charges will be levied for having power factor

below 0.80.

(iii) No surcharge would be applicable on consumers having pre-paid connections.

12. Excess Load/Demand Penalty (Not applicable to Domestic, Snow bound and PTW

categories)

In case of consumers where electronic meters with MDI have been installed, if the maximum

demand recorded in any month exceeds the contracted load/demand, charges for such excess

load/demand shall be levied equal to twice the normal rate of fixed/demand charge as applicable.

Such excess load penalty shall be levied only for the month in which maximum demands exceeds

contracted load. However, no excess load penalty would be applicable on consumers having pre-

paid connections.

Example:

(i) For consumers where fixed charges on the basis of contracted load/demand have been

specified:

Contracted load 30 kW, Maximum Demand 43 kW,

Excess Demand 43-30=13 kW, Rate of Fixed Charges= Rs. 70/kW

Fixed Charges for contracted load = 30 x 70=Rs. 2100

Fixed Charges for excess load = 13x (2 x70) =Rs. 1820

Total Fixed Charges = 2100+1820= Rs. 3920

9. Annexures


(ii) For industrial consumers billed on billable demand:

Contracted demand 2500 kVA, Maximum Demand 2800 kVA, Billable Demand =2800 kVA

Excess Demand =2800-2500=300 kVA, Rate of Demand Charges= Rs. 360/kVA

Demand Charges for contracted demand =2500 x 360=Rs. 900000

Demand Charges for excess demand = 300x (2 x 360) =Rs. 216000

Total Demand Charges = 900000+216000= Rs. 1116000

13. Single Point Bulk Supply for Domestic, Non Domestic and Mixed Load

Categories

(i) Single Point Bulk Supply connection shall only be allowed for Sanctioned/Contracted

Load above 75 kW with single point metering for further distribution to the end users.

However, this shall not restrict the individual owner/occupier from applying for

individual connection.

(ii) The person who has taken the single point supply shall be responsible for all payments

of electricity charges to the Licensee and collection from the end consumer as per tariff

prescribed for such consumer. The Licensee shall ensure that tariff being charged from

end consumer does not exceed the prescribed tariff for the concerned category of the

consumer.

(iii) The person who has taken the single point supply shall also be deemed to be an agent

of Licensee to undertake distribution of electricity for the premises for which single

point supply is given under seventh proviso to section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003

and distribution licensee shall be responsible for compliance of all provisions of the

Act and Rules & Regulations thereunder within such area.

(iv) Single Point Bulk Supply under “Domestic” shall only be applicable for Residential

Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings including common facilities (such as

Lifts, Common Lighting and Water Pumping system) of such Residential

Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings. In case these Residential

Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings also have some shops or other



commercial establishments, the tariff of Mixed Load shall be applicable for such

premises subject to conditions provided in the Rate Schedule of Mixed Load Category.

(v) Single Point Bulk Supply Under “Non-Domestic” shall only be applicable for

Shopping Complexes/Multiplex/Malls.

14. Rounding off

(i) The contracted load/demand shall be expressed in whole number only and fractional

load/demand shall be rounded up to next whole number.

Example:

Contracted/Sanctioned Load of 0.15 kW shall be reckoned as 1 kW for tariff purposes.

Similarly, contracted/sanctioned load of 15.25 kW/kVA shall be taken as 16 kW/kVA.

(ii) All bills will be rounded off to the nearest rupee.

15. Other Charges

Apart from the charges provided in the Rate of Charge and those included in the Schedule of

Miscellaneous Charges, no other charge shall be recovered from the consumer unless approved by

the Commission.

9. Annexures


B. Tariffs RTS-1: Domestic

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power to:

(i) Residential premises (including premises of Departmental Employees & Pensioners of UPCL, PTCUL and UJVN Ltd.) for light, fan, power and other domestic purposes including common facilities (such as Lifts, Common Lighting and Water Pumping system)

(ii) Single Point Bulk Supply above 75 kW for Residential Colonies, Residential Multi-storeyed buildings where energy is exclusively used for domestic purpose including common facilities (such as Lifts, Common Lighting and Water Pumping system) of such Residential Colonies/Residential Multistoreyed Buildings

(iii) Places of worship, i.e. Mandir, Masjid, Gurudwara, Church, etc. (only for standalone places of worship and not for the places of worship which have other facilities such as Dharamshala, Community Hall, Dormatories, etc. attached with it)

(iv) Gaushalas/Gausadans having load upto 2 kW and consumption upto 200 kWh/ month (v) Home-stay registered under Deendayal Upadhyay Home-Stay Development Policy

Rules, 2018 (This rate schedule shall also be applicable to consumers having contracted load upto 2 kW as also consumption upto 200 kWh/month and who are using some portion of the premises mentioned above for non-domestic purposes. However, if either contracted load for such premises is above 2 kW or consumption is more than 200 kWh/month, then the entire energy consumed shall be charged under the appropriate Rate Schedule unless such load is segregated and separately metered). 2. Rate of Charge

Description Fixed Charges* Energy Charges

1) Domestic

1.1)BPL/Life line consumers

Below Poverty Line and Kutir Jyoti having load upto 1 kW and consumption upto 60 units per month

Rs. 18/ connection/month Rs. 1.61/kWh

1.2) Other Domestic Consumers

Upto 100 units per month Rs. 55 /month Rs. 2.75/kWh

101-200 units per month Rs. 85 /month Rs. 3.55/kWh

201-400 units per month Rs. 145/month Rs. 4.90/kWh

Above 400 units per month Rs. 230/month Rs. 5.65/kWh

2) Single Point Bulk Supply Rs. 75/kW/month Rs. 4.40/kWh *Fixed Charges in case of other domestic consumers for the month shall be charged at the rates equivalent to the total consumption

in the month.



RTS-1A: Snowbound

1. Applicability


(i) Domestic and non-domestic consumers in snowbound areas.

(ii) This Schedule applies to areas notified as snowbound/snowline areas by the

concerned District Magistrate.

2. Rate of Charge

Description Fixed Charges Energy charges 1) Domestic

Rs.18/connection/month Rs. 1.61/kWh

2) Non-domestic upto 1 kW Rs. 1.61/kWh 3) Non-domestic more than 1 kW & upto 4 kW Rs. 2.36/kWh 4) Non-Domestic more than 4 kW Rs. 30/connection/month Rs. 3.51/kWh

3. All other conditions of this Schedule shall be same as those in RTS-1.

9. Annexures


RTS-2: Non-Domestic 1. Applicability

This schedule should apply to supply of power to:

1.1 (i) Government/Municipal Hospitals (ii) Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions

(iii) Charitable Institutions registered under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whose income is exempted from tax under this Act.

1.2 Small Non Domestic Consumers with connected load upto 4 kW and consumption upto 50

units per month.

1.3 Other Non-Domestic Users including single point bulk supply above 75 kW for shopping

complexes/multiplex/malls including common facilities (such as lifts, common lighting and

water pumping system).

1.4 Independent Advertisement Boards/Hoardings - All commercial (road side / roof top or on

the side of the buildings etc.) standalone independent advertisement hoardings such as

private advertising sign posts/ sign boards/ sign glows/flex that are independently

metered through a separate meter.

2. Rate of Charge

S. No. Description Fixed Charges Energy charges

1.1

(i) Government/Municipal Hospitals (ii) Government/Government Aided Educational Institutions (iii) Charitable Institutions registered under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and

whose income is exempted from tax under this Act

(a) Upto 25 kW Rs. 65/ kW Rs. 4.50/ kWh (b) Above 25 kW Rs. 75/ kVA Rs. 4.25/ kVAh

1.2

Other Non-Domestic Users (a) Small Non-Domestic Consumers with connected load upto 4 kW and

consumption upto 50 units per month* Rs. 70 / kW Rs. 4.70/ kWh

(b) Others upto 25 kW not covered in 1.2(a) above Rs. 75 / kW Rs. 5.60/ kWh (c) Above 25 kW Rs. 75 / kVA Rs. 5.45/ kVAh

1.3 Single Point Bulk Supply** Rs. 75 / kVA Rs. 5. 50/ kVAh 1.4 Independent Advertisement Hoardings Rs. 90/kW Rs. 6.10/kWh

* If consumption exceeds 50 units/month, then on the entire energy consumed tariff as per sub-category 1.2(b) shall be charged

** For loads above 75 kW for shopping complexes/multiplex/malls

3. Other Conditions

3.1 ToD Meters shall be read by Meter Reading Instrument (MRI) only with complete dump

with phasor diagram, Tamper Reports, full load survey reports etc. shall be downloaded

for the purpose of complete analysis.

3.2 All consumers above 25 kW shall necessarily have ToD Meters.



3.3 No meter shall be read at zero load or very low load. Licensee shall carry appropriate

external load and shall apply the same, wherever, necessary to take MRI at load.

3.4 Copy of MRI Summary Report shall be provided alongwith the Bill. Full MRI Report

including load survey report shall be provided on demand and on payment of Rs. 15/

Bill.

9. Annexures


RTS-3: Govt. Public Utilities

1. Applicability


(i) Public lamps including street lighting system, traffic control signals, lighting of public

parks, etc. The street lighting of Harijan Bastis and villages are also covered by this

Rate Schedule.

(ii) State Tubewells, World Bank Tubewells, Pumped Canals and Lift irrigation schemes,

Laghu Dal Nahar etc.,

(iii) Irrigation system owned and operated by any Government department.

(iv) Public Water Works, Sewage Treatment Plants and Sewage Pumping Stations

functioning under Jal Sansthan, Jal Nigam or other local bodies and Plastic Recycling

Plants.

2. Rate of Charge

Category Fixed Charges* Energy Charge

Urban (Metered) Rs. 60/kVA/month Rs. 5.20/ kVAh

Rural (Metered) Rs. 50/kVA/month Rs. 5.20/ kVAh

* The Urban and Rural differentiation will apply only for supply of power to 1(i) & 1(iv) above.

3. Maintenance Charge for Public Lamps

In addition to the “Rate of Charge” mentioned above, a sum of Rs. 10/- per light point per

month shall be charged for operation and maintenance of street lights covering only labour charges

where all material required will be supplied by the local bodies. However, the local bodies will have

the option to operate and maintain the public lamps themselves and in such case no maintenance

charge will be charged.

4. Provisions of Street Light Systems

In case, the maintenance charge, as mentioned above, is being charged then the labour

involved in the subsequent replacement or renewals of lamps shall be provided by the licensee but

all the material shall be provided by the local bodies. If licensee provides material at the request of

local body, cost of the same shall be chargeable from the local body.



The cost involved in extension of street light mains (including cost of sub-stations if any) in

areas where distribution mains of the licensee have not been laid, will be paid for by the local

bodies.

9. Annexures


RTS-4: Private Tube Wells/ Pumping Sets

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power to private tube-wells/pumping sets for

irrigation purposes and for incidental agricultural processes confined to chaff cutter, thrasher, cane

crusher and rice huller only. However, the tariff applicable for RTS-4 shall only be applicable if such

incidental agricultural processes are being carried out for agricultural produce of the connection

sanctioned for irrigation purposes.

2. Rate of charge

Category Fixed Charges Rs./BHP/Month

Energy Charges Rs./kWh

RTS 4: PTW (Metered) Nil 1.95

3. Payments of bills and Surcharge for Late Payment

The bill shall be raised for this category twice a year only, i.e. by end of December (for

period June to November) and end of June (for period December to May). The bill raised in

December may be paid by the consumer either in lump-sum or in parts (not more than four times)

till 30th April next year for which no DPS shall be levied. Similarly, bill raised in June may be paid

by 31st October without any DPS. In case consumer fails to make payment within the specified

dates, a surcharge @ 1.25% per month for the period (months or part thereof) shall be payable on the

principal outstanding amount of the Bill as per clause 7 of the General Conditions of Supply.



RTS-4A: Agriculture Allied Activities

1. Applicability

This schedule shall apply to supply of power for use in nurseries growing plants/saplings,

polyhouses and other units growing flowers/vegetables and fruits including mushroom cultivation

which does not involve any kind of processing of product except for storing and preservation.

2. Rate of charge

Category Fixed Charges Rs./BHP/Month

Energy Charges Rs./kWh

RTS 4(A): Agricultural Allied Services Nil 1.95

9. Annexures


RTS-5: LT and HT Industry

1. Applicability


(i) Industries and /or processing or agro- industrial purposes, power loom as well as to

Arc/Induction Furnaces, Rolling/Re-rolling Mills, Mini Steel Plants and to other

power consumers not covered under any other Rate Schedule.

(ii) The vegetable, fruits, floriculture & Mushroom integrated units engaged in processing,

storing and packaging in addition to farming and those not covered under RTS-4A

shall also be covered under this Rate Schedule.

2. Specific Conditions of Supply

(i) All connections shall be connected with MCB (Miniature Circuit Breaker) or Circuit

Breaker / Switch Gear of appropriate rating and BIS Specification.

(ii) The supply to Induction and Arc Furnaces shall be made available only after ensuring

that the loads sanctioned are corresponding to the load requirements of tonnage of

furnaces. The minimum load of 1 Tonne furnace shall in no case be less than 400 kVA

and all loads will be determined on this basis. No supply will be given for loads below

this norm.

(iii) Supply to Steel Units shall be made available at a voltage of 33 kV or above through a

dedicated individual feeder only with check meter at sub-station end. Difference of

more than 3%, between readings of check meter and consumer meter(s), shall be

immediately investigated by the licensee and corrective action shall be taken.

(iv) Supply to all new connections with load above 1000 kVA should be released on

independent feeders only with provisions as at (iii) above.



Description Energy Charge Fixed /Demand Charge per month

1. LT Industry having contracted load upto 75kW (100 BHP)

1.1 Contracted load up to 25 kW Rs. 4.35/kWh Rs. 145/ kW of contracted load

1.2 Contracted load more than 25 kW Rs. 4.00/kVAh Rs. 145/ kVA of contracted load

2. HT Industry having contracted load above 88 kVA/75 kW (100 BHP) Load Factor# Rs./ kVAh

2.1 Contracted Load up to 1000 kVA Upto 40% 3.95 Rs. 300/kVA of the

billable demand* Above 40% 4.35

2.2 Contracted Load More than 1000 kVA Upto 40% 3.95 Rs. 360/kVA of the

billable demand* Above 40% 4.35 .

* Billable demand shall be the actual maximum demand or 80 % of the contracted load whichever is higher.

#For tariff purposes Load Factor (%) would be deemed to be =

100period billing in the hours of No. x less is whicheverDemand Contractedor Demand Maximum

period billing theduring access)open through receivedenergy the(excludingn Consumptio×

Provided that in cases where maximum demand during the month occurs in a period when open access is being availed by the consumer, then maximum demand for the purpose of computation of load factor shall be that occurring during the period when no open access is being availed.

3. Time of Day Tariff

(i) The rates of energy charge given above for LT industry with load more than 25 kW

and HT industry shall be subject to ToD rebate/surcharge.

(ii) ToD Meters shall be read by Meter Reading Instrument (MRI) only with complete

dump with phasor diagram, Tamper Reports, full load survey reports etc. shall be

downloaded for the purpose of complete analysis and bills shall be raised as per ToD

rate of charge.

(iii) No meter shall be read at zero load or very low load. Licensee shall carry appropriate

external load and shall apply the same, wherever, necessary to take MRI at load.

(iv) Copy of MRI Summary Report shall be provided along with the Bill. Full MRI Report

including load survey report shall be provided on demand and on payment of Rs. 15/

Bill.

(v) ToD Load shall be as under:

9. Annexures


Season/Time of day

Morning Peak hours

Normal hours

Evening Peak Hours

Off-peak Hours

Winters 01.10 to 31.03 0600-0900 hrs 0900-1800 hrs 1800-2200 hrs 2200-0600 hrs

Summers 01.04 to 30.09 -- 0700-1800 hrs 1800-2300 hrs 2300-0700 hrs

The, ToD Rate of Energy Charges shall be as under:

For LT Industry Energy Charge during

Normal Hours Peak Hours Off-peak Hours Rs. 4.00/kVAh Rs. 6.00/kVAh Rs. 3.40/kVAh

For HT Industry

Load Factor* Energy Charge during Normal Hours Peak Hours Off-peak Hours

Upto 40% Rs. 3.95/kVAh Rs. 6.53/kVAh Rs. 3.36/kVAh Above 40% Rs. 4.35/kVAh Rs. 6.53/kVAh Rs. 3.70/kVAh

* Load Factor shall be as defined in Clause 2 above

4. Seasonal Industries

Where a consumer having load in excess of 18 kW (25 BHP) and ToD meter and avails

supply of energy for declared Seasonal industries during certain seasons or limited period in the

year, and his plant is regularly closed down during certain months of the financial year, he may be

levied for the months during which the plant is shut down (which period shall be referred to as off-

season period) as follows:

(i) The tariff for ‘Season’ period shall be same as “Rate of Charge” as given in this

schedule.

(ii) Where actual demand in ‘Off Season’ Period is not more than 30% of contracted load,

the energy charges for “Off-Season” period shall be same as energy charges for

“Season” period given in Rate of Schedule above. However, the contracted demand in

the “Off Season” period shall be reduced to 30%.

(iii) During ‘Off-season’ period, the maximum allowable demand will be 30% of the

contracted demand and the consumers whose actual demand exceeds 30% of the

contracted demand in any month of the ‘Off Season’ will be denied the above benefit of

reduced contracted demand during that season. In addition, a surcharge at the rate of

10% of the demand charge shall be payable for the entire ‘Off Season’ period.



Terms and Conditions for Seasonal Industries

(i) The period of operation should not be more than 9 months in a financial year.

(ii) Where period of operation is more than 4 months in a financial year, such industry

should operate for at least consecutive 4 months.

(iii) The seasonal period once notified cannot be reduced during the year. The off-season

tariff is not applicable to composite units having seasonal and other categories of

loads.

(iv) Industries in addition to sugar, ice, rice mill, frozen foods and tea shall be notified by

Licensee only after prior approval of the Commission.

5. Factory Lighting

The electrical energy supplied under this schedule shall also be utilised in the factory

premises for lights, fans, coolers, etc. which shall mean and include all energy consumed for factory

lighting in the offices, the main factory building, stores, time keeper’s office, canteen, staff club,

library, creche, dispensary, staff welfare centres, compound lighting, etc.

6. Continuous and Non-continuous supply

(i) Continuous Process Industry as well as non continuous process industrial consumers

connected on either independent feeders or industrial feeder can opt for continuous

supply. For industrial feeder, all connected industries will have to opt for continuous

supply and in case any consumer on industrial feeder does not wish to opt for

continuous supply, all the consumers on such feeder will not be able to avail

continuous supply. Such Industrial consumers who opt for continuous supply shall be

exempted from load shedding during scheduled/unscheduled power cuts and during

restricted hours of the period of restriction in usage approved by the Commission from

time to time, except load shedding required due to emergency breakdown/shutdown.

(ii) Consumers who are existing Continuous Supply Consumers shall continue to remain

Continuous Supply Consumers and they need not apply again for seeking continuous

supply. Such consumers shall pay 10% extra energy charges, in addition to the energy

charges given above, w.e.f. April 01, 2019 till March 31, 2020. However, in case of any

pending dispute with UPCL in the matter of continuous supply on certain feeders,

9. Annexures


those consumers will have to apply afresh, for availing the facility of continuous

supply, by April 30, 2019.

(iii) The existing consumers who are new applicants for continuous supply of power

(including those who are applying afresh as per above) can apply for seeking the

continuous supply option at any time during the year. However, continuous supply

surcharge for such consumers shall be applicable with effect from May 1, 2019 till

March 31, 2020. UPCL shall provide the facility of continuous supply within 7 days

from the date of application, subject to fulfilment of Conditions of Supply.

(iv) In case of re-arrangement of supply through independent feeder, UPCL shall provide

the facility of continuous supply from the date of completion of work of independent

feeder subject to fulfilment of Conditions of Supply and the Continuous Supply

Surcharge on such consumers shall be applicable from the date of energisation of

aforesaid independent feeder till March 31, 2020, irrespective of actual period of

continuous supply option.

(v) In case of a new consumer (new connection) opting continuous supply, 10% extra

energy charges as Continuous Supply Surcharge shall be applicable from the date of

new connection till March 31, 2020 , irrespective of the actual period of continuous

supply.

(vi) The existing consumers availing continuous supply option, who wish to discontinue

the continuous supply option granted to them earlier, will have to communicate, in

writing, to UPCL latest by April 30, 2019 and they shall continue to pay continuous

supply surcharge alongwith the tariff approved in this Order till April 30, 2019.

Further, in this regard, if due to withdrawal by one consumer from availing

continuous supply option on a particular feeder, supplying to other continuous supply

consumers as well, the status of other continuous supply consumers on that feeder is

affected, then UPCL shall inform all the affected consumers in writing, well in

advance.

(vii) The Continuous Supply Surcharge shall not be applicable on the power procured by

the industrial consumers through open access.



(viii) UPCL shall not change the status of a continuous supply feeder to a non-continuous

supply feeder.

(ix) UPCL/PTCUL shall take up augmentation, maintenance and overhauling works on

top priority, specially in the sub-stations where circuit breakers, other equipment, etc.

are in dilapidated condition and, thereby, shall ensure minimisation of interruptions of

the continuous supply feeders.

(x) UPCL/PTCUL shall carry out periodical preventive maintenance of the feeders

supplying to continuous supply consumers. The licensees shall prepare preventive

maintenance schedule, in consultation with continuous supply consumers, well in

advance, so that such consumers can plan their operations accordingly.

(xi) The Licensee should show the energy charges and continuous supply surcharge

thereon separately in the bills.

7. Demand Charges for HT Industry

If the minimum average supply to any HT Industry Consumers is less than 18 hours per day

during the month, the Demand Charges applicable for such HT Industry Consumer shall be 80% of

the approved Demand Charges for HT Industry.

9. Annexures


RTS 6: Mixed Load

1. Applicability

This schedule applies to single point bulk supply connection of more than 75 kW where the

supply is used predominantly for domestic purposes (with more than 60% domestic load) and also

for other non-domestic purposes. This schedule also applies to supply to MES.

2. Rate of Charge

The following rates shall apply to consumers of this category

Fixed Charges Energy Charges Rs. 80/kW/month Rs. 5.05/kWh

3. Other conditions

Apart from the above, other conditions of tariff shall be same as those for RTS-1 consumers.

However, excess load penalty shall be applicable as per clause 12 of General Conditions of Supply.



RTS 7: Railway Traction

1. Applicability

This schedule applies to Railways utilizing power for traction purposes.

2. Rate of Charge

The following rates of energy and demand charge shall apply to this category:

Demand Charges Energy Charges Rs./kVA/month Rs./ kVAh

250/- Rs. 4.40

3. Other conditions

Apart from the above, other conditions of tariff shall be same as those for General HT

Industries under RTS-5 consumers except applicability of ToD tariff and surcharge for continuous

supply.

9. Annexures


RTS-8: Temporary Supply

1. Applicability (i) This schedule shall apply to temporary supplies of light, fan and power loads for all

purposes including illumination/public address/ceremonies and festivities/functions/

temporary shops not exceeding three months.

(ii) This schedule shall also apply for power taken for construction purposes including civil

work by all consumers including Government Departments. Power for construction

purposes for any work / project shall be considered from the date of taking first connection

for the construction work till completion of the work / project.

However, use of electricity through a permanent connection sanctioned for premises

owned by the consumer for construction, repair or renovation of existing building, shall

not be considered as unauthorised use of electricity as long as the intended purpose/use

of the building/apartments being constructed is same/permissible in the sanctioned

category of the connection.

2. Rate of Charge The rate of charge will be corresponding rate of charge in appropriate Schedule Plus 25%.

The appropriate rate schedule for the temporary supplies for cane crusher upto 15 BHP given for

maximum period of four (4) months will be RTS-5.



9.2 Annexure 2: Schedule of Miscellaneous Charges

Sl. No

Nature of Charges Unit Approved (Rs.)

1

Checking and Testing of Meters a. Single Phase Meters Per Meter 50.00 b. Three Phase Meters Per Meter 75.00 c. Recording Type Watt-hour Meters Per Meter 170.00 d. Maximum Demand Indicator/ LT CT operated Meters Per Meter 350.00 e. Tri-vector Meters/ HT Meters with CT/PT Per Meter 1000.00 f. Ammeters and Volt Meters Per Meter 65.00 g. Special Meters Per Meter 335.00 h. Initial Testing of Meters Per Meter NIL

2 Subsequent testing and installation other than initial testing Per Meter 80.00

3

Disconnection and Reconnection of supply on consumers request or non-payment of bill (for any disconnection or reconnection the charge will be 50%)

a. Consumer having load above 100 BHP/75 kW Per Job 600.00 b. Industrial and Non Domestic consumers upto 100 BHP/75 kW Per Job 400.00 c. All other categories of consumers Per Job 200.00

4

Replacement of Meters a. Installation of Meter and its subsequent removal in case of Temporary Connections

Per Job 75.00

b. Changing of position of Meter Board at the consumer's request

Per Job 100.00

5

Checking of Capacitors (other than initial checking) on consumer's request:

a. At 400 V/ 230 V Per Job 150.00 b. At 11 kV and above Per Job 300.00

9. Annexures


9.3 Annexure 3: Public Notice

9. Annexures




9.4 Annexure 4: List of Respondents

Sl.

No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. Raghunath Singh Negi President Jan Sangharsh Morcha-

Uttarakhand Residence:Hospital Road,

Vikasnagar, Dehradun

2. Sh. K.G. Behl President All India Consumer Council-Uttarakhand

8-A Nemi Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun

3. Sh. R. Meenakshi Sundaram Secretary Fisheries Department,

Govt. of Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun

4. Tanuja Joshi - - 4/146, (First Floor), Vipul Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow-226010

5. Sh. G.S. Sandhu Managing Director

M/s Tarai Farm Lands Pvt. Ltd.

Sandhu Farms, Fazalpur Mehrola, Rudrapur-263153, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar

6. Sh. Ganga Prasad Agrahari General Manager Indian Drugs &

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Virbhadra-249202, Rishikesh,

Uttarakhand

7. Smt. Geeta Bisht Spokesperson District Congress Committee

Off.-Congress Bhawan, 21, Rajpur Road, Dehradun-248001

8. Sh. Naval Duseja DGM (Finance & Accounts) M/s Flex Foods Ltd.

Lal Tappar Industrial Area, P.O. Resham Majri, Haridwar Road,

Dehradun-248140

9. Sh. Munish Talwar - M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.

Integrated Glass Plant, Village-Latherdeva Hoon, Manglaur-Jhabrera Road, P.O. Jhabrera,

Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand

10. Sh. Prem Kashyap President Principals Progressive Schools’ Association-

Uttarakhand

Pestle Weed College, Oak Hill Estate, Mussoorie Diversion Road,

Dehradun-248009

11. Sh. Khemchand Gupta - Bhartiya Janta Party

Baldev Niwas, Sampurna Vihar, Shaheed Gajendra Singh Bisht Road (Shimla Road), Badowala

Aarkedia, Premnagar, Dehradun

12. Sh. Pankaj Gupta President Industries Association of Uttarakhand

Mohabewala Industrial Area, Dehradun-248110

13. Sh. Anil Marwah President M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

222/5, Gandhi Gram, Dehradun-248001, Uttarakhand

14. Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui

Sr. General Manager (Finance)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd.

5th KM, Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udham

Singh Nagar

15. Sh. Puneet Mohindra President

(Finance & Admn.)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Narain Nagar Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

16. Sh. Haridwar Singh Plant

Maintenance Head

M/s Hero MotoCorp Ltd.

Plot No. 3, Sector-10, IIE, SIDCUL, Roshanabad, Haridwar-249403

9. Annexures


Sl.


17. Sh. Man Singh General Manager (Engg.)

M/s Alps Industries Ltd.

Haridwar Unit-II, Plot No. 1 B, Sector-10, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL, Roshanabad

Road, Distt. Haridwar

18. Smt. Rashmi Agrawal - -

A-12, Prakash Residency, Stadium Manpur Road, P.O. Kashipur-

244713, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand

19. Sh. Suresh Kumar President M/s Sitarganj Sidcul Industries Welfare

Association

, Plot No. C-50, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitarganj-262405,

Distt. Udham Singh Nagar

20. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bhatia State Chairman M/s Indian Industries

Association E-8, Industrial Estate, Patelnagar,

Dehradun

21. Sh. Adarsh Jaiswal Manager (F&I) M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd.

Village Lakeshwari, P.O. Sikandarpur Bhainswal, Tehsil

Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar-247661, Uttarakhand

22. Sh. Pawan Agarwal Vice-President Uttarakhand Steel

Manufacturers Association

C/o Shree Sidhbali Industries Ltd., Kandi Road, Kotdwar,

Uttarakhand

23. Sh. Ram Kumar Goel Sr. Vice President Hotel Association Mussoorie

Hotel Vishnu Palace, Gandhi Chowk, Mussoori-248179,

Dehradun

24. Sh. Vijay Singh Verma - - Village-Delna, P.O.-Jhabrera-

247665, Haridwar

25. Sh. Khursheed Ahmed - - 37, Preeti Enclave, Majra,

Dehradun-248171

26. Sh. Vijay Kumar Verma - M/s Shiv Shakti

Electricals Sarrafa Bazaar, Kankhal, Distt.

Haridwar, Uttarakhand 27. Sh. Arvind Jain Member Tarun Kranti Manch 6-Ramleela Bazaar, Dehradun

28. Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma

Asstt. General Manager (HR &

Admn.)

M/s Amcor Flexibles India Pvt. Ltd.

C-60 B, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitarganj-262405, Udham

Singh Nagar

29. Sh. Vinay Dabral Unit Head M/s Brakes India Pvt. Ltd.

B-9, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitarganj-262405, Udham Singh

Nagar

30. Sh. Ashok Bansal President M/s Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce

& Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur,

Udhamsingh Nagar

31. Sh. Pramod Singh Tomar Partner M/s PSR Innovations

LLP

Village-Gopipura, Post-R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur-244716,

Udham Singh Nagar

32. Sh. R.K. Singh Head (CPED & E) M/s Tata Motors Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Sector 11, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL,

Pantnagar-263153, Udhamsingh Nagar



Sl.


33. Sh. R.S. Yadav Vice President (HR & Admn.) India Glycols Ltd.

A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt.

Udham Singh Nagar

34. Sh. Manoj Joshi Sabhasad Nagarpalika Parishad (Almora)

Residence-Sunarinaula, Kholta, Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

35. Sh. Teeka Singh Saini Block President Bhartiya Kisan Union Office-33, Katoratal, Kashipur,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

36. - - M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Plot 9, Sector 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Rudrapur-263153,

Udham Singh Nagar

37. Sh. Amar Singh Karki - - Mohalla-Makedi, P.O. & Distt.

Almora-263601

38. Sh. Ranjeet Singh Bisht - - P.O.-Gurdabaanj, Distt. Almora-

263623

39. Sh. Naveen Chandra Joshi

Former Warrant Officer -

S/o Late Sh. Tara Datt Joshi, Resident-Bakshi Khola, Post Off.

& Distt. Almora-263601

40. Sh. P.S. Mehra Secretary Retired Central

Employees Welfare Committee

Address-C/o Sh. Ravindra Nath Verma (Retd. Postmaster), Baans

Gali, Johri Market, District Almora, Uttarakhand

41. Sh. Shyam Lal Shah Former District President Vyapaar Mandal Distt. Almora

42. Sh. Pooran Chandra Tiwari

Central General Secretary Uttarakhand Lok Vahini Talla Galli, Jakhandevi, Distt.

Almora, Uttarakhand

9. Annexures


9.5 Annexure 5: List of Participants in Public Hearings

List of Participants in Hearing at Srinagar on 29.01.2019

Sl.


1. Sh. Darshan Singh Bhandari - - Near Nagaraja Mandir, Village Srikot,

Gangnali, Srinagar Garhwal

2. Sh. Y.S. Panwar - - Ramakunj, Srikot, Gangnali, Srinagar Garhwal

3. Sh. Chandi Prasad - - Naur Kinkleshwar, Chauras, Tehsil & Distt. Tehri Garhwal

4. Sh. Kavindra Singh Bisht - - 1148, Indira Nagar Colony,

P.O.: New Forest, Dehradun-248006

5. Sh. Mohan Singh Negi - - Village-Mandhi Chauras, P.O :

Kinkleshwar, Vikaskhand Kirtinagar, Distt. Tehri Garhwal

6. Sh. Dhirendra Singh Rawat - - Village-Odda, Block-Koti, P.O.

Khandiyusain, Pauri Garhwal

7. Sh. Maatbar Singh Negi - - Mohalla Kinkleshwar, Near Bank of

India, Distt. Pauri Garhwal

8. Sh. Birendra Singh Negi Chairman

M/s Industrial Development Association

C/o Pindar Tyre Retreding, Simli-246474, Distt. Chamoli

9. Sh. Kamal Rawat - - P.O. Khandah, Srinagar Garhwal 10. Sh. Sanjay Jain Tropical Dairy GIC Road, Srinagar Garhwal

11. Sh. Madan Mohan Nautiyal - - GIC Road, Srinagar Garhwal

12. Sh. Dayal Singh Rawat - - Manichauras, P.O. Kinkleshwar, Tehri Garhwal

13. Sh. Uday Ram Lakheda - - Narsari Road (Milan Kendra), Srinagar

Garhwal

14. Sh. Mahendra Pal Singh Rawat - - Village-Sunaar Gaon, Near Daak

Bangla, Srinagar Garhwal

15. Sh. Hridaya Ram Kotnala - - H.No. 9/60, Shakti Vihar, Bhaktiyana,

Srinagar Garhwal



List of Participants in Hearing at Dehradun on 31.01.2019

Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1 Sh. Pankaj Gupta President M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

2 Sh. Rajiv Agarwal Sr. Vice-President

M/s Industries Association of Uttarakhand

C/o Satya Industries, Mohabbewala Industrial Area,

Dehradun

3 Sh. Rakesh Bhatia President

M/s Uttarakhand

Industrial Welfare

Association

E-8, Govt. Industrial Area, Patel Nagar, Dehradun

4 Bijay Singh Tomar State General Secretary

Laghu Udhyog Bharti

E-11, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun

5 Sh. Anil Marwah State President

M/s Uttarakhand

Industrial Welfare

Association

222/5, Gandhi Gram, Kanwali Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

6 Sh. K.L. Khanduja - Sh. Ganesh Roller Floor Mills

Mohabbewala Industrial Area, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun-248001

7 Sh. Akash Agarwal - Arunachal

Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.

B-17, Sector-1, Noida

8 Sh. Arvind Jain Member Tarun Kranti Manch (Regd.) 6-Ramleela Bazaar, Dehradun

9 Sh. Anil Kumar Jain - - Ramanuj Court, Sukhi Nadi, Bhupatwala, Haridwar

10 Sh. Naval Duseja DGM (Finance & Accounts)

M/s Flex Foods Ltd.

Lal Tappar Industrial Area, P.O. Resham Majri, Haridwar Road,

Dehradun-248140

11 Sh. Vijay Singh Verma Secretary Kisan Club Village-Delna, P.O. Jhabrera, Haridwar-247665, Uttarakhand

12 Sh. Mahesh Sharma Convener M/s Uttarakhand Industrial Welfare

Association

Off. G-31, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand

13 Sh. Vijay Verma - M/s Shiv Shakti Electricals Ltd.

Sarrafa Bazaar, Kankhal, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand

14 Sunil Uniyal - M/s Fillmatic

Packaging Systems

323 MI, Central Hope Town, Selaqui Industrial Area,

Dehradun

15 Sh. Divas Joshi - - Engineers Enclave, Phase-2, GMS Road, Dehradun

16 Mohd. Yusuf - - 73, Turner Road, Clementown, Dehradun

9. Annexures



17 Sh. Sunil Gupta Editor Teesri Aankh ka Tehalka

16, Chakrata Road (Tiptop Gali), Dehradun-248001

18 Sh. Munish Talwar - M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.

Integrated Glass Plant, Village-Latherdeva Hoon, Manglaur-Jhabrera Road, P.O. Jhabrera,

Tehsil Roorkee, Haridwar 19 Sh. Suresh Kumar - - Majra, Dehradun

20 Smt. Geeta Bisht

Spokesperson District Congress Committee

Mohanpur, Post Off.-Premnagar, Dehradun-248007

21 Sh. V. Viru Bisht - - Mohanpur, Post Off.-Premnagar, Dehradun-248007

22 Sh. Kavindra Singh Bisht - - 1148, Indira Nagar Colony, PO-New Forest, Dehradun-248006.

23 Sh. Manish Kathait - M/s Akshay Urja Association Ltd.

47/1, Chakrata Road, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun-248006

24 Sh. Vishwamitra - - 36-Panchsheel Park, Chakrata Road, Dehradun

25 Sh. Ashok Goswami Manager Shetra Mai Jeevni

Ram Sukhdevi Ram Trust

Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, Dehradun

26 Sh. Surya Prakash - - 271/153, Dharampur, Dehradun

27 Sh. Khemchand Gupta - -

Baldev Niwas, Sampurna Vihar, Shaheed Gajendra Singh Bisht Road (Shimla Road), Badowala

Aarkedia, Premnagar, Dehradun.



List of Participants in Hearing at Almora on 04.02.2019 Sl. No. Name Designation Organization Address

1. Sh. Nayan Pant - - Pant Niwas, Sitoli Road, Laxmeshwar,

Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

2. Sh. Ranjeet Singh Bisht - - Village-Gurroda, P.O.-Gurroda Bang,

Distt. Almora-263623

3. Sh. P.C. Joshi District President Forest Panchayat Development Society Laver Mall, Thapaliya, Distt. Almora

4. Sh. Naveen Chandra Joshi

Former Warrant Officer -

S/o Late Sh. Tara Datt Joshi, Resident-Bakshi Khola, Post Off. & Distt.

Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

5. Sh. Amar Singh Karki Mohalla-Makedi, P.O. & Distt. Almora-

263601, Uttarakhand

6. Sh. Prakash Chand Joshi Chairman Nagar Palika

Parishad-Almora Opp. Kheem Singh Rautela Sweet Shop,

Distt. Almora

7. Sh. T.S. Karakoti - -

Karakoti Niwas, Near Shankar Bhawan, East Pokhar Khali,

Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

8. Sh. Rajendra Kumar S/o Sh. Pratap Singh Bisht, Talla

Dupkia, Distt. Almora

9. Sh. Bhupen Joshi 117, Uppar Gali, Jakhan Devi, Distt.

Almora

10. Sh. Vijay Pandey Pokhar Khali, Near Sai Mandir, Distt.

Almora

11. Sh. Pooran Chandra Tiwari

General Secretary Uttarakhand Lok Vahini

“Mitra Bhawan”, Talla Galli, Jakhandevi, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand.

12. Sh. P.G. Goswami East Pokhar khali, Near Home Guard

Office, Distt. Almora

13. Sh. Keshav Datt Pandey Malla Kholta, Distt. Almora-263601

14. Sh. Laxman Singh Aithani Malla Chausar, Distt. Almora-263601

15. Sh. Puran Singh Rautela President Nagar Congress Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

16. Sh. Girish Dhawan Alaknanda House, NTD, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand

17. Sh. Sanjay

Kumar Agrawal

Director Shree Karuna Jan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.)

Saroj Kunj, Sanjay Bhawan, Malla Joshi Khola, Distt. Almora-263601,

Uttarakhand

18. Sh. Shyam Lal Shah X-President

Prantiya Udyog Vyapaar Pratinidhi

Mandal

Gangula Mohalla, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

19. Sh. Roop Singh Bisht

Sarroop Cottage, Makeri, Dharanaula Road, Distt. Almora-263601,

Uttarakhand

20. Sh. M.H. Negi Narsingh Bari, Near Nirankari Bhawan, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand

9. Annexures



21. Sh. Manoj Upreti

Laxhmeshwar, Near UPCL Distt. Sub-Station & Gas Godown, Distt. Almora,

Uttarakhand

22. Sh. P.C. Tiwari Advocate & Central President

Uttarakhand Parivartan Party

Devki Niwas, Dharanaula, Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand

23. Sh. Manoj Joshi Near Sunari Naula, Mohalla-Kholta,

Distt. Almora-263601, Uttarakhand.

24. Sh. K.B. Pandey - - Talla Tilakpur, Sunari Naula,

Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand



List of Participants in Hearing at Rudrapur on 05.02.2019


1. Sh. Shakeel A. Siddiqui

Sr. General Manager (Finance)

M/s Kashi Vishwanath Textile Mill (P) Ltd.

5th KM Stone, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar.

2. Sh. B.S. Sehrawat - M/s ACME Cleantech

Solutions Ltd.

Plot 3-8, 29-34, Sector-5, Integrated Industrial Estate Sidcul, Rudrapur,

Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar.

3. Sh. R.S. Yadav

Vice President (HR & Admn.) M/s India Glycols Ltd.

A-1, Industrial Area, Bazpur Road, Kashipur-244713, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar.

4. Sh. Ashok Bansal President

M/s Kumaon Garhwal Chamber of Commerce &

Industry Uttarakhand

Chamber House, Industrial Estate, Bazpur Road, Kashipur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar.

5. Sh. Ajir Awasthi - M/s Alpla India Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. D 11(C), Phase –2, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park, Sitarganj, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar.

6. Sh. Suresh Kumar - M/s La Opala RG Ltd. B-108, Eldeco Sidcul Industrial Park,

Sitarganj, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

7. Sh. Sunil Nayal - M/s Auto Line Industries

Ltd.

Plot No. 5, 6, 8 Sector-11, Tata Vendor Park, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar

8. Sh. R.K. Singh

Head (CPED & E) M/s Tata Motors Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Sector 11, Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL, Pantnagar-

263153, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar.

9. Sh. S.K. Garg - M/s BST Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Plot 9, Sector 9, IIE, SIDCUL, Pantnagar, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

10. Sh. G.S. Sandhu

Managing Director M/s Tarai Foods Ltd.

Sandhu Farms, P.O. Box No. 18, Rudrapur-263153, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar.

11. Sh. R.P. Singh

Executive Director M/s Tarai Foods Ltd.

Sandhu Farms, P.O. Box No. 18, Rudrapur-263153, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar.

12. Sh. Sreekar Sinha - M/s Endurance

Technologies Ltd.

Plot Nos.-03 & 07, Sector-10, IIE, Pantnagar, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar-

263153

13. Sh. Sarang Agarwal - M/s Umashakti Steels Pvt.

Ltd. Village-Vikrampur, PO-Bazpur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar.

14. Sh. Teeka Singh Saini President Bhartiya Kisan Union 33, Katoratal, Kashipur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar

15. Sh. Balkar Singh Fozi - - Village-Raipur Khurd, Kashipur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar

16. Sh. Kuldeep Singh - Bhartiya Kisan Union

Village-Dakiya Kalan, Post Off.-Dakiya No.-I, Tehsil-Kashipur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar-244713

17. Sh. R.B. Biradar

Sr. General Manager M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. A-1, A-2, B-3, Industrial Area, Bazpur,


9. Annexures



18. Sh. B.S. Sandhu - -

Village-Paiga Farm, P.O. Mahuakheraganj, Tehsil-Kashipur,


19. Sh. Kalyan

Singh Dhillow

- - Village-Girdhayi, P.O.

Mahuakheraganj, Tehsil-Kashipur, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar

20. Sh. Sukhdev Singh Block President Bhartiya Kisan Union Village-Narkheda, p.o. Bazpur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar.

21. Sh. Rajesh

Kumar Mishra

- M/s Sidcul Entrepreneur Welfare Society

Plot No. 1, Sector-9, IIE, SIDCUL Pantnagar, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar.

22. Sh. Jagdish

Chandra Singh

- M/s Bhramari Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Village-Kisanpur, Tehsil Kichha, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar.

23. Sh. Bhaskar Joshi - M/s Titan Company Ltd.

Sector-2, Plot No. 10 B&C, IIE, Sidcul, Pantnagar, Rudrapur-263154, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar.

24. Sh. Tushar Agrawal - M/s BTC Industries Ltd.

Village-Kishanpur, P.O. Deooria, Tehsil-Kichha, Distt. Udhamsingh

Nagar

25. Sh. Umesh Agrawal - M/s Ester Industries Ltd.

Pilibhit Road, Sohan Nagar, P.O.- Charubeta, Khatima, Distt. Udhamsingh Nagar-262308

26. Sh. Laxmi Dutt - -

S/o Sh. Ganga Dutt, Village-Harsaan, P.O. Haripura, Bazpur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar

27. Sh. Babu Singh - -

S/o Sh. Karam Singh, Village-Harsaan, P.O. Haripura, Bazpur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar

28. Sh. Lekhraj Jetli - M/s OMAXE Riviera Nainital Road, NH-87, Rudrapur, Distt.

Udhamsingh Nagar



mÙkjk[k.M ikoj dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM

ds VSfjQ vkns'k ds

v/;k; & 09

nj vuqlwph ¼jsV 'ksM~;wy½

dk fgUnh :ikUrj.k

9. Annexures


¼uksV%& ;g :ikUrj.k] ek0 vk;ksx }kjk ikfjr VSfjQ vkns'k fnukad 27-02-2019 ds Annexures - 9 dk fgUnh :ikUrj.k gS] bl

lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fuoZpu@O;k[;k ds fy, vaxzsth laLdj.k gh vfUre :i ls ekU; gksxkA½

9. layXud

9-1 layXud 1% 01-04-2019 ls izHkkoh nj vuqlwph &

,- vkiwfrZ gsrq lkekU; “krsZ&

1- lsok dh izd`fr i) 4 kW ds Hkkj rd vkWYVjusfVax djsaV 50 Hz flaxy Qst 230 oksYV ¼vuqeU; ifjorZuksa ds lkFk½A ii) oksYVst vkiwfrZ dh miyC/krk ij fuHkZj djrs gq, 4 kW ls Åij Hkkjksa ds fy, vYVjusfVax djsaV 50 Hz. 3 Qst] 4 ok;j] 400 oksYV~l ;k blls Åij ¼vuqeU; ifjorZuksa ds lkFk½A

2- u;s la;kstuksa ds fy, “krsZa& i) 75 kW (88 kVA) ls vf/kd rFkk 2550 kW (3000 kVA) rd ds u;s la;kstuksa dks vkiwfrZ 11 kV ;k blls Åij ij fuxZr dh tk;sxh] 2550 kW (3000 kVA) ls Åij 8500 kW (10000 kVA) rd Hkkj

33 kV ;k blls Åij ij fuxZr fd;s tk;saxs rFkk 8500 kW (10000 kVA) ls Åij 132 kV Hkkj ij fuxZr fd;s tk;saxsA ii) lHkh u;s la;kstu] laLFkkiu rFkk ehVjksa ds ifjpkyu ij lh-bZ-,- ds fofu;eksa dh iqf’V djus okys

ehVj ds lkFk fn;s tk;saxsA iii) 4 kW ls Åij ds lHkh u;s 3 Qst la;kstu] vf/kdre ekax ladsrd okys bySDVªkWfud VªkbZ&osDVj

ehVj ds lkFk tkjh fd;s tk;ssaxsA iv) LkHkh u;s flaxy IokbaV cYd la;kstu] 75 kW ls vf/kd Hkkj ij tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA v) 5 BHP ls vf/kd ds eksfVo Hkkj j[kus okys miHkksDrk mi;qDr jsfVax ds rFkk BIS fof”kf’V dh iqf’V

djus okys “kaV dSisflVj laLFkkfir djsaxsA vi) HT/EHT ij lHkh u;s la;kstu dsoy 3 Qst 4 ok;j ehVlZ ds lkFk tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA

3- vkiwfrZ dk fcUnq&

miHkksDrk dks ÅtkZ dh vkiwfrZ ,d ,dy fcUnq ij dh tk;sxhA

4- =qfViw.kZ ehVj ¼ADF/IDF½] ehVj ugha i<+k@igW¡qp ugha ¼NA/NR½ rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ¼RDF½ ds ekeys

esa fcfyax%& NA/NR ekeyksa esa ÅtkZ miHkksx dk fu/kkZj.k rFkk fcfyax fiNys ,d o’kZ ds vkSlr miHkksx ds

vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxk ¼fo|+qr vkiwfrZ lafgrk ds vuqlkj½ tks fd okLrfod jhfMax fy;s tkus ij lek;kstu ds

v/khu gksxkA ,slh vuafre jhfMax ,d ckj esa nks fcfyax pdzksa ls vf/kd ds fy, tkjh ugha jgsxhA blds

i”pkr~ vuqKkih dks vuafre vk/kkj ij dksbZ fcy tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA =qfViw.kZ izrhr voLFkk

¼ADF½] =qfViw.kZ ehVj ¼IDF½ rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ¼RDF½ ds ekeyksa esa miHkksDrkvksa dh fcfyax] ehVj ds

=qfViw.kZZ ik;s tkus ;k =qfViw.kZ fjiksVZ fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls Bhd igys ds rhu fcfYkax pdzksa ds vkSlr



miHkksx ds vk/kkj ij dh tk;sxh ¼fo|qr vkiwfrZ lafgrk ds vuqlkj½A ;s izHkkj dsoy ml vf/kdre rhu

eghus dh vof/k vFkok f}ekfld fcfyax dh n'kk esa nks fcfyax lkbZfdy gsrq mn~xzg.kh; gksaxs] ftlesa

vuqKkih }kjk =qfViw.kZ ehVj cnyk tkuk vko”;d gksxkA blds i”pkr~ vuqKkih dks lgh fd;s x;s ehVj ds

fcuk fcy tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA

=qfViw.kZ ehVj ds ekeys] ;Fkk IDF rFkk ADF rFkk =qfViw.kZ jhfMax ekeys ;Fkk RDF dh tkap o cnyus

dk dk;Z] ykxw fo|qr vkiwfrZ lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i vuqKkih }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA

5- Xkzkeh.k@ioZrh; {ks= ds ?kjsyw ehVMZ miHkksDrkvksa dh fcfyax] ftuds ehVj ugha i<s+ tkrs gSa&

Xkzkeh.k@ioZrh; {ks= ds ?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa ftudh ehVj jhfMax fu;fer :i ls ugha yh tk jgh gS

vFkok le; esa nsjh vUrjky ls vfu;fer :i ls yh tk jgh gS] ,slh nksuksa fLFkfr;ksa esa miHkksDrkvksa dh

vufUre fcfyax ukWjesfVo miHkksx ds vk/kkj ij fuEuor~ dh tk;sxh] ftldk okLrfod ehVj jhfMax ds

vk/kkj ij okf’kZd lek;kstu fd;k tk;sxk%&

Js.kh ukWjesfVo miHkksx

?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&ioZrh; {ks=½ 30 kWh/kW/ ekg ?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&vU; {ks=½ 50 kWh/kW/ ekg

bl mn~ns”; gsrq lafonkd`r Hkkj vxys iw.kkZad rd iw.kkZfdar fd;k tk;sxkA vuqKkih }kjk ,sls

miHkksDrkvksa dh ehVj jhfMax o’kZ esa de ls de ,d ckj fy;k tkuk lqfuf”pr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa bl vk/kkj

ij fcfyax okf’kZd lek;ksftr gksxhA

6- Uk;s la;kstuksa esa fcfyax

Uk;s la;kstu ekeyksa esa tgk¡ fiNyh jhfMax miyC/k ugha gS] ogka vuafre fcfyax] uhps fn;s vuqlkj

miHkksx ds ekudh; Lrjksa ij dh tk;sxh] tks okLrfod jhfMax fy;s tkus ij lek;kstu ds v/khu gksxhA

Js.kh Ekkudh; miHkksx

?kjsyw&¼”kgjh½ 100 kWh/kW/ ekg ?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&ioZrh; {ks=½ 30 kWh/kW/ ekg ?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k&vU; {ks=½ 50 kWh/kW/ ekg v?kjsyw ¼”kgjh½ 150 kWh/kW/ ekg v?kjsyw ¼xzkeh.k½ 100 kWh/kW/ ekg futh V;wo oSYl 60 kWh/BHP/ ekg m|ksx

,y-Vh- m|ksx 150 kWh/kW/ ekg ,p-Vh- m|ksx 150 kVAh/kVA/ ekg

bl mn~ns”; ds fy,] lafonkdr Hkkj vxys iw.kkZad rd iw.kkZafdr fd;k tk;sxkA bl vk/kkj ij dh

xbZ fcfyax dsoy vf/kdre 2 fcfyax pØksa dh vof/k ds fy;s tkjh jgsxh ftl nkSjku vuqKkIkh }kjk

9. Annexures


okLrfod jhfMax fy;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djuk gksxkA mlds Ik”pkr~ fcuk lgh ehVj jhfMax fy;s vuqKkIkh dks

fcy tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA vU; lHkh oxksZa esa igyk fcy dsoy okLrfod jhfMax ij gh tkjh

fd;k tk;sxkA

7- foyafcr Hkqxrku vf/kHkkj ¼DPS½ ¼PTW dks NksM+dj lHkh oxksZa ds fy;s½

;fn vuqKkih }kjk fn;s x;s fcy dk Hkqxrku fu;r frfFk ds Ik”pkr~ 15 fnu dh fj;k;r vof/k ds

Hkhrj iw.kZ :Ik ls ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 dh /kkjk 56 ds vuqlkj vkiwfrZ vla;ksftr

djus ds vuqKkih ds vf/kdkj ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkys fcuk iwoZ Hkqxrku fd;s tkus rd izR;sd mRrjksÙkj ekg

;k mlds Hkkx ds fy;s ewy ns; frfFk ls] Hkqxrku u fd;s x;s fcy dh ewy jkf”k ij lk/kkj.k C;kt ds :i

esa 1-25 izfr”kr izfr ekg vf/kHkkj yxk;k tk;sxkA vuqKkih] uhps n”kkZ;s vuqlkj] ekg dks ;wfuV ds :Ik esa]

15 fnu fj;k;r vof/k gsrq iznku dj] fu;r frfFk ds Ik”pkr~ fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ds fy;s ns; Mh-ih-,l- lfgr]

fcy esa gh dqy jkf”k Li’V :Ik ls n”kkZ;sxkA

mnkgj.k

fu;r frfFk rd ns; jkf”k :0 100@&

fu;r frfFk 1 ebZ] 2019

ns; jkf”k

ij ;k iwoZ Ik”pkr~ Ik”pkr~

16 ebZ] 2019 16 ebZ] 2019 1 twu] 2019

:0 100@& :0 101-25 :0 102-50

8- lksyj okWVj ghVj NwV

;fn miHkksDrk lksyj okWVj ghfVax iz.kkyh laLFkkfir djrk gS rFkk mldk mi;ksx djrk gS rks iz.kkyh

dh izR;sd 100 yhVj {kerk ds fy, :0 100@& ;k ml ekg dk fcy] nksuksa esa ls tks de gks] dh NwV

bl “krZ ds v/khu nh tk;sxh fd miHkksDrk vuqKkih dks ;g “kiFki= nsxk fd mlus og iz.kkyh

laLFkkfir dh gS] ftls vuqKkih le;≤ ij lR;kfir djus ds fy;s Lora= gksxkA ;fn ,slk dksbZ

nkok >wBk ik;k tkrk gS rks ,sls miHkksDrk ds fo:) dh tk ldus okyh n.MkRed fof/kd dk;Zokgh ds

vfrfjDr vuqKkih] 100 izfr”kr tqekZus ds lkFk miHkksDrk dks vuqeU; dqy NwV dh olwyh djsxk rFkk

vxys 12 ekg rd ds fy;s ,slh NwV izkfIr fu"ksf/kr djsxkA



9- izhisM ehVfjax

vk;ksx ds bl vkns'k ds }kjk izhisM ehVfjax ;kstuk vuqeksfnr dh x;h gS tksfd ykxw jgsxhA izhisM

ehVfjax ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ?kjsyw Js.kh ¼vkjVh,l&1 ,oa vkjVh,l&1,½ gsrq fo|qr izHkkj ij 4% rFkk

vU; ,yVh miHkksDrkvksa dks fo|qr izHkkj ij 3% dh NwV] izhisM ehVj ds laLFkkiu rFkk dk;Z djus dh

frfFk ls iznkfur gksxhA fdUrq vkjVh,l&8 esa vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ esa NwV vuqeU; ugha gksxhA lksyj okWVj

NwV mijksDr nj vuqlwph ds vuq:i bl gsrq vko';d 'krksaZ dks iw.kZ djus ij izhizsM miHkksDrkvksa ij Hkh

ykxw gksxhA

10- csl oksYVst ls mPp@fuEu oksYVst ij vkiwfrZ dk mi;ksx djus ds fy;s NwV@vf/kHkkjA i) 75 kW@88 kVA rd lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrk ;fn vkiwfrZ 400 oksYV~l ds Åij o 11 kV rd nh tkrh gS rks fctyh izHkkj dh nj ij 5% NwV Lohdk;Z gksxhA ii) 75 kW@88 kVA ls Åij lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s & ;fn vkiwfrZ 400 oksYV~l ij

nh tkrh gS rks miHkksDrk dks fctyh izHkkj dh nj ij ifjdfyr fcy jkf”k ij 10% dk vfrfjDr

izHkkj nsuk gksxkA iii) 75 kW@88 kVA ls Åij lafonkd`r Hkkj okys miHkksDrk & 33 kV ij vkiwfrZ ds ekeys esa] fctyh

izHkkj dh nj ij 2-5% dh NwV izkIr djsxsaA iv) 75 kW@88 kVA ls Åij lafonkdr Hkkj okys miHkksDrk tks 132 kV ;k vf/kd ij vkiwfrZ izkIr dj

jgs gksa] fctyh izHkkj dh nj ij 7-5% dh NwV izkIr djsaxsA v) mijksDr lHkh oksYVst ukWfeuy jsVsM oksYVstst gSaA vi) ftu miHkksDrkvksa ds ikl izhisM dusD'ku gS] mu ij NwV ;k vf/kHkkj ykxw ugha gksxhA

11- fuEu ikoj QSDVj vf/kHkkj ¼?kjsyw] PTW rFkk kVAh vk/kkfjr “kqYd okys vU; Jsf.k;ksa ij ykxw ugha½A i) fcuk bySDVªkWfud VªkbZosDVj ehsVlZ okys miHkksDrkvksa] ftUgksaus mi;qDr jsfVaXl rFkk fofunsZ”ku ds “kaV

dSisflVlZ laLFkkfir ugha fd;s gSa a] muls orZeku fo|qr izHkkjksa ij 5% dk vf/kHkkj mn~xzghr fd;k

tk;sxkA ii) bySDVªkWfud VªkbosDVj ehVlZ okys miHkksDrkvksa ds fy, 0-85 ls uhps rFkk 0-80 rd ds ikoj QSDVj

gksus ij orZeku fo|qr izHkkjksa ij 5% dk vf/kHkkj rFkk 0-80 ls fuEu ikoj QSDVj gksus ij orZeku

fo|qr izHkkjksa dk 10% ds vf/kHkkj mn~xzghr gksxkA iii) ftu miHkksDrkvksa ds ikl izhisM dusD'ku gS] mu ij vf/kHkkj ykxw ugha gksxkA

9. Annexures


12- vf/kHkkj@ekax naM ¼?kjsyw] fgekPNkfnr o PTW Jsf.k;ksa ij ykxw ugha½

,sls miHkksDrkvksa ds ekeys esa tgakW MDI ds lkFk bySDVªkWfud ehVlZ laLFkkfir gS] ;fn fdlh ekg esa

vfHkfyf[kr vf/kdre~ ekax lafonkdr Hkkj@ekax ls vf/kd gks tkrh gS rks ,sls vfrfjDr Hkkj@ekax ij izHkkj

ykxw fLFkj@ekax izHkkj dh lkekU; nj ls nksxquk ds cjkcj &mn~xzghr fd;k tk;sxkA ,slk vf/kd Hkkj naM

dsoy ml ekg ds fy;s yxk;k tk;sxk] ftlesa vf/kdre~ ekax] lafonkdr Hkkj ls vf/kd gksxhA ;|fi] ftu

miHkksDrkvksa ds ikl izhisM dusD'ku gS] mu ij vf/kHkkj vfrfjDr Hkkj tqekZuk ykxw ugha gksxkA

mnkgj.k %& i) mu miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s] tgk¡ lafonkdr Hkkj@ekax ds vk/kkj ij fLFkj izHkkj fofufnZ’V fd;s x;s gSa% lafonkd`r Hkkj 30 kW, vf/kdre~ ekax 43 kW vfr ekax 43&30= 13 kW, fLFkj izHkkjksa dh nj = :0 70@kW

lafonkdr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =30x70= :0 2100/- vfrfjDr Hkkj ds fy;s fLFkj izHkkj =13 x (2x70) = :0 1820/- dqy fLFkj izHkkj =2100+1820= :0 3920/- ii) fcy ;ksX; ekax ij fcy fy;s tkus okys vkS|kSfxd miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;sss% lafonkdr ekax 2500 kVA] vf/kdre ekax 2800 kVA] fcy ;ksX; ekax=2800 kVA vfrfjDr ekax 2800&2500=300 kVA, ekax izHkkjksa dh nj =:0 360/kVA lafonkdr ekax gssrq ekax izHkkj = 2500 x 360 = :0 900000/- vfrfjDr ekax gsrq ekax izHkkj = 300 x (2x360) = :0 216000/- dqy ekax izHkkj = 900000 + 216000 = :0 1116000/-

13- ?kjsyw] v?kjsyw rFkk fefJr Hkkj Jsf.k;ksa ds fy;s ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZA i) 75 kW ls Åij dqy Hkkj okys ?kjsyw@v?kjsyw&Hkou@ekWYl@lgdkjh lkewfgd vkokl

lfefr;ka@dkWyksfu;ksa esa vkxs forj.k gsrq ,dy fcanq ehVfjax ds lkFk ,dy fcanq ij la;kstu izkIr

djuh gSaA rFkkfi O;fDrxr la;kstu gsrq vkosnu djus esa oS/kkfud Lokeh@dCtk/kkjh ds fy;s dksbZ

jksd ugha gksxhA ii) ,dy fcUnq vkiwfrZ ysus okyk O;fDr] vuqKkih dks fo|qr izHkkjksa ds lHkh Hkqxrku djus rFkk ,sls

miHkksDrkvksa gsrq fu/kkZfjr VSfjQ ds laxzg djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h gksxkA vuqKkih ;g Hkh lqfuf”pr

djsxk fd miHkksDrk dh lEcfU/kr Js.kh ls fy;k tk jgk VSfjQ fu/kkZfjr VSfjQ ls vf/kd u gksA iii) ,slk O;fDr ftlus ,dy fcanq vkiwfrZ yh gS] og fo|qr vf/kfu;e] 2003 dh /kkjk 14 ds lkrosa

ijUrqd ds v/khu nh xbZ ,dy fcanq vkiwfrZ okys ifjlj ds fy, fo|qr ds forj.k dh ftEesnkjh gsrq



vuqKkih] vfHkdrkZ Hkh le>k tk;sxk rFkk forj.k vuqKkih] ,sls {ks= ds Hkhrj mlds v/khu vf/kfu;e

rFkk fu;eksa o fofu;eksa ds lHkh micU/kksa ds vuqikyu gsrq mRrjnk;h gksxkA iv) ^?kjsyw^ ds vUrxZr ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ dsoy vkoklh; dkWyksfu;ksa@vkoklh; cgqeaftyk bekjrksa

dh vke lqfo/kkvksa ¼tSls fy¶Vksa] lkoZtfud izdk”k vkSj ty ifEiax iz.kkyh ds :Ik esa½ lfgr

vkoklh; dkyksfu;ksa@cgqeaftyk bekjrksa ij ykxw gksxhA ;fn bl izdkj ds vkoklh;

dkyksfu;ksa@vkoklh; cgqeaftyk bekjrksa esa dqN vU; nqdkusa vFkok vU; dksbZ O;kolkf;d izfr’Bku

gksa] ,slh fLFkfr esa mu ij fefJr yksM Js.kh dh nj vuqlwph esa iznku dh xbZ 'krksZa ds v/khu VSfjQ

ykxw gksxkA v) v?kjsyw ds vUrxZr ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ dsoy 'kkWfiax dkWEiySDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl~ ds fy,

ykxw gksxhA 14- Ikw.kkZadu %

i) Lkafonkd`r Hkkj@ekax dsoy iw.kZ la[;k esa vfHkO;Dr dh tk;sxh rFkk [k.M Hkkj@ekax dh vxyh iw.kZ

la[;k rd iw.kkZafdr fd;k tk;sxkA mnkgj.k%

0-15 kW dk lafonkdr@Lohd`r Hkkj] “kqYd mn~ns”; gsrq 1 kW ekuk tk;sxkA blh izdkj

15-25 kW/kVA dk lafonkdr@Lohd`r Hkkj 16 kW/kVA fy;k tk;sxkA ii) lHkh fcy fudVre~ :Ik;s rd iw.kkZafdr fd;s tk;saxsA

15- vU; izHkkj %

izHkkj dh nj esa fn;s x;s izHkkjksa rFkk fofo/k izHkkjksas dh vuqlwph esa lfEefyr izHkkjksa ds flok; vU;

dksbZ izHkkj vk;ksx dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk miHkksDrkvksa ls olwy ugha fd;s tk;saxsA

9. Annexures


Ckh- “kqYd njsa

vkj-Vh-,l-&1 % ?kjsyw

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk %

fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq ;g vuqlwph fuEu ij ykxw gksxh %

i) jks”kuh] ia[kk] ikoj o vU; ?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds fy, vkoklh; ifjlj ¼;wihlh,y] fiVdqy ,oa

;wtsoh,u fy0 ds deZpkfj;ksa ,oa iSa'kuj~~ ds vkokl lfgr½ lkewfgd lqfo/kkvksa lfgr ¼tSls fy¶V]

lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk okVj ifEiax lsV½A

ii) 75 kW ds Åij ds ,dy fcUnq Fkksd vkiwfrZ ds fy, vkoklh; dkWyksfu;kaW] cgqeaftys Hkou tgk¡ ÅtkZ

dk iz;ksx dsoy ,sls ?kjsyw mn~ns”; ¼tSls fy¶V] lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk okWVj ifEaix lsV½ ds fy;s

gksrk gks] lfEefyr gSA

iii) /kkfeZd LFkyksa tSls efUnj] efLtn] xq:}kjk] ppZ bR;kfn ¼tgk¡ ek= iwtk@bcknr dh txg vdsys

esa@vyx ls gks] mu iwtk LFkykas@bcknrxkgksa ds fy, tgk¡ /keZ”kkyk] lkeqnkf;d dsUnz] “k;uxg

bR;kfn lEc) gks] ogk¡ ;g vuqlwph ykxw ugha gksxhA½

iv) xkS'kkyk@xkSlnu ftudk yksM 2 kW rd gS rFkk miHkksx 200 kWh izfrekg rd gS

v) nhun;ky mik/;k; xg vkokl ¼gkse&LVs½s fodkl ;kstuk fu;ekoyh] 2018 ds vUrxZr iathd`r

gkse&LVs

¼;g nj lwph mu miHkksDrkvksa ij Hkh ykxw gksxh] ftuds ikl 2 kW rd dk lafonkdr Hkkj gS] lkFk

gh 200 kWh@ekg rd dk miHkksx gS rFkk tks mijksDr ifjlj dk dqN Hkkx mijksDr v?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds

fy;s dj jgs gSaA rFkkfi ;fn ,sls ifjljksa ds fy, lafonkdr Hkkj 2 kW ls vf/kd o miHkksx 200 kWh@ekg ls vf/kd gS rks tc rd fd Hkkj dks vyx&vyx ugha fd;k tkrk rFkk iFkd :Ik ls ehVj

ugha fy;k tkrk] nksuksa esa ls dksbZ ,d] miHkksx dh xbZ leLr ÅtkZ mi;qDr nj vuqlwph ds v/khu izHkkfjr

dh tk;sxhA½

2- izHkkj dh nj %

*vU; ?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa ds ekeys esa fLFkj izHkkj njsa ekg esa dqy [kir ds cjkcj yh tk;sxhA

fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj* fo|qr ewY;

1- ?kjsyw

1-1½ ch0ih0,y0@ykbZQ ykbu miHkksDrk

xjhch js[kk ls uhps o dqVhj T;ksfr ftudk 1 kW rd

Hkkj rFkk 60 ;wfuV izfr ekg miHkksx gks

:0 18@la;kstu@ ekg :0 1-61@ kWh 1-2½ vU; ?kjsyw miHkksDrk 100 ;wfuV~l@ekg rd miHkksx gsrq :0 55@ekg :0 2-75@kWh 101&200 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 85@ekg :0 3-55@kWh 201&400 ;wfuV~l@ekg miHkksx gsrq :0 145@ekg :0 4-90@kWh 400 ;wfuV~l@ekg ls Åij :0 230@ekg :0 5-65@kWh 2½ ,dy fcUnq Fkksd vkiwfrZ :0 75@kW@ekg :0 4-40@kWh



vkj Vh ,l 1 , % fgekPNkfnr

1- Ikz;ksT;rk

fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq ;g vuqlwph fuEu ij ykxw gksxh % (i) fgekPNkfnr {ks=ksa ds ?kjsyw o v?kjsyw miHkksDrkA (ii) ;g vuqlwph] lacaf/kr ftykf/kdkjh }kjk fgekPNkfnr@fge js[kk ds :Ik esa vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa ij

ykxw gksrh gSA 2- vkiwfrZ izHkkj dh nj

fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

1½ ?kjsyw

:0 18@la;kstu@ekg

:0 1-61@ kWh 2½ v?kjsyw 1 kW rd :0 1-61@ kWh 3½ v?kjsyw 1 kW ls 4 kW rd :0 2-36@ kWh 4½ v?kjsyw 4 kW ls Åij :0 30@la;kstu@ekg :0 3-51@ kWh

3- bl vuqlwph dh vU; lHkh “krsZ ogh gksaxh tks fd vkjVh,l&1 esa gSA

9. Annexures


vkj-Vh-,l-&2 % v?kjsyw

1- iz;ksT;rk %


1-1 (i) ljdkjh@uxj ikfydk fpfdRlky;A

(ii) ljdkjh@ljdkjh lgk;rk izkIr “kSf{kd laLFkkuA

(iii) vk;dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 ds v/khu iathd`r ,slh /kekZFkZ laLFkk,a ftudh vk; dks bl

vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dj dh NwV izkIr gksA

1-2 NksVs v?kjsyw miHkksDrk ftudk vuqcfU/kr Hkkj 4 kW rd rFkk miHkksx 50 ;wfuV@ekg rd gksA

1-3 75 kW ds Åij ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ ds vU; [email protected];d mi;ksxdrkZ ftlesa “kkWfiax

dkWEiysDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl ftlesa lkewfgd lqfo/kkvksa lfgr ¼tSls fy¶V] lkoZtfud izdk”k rFkk

okVj ifEaix lsV½ lfEefyr gks gsrq lfEefyr gSaA

1-4 LorU= foKkiu cksMksZa@gksfMZaXl& lHkh O;olkf;d ¼lM+d fdukjs@Nr ij ;k bekjrksa ds fdukjs

bR;kfn½ ij vdsys [kM+s LorU= foKkiu gksfMZaXl tks fd futh foKkiu lkbZu iksLV@lkbZu

cksMZ~l@lkbZu Xykst~@¶ySDl gS] ftudks iFkd ehVj ls LorU= ehVfjax dh tk jgh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj

dze la0 fooj.k fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

1-1

(i) ljdkjh@uxj ikfydk fpfdRlky; (ii) ljdkjh@ljdkj lgk;rk izkIr “kSf{kd laLFkku (iii) vk;dj vf/kfu;e 1961 ds v/khu iathdr ,slh /kekFkZ laLFkk,a

ftudh vk; ij bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dj dh NwV izkIr gSA

¼,½ 25 kW rd :0 65@kW :0 4-50@kWh ¼ch½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 75@kVA :0 4-25@kVAh

1-2

vU; v?kjsyw miHkksDrkvksa

¼,½ NksVs v?kjsyw miHkksDrk ftudk vuqcfU/kr Hkkj 4 kW rFkk miHkksx

50 ;wfuV izfr ekg gksA* :0 70@ kW :0 4-70@kWh ¼ch½ 25 kW rd mijksDr 1-2 ¼,½ esa “kkfey ugha :0 75@ kW :0 5-60@kWh ¼lh½ 25 kW ls Åij :0 75@ kVA :0 5-45@kVAh

1-3 ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ** :0 75@ kVA :0 5-50@kVAh 1-4 LorU= foKkiu gksfMZaXl~~ :0 90@ kW :0 6-10@kWh

* ;fn [kir 50 ;wfuV@ekg ls vf/kd gS rks iw.kZ [kir ij fo|qr izHkkj mi&Js.kh 1-2 ¼ch½ ds vuqlkj fy;k tk;sxkA

** “kkfiax dkWEIysDl@eYVhIySDl@ekWYl ds fy;s 75 kW ls Åij

3- vU; 'krsZa 3-1 Vh vks Mh ehVlZ] dsoy ehVj jhfMax midj.k ¼MRI½ }kjk i<s tk;saxsA iw.kZ fo”ys’k.k ds

iz;kstu gsrq Qstj Mk;xzke] Vsaij fjiksVZ] iw.kZ Hkkj losZ{k.k fjiksVZ bR;kfn iw.kZ MaIk ds lkFk

Mkmu yksM fd;s tk;saxsA



3-2 25 kW Lks Åij ds lHkh miHkksDrkvksa gsrq vko”;d :Ik ls ToD ehVj gksaxsA 3-3 “kwU; Hkkj ;k vR;Ur de Hkkj ij dksbZ ehVj ugha i<+k tk;sxkA vuqKkih mi;qDr okg~; Hkkj

j[ksxk rFkk mDr Hkkj ij ,e- vkj- vkbZ- ysus ds fy, tgk¡ vko”;d gks mls mi;ksx djsxkA 3-4 ,e vkj vkbZ lkjka'k fjiksVZ dh izfr fcy ds lkFk miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxhA Hkkj losZ{k.k fjiksVZ

lfgr iw.kZ ,e- vkj- vkbZ- fjiksVZ] ekax djus ij rFkk :0 15@& ds fcy dk Hkqxrku djus

ij iznku dh tk;sxhA

9. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l&3% xouZesaV ifCyd ;qfVfyfVt~~

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk


(i) LVªhV ykbfVax flLVe] VSªfQd flXuy] lkoZtfud m|kuksa dh ykbZfVax bR;kfn lfEefyr gSA

gfjtu cfLr;ksa rFkk xkaoksa dk iFk izdk”k Hkh bl vuqlwph esa lfEefyr gSA

(ii) jkT; uydwiksa] fo'o cSad uydwiksa] iEi ugjsa rFkk fy¶V flapkbZ ;kstuk] y?kq ny ugj

bR;kfnA

(iii) fdlh ljdkjh foHkkx }kjk LokfeRo rFkk lapkfyr flapkbZ ;kstukA

(iv) ty laLFkku] ty fuxe vFkok vU; dksbZ LFkkuh; bZdkbZ rFkk IykfLVd fjlkbZfdfyax IykWV

ftlds }kjk ifCyd okWVj oDlZ] lhoj VªhVesaV IykWVksa rFkk lhost+ iafiax LVs'ku dk lapkyu

fd;k x;k gksA

2- izHkkj dh nj

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj* fo|qr ewY;

'kgjh ¼ehVMZ½ :0 60@kVA/ekg :0 5-20@ kVAh xzkeh.k ¼ehVMZ½ :0 50@ kVA/ekg :0 5-20@ kVAh

*'kgjh ,oa xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa fo|qr vkiwfrZ dk vUrj dsoy mijksDr 1¼i½ rFkk 1¼iv½ ds vuqlkj ykxw gksxkA

3- ifCyd ySEil gsrq vuqj{k.k izHkkj

mijksDr **izHkkj dh nj** ds vfrfjDr :0 10@&izfr ykbZV IokbaV izfr ekg dsoy etnwjh “kkfey

djrs gq, LVªhV ykbZV ds ifjpkyu ,oa vuqj{k.k gsrq izHkkfjr fd;k tk;sxkA lHkh visf{kr lkexzh dh vkiwfrZ

LFkkuh; fudk;ksa }kjk dh tk;sxhA rFkkfi LFkkuh; fudk;ksa ds ikl ifCyd ySEil dk ifjpkyu o vuqj{k.k

Lo;a djus dk fodYi gksxk rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa dksbZ vuqj{k.k izHkkj ugha fy;k tk;sxkA

4- iFk izdk'k iz.kkyh ds fy, mica/k

;fn] mijksDrkuqlkj vuqj{k.k izHkkj izHkkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS rks ySEil ds cnyus ;k blds

uohuhdj.k esa yxus okys Jfed vuqKkih }kjk miyC/k djk;s tk;saxs fdarq lHkh lkexzh LFkkuh; fudk;ksa }kjk

miyC/k djk;h tk;sxhA ;fn LFkkuh; fudk; ds vuqjks/k ij vuqKkih lkexzh miyC/k djokrk gS rks bldh

ykxr LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk izHkk;Z gksxhA

,sls {ks=ksa esa tgk¡ vuqKkih ds forj.k esUl ugha fcNk;s x;s gSa ogk¡ LVªhV ykbZV esUl ¼mi LVs”kuksa dh

ykxr] ;fn dksbZ gS] lfgr½ ds foLrkj dh ykxr dk Hkqxrku LFkkuh; fudk; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA



vkj Vh ,l & 4% futh uydwi @ifEiax lsV~l

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq mu lHkh miHkksDrkvksa ij ykxw gksrh gS tks flapkbZ ds mn~ns”; ls

rFkk pkjk dkVus dh e”khu] /kku dh Hkwlh fudkyus dh e”khu] xUUkk fijkbZ dh e”khu o vukt ds nkus

vyx djus dh e”khu rd lhfer izklafxd d`f’k dk;ksZ ds fy, futh uy dwiksa@ifEiax lsV~l gsrq vkiwfrZ

izkIr dj jgs gSaA gkykafd izklafxd df’k ds mn~ns”; ds varxZr flapkbZ gsrq fy;s x;s la;kstu ij

vkjVh,l&4 ds vUrxZr VSfjQ ykxw gksxkA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj :0@ch,pih@ekg fo|qr ewY;

:0@kWh vkjVh,l& 4 % PTW ¼ehVMZ½ “kwU; 1-95

3- fcyksa dk Hkqxrku rFkk foyafcr Hkqxrku gsrq vf/kHkkj%

bl Js.kh ds fy;s fcy o’kZ esa nks ckj vFkkZr fnlacj var ¼twu ls uoEcj dh vof/k ds fy;s½ rFkk

twu var ¼fnlEcj ls ebZ dh vof/k ds fy;s½ tkjh fd;s tk;sxsaA fnlEcj esa tkjh fd;s x;s fcyksa dk Hkqxrku

miHkksDrk }kjk ,d lkFk ;k vxys o’kZ 30 viSzy rd ¼vf/kdre pkj Hkkxksa esa fd;k tk;½ fd;k tk ldrk gS

ftlds fy;s dksbZ Mh-ih-,l- mn~xzghr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA blh izdkj twu esa tkjh fd;s x;s fcyksa dk

Hkqxrku fcuk Mh-ih-,l- ds 31 vDVwcj rd fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn miHkksDrk fofufnZ’V frfFk;ksa rd

Hkqxrku djus esa vlQy jgrk gS rks ewy cdk;k jkf”k ij ml vof/k ¼ekg ;k mlds Hkkx½ ds fy, 1-25% izfrekg dh nj ls vkiwfrZ dh lkekU; 'krksZa dh Øe la0 7 ds vuqlkj vf/kHkkj yxsxkA

9. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l & 4 ¼,½ % d`f"k lEc) lsok;sa

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph fo|qr dh vkiwfrZ gsrq mu ij ykxw gksrh gS tks ikS/kk ulZjh] ikWyhgkÅl ,oa vU;

;wfuV~l esa mxk;s Qwyksa@lfCt;ksa rFkk Qyksa] rFkk e”k:e dh [ksrh lfgr] tgka Hk.Mkj.k ,oa laj{k.k ds

vfrfjDr fdlh izdkj ds mRiknksa dk izlaLdj.k u dh tkrh gksA

2- izHkkj dh nj

Js.kh fLFkj izHkkj

:0@ch,pih@ekg

fo|qr ewY;

:0@KWh vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ % d`f"k lac) lsok;sa 'kwU; 1-95



vkj Vh ,l 5% ,y Vh rFkk ,p Vh m|ksx

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk


(i) vkS|kSfxd rFkk@;k izlaLdj.k ;k d`f’k vkS|kSfxd mn~ns”;ksa] fctyh dj?kk o lkFk gh

vkdZ@bUMD”ku QusZlst] jksfyax@fj&jksfyax feYl] y?kq LVhy la;a=ksa ds fy;s rFkk fdlh vU;

nj vuqlwph ds v/khu lfEefyr u fd;s x;s miHkksDrkA

(ii) lCth] Qy] Qwyksa o e”k:e dh [ksrh] izlaLdj.k] HkaMkj.k o iSdsftax ds lkFk d`f"k rFkk tks

vkjVh,l&4 ¼,½ esa vkPNkfnr u gksrs gkas] bl izdkj dh bdkb;k¡ Hkh bl nj vuqlwph esa

lfEefyr gksxhA

2- vkiwfrZ dh fof”k’V “krsZa

(i) lHkh la;kstu] mi;qDr jsfVax rFkk ch-vkbZ-,l- fofunsZ”kuksa ds ,e lh ch ¼fefu;spj lfdZV cszdj½

;k lfdZV cszdj@fLop fx;j ds lkFk la;ksftr fd;s tk;saxsA

(ii) baMD”ku o vkdZ QusZlst dks vkiwfrZ ;g lqfuf”pr dj ysus ds Ik”pkr gh miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxh

fd Lohdr Hkkj QusZlst ds Vust dh Hkkj vko”;drkvksa ds rn~uqlkj gSA 1 Vu dk U;wure~ Hkkj

fdlh Hkh n”kk esa 400 kVA ls de ugha gksxk rFkk lHkh Hkkj blh vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr fd;s

tk;saxsA bl ekud ls uhps ds fdlh Hkkj ds fy;s dksbZ vkiwfrZ ugha dh tk;sxhA

(iii) LVhy ;wfuV~l dks vkiwfrZ] mi&LVs”ku ds Nksj ij psd ehVj ds lkFk dsoy ,d MsfMdsVsM

bafMfotqoy QhMj ds ek/;e ls 33 kV ;k blls Åij dh oksYVst ij miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA

psd ehVj rFkk miHkksDrk ehVj ¼jksa½ dh jhfMaXl ds e/; 3% ls vf/kd ds vaarj dh vuqKkih }kjk

rqjar tk¡p djokbZ tk;sxh rFkk lq/kkjkRed dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA

(iv) 1000 kVA ls vf/kd ds Hkkj ds lkFk lHkh u;s la;kstuksa dks vkiwfrZ] mijksDr ds (iii) mica/kksa ds

lkFk dsoy Lora= iks’kdksa ij fuxZr dh tkuh pkfg;sA

9. Annexures


fooj.k fo|qr izHkkj fLFkj@ekax izHkkj izfrekg

1- 75 kW ¼100 BHP½ rd lafonkdr Hkkj

okys ,yVh m|ksx

1-1 lafonkd`r Hkkj 25 kW rd :0 4-35@kWh lafonkd`r Hkkj dk :0 145@kW

1-2 lafonkd`r Hkkj 25 kW ls vf/kd :0 4-00@kVAh lafonkd`r Hkkj dk :0 145@kVA 2- 88 kVA /75 kW ¼100 BHP½ ls Åij

lafonkd`r Hkkj okys ,pVh m|ksx yksM QSDVj# :0@kVAh

2-1 lafonkd`r Hkkj 1000 kVA rd 40% rd 3-95

* fcy ;ksX; ekax dk :0 300@kVA 40% ls Åij 4-35

2-2 lafonkd`r Hkkj 1000 kVA ls Åij 40% rd 3-95

* fcy ;ksX; ekax dk :0 360@kVA 40% ls Åij 4-35

*fcy ;ksX; ekax] okLrfod vf/kdre ekax ;k lafonkdr Hkkj dk 80%] tks vf/kd gks] gksxhA

#“kqYd mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s yksM QSDVj ¼%½ fuEu :Ik esa le>k tk;sxk%&

= fcfyax vof/k esa miHkksx ¼mUeqDr vfHkxeu ls izkIr fo|qr jfgr½ x 100

vf/kdre~ ekax ;k lafonkdr ekax] nksuksa esa ls tks de gks x fcfyax vof/k esa ?kaVksa dh la[;k

;|fi tgk¡ miHkksDrk }kjk mUeqDr vfHkxeu vof/k ds nkSjku fy, tkus ij vf/kdre ekax ml ekg esa c<+ tkus dh n'kk esa]

yksM QSDVj ds vkadyu ds mn~~ns'; gsrq vf/kdre ekax ogh gksxk ftl vof/k esa mUeqDr vfHkxeu u fd;k x;k gksA

3- le;kuqlkj “kqYd ¼ ToD½ ¼VSfjQ½

(i) 25 kW ls vf/kd Hkkj ds ,y Vh m|ksx rFkk ,p Vh m|ksx ds fy;s Åij fn;s x;s ÅtkZ izHkkj

dh njsa ToD NwV@vf/kHkkj ds v/khu gksaxhA (ii) ToD ehVlZ] dsoy ehVj jhfMax bULVwesaV (MRI) }kjk i<s+ tk;saxsA iw.kZ fo”ys’k.k gsrq Qstj

Mk;xzke] Vsaij fjiksZV~lZ] iw.kZ Hkkj losZ fjiksV~lZ bR;kfn ds iw.kZ Mai Mkmu&yksM fd;s tk;saxs rFkk

fcy] izHkkj ToD nj ds vuqlkj tkjh fd;s tk;saxsA (iii) dksbZ Hkh ehVj “kwU; Hkkj ij ;k vR;Ur fuEu Hkkj ij ugha i<+s tk;saxsA vuqKkih mi;qDr okg~;

Hkkj j[ksxk rFkk mDr Hkkj ij MRI ysus ds fy;s tgka vko”;d gks ogk¡ bls ykxw djsxkA (iv) MRI lkjka”k dh izfr] fcy ds lkFk miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA Hkkj loZs fjiksVZ lfgr iw.kZ ,e vkj

vkbZ fjiksVZ ekax ij rFkk :0 15@& ds Hkqxrku ij miyC/k djokbZ tk;sxhA (v) ToD Hkkj fuEukuqlkj gksxk %

lhtu@fnu dk

le;

lqcg ihd

vkolZ lkekU; ?k.Vs Lkak; ihd vkolZ

vkWQ ihd

vkolZ

“khrdky

01-10 ls 31-03 0600&0900 cts 0900&1800 cts 1800&2200 cts 2200&0600 cts

Xkzh’edky

01-04 ls 30-09 & 0700&1800 cts 1800&2300 cts 2300&0700 cts



fo|qr ewY; dh ToD nj fuEukuqlkj gksaxh %

,y Vh m|ksx ds fy;s vof/k esa izHkkj dh nj

lkekU; ?k.Vs ihd vkolZ vkWQ ihd vkolZ

:0 4-00@kVAh :0 6-00@kVAh :0 3-40@kVAh

,p Vh m|ksx ds fy;s

yksM QSDVj* vof/k esa izHkkj dh nj

lkekU; ?k.Vs ihd vkolZ vkWQ ihd vkolZ

40% rd :0 3-95@kVAh :0 6-53@kVAh :0 3-36@kVAh 40% ls Åij :0 4-35@kVAh :0 6-53@kVAh :0 3-70@kVAh

*yksM QSDVj Åij [k.M 2 esa ifjHkkf’kr fd;k x;k gSA

4- ekSleh m|ksx

tgk¡ fdlh miHkksDrk ds ikl 18 kW (25 BHP) ls vf/kd dk Hkkj gks rFkk ToD ehVj gks rFkk og o’kZ esa

dqN fuf”pr ekSleksa esa ;k lhfer vof/k ds nkSjku] ?kksf’kr ekSleh m|ksx ds fy;s ÅtkZ dh vkiwfrZ dk

mi;ksx djrk gS rks ftl vof/k esa la;a= can jgrk gS mu eghuksa ¼ftls vkWQ lhtu dgk tk;sxk½ ds fy,

mn~xzg.k fuEukuqlkj fd;k tk;sxk %

(i) *lhtu* vof/k ds fy;s “kqYd ogh gksxk tks bl vuqlwph esa fn;s vuqlkj **izHkkj dh nj** gSaA (ii) tgk¡ **vkWQ lhtu** vof/k esa okLrfod ekax lafonkdr Hkkj ds 30% ls vf/kd ugha gS] ogk¡ **vkWQ

lhtu** vof/k gsrq fo|qr ewY; ogha gksxsa tks Åij vuqlwph dh nj esa nh xbZ **lhtu** vof/k ds

fy;s gSaA rFkkfi **vkWQ lhtu** lafonkdr ekax ?kVkdj 30% dj nh tk;sxhA (iii) vkWQ lhtu vof/k esa vf/kdre vuqKs; ekax] lafonkd`r ekax dk 30% gksxh rFkk ,d miHkksDrk

ftudh okLrfod ekax vkWQ lhtu ds fdlh ekg esa lafonkd`r ekax ds 30% ls vf/kd gksrh gS rks

mUgsa ml lhtu dh vof/k esa ?kVh gqbZ lafonkd`r ekax dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr

ekax izHkkj ds 10% dh nj ls iw.kZ **vkWQ lhtu** vof/k gsrq vf/kHkkj ns; gksxkA ekSleh m|ksxksa ds fy;s fuca/ku ,oa “krsZa&

(i) ifjpkyu dh vof/k ,d foRr o’kZ esa 9 ekg ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg;sA (ii) tgk¡ foÙk o’kZ esa ifjpkyu dh vof/k 4 ekg ls vf/kd gS ogk¡ ,sls m|ksx dks de ls de pkj

Øfed ekg rd ifjpkfyr gksuk pkfg;sA (iii) ,d ckj vf/klwfpr lhtuy vof/k dks o’kZ dh vof/k rd ?kVk;k ugha tk ldrkA ekSleh Hkkj ds

lkFk vU; Hkkj /kkfjr dEiksftV bZdkbZ;ksa ij ^vkWQ lhtu^ “kqYd ykxw ugha gksxkA (iv) Pkhuh] cQZ] jkbZl fey] tM+hd`r vkgkj ¼Ýkstu QwM½ rFkk pk; ds vfrfjDr m|ksx vk;ksx ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds Ik”pkr~ gh vuqKkih }kjk vf/klwfpr fd;s tk;saxsA

9. Annexures


5- QSDVjh ykbZfVax

bl vuqlwph ds v/khu vkiwfrZ dh xbZ fo|qrh; ÅtkZ dk mi;ksx QSDVªh ifjlj esa ykbZV~l] ia[ks] dwylZ]

bR;kfn ds fy;s Hkh fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa dk;kZy;ksa] eq[; QSDVªh Hkou] LVkslZ] VkbZe dhij ds dk;kZy;]

dSUVhu] LVkQ Dyc] iqLrdky;] f”k”kq lnu] vkS’k/kky; LVkQ dY;k.k dsUnzksa] vgkrksa esa QSDVªh ykbfVax ds

fy;s miHkksx dh xbZ lHkh ÅtkZ lfEefyr gksxhA

6- fujarj o vfujarj vkiwfrZ %

(i) fujUrj izfdz;k m|ksx ds lkFk vfujUrj izfØ;k m|ksx ds miHkksDrk tks fd Loa=r QhMj ;k

vkS|kSfxd QhMj ls tqMs+ gkas] fujUrj vkiwfrZ gsrq fodYi pqu ldrs gSA ,d vkS|kSfxd QhMj ls tqMs+

gq, lHkh m|ksxksa ds fujUrj vkiwfrZ fodYi pquus ds mijkUr gh fujUrj vkiwfrZ iznku dh tk;sxh

rFkk ;fn muesa ls dksbZ vkS|kSfxd miHkksDrk fujUrj vkiwfrZ ugha pkgrk gks rks ,sls QhMj ij lHkh

miHkksDrk fujUrj vkiwfrZ dk ykHk mBkus ds fy, vgZ ugha gksaxsA bl rjg dh fujUrj izfdz;k okys

vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrk tks fujUrj vkiwfrZ pqurs gS] mUgsa iwoZ esa lwfpr@vuwlwfpr fctyh dVkSrh ls

rFkk le;≤ ij vk;ksx }kjk vuqeksfnr fctyh miHkksx esa izfrca/k dh vof/k dh lhfer ?kaVs ds

nkSjku ÅtkZ ds vkikrdkyhu :Ik ls BIi gksus ;k can dh fLFkfr dks NksM+dj vU; le; yksM “kSfMax

ls NwV izkIr gksxhA (ii) os miHkksDrk tks fd iwoZ esa fujUrj vkiwfrZ fodYi pqus gq, gS] dks fujUrj vkiwfrZ pquus gsrq iqu%

vkosnu djus dh vko”;drk ugha gSA ,sls miHkksDrkvksa dks fnukad 01-04-2019 ls 31-03-2020 rd

Åij mYysf[kr fo|qr izHkkj dk 10 izfr'kr vfrfjDr fo|qr izHkkj ns; gksxkA ;wihlh,y ls ;fn dksbZ

fookn fdlh QhMj esa gks rks ml QhMj ds miHkksDrkvksa dks 30 vizSy] 2019 rd u;s rkSj ls fujUrj

vkiwfrZ gsrq vkosnu djuk gksxkA (iii) fo|qr fujUrj vkiwfrZ ¼tks mijksDrkuqlkj u;s rkSj ij vkosnu dj jgs gksa lfgr½ ds fy, orZeku

miHkksDrk tks u;s vkosnd o’kZ esa dHkh Hkh vkosnu ns ldrs gSaA gkykafd] ,sls vkosndksa ds fy;s

fujUrj vkiwfrZ ljpktZ 1 ebZ] 2019 ls 31 ekpZ] 2020 rd ds fy;s ykxw jgsxkA ;wihlh,y] vkosnu

dh frfFk ls 7 fnuksa ds nkSjku] fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh “krkZsa dh iwfrZ ds fy, lqfo/kk iznku djsxkA (iv) Lora= QhMj ls vkiwfrZ dk izcU/ku dj fy;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa ;wihlh,y }kjk fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh

lqfo/kk] Lora= QhMj }kjk dk;Z iw.kZ dj fy;s tkus dh frfFk ls] fujUrj vkiwfrZ dh “krkZsa dh iwfrZ ds

lkFk] iznku djsxk] bl rjg ds u;s miHkksDrk Lora= QhMj ds lfØ;.k dh fnukad 31-03-2020 rd

okLrfod vof/k gsrq fujarj vkiwfrZ fodYi gsrq ykxw gksxkA



(v) fujarj vkiwfrZ dk p;u djus ds fy, u, miHkksDrk ¼u;s la;kstu½ ds ekeys esa 10% vfrfjDr

fo|qr 'kqYd ds :i esa lrr~~ lIykbZ ljpktZ 31 ekpZ 2020 rd fujarj vkiwfrZ dh okLrfod vof/k

ds ckotwn u, dusD'ku dh fnukad ls ykxw gksxkA (vi) orZeku esa fujUrj vkiwfrZ dk ykHk mBkus okys miHkksDrk] tks iwoZ esa nh x;h fujUrj vkiwfrZ dks can

djuk pkgrs gks] dks fnuakd 30 vizSy] 2019 ls iwoZ fyf[kr esa lwfpr djuk gksxk vkSj mUgsa fujUrj

vkiwfrZ vf/kHkkj ds lkFk bl vkns”k esa mYysf[kr VSfjQ njksa ds vk/kkj ij 30 vizSy] 2019 rd dh

vof/k dk Hkqxrku djuk gksxkA blds vykok] bl lEcU/k esa ;fn dksbZ miHkksDrk }kjk ,d fo”ks"k

QhMj ij fujUrj vkiwfrZ dk ykHk mBkus ds fodYi NksM+ fn, tkus ij] vU; miHkksDrkvksa dks nh tk

jgh fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds lkFk] mDr QhMj ls tqMs vU; fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds miHkksDrk izHkkfor gksrs gS

rks ;wihlh,y lHkh izHkkfor miHkksDrkvksa dks iwoZ esa fyf[kr :i ls lwfpr djsxkA (vii) vksiu ,Dlsl ds ek/;e ls vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrkvksa }kjk fctyh [kjhns tkus ij fujUrj vkiwfrZ

lj&pktZ ykxw ugha gksxkA (viii) ;wihlh,y xSj fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj ds fy, ,d fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj dh fLFkfr dks ifjofrZr ugha

djsxkA (ix) ;wihlh,y@fiVdqy 'kh"kZ izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij ;g lqfuf”pr djsaxs fd o`f)] j[k&j[kko vkSj

ejEer dk;Z fo”ks’kr;k lc&LVs'kuksa esa tgk¡ lfdZV czsdlZ] vU; midj.kksa bR;kfn tksfd th.kZ&”kh.kZ

n'kk esa gS] mulss fujUrj vkiwfrZ QhMj esa :dkoV u gksA (x) ;wihlh,y@fiVdqy fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds miHkksDrkvksa dks fn;s tk jgs QhMj dh vkof/kd fuokj.k

vuqj{k.k djsxkA ykbZlsalh fujUrj vkiwfrZ ds miHkksDrkvksa dks iwoZ esa vkof/kd fuokj.k vuqj{k.k

dk;Zdze ds ckjs esa lykg mijkUr ;kstuk cukdj lwfpr djsxk] ftlls ,sls miHkksDrk vius dk;Z

dj ldsaA (xi) vuqKkih dks fo|qr ewY; rFkk ml ij fujarj ÅtkZ vf/kHkkj fcy iFkd :Ik ls fn[kkuk pkfg;sA

7- ,pVh m|ksxksa gsrq ekax izHkkj

;fn fdlh ,pVh m|ksx miHkksDrk] tks ekg esa ,d fnu ds 18 ?k.Vs dh U;wure vkSlru vkiwfrZ izkIr

ugha djrs gSa] muds fy, ekax izHkkj Lohd`r ekWax izHkkj dk 80% vuqiz;ksT; gksxkA

9. Annexures


vkj Vh ,l 6% fefJr Hkkj

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk%

;g vuqlwph 75 kW ls vf/kd ds ,dy fcanq Fkksd vkiwfrZ la;kstu ij ykxw gksrh gS tgk¡ vkiwfrZ

izeq[kr% ?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ¼60% ls vf/kd ?kjsyw Hkkj½ ds fy;s rFkk lkFk gh vU; v?kjsyw mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s

iz/kku :Ik ls mi;ksx esa ykbZ tkrh gSaA ;g vuqlwph MES dks vkiwfrZ ij Hkh ykxw gksrh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

bl Js.kh ds miHkksDrkvksa ij fuEufyf[kr njsa ykxw gksxh %

fLFkj izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

:0 80@kW@ekg :0 5-05@kWh

3- vU; “krsZa %

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr “kqYd dh vU; “krsZ ogh gksaxh] tks vkj-Vh-,l-&1 ds miHkksDrkvksa ds fy;s gSaA

rFkkfi] vf/kHkkj naM] vkiwfrZ dh lkekU; “krksZa ds [k.M 12 ds vuqlkj ykxw gksxkA



vkj Vh ,l 7% jsyos VªSD”ku

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

;g vuqlwph VSªD”ku mn~ns”;ksa ds fy;s ÅtkZ mi;ksx djus okyh jsyos ij ykxw gksrh gSA

2- izHkkj dh nj%

bl Js.kh ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr fo|qr ewY;] ekax izHkkj ykxw gksaxsA

ekax izHkkj fo|qr ewY;

:0@kVA@ekg :0@kVAh 250@& :0 4-40

3- vU; “krsZ %

mijksDr ds vfrfjDr] “kqYd dh vU; “krsZ ogh jgsaxh tks fujarj vkiwfrZ gsrq ToD VSfjQ ,oa vf/kHkkj

dh iz;ksT;rk dks NksM+dj vkjVh,l&5 ds v/khu lkekU; ,p Vh m|ksxksa ds fy;s gSaA

9. Annexures


vkjVh,l 8 % vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

¼,½ vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ

1- vuqiz;ksT;rk

(i) ;g vuqlwph ykbZV] ia[ks] vkSj fo|qr Hkkj gsrq lHkh mn~~ns';ksa ftlesa

iznhiu@tu&lacks/ku@lekjksg rFkk R;kSgkjksa@mRloksa@vLFkkbZ nqdkuksa vf/kdre 03 ekg

rd dh vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ ij ykxw gksxhA

(ii) ;g vuqlwph] ljdkjh foHkkxksa lfgr lHkh miHkksDrkvksa }kjk flfoy dk;ksZa lfgr fuekZ.k

iz;kstuksa ds fy;s yh xbZ ÅtkZ ds fy;s Hkh ykxw gksxhA fdlh dk;Z@ifj;kstuk ds fy;s

fuekZ.k iz;kstu gsrq ÅtkZ dk;Z@ifj;kstuk ds iw.kZ gksus rd fuekZ.k dk;Z ds fy, izFke

la;kstu ysus dh frfFk ls ekuh tk;sxhA

rFkkfi Hkou ds fuekZ.k] ejEer ;k uohuhdj.k ds fy;s miHkksDrk ds Lo;a ds ifjlj gsrq

Lohd`r ,d LFkk;h la;kstu }kjk fo|qr ds iz;ksx dks fo|qr dk vukf/kdr mi;ksx ugha

ekuk tk;sxk] tc rd fd fuekZ.k fd;s tk jgs orZeku Hkou@vuqyXud dk vk”kf;r

iz;kstu@mi;ksx] la;kstd dh Lohdr Js.kh esa ogh vuqKs; gSA 2- izHkkj dh nj

izHkkj dh nj] mi;qDr vuqlwph esa izHkkj dh rn~uq:Ik nj ds vfrfjDr 25% gksxhA pkj ¼4½ ekg dh

vf/kdre~ vof/k ds fy;s fn;s x;s 15 BHP rd ds bZ[k nyu ;a= gsrq vLFkk;h vkiwfrZ ds fy;s mi;qDr nj

vuqlwph vkjVh,l&5 gksxhA



9-2 layXud 2% fofo/k izHkkjksa dh vuqlwph

dz0

la0 izHkkjksa dk LoHkko ;wfuV

nj

¼:0½

1- ehVjksa dh tkWp o ijh{k.k

,- flaxy Qst ehVlZ izfr ehVj 50-00

Ckh- rhu Qst ehVlZ izfr ehVj 75-00

Lkh- fjdkfMZax VkbZi okWV&vkoj ehVlZ izfr ehVj 170-00

Mh- vf/kdre ekax ladsrd@,yVh lhVh lapkfyr eksVlZ izfr ehVj 350-00

bZ- VªkbZ osDVj ehVlZ@,pVh ehVlZ lhVh@ihVh ds lkFk izfr ehVj 1000-00

,Q- ,ehVlZ ,aM oksYV ehVlZ izfr ehVj 65-00

Tkh- Lis”ky ehVlZ izfr ehVj 335-00

,p- ehVjksa dk izkFkfed ijh{k.k izfr ehVj “kwU;

2- izkFkfed ijh{k.k ls vU; ckn dk ijh{k.k rFkk laLFkkiu izfr ehVj 80-00

3- fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls ¼fdlh la;kstu ds dkVus ;k iquZla;kstu ds fy;s½

vkiwfrZ dk la;kstu dkVuk ;k iqula;kstu dk izHkkj 50% gksxkA

,- 100 BHP@75 kW ls Åij Hkkj okys miHkksDrk Ikzfr tkWc 600-00

Ckh- 100 BHP@75 kW rd ds v?kjsyw rFkk vkS|ksfxd miHkksDrk Ikzfr tkWc 400-00

Lkh- miHkksDrkvksa dh vU; lHkh Jsf.k;k¡ Ikzfr tkWc 200-00

4- ehVjksa dk cnyuk

,- ehVj dk laLFkkiu rFkk vLFkk;h la;kstu dh voLFkk esa bldk gVk;k

tkukA Ikzfr tkWc 75-00

ch- miHkksDrk ds fuosnu ij ehVj cksMZ dh fLFkfr esa ifjorZu Ikzfr tkWc 100-00

5- miHkksDRkk ds fuosnu ij dSisflVlZ dh tkWp ¼izkjafHkd tkWp ds vfrfjDr½%

,- 400V@230 V ij Ikzfr tkWc 150-00

ch- 11 kV rFkk blls Åij ij Ikzfr tkWc 300-00

Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2019-20 With Hindi Final · Order on Approval of Business Plan and...

Documents

Transcript of Tariff Order of UPCL for FY 2019-20 With Hindi Final · Order on Approval of Business Plan and...