MERC dismissed cold storage associations' review petitions against MSEDCL's MTR tariff hike for HT/LT Agriculture (Others) category
Case filed by Navi Mumbai Cold Storage Owners Welfare Association seeking review of MSEDCL Tariff Order dated 31 March 2023 in Case No 226 of 2022.
Two cold storage associations sought review of MERC's 31 March 2023 MTR Tariff Order (Case 226/2022), alleging the Commission approved a tariff hike for HT Agriculture(Others) and LT Agriculture(Others) categories steeper than MSEDCL's public notice proposal (which showed 0% energy charge hike for FY2023-24), violating Section 64 natural justice requirements, and that the hike was computed on an incorrect base tariff (including FAC), inflating the real increase to ~39%. They sought re-determination of tariff and interim relief to continue paying old tariffs.
- Rejected both review petitions (Case 98/2023 and Case 99/2023) as lacking merit
- Held MSEDCL's public notice did disclose proposed increases in demand and wheeling charges for HT Agriculture(Others) even though energy charge hike was 0% for FY2023-24, so no natural justice violation
- Held Commission is not bound by licensee's tariff proposal and can alter it during MTR determination
- Confirmed use of existing tariff including FAC as base for computing % increase is correct and consistent methodology, not an error apparent on record
- Found no new evidence or error apparent on face of record to justify review under Regulation 28(a) of MERC (Transaction of Business) Regulations, 2022
- Noted review petitioners (esp. Maha Cold Storage) were aware of tariff hikes across categories via their own suggestions filed during MTR proceedings
- MSEDCL to continue billing HT V(B) and LT IV(C) Agriculture(Others) consumers per the 31 March 2023 Tariff Order as no stay/interim relief was granted
- No re-determination of tariff will occur; original MTR tariff schedule (FY2023-24 and FY2024-25) stands final for these categories
- Petitioners' commercial circular dated 28 April 2023 implementing the tariff continues to apply without modification
- Any further challenge would need to be pursued via appeal (APTEL) rather than review, as review remedy is now exhausted
- • Cold storage and other Agriculture(Others) HT/LT consumers in MSEDCL area must budget for the higher approved tariffs (up to ~19-20% increase on base) with no rollback via review route
- • Confirms MERC's discretion to approve tariffs higher than distribution licensee's original proposal during MTR, relevant for other consumer categories watching upcoming ARR/MTR proceedings
- • Reinforces that comparing tariff hikes must be done inclusive of prevailing FAC, affecting how C&I consumers benchmark like-for-like tariff changes
- • Signals continued cross-subsidy reduction push per National Tariff Policy 2016, meaning agriculture-linked categories will keep seeing above-inflation hikes until they approach ACoS, impacting cost planning for cold-chain/agri-processing developers
This is a procedural loss for the petitioners, not a tariff relief. MERC reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow (error apparent on record only) and cannot be used to re-argue merits already decided in a public MTR process. For C&I/agri-processing buyers, the real takeaway is that public notices with even partial charge-head increases (demand/wheeling) count as adequate disclosure — so stakeholders must scrutinize all three tariff components (energy, demand, wheeling) at consultation stage, not just headline energy charge %, to avoid being blindsided later.
Growthifye does not take responsibility for the accuracy of this information. Values are compiled from tariff orders published on the websites of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and distribution licensees (plus CEA / MoP / Grid-India), parsed automatically and shown with their source. Always verify against the signed order before any commercial decision. This one-pager is a Vidura-assisted summary of the official order; the signed order prevails.