Revenue requirement during 2008-09 (Rs Crore)

1

APresentation

onARR & Tariff Proposal of CESU for

FY 2008-09Analysis/Objections/Suggestions

February 1, 2008

ByDr. Shibalal Meher

(Consumer Counsel)Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, Bhubaneswar

2

TARIFF FILING BY LICENSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSION (FY 2008-09)

ITEMS CESU

Rev. Req. (Rs.Cr.) ( Including Reasonable Return) 1258.77

Power Purchase (MU) 5742.69

Anticipated Sale (MU) 3544.63

LT 1955.43

HT 711.85

EHT 877.35

Distribution Loss (%) 38.28

Collection Efficiency (%) 95.00

AT&C LOSS (%) 41.36

Exp. Rev.at Exist. Tariff (Net) (Rs.Cr.) 1085.66

(Exp. Rev+Misc.Rev.) at Exist. Tariff (Net) (Rs.Cr.) 1097.07

Revenue Gap ( +/- ) (Rs. Cr. ) 161.70

Previous Losses (Rs. Cr. ) 1140.47

Revenue Gap ( +/- ) (Rs. Cr. ) including past losses at Existing Tariff 1278.90

Exist.Overall Average Tariff (Net) (p/u) 299

Exist.LT Average Tariff (Net) (p/u) 258

Exist.HT Average Tariff (Net) (p/u) 365

Exist.EHT Average Tariff (Net) (p/u) 336

3

Revenue requirement during 2008-09 (Rs Crore)

Purchase of Energy 825.22

Employee Cost 167.59

R&M Expenses 58.54

A&G Expenses 29.77

Interest & financial expenses 73.98

Bad Debt 8.14

Depreciation 83.39

Legal & Auditor Cost 0.49

Reasonable Return 11.63

Total Revenue Requirement 1258.77

4

Tariff Proposal

The licensee requests the Hon’ble Commission to accept the proposal of ARR and bridge the revenue gap through either combination of grant/subsidy from the state govt., or reduction in BST and/or increase in RST in appropriate manner.

5

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL BY

CONSUMER COUNSEL

6

Revenue Gap of CESU during 2008-09(Rs in Crore)

Expenditure 1247.14

Reasonable Return 11.63

Revenue Requirement 1258.77

Revenue from Tariff 1097.07

Revenue Gap 161.70

7

Deficit Reduction

• Reduction in distribution loss

• Increase in collection efficiency

8

Deficit Reduction (Contd…)

• Reduction in distribution cost

– Employee cost

• Non allowing of reasonable return

• Reduction of bad & doubtful debts

• Collection of outstanding arrears

Growth in Sale and Purchase of Power proposed by CESU

2006-07 (MU)

2007-08 Estimated (MU)

% Change 2008-09 Proposed (MU)

% Change

LT 1480.10 1620.40 9.48 1955.43 20.68

HT 636.56 687.92 8.07 711.85 3.48

EHT 494.89 746.80 50.90 877.35 17.48

Total Sale 2611.55 3055.12 16.98 3544.63 16.02

Total Purchase

4623.66 5216.26 12.82 5742.69 10.09

Distribution loss

2012.11 2161.14 7.41 2198.06 1.71

% Loss 43.52 41.43 (-2.09) 38.28 (-3.15)

10

Distribution Loss of CESU fromFY 2005-06 to FY 2008-09

Distribution loss including sale at EHT (%)

Distribution loss excluding sale at EHT (%)

Distribution loss as per business plan

2005-06 43.0 52.88 36.0

2006-07 43.52 48.73 33.0

2007-08 (Estimated)

41.43 48.35 30.0

2008-09 (Projected)

38.28 45.18

11

Collection Efficiency (%)

Year Approved Actual/Estimated

2006-07 89.00 88.60

2007-08 92.00 95.00

2008-09 95.00

12

AT & C Loss (%)

Year Approved Actual/Estimated

2006-07 40.37 49.39

2007-08 35.60 44.35

2008-09 41.36

13

Distribution Cost of CESU (Rs in Crore)

2007-08 2008-09 % Change

Approved Estimated % Change

Employee Cost

126.14 152.94 21.25 167.59 9.58 (32.86)

R & M Cost

43.64 53.82 23.33 58.54 8.77 (34.14)

A & G Cost 14.03 26.50 88.88 29.77 12.34 (112.19)

Distribution Cost

183.81 233.26 26.90 255.90 9.71 (39.22)

14

Distribution Cost per Unit Sale of Energy by CESU During 2006-07 & 2007-08

(Paise/Unit)

2007-08 (Estimated)

2008-09 (Projected)

Employee Cost 50 47

R & M Cost 18 17

A & G Cost 09 08

Distribution Cost

77 72

15

Interest and Financial Charges (Rs Crore)

2007-08

2008-09 Difference

Interest on loan 53.53 64.34 10.81

Interest on security deposit

8.06 9.64 1.58

Total interest 61.59 73.98 12.39

16

BROAD TARIFF BROAD TARIFF RELATED ISSUES RELATED ISSUES

RAISED BY OBJECTORS RAISED BY OBJECTORS (To be addressed by (To be addressed by

CESU)CESU)

17

Issues emerge from the objections/ suggestions submitted by the Objectors

• LegalThe ARR application filed by the licensee is not tenable under law due to the following defects:– The licensee has not produced the audited accounts for FY 2005-

06 and FY 2006-07.– The licensee has filed the application to confuse the consumers

without disclosing the purpose of such filing.– The interested persons are being kept in dark and not able to file

effective objection and as such the purpose of such exercise has been frustrated and contrary to law and principle of natural justice.

– The procedure/method so adopted by the Commission be simple and inexpensive.

– The licensee has failed to provide details as required under regulations to the Commission for consideration of his application as such the application may be rejected.

18

Issues emerge from the objections (Contd..)

• Distribution Loss– The licensee has failed to arrest the high distribution

loss on account of unauthorized use of power.– The distribution losses should be calculated by

excluding EHT sale to consumers.– The declared loss by the licensee is unrealistic as a

large chunk of consumers are still unmetered and having defective meters.

– It is a common practice of the licensee to raise bogus bills at the year-end to show lower distribution loss.

Collection Efficiency– Licensee should exhibit the collection separately for

current and arrears.

19

• Pass through of Past Losses– The truing up should not be allowed for inability to meet the

distribution loss and collection efficiency targets.

– Amortization of regulatory assets may be disallowed since it is a reflection of inefficient management of the licensee.

• Arrear Collection– There is huge amount of outstanding arrears, but the licensee has

not disconnected the electric lines of the defaulters due to the willful negligence.

– Adjustment of dues of the Govt. Depts. & Govt. Undertakings against the Power Bonds are not permissible as it is not the responsibility of the GRIDCO to address the liability towards the arrear dues.


20

• Provision of Bad and Doubtful Debt– Truing up for bad & doubtful debts should be made to

take into account only such dues which are not collectable and have been written off from the books of licensee, based on audited accounts.

• Power Factor Incentive/ Power Factor Penalty– Increase of the normal power factor to 0.95 will result

in heavy additional investment by the consumers and is uncalled for.

– The practice of permitting computation of power factor incentive above 90% should continue.


21

• Cross Subsidy– The Hon’ble Commission may reduce the cross subsidy

from year to year between the subsidized and subsidizing categories.

• Quality of Services– The supply of electricity is most irregular, and the low

voltage of electricity, poor maintenance of electric line, undeclared power cuts, and frequent tripping of electricity have become the order of the day. It is moral as well as legal obligation of the licensee to maintain the feeders properly to improve the quality of power supply.


22

• Financial Issues– In the absence of unaudited balance sheet and

report of the auditors it is not possible for the objectors to make proper observation on financial matters.

• Interest towards Securitisation– The interest charges towards securitization as

well as capital of securitisation should not be passed on to the revenue requirement for tariff purposes.


23

• Computation of Load Factor– A lower load factor up to 50% may be

prescribed for the period of annual maintenance, which will be jointly decided by the licensee and the consumers.

– The guaranteed load factor of 80% should be determined on an annual basis.

– If the load factor is maintained at a level of more than 30%, the licensee may be directed to allow the concession.


24

• Tariff Issues – For determination of average cost of supply, the bulk

supply price should be considered on the basis of average cost of power procurement from different sources plus a trading margin as determined by the CERC.

– The Orders of the Hon’ble Commission determining the incentive tariff for HT & EHT consumers has resulted in increase the Cross Subsidy, which is contrary to the principle annunciated in the OERC (Terms & Conditions of Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 and the National Tariff Policy.

– For the purpose of incentive calculation, the demands recorded in hours other than off peak hours shall be the basis for calculation of incentive.


25

– The Hon’ble Commission may revert to the system of two-part tariff while approving the Bulk Supply purchase by different Distribution Licensees.

– The Licensee should submit to the Bulk Supplier the monthly demand and energy requirement. Penalty should be imposed for over drawl. The minimum demand charges should be based on 80% projected demand by the Licensee in a particular month.

– Every interruption should be considered as an interruption for a period of 30 minutes and all such periods be deleted from the total hours in a month.


26

– The demand charges may be calculated prorata if the total of such periods (causing loss of production due to interruptions) and pre-arranged shut downs availed on intimation, or statutory power cuts, exceeds 60 hours in a month.

– There is no justification of increase in the connection and reconnection charges.

– Additional levy by way of DPS is unnecessary and unreasonable. The present practice of DPS and rebate should be continued.

– To impose Demand Charges on the CPPs/ Generating Stations for emergency drawl without any back up data leads to unknown increase in SD.


27

– There is no justification to accept the prayers of the licensee regarding demand charges @200/KVA for consumers having CD more than 70 KVA through HT supply, fixed charges for LT Industrial and Public Water works, increase in connection charges, tariff for medium industry, MMFC for consumers with CD less than 110 KVA, KVAH billing for LT industrial consumers.

– In case the meter rent is withdrawn on the ground that no sales tax is applicable to the consumer, if there is no change in ownership, the licensee will have no obligation to replace the meter in time which leads to incorrect readings of the energy consumption by the use of old meters.

– The Licensee is still continuing realizing meter rent even after the recovery of the cost of meter. The Licensee be directed to return such excess cost realization.


28

• Demand Charges– Increase in demand charges for industries are very

much burdensome to consumers without increasing the reliability or quality of supply in any manner.

– It would be prudent to encourage medium industries to graduate to large industries by retaining the present demand charges.

• Railways– Hon’ble Commission may consider suitable reduction

in the proposed demand and energy charges for railway traction.

– Penalty provision on account of over drawl may be withdrawn in case of railway traction.


29

– Hon’ble Commission may allow to take power supply for traction sub-station directly from GRIDCO through OPTCL as per the tariff applicable to DISTCOs.

– Single part tariff for railway traction may be considered.– Proposal to record simultaneous maximum demand for

railway traction supply may be considered.– Railway may be exempted from payment of security

deposit. – Stipulation of power factor in case if it goes below 0.85

as against existing 0.90.– Restoration of incentive for improvement in power

factor above 0.85.– Grant of relief to railways for power supply interruption

as well as poor quality of supply.


30

• General Issues– The licensee is required to notify the consumers

24 hours before the scheduled power cut by print, electronic media and public address system.

– It is neither possible nor desirable that the consumers be made to finance the licensee to meet its obligations. The Hon’ble Commission may direct the licensee to infuse additional funds as may be required to turn around the sector.


31

– There is ample scope for the licensee to earn substantial miscellaneous revenue through advertisements and communication, which will go a long way in reducing the burden on the consumers.

– The Hon’ble Commission may reject the prayer of the Applicant to allow higher ARR or increase in the RST for the year 2008-09. On the other hand, reduce the RST based on the lower distribution loss.


32

Revenue requirement during 2008-09 (Rs Crore)

Documents

tariff net rs

distribution cost of

distribution lossthe

revenue gap rs

distribution losses

lower distribution loss

high distribution loss

overall average tariff