B.PAC makes data-loaded objections to BESCOM’s tariff hike proposal for FY-18

B.PAC submitted its strong objections to BESCOM proposal for increase of electricity tariff for FY-18. T.V. Mohandas Pai, Vice President, B.PAC made the submissions before the commission today during the public hearing conducted by KERC.

Following are the highlights of B.PAC’s submissions:

Distribution Loss:

All divisions/towns in BESCOM with distribution loss above average 15% should be borne by BESCOM and not to be loaded to the consumer.

Power purchase:

KPCL thermal power supply has reduced significantly to a tune of 2088 MU, BESCOM purchased short term power throughout the year at high price. Rs. 313.4 Cr is the difference amount which should be disallowed in granting tariff to BESCOM. Further BESCOM’s claim to true up Rs.724.9 Crs of purchase variance be summarily rejected.

HT Sales

The consumption pattern for Fiscal Year 15-16 show that in HT category consumption by industrial users has declined by 3.3%, commercial users by 6.47% and others declined by 15.03% showing sensitivity to price rises even when the state GDP has grown at 16% during FY 15-16.

BESCOM has incurred Rs. 347 Crs revenue loss due to reduction in HT during FY – 16 compare to previous years at previous year rates. The commission should not allow any increase to the tariff this year.

Cross subsidy level:

While the National Tariff Policy directs the ESCOM’s to recover 50 % of the total power cost from agriculture, BESCOM data show under LT4a category, level of cross subsidy is 63%. This is against the rule of law. In the case of Agriculture, BESCOM has recovered only 37 % of the cost. The commission should direct BESCOM to recover at least 50 % of the cost.

The cross-subsidy variations of BESCOM are not within the prescribed limits. BESCOM incurred a cost of nearly Rs. 3000 Crs as total cross subsidy this year which should be eliminated while determining the tariff.

Annual Accounts FY 15-16:

Rs. 322.53 Crs claim made by BESCOM as interest on working capital on excessive receivable of Rs.2804.66 Crs should be disallowed by the commission while determining the tariff as it is above 60 days limit allowed by the regulator.

BESCOM is subsidizing other ESCOMs’ and KPTCL out of consumer’s money and claiming Rs. 246.31 Crs as interest on working capital at 11.5 % which should be disallowed as Rs. 2141.88 Crs of BESCOM money is being used interest free by other ESCOM’s and associates

Specific consumption of IP sets:

The commission should disallow Rs. 925.74 Crs excessive consumption by IP set consumers and direct BESCOM to collect the difference amount from Govt. This clearly indicates in the name of farmers an excess of Rs. 925.74 Crs is being robbed. It is obvious that in the name of farmers there is large scale robbery of power and Government is turning a blind eye for various reasons.

Regularization of illegal IP sets should not be considered for any Cross Subsidy or tariff hike to be paid by other consumers. Any regularization of pump sets should be paid for fully by Government and not by the consumers.

Duplicate and multiple IP set per farmer should be removed to avoid subsidy to the rich. To bring in transparency, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) to be done to farmer’s bank/shadow accounts and full charges can be debit.

After making submissions T.V. Mohandas Pai, Vice President B.PAC said “We made the submission before the Hon’ble commission giving all the data and urged the regulator to protect the interest of citizens of Bengaluru in an unbiased manner and not the interest of BESCOM while determining the tariff for FY 18.”

Below is the detailed presentation submitted to the commission.

BPAC Submissions to KERC on BESCOM Tariff Revision FY 18 – Feb 20 by Citizen Matters

Related Articles

BESCOM woes for consumers
Using alternate source to reduce BESCOM bills
BESCOM to introduce Photo Billing to out an end to errors in billing
Why no objections to BESCOM’s proposed rate hike?
How to apply for a BESCOM connection
How to change name in electricity bill

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Similar Story

What is the ‘smartness’ quotient of Chennai?

The Smart City Advisory Forum was convened in Chennai only 5 times since 2016, showing minimal participation by elected representatives.

Chennai is among the first few cities to get selected under the Smart City Mission programme in 2016. As many as 48 projects under different categories were taken up under the scheme. With only a couple of projects left to be completed, isn't Chennai supposed to look 'smart' now? The much-hyped Central government scheme, launched in 2014, was envisioned to build core infrastructure and evolve 'smart' solutions that would make cities more livable and sustainable. But, a decade since, the reality on the ground may be a little different. While some of the facilities provided under these projects are under-utilised,…

Similar Story

Scenes from a community walk in Mumbai

When I moved to Mumbai, the city felt extremely 'walkable,' but a walking tour in Dadar broadened my definition of walkability.

When I moved to Mumbai in June 2023 for work, I found myself going for sight seeing to the city's tourist destinations. Though the city appeared to have consistent and wide footpaths almost everywhere, vehicular right of way seemed to be prioritised over the pedestrian right of way. This struck me as very strange, even as I continued to enjoy walking through lanes of Mumbai very much. On one hand, there is excellent footpath coverage, utilised by large crowds everywhere. On the other hand, speeding vehicles create obstacles for something as simple as crossing the road.  "Though Mumbai appeared to…