Final Order - 23.07.2018

Before the
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005.
Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976
Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in
Website: www.mercindia.org.in/ www.merc.gov.in
CASE No. 136 of 2018 , 137 of 2018, 150 of 2018, 151 of 2018 and 155 of 2018
In the matter of
(CASE No. 136 of 2018)

Petition of Spentex Industries Ltd. and CIMMCO Spinners for clarification regarding
applicability of Power Factor Incentive to Open Access consumption
Spentex Industries Ltd. and CIMMCO Spinners ……..Petitioners

V/s
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) …….. Respondent
(CASE No. 137 of 2018)
Petition of IndoCount Industries Ltd. and Pranavaditya Spinning Mills for clarification
regarding applicability of Power Factor Incentive to Open Access consumption.
IndoCount Industries Ltd. and Pranavaditya Spinning Mills ……..Petitioners
V/s
(CASE No. 150 of 2018)

Petition of Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. for not allowing Power Factor Incentive
on Open Access charges by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited.
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. ……..Petitioner

V/s
CASE No. 151 of 2018

Petition of Polygenta Technologies Ltd. for not allowing Power Factor Incentive on
Open Access charges by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
Polygenta Technologies Ltd. ……..Petitioner

MERC Combined Order in Case No. 136, 137, 150, 151 and 155 of 2018 Page 1 of 48
V/s

Petition of ETCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. for not allowing Power Factor Incentive on open
access charges by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
ETCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. ……..Petitioner

V/s
Coram
Shri Anand B. Kulkarni, Chairperson
Shri Mukesh Khullar, Member
Appearance in Case No. 136 &137 of 2018:

For the Petitioners : Shri S.R.Nargolkar (Adv.)
For the Respondent : Shri Ashish Singh (Adv.)
Appearance in Case No. 150, 151 & 155 of 2018):

For the Petitioner : 1. Shri T.N. Agrawal (Rep.)
: 2. Shri Satish Shah (Rep.)
For the Respondent : Shri Ashish Singh (Adv.)
ORDER
Dated: 23 July, 2018

Spentex Industries Ltd. (SIL), A-60, Okla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110 020
and CIMMCO Spinners, (A division of Spentex Industries Ltd.), A-60, Okla Industrial,
Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110 020 have filed a Petition on 27 April, 2018 under MERC
(Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2005 seeking clarification regarding applicability of
Power Factor Incentive to Open Access consumption.
2. Petitioners’ prayers are as follows:
a) Allow the present petition and clarify that the Petitioners are entitled for the
Power Factor Incentive on the monthly electricity bill on all charges, excluding the
taxes and duties, on the Open Access Consumotion of the Petitiones;
b) To direct the Respondents to provide Power Factor Inventives to the
Petitioners in their capacity as a consumer of the Respondent as also in the
capacity as Open Access Consumer of the Respondent retrospectively from the date
on which the Petitioners have availed power supply through Open Access along
with the Delayed Payment Charges {DPC} and interest as such rate at which the
Respondent is charging Delayed Payment Charges and interest upon the delayed
payments of their bills by the consumers of the Respondent.
c) Costs of this Petition be provided for, in favour of the Petitioners.
d) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may
require be passed in favour of the Petitioners.”
3. The Petitioner states as follows:
3.1 The Petitioners are HT consumers of MSEDCL. They are availing power from the
MSEDCL as well as through Open Access.
3.2 Spentex Industries Ltd. (SIL) has its manufacturing unit at A -31 MIDC Area, Butibori
Industrial Area, Nagpur and at D-48, MIDC Industrial Area, Baramati, District Pune.
CIMMCO Spinners (CIMMCO) (A division of Spentex Industries Ltd) has works at
B-1, MIDC Industrial Area, Chincholi, Kondi, Solapur.
3.3 SIL has sourced power through Open Access from November 2015 to January 2017
for their Baramati Plant for Consumer No 186849005550 and sourced power through
Open Access from August 2015 to December 2016 for their Baramati plant for
Consumer No 186849041700. SIL has sourced power through Open Access for the
period from August 2015 to Sept 2016 for their Butibori Nagpur Plant having
consumer No. 420819006880. CIMMCO has sourced power through Open Access for
the period from May 2015 to November 2016 for their Solapur plant having consumer
No 331519004484.
3.4 MSEDCL raises electricity bills as per the tariff rate approved by the Commission,
which also includes billing charges, Wheeling Charges, Transmission Charges & Cross
Subsidy Surcharge (CSS), electricity duty on Open Access Consumer units.
3.5 In the Multi Year Tariff Order for the period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20 the
Commission has held as follows:
“8.28. Incentives and Disincentives.
Power Factor Incentive – Applicable for HT-1: Industry, HT II –
Commercial, HT-III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV: PWW, HT-V:
Agriculture, HT-VI: Group Housing Society, HT-VIII: Temporary supply,
HT-IX: Public Service, LT-II: Non-Residential/Commercial (LT II(B), LT II
(C)). LT III: Public Water Works, LT V (A) (ii): Industry – Powerlooms
(above 20 kW), LT V (B) (ii): Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X:
Public Services [LT X(A)(iii), LT X (B) (ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories.
Whenever the average Power Factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be
given at the rate of the following percentages of the amount of the monthly
bill excluding Taxes and Duties.
Table 8-81: Power Factor Inventive approved for the 3rd Control Period.
Sr.No Range of Power Factor Power Factor Level Incentive

1 0.951 to 0.954 0.95 0%
2 0.955 to 0.964 0.96 1%
3 0.965 to 0.974 0.97 2%
4 0.975 to 0.984 0.98 3%
5 0.985 to 0.994 0.99 5%
6 0.995 to 1.000 1.00 7%
Note: PF is to be measured/ computed up to 3 decimals, after universal
rounding off.
Power Factor Penalty- Applicable for HT-I: Industry, HT-II – Commercial,

HT-III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV: PWW, HT-V: Agriculture, HT-
VI: Group Housing Society, HT VIII – Temporary Supply, HT IX : Public
Service, LT II: Non-Residential/Commercial [LT II (B), LT II (C)], LT III:
Public Water works, LT V(A) (ii): Industry – Powerlooms (above 20 kW), LT
V (B) (II): Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X: Public Services [LT X
(A) (ii), LT X (A) (iii), LT X (B) (ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories.
Whenever the average PF is less than 0.9, penal charges shall be levied at
the rate of the following percentages of the amount of the monthly bill
excluding Taxes and Duties.
Table 8-32: Power Factor Penalty approved for 3rd Control Period.
1 0.895 to 0.900 0.90 0%
2 0.885 to 0.894 0.89 2%
3 0.875 to 0.884 0.88 3%
4 0.865 to 0.874 0.87 4%
5 0.855 to 0.864 0.86 5%
6 0.845 to 0.854 0.85 6%
7 0.835 to 0.844 0.84 7%
8 0,825 to 0.834 0.83 8%
9 0.815 to 0.824 0.82 9%
10 0.805 to 0.814 0.81 10%
Note: PF is to be measured/computed up to 3 decimals, after universal
rounding off.”
3.6 Thus, the Power Factor Incentive (PFI) is to be given as per the table set out above
excluding the taxes and duties. However, the same is not being extended and not being
given to the Petitioners by MSEDCL considering the power availed through Open
Access from Traders, alongwith MSEDCL. MSEDCL has been providing PFI for the
electricity power as regular consumer of MSEDCL. However, while levying the
charges for the Open Access Consumption including Wheeling Charges , Transmission
Charges &, CSS etc., MSEDCL has failed to provide PFI, considering the power
availed under Open Access, which is in violation of the Multi Year Tariff Order issued
by the Commission.
3.7 The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in its Judgment dated 14 November,
2013 in Appeal No.231 of 2012 (Jindal Stainless Ltd. v/s. Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitharan Nigam and HDRC). The APTEL has addressed the issue of payment of CSS
payable by all Open Access Consumer. It has been held that CSS is required to be
treated as part of electricity charges and has to be factored in while deciding on the
rebate admissible for the PFI to be given to the consumer. It has held that the CSS
forms a part of sale of power and that accordingly the rebate should be allowed on the
cross subsidy as well.
3.8 The entire purpose of PFI is to encourage consumers to improve their Power Factor
and maintain it at a high level in order to reduce losses. If PFI is not given, this
purpose would be lost and there will be no incentive to the consumer to maintain a
high Power Factor.
3.9 APTEL in its Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No 231 of 2012 in its
held as below:
“3.12.
“33. ....It is to be noted that current drawn an lower power factor also
cause excessive voltage drop which would further increase the system losses.
Thus, it is proved that lower power factor causes higher system losses and loss
to the distribution licensee. The very purpose of providing higher power factor
incentive is to encourage the consumers to improve their power factor by
providing shunt compensation and bring it as close as possible to unity so that
the system losses are reduced to the minimum. This is a pure technical and
engineering principle and it does not distinguish as to whether the power has
been drawn from the licensee or on availing the ‘open access’.
34. The above analysis would show that very purpose to provide higher
power factor rebate is to encourage the consumer to maintain high power
factor and to minimize the system losses. Any loss before the meter installed at
consumer’s premises is on account of the distribution licensee. In order to
reduce these losses, the State Commission has incentivized high power factor
based on pure technical and engineering principle. It has nothing to do with
the source of power. Accordingly, power factor rebate is payable to the
consumer who also avails open access.
....39. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties on this
issue. High Power Factor reduces the system loss and vice-versa. This is
purely a technical and engineering principle. It has universal application
irrespective of source of power. If a consumer procures power from other
sources through open access at high power factor, the system loss would be
less as in the case of his drawal of power from the distribution licensees.”
3.10 From perusal of the relevant portions of the findings recorded by the APTEL, it can be
noted that the principle of PFI has been arrived at on the basis of purely technical and
engineering principles and that the source of power has no significance whatsoever. It
is therefore, obvious that the PFI would be applicable to the power procured as a direct
consumer equally as a consumer availing the power through Open Access and its
denial would be prejudicial not only to the interest of the consumers but also to the
interest of the Distribution Licensee and the system as a whole.
3.11 The APTEL while recording its finding and passing the afore mentioned Judgment
has relied upon Regulation 3 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission,
HERC Electricity Code, 2004 which provides for recovery of electricity charges from
the consumer. This provision is pari materia with the stipulations contained in MERC
(Electricity Supply Code and Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005.
3.12 Thus in view of the Judgment of the APTEL (cited supra) and also the MERC Supply
Code Regulations, 2005 , the Petitioners are entitled to claim PFI from the MSEDCL
even in their capacity as Open Access Consumer, in addition to power availed from
MSEDCL. The grant of incentive is in line with the view taken by the APTEL in this
regard and there is no justifiable reason for deviation from it. Hence the Petitioners
addressed communications in the form of representations to MSEDCL. The Petitioners
have sent communication dated 21.2.2018 to MSEDCL in respect of four consumers
accounts provided herein above of the Petitioners. Despite receipt of the detailed
representations calling upon them to forthwith grant PFI for the past period, MSEDCL
has neither responded nor has granted the PFI.
3.13 The Commission vide Order dated 28 November, 2017 in Case No. 110 of 2017 has
held that the Power Factor Incentive/Penalty has been provided in the electricity tariffs
of TPC-D and other Distribution Licensees since long to encourage consumers to
improve their Power Factor by providing shunt compensation and bring it as close as
possible to unity so that system losses are reduced. The MYT Order for Tata Power
Co. (Distribution) is pari materia with the Multi-Year Tariff Order for MSEDCL so far
as it provides for Power Factor Incentive.
3.14 It was further held by the Commission that lower Power Factor causes higher system
losses and consequent loss to the Distribution Licensee. It was further observed that
although Open Access consumers source part of their power requirement from sources
other than their Distribution Licensees, they use the distribution system of the
Licensees for wheeling of this power and hence also contribute to system losses unless
they are independently connected to a Generator and physically isolated from the rest
of the Licensee’s network. The Commission further observed that if the consumers
have no incentives to maintain a higher power factor onus on the Distribution
Licensees to take corrective measures to compensate for variation in Power Factor of
such consumer will be correspondingly greater.
3.15 Moreover, Power Factor improvement can best be achieved if such measures are
implemented at the consumer level. On this principle, the PFI provided in MYT Order
for consumers sourcing power from the Distribution Licensees is equally applicable to
the Open Access power, sourced by such consumers who also contribute by way of
Wheeling or Transmission Charges and Losses, additional surcharges if any.
3.16 Thus recording independent reasons, the Commission has observed that Open Access
consumers are entitled to claim PFI on the power sources from Open Access Trader as
well as through their Distribution Licensees.
3.17 The Commission has also held that grant of PFI is also consistent with the Judgment of
the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity delivered on 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No.
231 of 2012 in which the APTEL had held that the very purpose to provide higher
Power Factor rebate is to encourage the consumer to maintain high Power Factor and
to minimize the system losses. The Commission has relied upon a finding of the
APTEL that any loss before the meter installed at consumer’s premises is on account
of the Distribution Licensee and in order to reduce these losses, the Commission has
incentivized high Power Factor based on pure technical and engineering principle.
3.18 The Commission has relied upon the observations of APTEL that this incentive has
nothing to do with the source of power and that the Power Factor rebate is payable to
the consumer who also avails Open Access. In the said case, the APTEL had also held
that the surcharge i.e. Cross Subsidy Surcharge payable by Open Access Consumer is a
part of the Charges and therefore, the incentive of Power Factor would also be
applicable on this amount.
3.19 TPC-D, in the MIAL case cited supra, had raised an issue of levying Reactive Energy
Charge on Open Access Consumer. However, the Commission observed that it has not
determined any Reactive Energy Charges and hence the issue was not adjudicated
upon. In view of the judgment of the APTEL and also in view of the Supply Code
Regulations and also in view of MYT Tariff Order cited above, the Commission has
allowed the Petition filed by MIAL and directed the Distribution Licensee to provide
PFI not only to the Petitioners in the said case, but also to other similarly placed
consumers. It has been directed that the incentive for the past period should be adjusted
in the bills of the consumers and that the same should be with applicable interest.
3.20 This is a binding precedent and in view of this Judgment and Order dated 28
November, 2017 passed by the Commission in Case No.110 of 2017 in the case of
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Tata Power Co.Ltd. (Distribution), it was
incumbent on the MSEDCL to consider and allow the representations made by the
Petitioners on 21 February, 2018.
3.21 The charts showing the amount of PFI due and payable to the Petitioners are annexed
to the Petition.
4. In its submission dated 19 June, 2018, MSEDCL stated that:
4.1 MSEDCL raised the following issues in the present case:
(i) Tata Power’s Case (Case No. 110 of 2017) is completely different from that of
MSEDCL.
(ii) Whether the APTEL’s Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No. 231
of 2012 is applicable to the facts of the present case?
(iii) Whether the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 passed in Case No. 8
of 2012, Case No. 18 of 2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 33 of 2012 is
binding Order?
(iv) Can there be any retrospective effect of PFI as per the Order dated 28
November, 2017 passed in Case No. 110 of 2017?
(v) What is the real intent and purpose of Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations,
2016 specifying the Reactive Energy Charges?
(vi) When a separate charge “Reactive Energy Charges” is envisaged under the
DOA Regulations, 2016 then why not fix the charge?
(vii) Can a consumer who opts for Open Access still be considered as a consumer to
the extent of Open Access?
(viii) Can a partial Open Access consumer seek the same benefits under the retail
Tariff Order which are available to a normal consumer when such partial Open
Access consumer is governed by a different Regulatory regime i.e. DOA
Regulations, 2016?
(ix) Maintaining of Power Factor is a mandatory obligation cast upon a consumer.
The consumer maintains the same out of operation of law. Moreover such
consumers install equipment’s before being Open Access consumers and
subsequently shift to Open Access. Hence PFI cannot be made applicable to
Open Access consumption more so when DOA Regulations, 2016 provides a
different charge/penalty altogether.
4.2 Tata Power’s Case (Case No. 110 of 2017) completely different than that of MSEDCL:
(a) The Order dated 28 November, 2017 in Case No. 110 of 2017 in the matter of
“Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Versus Tata Power Company
Limited” was passed in the specific facts and circumstances of that Case and
cannot be treated as a Judgment in realm rather it a Judgment in personam.
(b) The records of Case No. 110 of 2017 clearly reveal that Tata Power was
charging/providing Power Factor Incentive/ Penalty on the “Regulatory Asset
Charges” since July, 2013 to April, 2017.
(c) Neither MSEDCL has provided any PFI to Open Access consumers nor has
MSEDCL levied any penalty on Open Access consumption. Hence Case No.
110 of 2017 cannot be strictly applied to the present Case.
4.3 Whether the APTEL’s Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No. 231 of 2012
is applicable to the facts of the present Case? :
(a) The APTEL Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 cannot be made applicable to
the present Case as it was passed in the specific facts and circumstances of the
case before the APTEL and after analyzing various provisions of the Haryana
Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Regulations. The major differences are as
follows:
(i) Existing metering was not adequate to record voltage during 15 minute
time slot.
(ii) There was no recording of the corresponding energy drawal during the
period when the frequency at the metering point is below 97% or above
103%.
(iii) In the absence of active corresponding figures of the Active Energy and
the Reactive Energy available from the meter, it is not possible to draw
proportion of the two figures which are for different time durations.
(iv) That apart, the Active Energy figures recorded for the entire month
cannot be compared with the Reactive Energy recorded for the specific
time duration corresponding to the specific variation in voltage at the
metering point.
(v) The Respondent, Distribution Licensee in Haryana till date has been
recovering penalty on the low Power Factor and penalty for exceeding
Contract Demand on the sale of power including CSS from embedded
Open Access consumers. The Licensee cannot probate and approbate at
the same time. Therefore, the State Commission cannot permit the
Utility, the Respondent to use different yardstick to the consumer while
giving rebate and recovering MDI penalty, when both are to be charged
on sale of power. Therefore, this treatment is contrary.
(b) Hence it can be seen from the above that the facts and circumstances leading to
passing of the above Judgments were completely different. In the present case at
hand MSEDCL submits that all the metering arrangements are in place and
hence the “Reactive Energy Charges” can be determined and levied without any
hurdles. Moreover there is no case of probating and approbating at the same
time by MSEDCL as it has followed a consistent stand of not charging any
Power Factor Penalty on Open Access consumption. Moreover the observation
of the APTEL at Para (II) of the operative part is based on the specific facts of
the Case and is not a Judgment in realm.
4.4 Whether the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 passed in Case No. 8 of 2012, Case
No. 18 of 2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 33 of 2012 is a binding Order?
The Commission had clarified vide Order dated 3 January, 2013 that PFI is only
applicable to consumers of MSEDCL on the Net energy supplied by MSEDCL
and nothing beyond that. The relevant paragraph 3.138 of Order is reads as
below:
“The Commission is of the view of that levy of penalty or provide
incentives for various parameters as specified by the Commission in Tariff
Schedule of the Tariff Order of MSEDCL from time to time (e.g., Power
Factor incentive, Power Factor Penalty, Prompt Payment discount, etc.)
shall be charged on the net energy supplied by MSEDCL to the open
access consumer and captive user after adjusting the banked energy and
actual generation during the month.”
4.5 Can there be any retrospective effect of Power Factor Incentive as per the Order dated 28
It has acted in complete compliance of the Order dated 3 January, 2013 passed in
Case No. 8 of 2012, Case No. 18 of 2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 33 of
2012 by the Commission. Any new dispensation if allowed by the Commission can
only be prospective as the earlier dispensation was governed by a Regulatory Order
which was followed by MSEDCL. Hence without admitting that PFI is applicable to
Open Access, even if the same is made applicable, then the same has to be
prospective and not retrospective.
4.6 What is the real intent and purpose of Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations, 2016
specifying the Reactive Energy Charges?
While on one hand there is no specific provision to make the PFI applicable to Open
Access on the other hand there is separate head created under the DOA Regulations,
2016 as Reactive Energy Charges which is applicable to Open Access consumers.
Hence when the DOA Regulations, 2016 specifically provides for such Charges then
the same has to be specifically fixed by the Commission. This issue has also been
acknowledged by the Commission in its order dated 28 November, 2017 passed in
Case No. 110 of 2017 under Paragraph 12. Operative part is reproduced as under:
“With reference to Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations, 2016, TPC-D has
raised the issue of levying a Reactive Energy Charge on Open Access
consumers. As present, in the MYT Orders in respect of TPC-D and other
Distribution Licensees, the Commission has not determined any Reactive
Energy Charge. In its forthcoming Mid-Term Review Petition, TPC-D is at
liberty to propose such determination.”
4.7 When a separate charge “Reactive Energy Charges” is envisaged under the DOA
Regulations, 2016 then why not fix the charge?
Any Charge which is not determined in accordance with the applicable principles
and without a detailed study on the implication of such charge would certainly have a
negative impact of MSEDCL. Hence, the nuances of PF and Reactive Energy
although may seem to be similar but both of them are completely different as the
charges terms applicable in money terms may be completely different. In such a case
allowing PF to be applicable to Open Access consumers without studying the impact
of the same would certainly cause a negative impact on MSEDCL and would in a
way offset the other charges payable by the Open Access consumers.
4.8 Can a consumer who opts for Open Access still be considered as a consumer to the
extent of Open Access?
Once a consumer surrenders its load with MSEDCL to the tune of Open Access then
it can no longer be treated as a consumer of MSEDCL to the tune of Open Access
availed by it.
4.9 Can a partial Open Access consumer seek the same benefits under the retail Tariff
Order which are available to a normal consumer when such partial Open Access
consumer is governed by a different regime i.e. DOA Regulations, 2016?
A partial Open Access consumer cannot be equated to a retail consumer. While a

retail consumer Tariff is fixed through a Tariff Order, a partial Open Access
consumer’s tariff is only fixed to the tune as to what he is liable to pay under the
Electricity Act, 2003, DOA Regulations, 2016 as various charges on account of
availing Open Access. Hence all these separate charges payable by an Open Access
consumer is framed by a Regulatory process after analyzing all aspects. However the
Petitioner stated that the PF which is fixed for retail consumers shall be passed to
Open Access consumers without determining the impact of the same which cannot be
done without initiating a regulatory process.
4.10 Maintaining of Power Factor is a mandatory obligation cast upon a consumer. The
Consumer maintains the same out of operation of law. Moreover such consumers install
equipment’s before being Open Access consumers and subsequently shift to Open
Access. Hence PFI cannot be made applicable to Open Access consumption more so
when DOA Regulations, 2016 provides a different charge/penalty altogether.
(a) The whole argument made by the Petitioners of incurring high cost in installing
equipment’s for maintaining high Power Factor is completely incorrect. It is to be
noted that all these consumers have become Open Access consumers later in time
and they all were normal retail consumers of MSEDCL in the beginning. Hence
whatever equipment’s they have installed, are under the mandate of law at the
relevant point in time, when they were not Open Access consumers.
(b) In case the Open Access consumer does not maintain the high Power Factor then it
would be liable to the Reactive Energy penalty as will be determined by the
Commission. Hence the Open Access consumer will be liable to any penalty as
envisaged under law.
(c) Maintaining of high Power Factor also helps the Open Access consumer in
appropriating the maximum Open Access quantum wheeled. Hence arguments on
the issue of high Power Factor leading to benefit to Grid and leading to low losses
to MSEDCL is completely baseless and is rather opportunistic.
CASE NO. 137 of 2018:
5. Indo Count Industries Ltd. (Indo Count), 301, Acadia, III floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai
400021 and Pranavaditya Spinning Mills (PSM), At & Post Alte, Hatkanangale.
(Petitioners) have filed a Petition 27 April, 2018 under MERC (Electricity Supply Code)
Regulations, 2005 for clarification regarding applicability of Power Factor Incentive to
Open Access consumption.
6. Petitioner’s prayers are as follows:

“
(a) Allow the present petition and clarify that the Petitioners are entitled for the Power
Factor Incentive on the monthly electricity bill on all charges, excluding the taxes
and duties, on the Open Access Consumotion of the Petitiones;
(b) To direct the Respondents to provide Power Factor Inventives to the Petitioners in
their capacity as a consumer of the Respondent as also in the capacity as Open
Access Consumer of the Respondent retrospectively from the date on which the
Petitioners have availed power supply through Open Access along with the Delayed
Payment Charges {DPC} and interest as such rate at which the Respondent is
charging Delayed Payment Charges and interest upon the delayed payments of their
bills by the consumers of the Respondent.
(c) Costs of this Petition be provided for, in favour of the Petitioners.
(d) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may
require be passed in favour of the Petitioners.”
7. The Petitioners states as follows:
7.1 The Petitioners are HT consumers of MSEDCL and availing power from MSEDCL as
well as through Open Access.
7.2 Indo Count Industries Limited. (Indo Count) has its three Units and Plant located at
Gokul, Shirgaon MIDC, (Spg. Divn.) Kagal MIDC [weaving division and processing
division], and Petitioner at Alte, Hatkanangale in Maharashtra. The consumer number
of the Petitioner s electricity supply at Gokul Shirgaon MIDC is 251019007880 and
Petitioner is availing of electricity supply as consumer No. 251019006990 and
251019007000 located at Kagal Five Star MIDC, Dist; Kolhapur. The consumer
number of Petitioner at Alte Hatkanangale is 250229305103.
7.3 The Petitioners had sourced power through Open Access from August 2015 to
November 2016. The Petitioners have been incurring large expenditure of money for
procurement of power since the work and nature of the Petitioners’ industry is capital
incentive and requires continuous power supply for manufacturing.
7.4 In the Multi Year Tariff Order for the period from FY 2015-16 to FY 2019-20 the
Commission has held as follows:
“8.28. Incentives and Disincentives.

Power Factor Incentive – Applicable for HT-1: Industry, HT II – Commercial,
HT-III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV: PWW, HT-V: Agriculture, HT-VI:
Group Housing Society, HT-VIII: Temporary supply, HT-IX: Public Service, LT-
II: Non-Residential/Commercial (LT II(B), LT II (C)). LT III: Public Water
Works, LT V (A) (ii): Industry – Powerlooms (above 20 kW), LT V (B) (ii):
Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X: Public Services [LT X(A)(iii), LT X (B)
(ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories.
Whenever the average Power Factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be
given at the rate of the following percentages of the amount of the monthly bill
excluding Taxes and Duties.
Table 8-81: Power Factor Inventive approved for the 3rd Control Period.

1 0.951 to 0.954 0.95 0%
2 0.955 to 0.964 0.96 1%
3 0.965 to 0.974 0.97 2%
4 0.975 to 0.984 0.98 3%
5 0.985 to 0.994 0.99 5%
6 0.995 to 1.000 1.00 7%
Note: PF is to be measured/ computed up to 3 decimals, after universal rounding
off.
Power Factor Penalty- Applicable for HT-I: Industry, HT-II – Commercial, HT-
III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV: PWW, HT-V: Agriculture, HT-VI:
Group Housing Society, HT VIII – Temporary Supply, HT IX : Public Service, LT
II: Non-Residential/Commercial [LT II (B), LT II (C)], LT III: Public Water
works, LT V(A) (ii): Industry – Power looms (above 20 kW), LT V (B) (II):
Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X: Public Services [LT X (A) (ii), LT X (A)
(iii), LT X (B) (ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories.
Whenever the average PF is less than 0.9, penal charges shall be levied at the
rate of the following percentages of the amount of the monthly bill excluding
Taxes and Duties.
Table 8-32: Power Factor Penalty approved for 3rd Control Period.
1 0.895 to 0.900 0.90 0%
2 0.885 to 0.894 0.89 2%
3 0.875 to 0.884 0.88 3%
4 0.865 to 0.874 0.87 4%
5 0.855 to 0.864 0.86 5%
6 0.845 to 0.854 0.85 6%
7 0.835 to 0.844 0.84 7%
8 0,825 to 0.834 0.83 8%
9 0.815 to 0.824 0.82 9%
10 0.805 to 0.814 0.81 10%
Note: PF is to be measured/computed up to 3 decimals, after universal rounding
off.”
7.5 Thus, the PFI is to be given as per the table set out above excluding the taxes and
duties. However, the same is not being extended and not being given to the Petitioners
by the MSEDCL considering the power availed of, through Open Access from
Traders, alongwith MSEDCL. MSEDCL has been providing PFI for the electricity
power as regular consumer of the MSEDCL. However, while levying the charges for
the Open Access Consumption including Wheeling Charges, Transmission Charges &,
CSS etc. the MSEDCL has failed to provide PFI, considering the power availed under
‘Open Access’, which is in violation of the Multi Year Tariff issued by the
Commission.
7.6 The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has issued a Judgment dated 14
November, 2013 in Appeal No.231 of 2012 (Jindal Stainless Ltd. v/s. Dakshin
Haryana Bijli Vitharan Nigam and HDRC). The APTEL has addressed the issue of
payment of CSS payable by all Open Access Consumer. It has been held that CSS is
required to be treated as part of electricity charges and has to be factored in while
deciding on the rebate admissible for the PFI to be given to the consumer. It has been
held that the CSS forms a part of sale of power and that accordingly the rebate should
be allowed on the cross subsidy as well.
7.7 The entire purpose of PFI is to encourage consumers to improve their Power Factor
and maintain it at a high level in order to reduce losses. If PFI is not given, this
purpose would be lost and there will be no incentive to the consumer to maintain a
high Power Factor.
7.8 The APTEL in its Judgement dated 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No. 231 of 2012 has
held as follows:
“3.12.
“33. ....It is to be noted that current drawn an lower power factor also cause
excessive voltage drop which would further increase the system losses. Thus, it is
proved that lower power factor causes higher system losses and loss to the
distribution licensee. The very purpose of providing higher power factor incentive is
to encourage the consumers to improve their power factor by providing shunt
compensation and bring it as close as possible to unity so that the system losses are
reduced to the minimum. This is a pure technical and engineering principle and it
does not distinguish as to whether the power has been drawn from the licensee or on
availing the ‘open access’.
34. The above analysis would show that very purpose to provide higher power factor
rebate is to encourage the consumer to maintain high power factor and to minimize
the system losses. Any loss before the meter installed at consumer’s premises is on
account of the distribution licensee. In order to reduce these losses, the State
Commission has incentivized high power factor based on pure technical and
engineering principle. It has nothing to do with the source of power. Accordingly,
power factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also avails open access.
....39. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties on this issue.
High Power Factor reduces the system loss and vice-versa. This is purely a technical
and engineering principle. It has universal application irrespective of source of
power. If a consumer procures power from other sources through open access at
high power factor, the system loss would be less as in the case of his drawal of power
from the distribution licensees.”
7.9 From the above Judgement, it can be noted that the principles of PFI has been arrived
at on the basis of purely technical and engineering principles and that the source of
power has no significance whatsoever. It is, therefore, obvious that the power factor
incentive would be applicable to the power procured as a direct consumer equally as a
consumer availing the power through Open Access and its denial would be prejudicial
not only to the interest of the consumers but also to the interest of the Distribution
Licensee and the system as a whole.
7.10 The APTEL while recording its finding and passing the afore mentioned Judgment
has relied upon Regulation 3 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission,
HERC Electricity Code, 2004 which provides for recovery of electricity charges from
the consumer. This provision is pari materia with the stipulations contained in MERC
(Electricity Supply Code and Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005.
7.11 Thus in view of the APTEL’s Judgment (cited supra) and also the Supply Code
Regulations, 2005, the Petitioners are entitled to claim PFI from the MSEDCL even in
their capacity as Open Access Consumer, in addition to power availed from MSEDCL.
The grant of incentive is in line with the view taken by the APTEL in this regard and
there is no justifiable reason for deviation from it. Hence the Petitioner addressed
communications in the form of representations to MSEDCL. The Petitioners have sent
communication dated 21.2.2018 to MSEDCL in respect of four consumer accounts
provided herein above of the Petitioners. MSEDCL has neither responded nor has
granted the Power Factor Incentive.
7.12 The Commission in its Order dated 28 November, 2017 in Case No.110 of 2017 has
held that the Power Factor Incentive/Penalty has been provided in the electricity tariffs
of TPC-D and other Distribution Licensees since long to encourage consumers to
improve their Power Factor by providing shunt compensation and bring it as close as
possible to unity so that system losses are reduced.
7.13 The MYT Order for Tata Power Co. (Distribution) is pari materia with the Multi-
Year Tariff Order for MSEDCL so far as it provides for PFI. It was further held by the
Commission that lower Power Factor causes higher system losses and consequent loss
to the Distribution Licensee. It was further observed that although Open Access
consumers source part of their power requirement from sources other than their
Distribution Licensees, they use the distribution system of the Licensees for wheeling
of this power and hence also contribute to system losses unless they are independently
connected to a Generator and physically isolated from the rest of the Licensee’s
network. The Commission further observed that if the consumers have no incentives
to maintain a higher Power Factor onus on the Distribution Licensees to take
corrective measures to compensate for variation in Power Factor of such consumer will
be correspondingly greater. Moreover, Power Factor improvement can best be
achieved if such measures are implemented at the consumer level.
7.14 On this principle, the PFI provided in MYT Order for consumers sourcing power from
the Distribution Licensees is equally applicable to the Open Access power, sourced by
such consumers who also contribute by way of Wheeling or Transmission Charges and
Losses, additional surcharges if any.
7.15 The Commission has observed that Open Access consumers are entitled to claim PFI
on the power sources from Open Access Trader as well as through their Distribution
Licensees. The Commission has also held that grant of PFI is also consistent with the
APTEL’s Judgment delivered on 14.11.2013 in Appeal No.231 of 2012 in which the
APTEL had held that the very purpose to provide higher Power Factor rebate is to
encourage the consumer to maintain high power factor and to minimize the system
losses.
7.16 The Commission has relied upon a finding of the APTEL that any loss before the
meter installed at consumer’s premises is on account of the Distribution Licensee and
in order to reduce these losses, the Commission has incentivized high Power Factor
based on pure technical and engineering principle. The Commission has relied upon
the observations of APTEL that this incentive has nothing to do with the source of
power and that the Power Factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also avails
Open Access. In the said case, the APTEL had also held that the surcharge i.e. CSS
payable by Open Access Consumer is a part of the charges and therefore, the incentive
of Power Factor would also be applicable on this amount.
7.17 TPC-D, in the MIAL case cited supra, had raised an issue of levying Reactive Energy
Charge on Open Access Consumer. However, the Commission observed that it has
not determined any Reactive Energy Charges and hence the issue was not adjudicated
upon. In view of the judgment of the APTEL and also in view of the Supply Code and
also in view of MYT Tariff Order cited above, the Commission has allowed the
Petition filed by MIAL and directed the Distribution Licensee to provide PFI not only
to the Petitioners in the said case, but also to other similarly placed consumers. It has
been directed that the incentive for the past period should be adjusted in the bills of the
consumers and that the same should be with applicable interest. This is a binding
precedent and in view of this Judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the
Commission in Case No.110 of 2017 in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt.
Ltd. v/s. Tata Power Co. Ltd. (Distribution), it was incumbent on the MSEDCL to
consider and allow the representations made by the Petitioners on 26.3.2018.
7.18 The charts showing the amount of Power Factor Incentive due and payable to the
Petitioners are annexed to the Petition.
7.19 MSEDCL has replied to the representations of the Petitioner. MSEDCL has rejected
the representation on the sole ground that the Order passed by the Commission is only
in respect of TPC-D consumers and not applicable to MSEDCL consumers. Hence, a
clarification is necessary in this behalf.
8. MSEDCL reiterated the similar submissions dated 19 June, 2018, which is mentioned
above at Para. 4.
9. At the hearing held on 20 June, 2018, the Petitioners in both the Cases (136 of 2017 and
137 of 2018) stated that their Advocate had not reached during the timing of hearing. The
Commission adjourned both the matters.
10. Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited (SCIL), Plot No. 40, MIDC, Dhatav Roha, Dist.
Raigad (Maharashtra), Pin-402116, has filed a Petition on 14 May, 2018 citing Sections
142, 146 & 149 of Electricity Act, 2003 (EA, 2003), Regulation 16.3 of DOA Regulations,
2016 for not allowing PFI on Open Access charges by MSEDCL.
11. SCIL’s prayers are as below:
1. To admit this petition as per section 32 of DOA regulations, 2016 for settlement of
dispute about PF incentive refund claim of our both the plants availed open access
power during the period from Sept-2013 to Dec-2016., Total amount of claim along
with accrued interest may be paid by crediting in our ensuing monthly energy bill.
2. As per Commission’s Order dt.28.11.207 for Case No. 110 of 2017 MIAL Vs TPC
and APTEL’s judgment dt.23.04.2018 for Case No. 36 of 2018, power factor
incentives is equally applicable on the OA charges collected by Licensees. To avoid
discrimination, the MSEDCL may also be directed to pay the PF incentive due to us
on the open access charges (Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS &
Addl. SC etc.) collected.
3. To pay the interest applicable till date of credit on power factor incentive amount
due for refund at bank rate permissible u/s 62(6) of Electricity Act, 2003.
4. To impose penalty on the respondent as worked out as per section 142, 146 & 149 of
Electricity Act 2003 for contravention of power factor Incentive Clause No. 16.3 of
DOA Regulations, 2016 and also Section-45 of Electricity Act, 2003.
5. To compensate towards mental agony, stress, travelling expenses and other misc.
expenses, the licensee may be asked to pay ts.1.0 lakh.
6. To permit us to make further submission, addition & alteration in this petition as

may be required from time to time.
7. To condone any error/omission and give us opportunity to rectify the same during
the course of proceedings.
8. To pass any such order by Hon. Commission which may be in the interest of
consumer & justice by safeguarding rights of the consumers
12. The Petitioner states that:

12.1 Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited (SCIL).had availed Short Term Open Access
(STOA) for its two different plants during the period from September, 2013 onwards
as below.
Plant Location/ Consumer No. Open Access Duration
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited

Sept-2013 to Nov-2016
Plot No. 40, MIDC, Dhatav, Roha, Dist. Conventional Power
Raigad Consumer No: 036249005112)
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited

Sept-2013 to Dec-2016
Plot No. A-19/1+2, MIDC Estate, Mahad, Conventional Power
Dist- Raigad Consumer No: 041019018456
12.2 SCIL had paid MSEDCL Open Access charges such as Transmission charges,
Wheeling Chargers, Cross Subsidy & Additional surcharges as per the directions
issued by Commission. Although it maintained Power Factor to unity by investing in
the capacitor banks, SCIL has not received PFI from MSEDCL on the Open Access
charges paid.
12.3 Distribution Open Access Regulation 2005, 2014 & 2016 provides PF incentive &
penalty for maintaining desired Power Factor, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
“Power Factor / Harmonics: It shall be obligatory for the Connector to maintain

the average power factor of his load at levels prescribed by the Indian Electricity
Rules, 1956 with such variations, if any, adopted by the Distribution Licensee in
accordance with Rule 27 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and in accordance
with the relevant orders of the Commission.
It shall be obligatory for the Connector to control harmonics of his load at levels
prescribed by the IEEE STD 519-1992, and in accordance with the relevant
orders of the Commission.
The Distribution Licensee may require the Connector, within a reasonable time
period, which shall not be less than three (3) months, to take such effective
measures so as to raise the average power factor or control harmonics of his
installation to a value not less than the prescribed norm:
Provided that the Distribution Licensee may charge penalty or provide incentive
for low / high power factor and for harmonics, in accordance with relevant
orders of the Commission”
12.4 Although it has maintained Power Factor nearer to Unity during the above mentioned
period of Open Access, MSEDCL failed to provide PFI as admissible under the
Regulations & Tariff orders issued from time to time. Hence MSEDCL has violated
Regulations16.3 of the DOA Regulations, 2016.
12.5 Power Factor Incentive approved by the Commission in all previous Tariff Orders is as
follows:
Power Factor Incentive as per MYT tariff Order dt.03.11.2016, Case No. 48 of
2016:
“Power factor Incentive Applicable for HT-I :Industry, HT II - Commercial, HT-
III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV : PWW, HT-V: Agriculture, HT-VI:
Group Housing Society, HT VIII - Temporary Supply, HT IX: Public Service, LT
Works , LT V (A) (ii): Industry – Powerlooms (above 20 kW) , LT V (B) (ii):
Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X : Public Services [LT X (A) (ii) , LT X
(A) (iii) , LT X (B) (ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories]. 2. Whenever the average
Power Factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be given at the rate of the
following percentages of the amount of the monthly electricity bill, excluding
Taxes and Duties”:
Sr. No. Range of Power Factor Power factor Level Incentive

1 0.951 to 0.954 0.95 0%
2 0.955 to 0.964 0.96 1%
3 0.965 to 0.974 0.97 2%
4 0.975 to 0.0.984 0.98 3%
5 0.985 to 0.994 0.99 5%
6 0.995 to 1.00 1.00 7%
12.6 Thus, the PFI should have been given to us as per the above table, excluding taxes and
duties. However, it is not been allowed by MSEDCL on the Open Access charges
(Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS & Addl. SC etc.) paid through
energy bills for the power availed through Open Access from Traders.
12.7 The Commission has passed Order dated 28 November, 2017 on the similar issue of
MIAL against Tata Power Co, in Case No. 110 of 2017. The Commission in the Order
directed as “TPC-D to provide Power Factor Incentive (or levy Power Factor Penalty,
as the case may be,) to MIAL and other similarly placed consumers on the charges it
levies on the power sourced by them through Open Access. For past periods, these
may be adjusted in the ensuing bills of MIAL and other such Open Access consumers,
along with applicable interest.”
12.8 The Tata Power had challenged the above Commission’s Order with APTEL vide IA
No. 192 of 2018 and demanded stay on impugned order in Appeal No. 36 of 2018. The
APTEL vide judgment dated 23.04.2018 denied to grant stay on implementation of
impugned Order.
12.9 Based upon decision of the Commission for Case No. 110 of 2017, it has filed an
application with MSEDCL, Pen office on dt.23.02.2018 and Mumbai office on
28.02.2018 for refund of PFI on the Open Access charges paid during the period
mentioned above. It had received letter dt.19.04.2018 from Chief Engineer
Commercial, in which it was communicated that the directives given in Order of case
No. 110 of 2017 are applicable to TPC-D and it doesn’t specify for consumers of
MSEDCL.
12.10 As per Regulation 32 of DOA Regulations, 2016, any dispute under these Regulations
shall be adjudicated upon by the Commission. Hence this Petition is being filed with
Commission for settlement of dispute/ grievance instead of approaching to CGRF/
Ombudsman under Regulations, 2006.
12.11 CGRF, Nasik in its Order dated 14 December, 2017 in Case No. 630/2017-18 in the
Grievance of Open Access consumers M/s Jindal Poly Films Limited, Nashik., has
held as: “As per the provision made in section 32 of DOA Regulations, it is being
dispute regarding charging of demand charges (DOA & TOA Regulations), this forum
has got no jurisdiction to resolve it, hence the consumer is advised to approach the
Commission for the same.”
12.12 Although; Open Access consumer, partly sourced power requirement from sources
other than MSEDCL, it used the distribution system of the Licensees for wheeling of
Open Access power. It also contributes reduction in system losses by maintaining
Power Factor to Unity for which necessary infrastructure have been developed with
huge investment. If the Petitioner has no incentive to maintain a high Power Factor, the
distribution losses of MSEDCL would have gone up considerably and Distribution
Licensees was responsible to take corrective measures to reduce the network losses.
Further, Power Factor improvement can best be achieved if such measures are
implemented at the consumer level. On this principle, the Power Factor Incentive /
Penalty provided in the MYT Order for consumers sourcing power from MSEDCL is
equally applicable to the Open Access power sourced by us & contributed by way of
Wheeling / Transmission Charges and Losses, CSS, and Additional Surcharge.
12.13 The purpose to provide higher Power Factor rebate is to encourage the consumer to
maintain high Power Factor and to minimize the system losses. Any loss before the
meter installed at consumer’s premises is on account of the Distribution Licensee. In
order to reduce these losses, the State Commission has incentivized high Power Factor
based on pure technical and engineering principle. It has nothing to do with the source
of power. Accordingly, Power Factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also
avails Open Access.
12.14 As per clause 3.4.2 the MERC Supply Code Regulations, 2005, the surcharge referred
to in Regulation 3 is the CSS payable by Open Access consumer is a part of the
charges and, therefore, the incentive on Power Factor would also be applicable on this
amount.
12.15 It is to be noted that current drawn an lower Power Factor also cause excessive voltage
drop which would further increase the system losses. Thus, it is proved that lower
Power Factor causes higher system losses and loss to the Distribution Licensee. The
purpose of providing higher PFI is to encourage the consumers to improve their Power
Factor by providing shunt compensation and bring it as close as possible to unity so
that the system losses are reduced to the minimum. This is a pure technical and
engineering principle and it does not distinguish as to whether the power has been
drawn from the Licensee or on availing the Open Access.
12.16 The above analysis would show the purpose to provide higher Power Factor rebate is
to encourage the consumer to maintain high Power Factor and to minimize the system
losses. Any loss before the meter installed at consumer’s premises is on account of the
Distribution Licensee. In order to reduce these losses, the State Commission has
incentivized high Power Factor based on pure technical and engineering principle. It
has nothing to do with the source of power. Accordingly, Power Factor rebate is
payable to the consumer who also avails Open Access.
12.17 The Commission allowed PFI to the consumers of Tata Power (TPC) on the charges
(Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS & Addl. SC etc.) payable by the
Open Access consumers.
12.18 Total claim amount for both the plants is worked out as below:
Plant Location/ CN Period of Partial OA. Claim Amount
Sudarshan Chemical Industries

Limited Sept-2013 to Nov-2016 Rs.1,08,76,879/- +
Conventional Power interest
Plot No. 40, MIDC, Dhatav, Roha,
Dist. Raigad
CN: 036249005112)
Sudarshan Chemical Industries
Limited Sept-2013 to Dec-2016 Rs.43,23,622/- +
Conventional Power interest
Plot No. A-19/1+2, MIDC Estate,
Mahad, Dist- Raigad CN:
041019018456
12.19 MSEDCL violated section 45 of Electricity Act, 2003 by not offering incentives as per
the Regulations & Tariff fixed by the Commission, collecting the charges for
electricity supplied by Distribution Licensee.
13. In its submission dated 22 June, 2018, MSEDCL stated that:
13.1 MSEDCL raised the following issues in the present Case:

(i) Tata Power’s Case (Case No. 110 of 2017) is completely different from that of
MSEDCL.
(ii) Whether the APTEL’s Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No. 231
of 2012 is applicable to the facts of the present Case?
(iii) Whether the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 passed in Case No. 8
of 2012, Case No. 18 of 2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 33 of 2012 is
binding Order?
(iv) Can there be any retrospective effect of PFI as per the Order dated 28
(v) Whether DOA Regulations, 2016 or the previous DOA Regulations, 2005 or
2014 envisages Power factor Incentive/Penalty on Open Access Consumers
(Regulation 16) of the Connection Agreement?
(vi) What is the real intent and purpose of Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations,
2016 specifying the Reactive Energy Charges?
(vii) When a separate charge “Reactive Energy Charges” is envisaged under the
DOA Regulations, 2016 then why not fix the charge?
(viii) Can a consumer who opts for Open Access still be considered as a consumer
to the extent of Open Access?
(ix) Can a partial open access consumer seek the same benefits under the retail
tariff order which are available to a normal consumer when such partial open
access consumer is governed by a different regime i.e. DOAR, 2016?
(x) Maintaining of Power Factor is a mandatory obligation cast upon a consumer.
The consumer maintains the same out of operation of law. Moreover such
consumers install equipment’s before being Open Access consumers and
subsequently shift to Open Access. Hence PFI cannot be made applicable to
Open Access consumption more so when DOA Regulations, 2016 provides a
different charge/penalty altogether.
13.2 Tata Power’s Case in Case No. 110 of 2017 is completely different than that of
MSEDCL:
(a) The Order dated 28 November, 2017 in Case No. 110 of 2017 in the matter of
Limited” was passed in the specific facts and circumstances of that Case and cannot
be treated as a Judgment in realm rather it a Judgment in personam.
(b) The records of Case No. 110 of 2017 clearly reveal that Tata Power was
charging/providing Power Factor Incentive/Penalty on the “Regulatory Asset
Charges” since July, 2013 to April, 2017.
(c) Neither MSEDCL has provided any Power Factor Incentive to Open Access
consumers nor has MSEDCL levied any penalty on Open Access consumption. Hence
Case No. 110 of 2017 cannot be strictly applied to the present Case.
13.3 Whether the APTEL’s Judgment dated 14 November, 2013in Appeal No. 231 of 2012
is applicable to the facts of the present Case?
(a) The Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 passed by the APTEL cannot be made
applicable to the present case as the said Judgment was passed in the specific facts
and circumstances of the case before the APTEL and after analyzing various
provisions of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Regulations. The
major difference are as follows:
(i) Existing metering was not adequate to record voltage during 15 minute time slot.
(ii) There was no recording of the corresponding energy drawal during the period
when the frequency at the metering point is below 97% or above 103%.
(iii) In the absence of active corresponding figures of the Active Energy and the
Reactive Energy available from the meter, it is not possible to draw proportion
of the two figures which are for different time durations.
(iv) The Active Energy figures recorded for the entire month cannot be compared
with the Reactive Energy recorded for the specific time duration corresponding
to the specific variation in voltage at the metering point.
(v) The Respondent Distribution Licensee in Haryana till date has been recovering
penalty on the low Power Factor and penalty for exceeding Contract Demand on
the sale of power including CSS form imbedded Open Access consumers. The
Licensee cannot probate and approbate at the same time. Therefore, the State
Commission cannot permit the Licensee, the Respondent to use different
yardstick to the consumer while giving rebate and recovering MDI penalty,
when both are to be charged on sale of power. Therefore, this treatment is
contrary.
(b) Hence it can be seen from the above that the facts and circumstances leading to
passing of the above Judgments were completely different. In the present case at hand
MSEDCL submits that all the metering arrangements are in place and hence the
“Reactive Energy Charges” can be determined and levied without any hurdles.
Moreover, there is no case of probating and approbating at the same time by
MSEDCL as it has followed a consistent stand of not charging any penalty Power
Factor penalty on Open Access consumption.
(c) Moreover the observation of the APTEL at Para (II) of the operative part is based on
the specific facts of the case and is not a Judgment in realm.
13.4 Whether the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 passed in Case No. 8 of
2012, Case No. 18 of 2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 33 of 2012 is a binding
Order?
The Commission had clarified vide order dated 03 January, 2013 in the most
unequivocal terms that PFI is only applicable to consumers of MSEDCL on the et
energy supplied by MSEDCL and nothing beyond that. The relevant Para is
reproduced as below:
“The Commission is of the view of that levy of penalty or provide incentives for
various parameters as specified by the Commission in Tariff Schedule of the
Tariff Order of MSEDCL from time to time (e.g., Power Factor incentive,
Power Factor Penalty, Prompt Payment discount, etc.) shall be charged on the
net energy supplied by MSEDCL to the open access consumer and captive user
after adjusting the banked energy and actual generation during the month.”
13.5 Can there be any retrospective effect of Power Factor Incentive as per the order dated
28.11.2017 passed in Case No. 110 of 2017?
It has acted in complete compliance of the Order dated 03 January, 2013 passed in
Case No. 8 of 2012, Case No. 18 of 2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 33 of
2012 by the Commission. Any new dispensation if allowed by the Commission can
only be prospective as the earlier dispensation was governed by a Regulatory Order
which was followed by MSEDCL. Hence, Power Factor Incentive is applicable to
Open Access, even if the same is made applicable, then the same has to be
prospective and not retrospective.
13.6 Whether DOA Regulations, 2016 or the previous DOA Regulations of 2005 or 2014
envisages Power factor Incentive/Penalty on Open Access Consumers (Regulation 16)
of the Connection Agreement?
The reliance placed by the Petitioner on Regulation 16 of DOA Regulations, 2016 is
completely incorrect as the same is a part of the model/sample “Connection
Agreement” and not a Regulation under the DOAR, 2016. Moreover the
model/sample “Connection Agreement” only governs the Generating Station/Licensee
and not a consumer.
13.7 What is the real intent and purpose of Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations, 2016
specifying the Reactive Energy Charges?
While on one hand there is no specific provision to make the PFI applicable to Open
Access on the other hand there is separate head created under the DOA Regulations,
2016 as “Reactive Energy Charges” which is applicable to Open Access consumers.
Hence when the DOA Regulations, 2016 specifically provides for such charges then
the same has to be specifically fixed by the Commission. This issue has also been
acknowledged by the Commission in its Order dated 28.11.2017 passed in Case No.
110 of 2017 under Para 12. The Operative part is reproduced as below:
“With reference to Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations, 2016, TPC-D has
raised the issue of levying a Reactive Energy Charge on Open Access
consumers. As present, in the MYT Orders in respect of TPC-D and other
Distribution Licensees, the Commission has not determined any Reactive
Energy Charge. In its forthcoming Mid-Term Review Petition, TPC-D is at
liberty to propose such determination.”
13.8 When a separate charge “Reactive Energy Charges” is envisaged under the DOAR,
2016 then why not fix the charge?
Any charge which is not determined in accordance with the applicable principles and
without a detailed study on the implication of such charge would certainly have a
negative impact of MSEDCL. Hence, the nuances of PF and Reactive Energy
although may seem to be similar but both of them are completely different as the
charges terms applicable in money terms may be completely different. In such a case
allowing PF to be applicable to Open Access consumers without studying the impact
of the same would certainly cause a negative impact of MSEDCL and would in a way
offset the other charges payable by the Open Access consumers.
13.9 Can a consumer who opts for Open Access still be considered as a consumer to the
extent of Open Access?
Once a consumer surrenders its load with MSEDCL to the tune of Open Access then he
can no longer be treated as a consumer of MSEDCL to the tune of Open Access availed
by it.
13.10 Can a partial Open Access consumer seek the same benefits under the retail Tariff
Order which are available to a normal consumer when such partial Open Access
consumer is governed by a different Regulatory regime i.e. DOA Regulations, 2016?
A partial Open Access consumer cannot be equated to a retail consumer. While a

retail consumer Tariff is fixed through a Tariff Order, a partial Open Access
consumer’s tariff is only fixed to the tune as to what he is liable to pay under the
Electricity Act, 2003, DOA Regulations, 2016 as various charges on account of
availing Open Access. Hence all these separate charges payable by an Open Access
consumer is framed by a regulatory process after analyzing all aspects. However at
present what is contented to be done is that the PF which is fixed for retail consumers
shall be passed to Open Access consumers without determining the impact of the
same. The same cannot be done without initiating a regulatory process.
13.11 Maintaining of Power Factor is a mandatory obligation cast upon a consumer

(a) The consumers install equipment’s before being Open Access consumers and
subsequently shift to Open Access. Hence PFI cannot be made applicable to Open
access consumption more so when DOA Regulations, 2016 provides a different
charge/penalty altogether.
(b) The whole argument made by the Petitioner of incurring high cost in installing
equipment’s for maintaining high Power Factor is completely incorrect. All these
consumers have become Open Access consumers later in time and they all were
normal retail consumers of MSEDCL in the beginning. Hence whatever
equipment’s they have installed, are under the mandate of law at the relevant point
in time, when they were not Open Access consumers.
(c) In case the Open Access consumer does not maintain the high Power Factor then
he would be liable to the Reactive Energy penalty as will be determined by the
Commission. Hence the Open Access consumer will be liable to any penalty as
envisaged under law.
(d) Maintaining of high Power Factor also helps the Open Access consumer in
appropriating the maximum Open Access quantum wheeled. Hence arguments on
the issue of high Power Factor leading to benefit to Grid and leading to low losses
to MSEDCL is completely baseless and is rather opportunistic.
14. Polygenta Technologies Limited (PTL), Gat No. 265/1- 266, Village: Awankhed Tal-
Dindori, Dist- Nashik- 422 202, has filed a Petition on 14 May, 2018 citing Sections 142,
146 & 149 of Electricity Act, 2003 (EA, 2003), Regulation 16.3 of DOA Regulations,
2016for not allowing PFI on Open Access charges by MSEDCL.
15. PTL’s prayers are as below:
dispute about PF incentive refund claim of our both the plants availed open access
power during the period from March-2016 to Dec-2016., Total amount of claim along
with accrued interest may be paid by crediting in our ensuing monthly energy bill.
2. As per Commission’s Order dt.28.11.207 for Case No. 110 of 2017 MIAL Vs TPC and
APTEL’s judgment dt.23.04.2018 for Case No. 36 of 2018, power factor incentives is
equally applicable on the OA charges collected by Licensees. To avoid
discrimination, the MSEDCL may also be directed to pay the PF incentive due to us
on the open access charges (Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS &
Addl. SC etc.) collected.
3. To pay the interest applicable till date of credit on power factor incentive amount due
for refund at bank rate permissible u/s 62(6) of Electricity Act, 2003.
4. To impose penalty on the respondent as worked out as per section 142, 146 & 149 of
Electricity Act 2003 for contravention of power factor Incentive Clause No. 16.3 of
DOA Regulations, 2016 and also Section-45 of Electricity Act, 2003.
expenses, the licensee may be asked to pay Rs.50, 000/-.
6. To permit us to make further submission, addition & alteration in this petition as may
be required from time to time.
7. To condone any error/omission and give us opportunity to rectify the same during the
course of proceedings.
8. To pass any such order by Hon. Commission which may be in the interest of consumer
& justice by safeguarding rights of the consumers

16.1 Polygenta Technologies Limited (PTL) availed STOA for its plants for the period from
March 2016 to December, 2016.
16.2 PTL maintained Power Factor to unity by investing in the capacitor banks, and it has
not received PFI from MSEDCL on the Open Access charges paid.
16.3 Distribution Open Access Regulation 2005, 2014 & 2016 provides PF incentive &
penalty for maintaining desired Power factor. The relevant para. is reproduced below:
“Power Factor / Harmonics: It shall be obligatory for the Connector to maintain

the average power factor of his load at levels prescribed by the Indian Electricity
Rules, 1956 with such variations, if any, adopted by the Distribution Licensee in
accordance with Rule 27 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and in accordance
with the relevant orders of the Commission.
It shall be obligatory for the Connector to control harmonics of his load at levels
prescribed by the IEEE STD 519-1992, and in accordance with the relevant orders
of the Commission.
for low / high power factor and for harmonics, in accordance with relevant orders
of the Commission”
16.4 Although PTL has maintained Power Factor nearer to Unity during the above
mentioned period of Open Access, MSEDCL failed to provide PFI as admissible under
the Regulations & Tariff Orders issued from time to time. Hence the MSEDCL
violated Regulation 16.3 of DOA Regulations, 2016.
16.5 Power factor incentive approved by Commission in all previous tariff orders is as
follows:
2016:
“Power factor Incentive Applicable for HT-I :Industry, HT II - Commercial, HT-
III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV : PWW, HT-V: Agriculture, HT-VI:
Group Housing Society, HT VIII - Temporary Supply, HT IX: Public Service, LT
Works , LT V (A) (ii): Industry – Powerlooms (above 20 kW) , LT V (B) (ii):
Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X : Public Services [LT X (A) (ii) , LT X
(A) (iii) , LT X (B) (ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories]. 2. Whenever the average
Power Factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be given at the rate of the
following percentages of the amount of the monthly electricity bill, excluding
Taxes and Duties”:

1 0.951 to 0.954 0.95 0%
2 0.955 to 0.964 0.96 1%
3 0.965 to 0.974 0.97 2%
4 0.975 to 0.0.984 0.98 3%
5 0.985 to 0.994 0.99 5%
6 0.995 to 1.00 1.00 7%
16.6 Thus, the PFI should have been given to it as per the above table, excluding taxes and
duties. However, it is not been allowed by MSEDCL on the Open Access charges
(Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS & Addl. SC etc.) paid through
energy bills for the power availed through Open Access from Traders.
16.7 The Commission has passed Order dated 28 November, 2017 on the similar issue of
MIAL against Tata Power Co, Case No. 110 of 2017. The Commission in the order
directed as “TPC-D to provide Power Factor Incentive (or levy Power Factor Penalty,
as the case may be,) to MIAL and other similarly placed consumers on the charges it
levies on the power sourced by them through Open Access. For past periods, these
may be adjusted in the ensuing bills of MIAL and other such Open Access consumers,
along with applicable interest.”
APTEL vide Judgment dated 23 April, 2018 denied to grant stay on implementation of
impugned Order.
16.9 Based upon decision of the Commission for Case No. 110 of 2017, PTL had filed
application with MSEDCL, Nashik office on dt.15.03.2018 and Mumbai office for
refund of PFI on the Open Access charges paid during the period mentioned above.
PTL had not received any communication so far.
16.10 As per Regulation 32 of DOA Regulations, 2016, any dispute under these Regulations
shall be adjudicated upon by the Commission. Hence this Petition is being filed with
the Commission for settlement of dispute/ grievance instead of approaching to CGRF/
16.11 Nashik CGRF vide its Order dated14 December, 2017 passed in Case No. 630/2017-
18 in the Grievance of Open Access consumers M/s Jindal Poly Films Limited has.
ruled that: “As per the provision made in section 32 of DAA Regulations, it is being
dispute regarding charging of demand charges (DOA & TOA Regulations), this forum
has got no jurisdiction to resolve it, hence the consumer is advised to approach the
Commission for the same.”
16.12 PTL is Open Access consumer, partly sourced power requirement from sources other
than MSEDCL. PTL contribute reduction in system losses by maintaining power
factor to Unity for which necessary infrastructure has been developed with huge
investment. If PTL have no incentive to maintain a high Power Factor, the distribution
losses of the Distribution Licensee would have gone up considerably and Distribution
Licensees was responsible to take corrective measures to reduce the network losses.
Further, Power Factor improvement can best be achieved if such measures are
implemented at the consumer level. On this principle, the Power Factor Incentive /
Penalty provided in the MYT Order for consumers sourcing power from MSEDCL is
equally applicable to the Open Access power sourced by it & contributed by way of
Wheeling / Transmission Charges and Losses, CSS, and Additional Surcharge.
maintain high power factor and to minimize the system losses. Any loss before the
of power. Accordingly, Power Factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also
avails Open Access.
16.14 As per Regulation 3.4.2 of Supply Code Regulations, 2005, the surcharge referred to in
Regulation 3 is the CSS payable by Open Access consumer is a part of charges and,
therefore, the incentive on Power Factor would also be applicable on this amount.
drawn from the licensee or on availing the Open Access.
16.16 The above analysis would show the purpose to provide higher Power Factor rebate is
to encourage the consumer to maintain high Power Factor and to minimize the system
losses. Any loss before the meter installed at consumer’s premises is on account of the
Distribution Licensee. In order to reduce these losses, the State Commission has
incentivized high Power Factor based on pure technical and engineering principle. It
has nothing to do with the source of power. Accordingly, Power Factor rebate is
payable to the consumer who also avails Open Access.
16.17 The Commission allowed PFI to the consumers of Tata Power (TPC) on the charges
(Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS & Addl. SC etc.) payable by the
Open Access consumers. In the same line we appeal to allow PFI on the OA charges
paid to MSEDCL along with the interest charges applicable u/s 62(6) of Electricity
Act, 2003. This will avoid discrimination in the same state of Maharashtra amongst the
consumers of different license.
16.18 Total claim amount for the plant is Rs.19, 62,886/- and interest for the period March
2016 to December, 2016.
16.19 MSEDCL violated section 45 of Electricity Act, 2003 by not offering incentives as per
the Regulations & Tariff fixed by the Commission, collecting the charges for
17. MSEDCL in its submission dated 22 June, 2018 reiterated the similar submission as
mentioned above at Para. 13.
18. ETCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ETCO) Plot No. B-2 & B-3, MIDC, Parbhani, Dist- Parbhani-
431401 has filed a Petition on 14 May, 2018 citing Sections 142, 146 & 149 of Electricity
Act, 2003 (EA, 2003) , Regulation 16.3 of DOA Regulations, 2016 for not allowing PFI on
Open Access charges by MSEDCL.
19. ETCO’s prayers are as below:
dispute about PF incentive refund claim on OA charges for power availed through
open access during the period from June-2015 to Nov-2016. Total amount of claim
along with accrued interest may be paid by crediting in our ensuing monthly
energy bill.
2. As per Commission’s Order dt.28.11.207 for Case No. 110 of 2017 MIAL Vs TPC
and APTEL’s judgment dt.23.04.2018 for Case No. 36 of 2018, power factor
incentives is equally applicable on the OA charges collected by Licensees. To
avoid discrimination, the MSEDCL may also be directed to pay the PF incentive
due to us on the open access charges (Transmission charges, Wheeling
loss/charges, CSS & Addl. SC etc.) collected.
3. To pay the interest applicable till date of credit on power factor incentive amount
due for refund at bank rate permissible u/s 62(6) of Electricity Act, 2003.
4. To impose penalty on the respondent as worked out as per section 142, 146 & 149
of Electricity Act 2003 for contravention of power factor Incentive Clause No. 16.3
of DOA Regulations, 2016 and also Section-45 of Electricity Act, 2003.
expenses, the licensee may be asked to pay Rs.50, 000/-.
6. To permit us to make further submission, addition & alteration in this petition as

may be required from time to time.
7. To condone any error/omission and give us opportunity to rectify the same during
the course of proceedings.
8. To pass any such order by Hon. Commission which may be in the interest of
consumer & justice by safeguarding rights of the consumers.
20.1 ETCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ETCO) has availed STOA power for its plant during the
period from June, 2015 to November, 2016. ETCO has maintained Power Factor to
unity by investing in the capacitor banks; it has not received any PFI from MSEDCL
on the Open Access charges paid.
20.2 Distribution Open Access Regulation 2005, 2014 & 2016 provides PF Incentive &
penalty for maintaining desired Power Factor, the relevant para. is reproduced below:
“Power Factor / Harmonics: It shall be obligatory for the Connector to

maintain the average power factor of his load at levels prescribed by the Indian
Electricity Rules, 1956 with such variations, if any, adopted by the Distribution
Licensee in accordance with Rule 27 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and in
accordance with the relevant orders of the Commission.
It shall be obligatory for the Connector to control harmonics of his load at

levels prescribed by the IEEE STD 519-1992, and in accordance with the
relevant orders of the Commission.
for low / high power factor and for harmonics, in accordance with relevant
orders of the Commission”
20.3 ETCO has maintained Power Factor nearer to unity during the above mentioned period
of Open Access, MSEDCL has failed to provide PF Incentive as admissible under the
Regulations & Tariff orders issued from time to time. Hence MSEDCL violated
Regulation 16.3 of DOA Regulations, 2016.
20.4 Power factor incentive approved by the Commission in all previous Tariff Orders is as
follows:
2016:
“Power factor Incentive Applicable for HT-I :Industry, HT II - Commercial,

HT-III: Railways, Metro & Monorail, HT-IV : PWW, HT-V: Agriculture, HT-
VI: Group Housing Society, HT VIII - Temporary Supply, HT IX: Public
Service, LT II: Non-Residential/Commercial [LT II (B), LT II (C)], LT III:
Public Water Works , LT V (A) (ii): Industry – Powerlooms (above 20 kW) , LT
V (B) (ii): Industry – General (above 20 kW), LT X : Public Services [LT X (A)
(ii) , LT X (A) (iii) , LT X (B) (ii) and LT X (B) (iii) categories]. 2. Whenever
the average Power Factor is more than 0.95, an incentive shall be given at the
rate of the following percentages of the amount of the monthly electricity bill,
excluding Taxes and Duties”:

1 0.951 to 0.954 0.95 0%
2 0.955 to 0.964 0.96 1%
3 0.965 to 0.974 0.97 2%
4 0.975 to 0.0.984 0.98 3%
5 0.985 to 0.994 0.99 5%
6 0.995 to 1.00 1.00 7%
20.5 Thus, the PFI should have been given to ETCO as per the above table, excluding taxes
and duties. However, it is not been allowed by MSEDCL on the Open Access
charges(Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges, CSS & Addl. SC etc.) paid
through energy bills for the power availed through Open Access from Traders.
20.6 The Commission has passed order dt.28/11/2017 on the similar issue of MIAL against
Tata Power Co, Case No. 110 of 2017. The Commission in the Order directed as
“TPC-D to provide Power Factor Incentive (or levy Power Factor Penalty, as the case
may be,) to MIAL and other similarly placed consumers on the charges it levies on the
power sourced by them through Open Access. For past periods, these may be adjusted
in the ensuing bills of MIAL and other such Open Access consumers, along with
applicable interest.”
APTEL vide judgment dated 23.04.2018 denied to grant stay on implementation of
impugned Order.
20.8 Based upon decision of the Commission for Case No. 110 of 2017, ETCO had filed
application with MSEDCL, Parbhani office (on dt.09.05.2018) and Mumbai office for
refund of PFI on the Open Access charges paid during the period mentioned above.
ETCO had not received any communication so far.
20.9 As per Regulation 32 of DOA Regulations, 2016, any dispute under these regulations
shall be adjudicated upon by the Commission. Hence this petition is being filed with
the Commission for settlement of dispute/ grievance instead of approaching to CGRF/
20.10 Nashik CGRF vide its Order dated 14.12.2017 in Case No. 630/2017-18 in the
Grievance of open Access consumers M/s Jindal Poly Films Ltd. ruled that: “As per
the provision made in section 32 of DAA Regulations, it is being dispute regarding
charging of demand charges (DOA & TOA Regulations), this forum has got no
jurisdiction to resolve it, hence the consumer is advised to approach the Commission
for the same.”
20.11 Although; ETCO is an Open Access consumer, partly sourced power requirement from
sources other than MSEDCL, it used the distribution system of the Licensees for
wheeling of OA power. ETCO also contribute reduction in system losses by
maintaining Power Factor to unity for which necessary infrastructure have been
developed with huge investment. If ETCO has no incentive to maintain a high Power
Factor, the distribution losses of MSEDCL would have gone up considerably and
Distribution Licensees was responsible to take corrective measures to reduce the
network losses. Further, Power Factor improvement can best be achieved if such
measures are implemented at the consumer level. On this principle, the Power Factor
Incentive / Penalty provided in the MYT Order for consumers sourcing power from
MSEDCL is equally applicable to the Open Access power sourced by us & contributed
by way of Wheeling / Transmission Charges and Losses, CSS, and Additional
Surcharge.
maintain high Power Factor and to minimize the system losses. Any loss before the
of power. Accordingly, power factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also avails
Open Access.
20.13 As per Regulation 3.4.2 of Supply Code Regulations, 2005, the surcharge referred to in
Regulation 3 is the CSS payable by Open Access consumer is a part of charges and,
therefore, the incentive on Power Factor would also be applicable on this amount.
drawn from the Licensee or on availing the Open Access.
20.15 The purpose to provide higher power factor rebate is to encourage the consumer to
maintain high power factor and to minimize the system losses. Any loss before the
order to reduce these losses, the State Commission has incentivized high power factor
of power. Accordingly, power factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also avails
Open Access.
20.16 On the above points, the Commission allowed power factor incentive to the consumers
of Tata Power (TPC) on the charges (Transmission charges, Wheeling loss/charges,
CSS & Addl. SC etc.) payable by the Open Access consumers.
20.17 Total claim amount for both the plants is Rs.3, 245,568/- and interest for the period
June 2015 to November, 2016.
20.18 MSEDCL violated section 45 of Electricity Act, 2003 by not offering incentives as
per the Regulations & Tariff fixed by the Commission, collecting the charges for
21. MSEDCL in its submission dated 22 June, 2018 reiterated the similar submissions as
mentioned above at Para. 13.
22. At the hearing held on 25 June, 2018, the Commission heard the combined Cases as
mentioned above. The Advocate/Representatives of the Petitioners and Respondent
reiterated their submissions as made in their Petitions/ Replies. On request of Petitioners in
all five cases, the Commission granted a week time to file their Rejoinder submissions.
23. In its Rejoinder dated 28 June, 2018 in Case No. 150 of 2018, SCIL stated that:
23.1 SCIL has filed a Petition based upon Distribution Open Access Regulations, 2016 and
also in support of the Commission’s decision in Case No. 110 of 2017. MSEDCL
violated the Regulations and Orders of the Commission.
23.2 The system of levy of Reactive Energy Charges on Open Access consumers has not
been finalized by the Commission so far in Maharashtra.
23.3 The Order in Case No. 8 of 2012 related with wind energy for which banking is
allowed. The views of the Commission regarding penalty and incentives are related
with specific case of wind energy having provisions of banking. Any Regulations can’t
be changed or overruled by any Order.
23.4 The Commission in Order in Case No. 110 of 2017 allowed PF rebate for past period
and these charges may be adjusted in the ensuing bill of MIAL and other such
consumers along with applicable interest.
23.5 MSEDCL is misleading by saying that the clause 16 is a part of Connection
Agreement only governs the Generating Stations and not the consumer. In this regards,
definition 2.1 (13 of DOA Regulations, 2016 stipulates that:
“2……
(13) “Connection Agreement” means the agreement to be entered into on
approval of grant of Connectivity between a Distribution Licensee and
Generating Station or a captive generating plant or a Consumer or a Licensee, as
the case may be; ”
23.6 From the above, it is clearly envisaged that Connection Agreement is also applicable
for Distribution Licensee and a consumer. Hence, clause No. 16.3 of this agreements
to be complied by MSEDCL.
23.7 It is wrong to say that allowing PF rebate will offset Open Access charges paid by the
consumer. The table below shows Open Access charges paid by the consumers versus
PF rebate admissible:
Table 1: Open Access charges for 22 kV consumers for FY 2017-18
S.N. Open Access charges Rs. /Unit

1 Transmission Charges 0.32
2 Wheeling Charges 0.83
3 Cross Subsidy Surcharge 1.80
4 Additional Surcharge 1.11
Total charges 4.06
For Unity PF, PF Incentive 7 % 0.28
23.8 After comparing total Open Access charges paid to MSEDCL and PF rebate
admissible, 93% of Open Access charges remains with MSEDCL , then by such small
amount how PF rebate (7%) will offset the Open Access charges (93%) .
23.9 As per the definition of consumer i.e. Section 2 (15) and Section 42 (3) of Electricity
Act, 2003, it is clear that partial Open Access user is a consumer of MSEDCL. Hence,
retail tariff is also applicable with all other parameters of Tariff Order including CSS
Wheeling Charges, Temporary charges, PF rebate etc.
24. In its Rejoinder dated 28 June, 2018 in Case No. 151 of 2018, PTL made similar
submission as mentioned at Para. 23 above.
25. In its Rejoinder dated 28 June, 2018 in Case No. 155 of 2018, ETCO made the similar
26. In its Rejoinder dated 6 July, 2018 in Case No. 136 of 2017, Petitioners stated that :
26.1 The entire case of the Petitioners is not based on the Order dated 28 November, 2017
in Case No.110 of 2017 by the Commission, as contended by MSEDCL. Though the
Petitioners claims parity on the basis of the said Order, that is not the sole ground on
which the Petitioners bases its entire case. However, it is the prayer of the Petitioners
that a similar Order passed in Case No.110 of 2017 be passed by the Commission in
favour of the Petitioner above named in as much as the relevant facts of the present
case are similar, if not identical with the case No.110 of 2017 decided by the
Commission by Order dated 28.11.2017
26.2 The facts in Case No.110 of 2017 are not different, much less completely different,
than that of MSEDCL. The Commission has already taken a view on this aspect
insofar as the applicability of the Judgment of APTEL in Appeal No.231 of 2012 on
14 November, 2013 is concerned.
26.3 The Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 in Case No.8 of 2012, Case No.18 of
2012, Case No. 20 of 2012 and Case No. 22 of 2012 cannot be said to be a binding
Orders insofar as the controversy in the present case is concerned. The nature and
scope of proceedings before the Commission in the said cases are entire different than
the scope and nature of the present Petition. In any case, after a Tariff Order has been
issued by the Commission whereby the entitlement of consumer such as the Petitioner
has been declared by the Commission, the Order dated 3 January, 2013 pales into
insignificance. A similar Tariff Order has been interpreted by the Commission by an
Order passed on 28 November, 2017 in Case No.110 of 2017 (MIAL v/s. TPC-D).
Thus the earlier Order of the Commission dated 3 January, 2013 has no relevance or
significance any longer.
26.4 There is no question of any retrospective effect of Power Factor Incentive being given
inasmuch as the entitlement of the Petitioner arises and springs from the Tariff Order
issued by the Commission and failure on the part of MSEDCL to comply with the
Tariff Order and to extend the Power Factor Incentive to the Petitioner, though they
are entitled for the same cannot be a ground to say that the effect is retrospective. On
and from the date of passing of the Tariff Order, the consumers are entitled to Power
Factor Incentive, provided they maintain Power Factor as specified by the Tariff Order
at the prescribed percentage and above.
26.5 Reactive Energy Charges may be envisaged under the DOA Regulations 2016, no such
charges have been fixed by the Commission in its wisdom. This is a non-issue as
rightly held by the Commission in Order dated 28 November, 2017 in Case No.110 of
2017.
26.6 The incentive is granted for maintaining higher Power Factor and though he may be
obligated to do so, once the Tariff provides for such incentive, it is the duty of the
Licensee to extend the same to consumers who maintain the high Power Factor. In
case the MSEDCL was not agreeable to such entitlement, the Tariff Order ought to
have been challenged at the appropriate stage before the Appellate Tribunal for
Electricity on this ground.
26.7 The Tariff Order has been effective over its period and now it is too late in the day for
the Distribution Licensee to say that the consumers cannot be granted Power Factor
Incentive. Further more, it is immaterial as to when the consumer installed the
equipment in order to maintain a high Power Factor. The ultimate object in granting
incentive is to benefit the system at large, so that more power is available for disposal
at the system. It is a benefit to all concerned stake holders including the consumers
and the licensees (Transmission, Distribution and Generation).
26.8 The Order in Case No.110 of 2017 on 28.11.2017 lays down the principle on the basis
of which Power Factor Incentive and its eligibility is to be determined. It cannot be
said to be an Order passed in the specific facts and circumstances of that case. In any
case, once it is demonstrated that the Tariff Order in respect of TPC-D is identically
worded with the Tariff Order in respect of MSEDCL, there is no scope for declining
the relief to similarly placed consumers such as the Petitioner.
26.9 The Commission in its full strength of three members including the Chairman
presiding has ruled in favour of the consumers and all the objections that have been
taken in the present case were dealt with in Case No.110 of 2017 by the Commission
and therefore, under the doctrine of Stare Decisis, it is imperative that same relief be
extended to similarly placed consumers.
26.10 The Commission’s Order in Case No.110 of 2017 is passed not only on the Tariff
Order passed in respect of TPC-D which is identical in terms with the Tariff Order
passed in respect of MSEDCL, but it is also based upon the judgment of APTEL
which lays down that entitlement for Power Factor Incentive is purely upon an
engineering principle- in that the system benefits when the Power Factor is maintained
as prescribed or at a higher level.
26.11 It is immaterial that the Licensee in Case No.110 of 2017 was charging/providing
Power Factor Incentive/Penalty for a particular period and that later on it was
discontinued. Denial of Power Factor Incentive despite entitlement was the cause of
action in respect of Case No.110 of 2017 and is also the cause of action in respect of
present Petitioner. The fact that TPC-D was earlier providing incentive for a particular
period and later on discontinued the incentive being provided is wholly immaterial in
determining the issue before this Commission.
26.12 The APTEL Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 in Appeal No.231 of 2012 is
applicable and binding inasmuch as principle laid down in the said Judgment squarely
covers the controversy in the present case as also Case No.110 of 2017 decided by the
Commission.
26.13 The Order dated 3 January, 2013 passed in Case No.8 of 2012, Case No.18 of 2012,
Case No.20 of 2012 and Case No.33 of 2012 have no relevance or significance and are
not applicable in determination of the controversy raised in the present Petition.
26.14 The issue as to whether Reactive Energy Charges under Regulation of 2016 can be a
determining factor or not was dealt with in Case No.110 of 2017 by the Commission.
The Commission has ruled that there is no determination of Reactive Energy Charges
in the Multi Year Tariff Order and that the Licensees are at liberty to propose such
determination.
26.15 The consumer who has opted for Open Access is still a ‘consumer’ within the meaning
of the Electricity Act and the Regulations. In any case, it has been ruled by the
APTEL as well as the Commission that it is immaterial as to the source of power being
drawn and whether the consumer is a Open Access Consumer or not, in determining
the Power Factor Incentive entitlement. The only consideration is that grant of Power
Factor Incentive would be based upon the principle that the system would benefit if a
High Power Factor is maintained by the consumer and this has to be incentivized by
the Distribution Licensee. Consequently, it is immaterial as to whether the consumer
opts for Open Access or not.
27. In its Rejoinder dated 7 July, 2018 in Case No. 137 of 2018, Petitioners made similar
Commission’s Analysis and Ruling:
28. All these Petitioners have filed these Petitions seeking clarification as to whether they
are entitled for PFI excluding taxes and duties on its Open Access consumption. All
these Petitioners are consumers of MSEDCL and also have been availing power under
Open Access. MSEDCL has been providing PFI to these consumers for the electricity
consumption from MSEDCL. However, MSEDCL has not provided PFI on Open
Access Consumption.
29. MSEDCL has opposed for the PFI on Open Access consumption and contented that:
(a) The Order dated 28 November, 2017 in Case No. 110 of 2017 (in the matter of
Limited) was passed in the specific facts and circumstances of that Case and
cannot be treated as a Judgment in realm rather it a Judgment in personam.
(b) MSEDCL has neither provided any Power Factor Incentive to Open Access
consumers nor has levied any Penalty on Open Access consumption therefore Case
No. 110 of 2017 cannot be applied to MSEDCL.
(c) The APTEL Judgment dated 14 November, 2013 cannot be made applicable to the
present Case as the said Judgment was passed in the specific facts and
circumstances of the Case before the APTEL and after analyzing various
provisions of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Regulations.
(d) Any charge which is not determined in accordance with the applicable principles
and without a detailed study on the implication of such charge would certainly
have a negative impact on MSEDCL. Hence, the nuances of PF and Reactive
Energy although may seem to be similar but both of them are completely different
as the charges applicable in money terms may be completely different. In such a
case allowing PF to be applicable to Open Access consumers without studying the
impact of the same would certainly cause a negative impact on MSEDCL and
would in a way offset the other charges payable by the Open Access consumers.
(e) Once a consumer surrenders its load with MSEDCL to the tune of Open Access
then it can no longer be treated as a consumer of MSEDCL to the tune of Open
Access availed by it.
30. The Commission notes the submission of MSEDCL that it has followed a consistent
approach of not levying any Power Factor Penalty on Open Access consumption. The
Commission also notes the submission of MSEDCL that it has been following the
Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 in Case No. 8, 18, 20 and Case No. 33 of
2012 wherein the Commission has viewed that levy of penalty or provide incentives for
various parameters as specified by the Commission in Tariff Schedule of the Tariff
Order of MSEDCL from time to time (e.g., Power Factor incentive, Power Factor
Penalty, Prompt Payment discount, etc.) shall be charged on the net energy supplied
by MSEDCL to the Open Access consumer and captive user after adjusting the
banked energy and actual generation during the month.
31. The Commission has dealt with the issue of Power Factor in Case No. 110 of 2017 as
under:
“ 8 Power Factor Incentive / Penalty has been provided in the electricity tariffs of
TPC-D and other Distribution Licensees since long to encourage consumers to
improve their Power Factor by providing shunt compensation and bring it as close
as possible to unity so that system losses are reduced. Lower Power Factor causes
higher system losses and consequent loss to the Distribution Licensee.
9.Although Open Access consumers source part or all of their power requirement
from sources other than their Distribution Licensees, they use the distribution
system of the Licensees for wheeling of this power and, hence, also contribute to
system losses (unless they are independently connected to a Generator and
physically isolated from the rest of the Licensee’s network). If they have no
incentive to maintain a high Power Factor, the onus on the Distribution Licensees
to take corrective measures to compensate for the variation in Power Factor of such
consumers will be correspondingly greater. Moreover, Power Factor improvement
can best be achieved if such measures are implemented at the consumer level. On
this principle, the Power Factor Incentive / Penalty provided in the MYT Order for
consumers sourcing power from TPC-D is equally applicable to the Open Access
power sourced by such consumer, who also contribute by way of Wheeling /
Transmission Charges and Losses, CSS, and Additional Surcharge, if any.
10.This is also consistent with the Judgment dated 14.11.2013 in Appeal No. 231 of
2012 in which APTEL held as follows:
“56. Summary of the findings:-

…II. The very purpose to provide higher power factor rebate is to encourage
the consumer to maintain high power factor and to minimize the system
losses. Any loss before the meter installed at consumer’s premises is on
account of the distribution licensee. In order to reduce these losses, the State
Commission has incentivized high power factor based on pure technical and
engineering principle. It has nothing to do with the source of power.
Accordingly, power factor rebate is payable to the consumer who also avails
open access.
III. As per clause 2(19) of the Supply Code, the surcharge referred to in
Regulation 3 is the Cross Subsidy Surcharge payable by Open Access
consumer is a part of SoP charges and, therefore, the incentive on power
factor would also be applicable on this amount. The Respondent till date has
been recovering penalty on the low power factor and penalty for exceeding
contract demand on the sale of power including Cross Subsidy Surcharge
from embedded open access consumers. The licensee cannot probate and
approbate at the same time. Therefore, the State Commission now cannot
permit the utility, the Respondent to use different yardstick to the consumer
while giving rebate and recovering MDI penalty, when both are to be
charged on sale of power. Therefore, this treatment is contrary to the
commercial principles.”
11. The list of charges specified in Regulation 14 of the DOA Regulations, 2016 has
been cited by TPC-D. However, that is not an exhaustive list of the charges leviable
while billing Open Access consumers, as will be seen from Regulation 14.1(v)
(quoted earlier in this Order).
12.With reference to Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations, 2016, TPC-D has

raised the issue of levying a Reactive Energy Charge on Open Access consumers.
As present, in the MYT Orders in respect of TPC-D and other Distribution
Licensees, the Commission has not determined any Reactive Energy Charge. In its
forthcoming Mid-Term Review Petition, TPC-D is at liberty to propose such
determination.
13.In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs TPC-D to provide Power
Factor Incentive (or levy Power Factor Penalty, as the case may be,) to MIAL and
other similarly placed consumers on the charges it levies on the power sourced by
them through Open Access. For past periods, these may be adjusted in the ensuing
bills of MIAL and other such Open Access consumers, along with applicable
interest.”
32. The Commission notes that the contentions raised by MSEDCL have some merit as
the cases cited by Petitioners, the Order of Commission in Case No. 110 of 2017 and
APTEL Judgment in Appeal No. 231 of 2012 are on different footing. In both these
cases, Distribution Licensees were either extending Power Factor Incentive to the
Open Access consumers or were charging Penalty for low Power Factor. In the instant
case, MSEDCL has not been extending any such incentive to the Open Access
consumers using its distribution network nor levying any Penalty. It is true that
Power Factor Incentive should be extended purely on engineering principles and
should not be differentiated on source of supply of power. However, the issue of PFI to
Open Access consumers in the Case No. 110 of 2017 and APTEL Judgment cannot be
directly applied to this Case as MSEDCL has neither provided any Power Factor
Incentive to Open Access consumers nor levied any Penalty on Open Access
consumption in accordance with the Commission’s earlier Order dated 3 January,
2013 in Case No. 8, 18, 20 and Case No. 33 of 2012. Admittedly the equipment
installed by Petitioners is on account of statutory mandate as well as a continuation of
past practice when they were full consumer of MSEDCL. Therefore, the Commission
is inclined to accept submission of MSEDCL in this regard that the two cases referred
by the Petitioners are not applicable to MSEDCL.
33. In view of the foregoing, the Commission clarifies that even if the Power Factor
Incentive (or levy Power Factor Penalty, as the case may be) is applicable on the
power sourced through Open Access in view of the APTEL Judgment only on
engineering principles, it cannot be granted to the Petitioners and that too with
retrospective effect for the reasons cited in above para No. 32. Further, the impact of
providing such Incentives/ Penalties has not been considered in the MYT Order of
MSEDCL and hence there is no ground for Petitioners to seek Power Factor Incentive
in isolation of other provisions relating to reactive energy charges and other
associated measures which have not yet been determined by the Commission.
Therefore the Commission is not inclined to accept the prayers of the Petitioners for
Power Factor Incentives without simultaneously making the Petitioner accountable
for the incidences of low power factor including the correction of lead part of power
factor whenever required.
34. On the issue of applicability of Reactive Energy Charges to Open Access consumers,
the Commission notes that Regulation 16.4 of State Grid Code Regulations, 2006
provides the necessity of Reactive Power compensation as below:
16.4 Reactive Power Compensation
16.4.1 Reactive Power compensation and/or other facilities shall be provided by

Users, as far as possible, in the low voltage systems close to the load points
thereby avoiding the need for exchange of Reactive Power to/from the
InSTS and to maintain the InSTS voltage within the specified range.
16.4.2 Line Reactors may be provided to control temporary over voltage within the
limits as set out in connection agreements.
16.4.3 The additional reactive compensation to be provided by the User shall be
indicated by State Transmission Utility in the Connection Agreement for
implementation.
16.4.4 Users shall endeavour to minimize the Reactive Power drawal at an

interchange point when the voltage at that point is below 95% of rated
voltage, and shall not inject Reactive Power when the voltage is above
105% of rated voltage. Interconnecting Transformer taps at the respective
drawal points may be changed to control the Reactive Power interchange as
per a User’s request to the State Load Despatch Centre, but only at
reasonable intervals.
.......”
35. Regulation 21 of DOA regulations, 2016 provides the applicability of Reactive Energy
charges as below:
“21. Reactive Energy Charges
21.1The methodology for payment for the reactive energy charges by an Open
Access Consumer, Generating Station or Licensee with load of 5 MW or more
shall be in accordance with the State Grid Code and the Regulations of the
Commission governing Multi-Year Tariff or relevant orders of the Commission.
21.2The reactive energy charges in respect of Open Access Consumers with load
less than 5 MW shall be calculated on Power Factor basis as may be specified
in relevant orders of the Commission.
21.3The reactive energy charges in respect of Renewable Energy Generating
Stations shall be in accordance with the charges approved by the Commission
in its relevant Tariff Orders.”
36. On the issue of rationalization of Power Factor Incentives, the Commission in its
Order dated 3 November, 2016 in Case No. 48 of 2016 has held as below:
“7.23Rationalisation of Power Factor Incentive
Directive
The Commission directs MSEDCL to study selected cases of PF (lead/lag)
incentive/penalty along with their voltage profiles, and explore the possibility of
implementing kVAh metering for selected categories. MSEDCL should submit its
study report along with case scenarios with its next Petition for Tariff
determination.
MSEDCL’s Response
The matter is under consideration and appropriate compliance is being submitted

separately.
Commission’s Ruling
As detailed in Chapter 8 of this Order, the Commission has kept the existing
incentive/penalties structure unchanged. However, MSEDCL should submit its
report with the MTR Petition.”
37. It is pertinent to note that the Distribution Licensees have filed their Petitions for Mid
Term Review of MYT for the third control period from 2016-17 to 2019-20. The
Commission notes that, MSEDCL has proposed the kVAh based billing for all HT
consumers instead of Power Factor Incentive/ Penalty. Introduction of kVAh billing
will automatically ensure the commercial settlement for the Power Factor
improvement to unity and thereof the reactive power compensation. The Commission
may take a call on the issue of kVAh billing during the Mid Term Review of MYT of
MSEDCL.
The Petitions of Spentex Industries Ltd. and CIMMCO Spinners in Case No. 136 of 2018,
IndoCount Industries Ltd. and Pranavaditya Spinning Mills in Case No. 137 of 2018,
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. in Case No. 150 of 2018, Polygenta Technologies Ltd. in
Case No. 151 of 2018 and ETCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. in Case No. 155 of 2018 stands disposed
of accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Mukesh Khullar) (Anand B. Kulkarni)
Member Chairperson

Final Order - 23.07.2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Order - 23.07.2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before the

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

(CASE No. 136 of 2018)

Spentex Industries Ltd. and CIMMCO Spinners ……..Petitioners

(CASE No. 137 of 2018)

(CASE No. 150 of 2018)

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. ……..Petitioner

CASE No. 151 of 2018

Polygenta Technologies Ltd. ……..Petitioner

CASE No. 155 of 2018

ETCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. ……..Petitioner

Appearance in Case No. 136 &137 of 2018:

Appearance in Case No. 150, 151 & 155 of 2018):

CASE No. 136 of 2018

2. Petitioners’ prayers are as follows:

3. The Petitioner states as follows:

Sr.No Range of Power Factor Power Factor Level Incentive

Power Factor Penalty- Applicable for HT-I: Industry, HT-II – Commercial,

4. In its submission dated 19 June, 2018, MSEDCL stated that:

4.1 MSEDCL raised the following issues in the present case:

A partial Open Access consumer cannot be equated to a retail consumer. While a

CASE NO. 137 of 2018:

6. Petitioner’s prayers are as follows:

7. The Petitioners states as follows:

“8.28. Incentives and Disincentives.

Sr.No Range of Power Factor Power Factor Level Incentive

CASE No. 150 of 2018

11. SCIL’s prayers are as below:

6. To permit us to make further submission, addition & alteration in this petition as

12. The Petitioner states that:

Plant Location/ Consumer No. Open Access Duration

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited

“Power Factor / Harmonics: It shall be obligatory for the Connector to maintain

Sr. No. Range of Power Factor Power factor Level Incentive

Sudarshan Chemical Industries

13. In its submission dated 22 June, 2018, MSEDCL stated that:

13.1 MSEDCL raised the following issues in the present Case:

A partial Open Access consumer cannot be equated to a retail consumer. While a

13.11 Maintaining of Power Factor is a mandatory obligation cast upon a consumer

15. PTL’s prayers are as below:

16. The Petitioner states that:

“Power Factor / Harmonics: It shall be obligatory for the Connector to maintain

Sr. No. Range of Power Factor Power factor Level Incentive

CASE No. 155 of 2018

19. ETCO’s prayers are as below:

6. To permit us to make further submission, addition & alteration in this petition as

20. The Petitioner states that:

“Power Factor / Harmonics: It shall be obligatory for the Connector to

It shall be obligatory for the Connector to control harmonics of his load at

“Power factor Incentive Applicable for HT-I :Industry, HT II - Commercial,

Sr. No. Range of Power Factor Power factor Level Incentive

S.N. Open Access charges Rs. /Unit

Commission’s Analysis and Ruling:

“56. Summary of the findings:-

12.With reference to Regulation 21 of the DOA Regulations, 2016, TPC-D has

16.4.1 Reactive Power compensation and/or other facilities shall be provided by

16.4.4 Users shall endeavour to minimize the Reactive Power drawal at an

“21. Reactive Energy Charges

The matter is under consideration and appropriate compliance is being submitted

You might also like