MERC dismisses TPC-D's review petition against its 6-Mar-2024 tariff order on all 5 grounds, but orders fresh submission on standby-charge double counting
Petition of the Tata Power Company Limited – Distribution (TPC-D) seeking review of the Tariff Order dated 6 March 2024 in Case No. 237 of 2023
TPC-D filed a review petition on 28 March 2024 under Section 94(1)(f) of the EA 2003 and Regulation 28 of MERC's 2022 Transaction of Business Regulations, challenging the Tariff Order dated 6 March 2024 (Case 237/2023) covering truing-up of ARR for FY2022-23, provisional truing-up for FY2023-24 and revised ARR/tariff for FY2024-25. TPC-D sought reconsideration of five issues it said were errors apparent on record and were driving a steep tariff hike, including non-adjustment of Rs 1014 crore CSS recoverable from Indian Railways, non-deferment of 50% of the wire-business past gap, treatment of MCGM access charges, a standby-charges computation error, and a metering charge discrepancy.
- Rejected TPC-D's claim to offset Rs 202 crore (out of Rs 1014.3 crore total CSS with carrying cost) recoverable from Indian Railways against the revenue gap, citing lack of documentary proof of invoicing/payment; liberty given to claim in next tariff petition
- Rejected deferment of 50% of TPC-D's wire-business past revenue gap to a future year, holding NTP/Electricity Rules 2024 permit regulatory assets only in natural calamity situations and consistency with AEML-D/BEST treatment must be maintained
- Rejected treating Rs 4.74 crore MCGM access charges (FY2022-23) as uncontrollable expenditure, holding truing-up for that period was already completed and same principle was applied in past years
- On standby charges, held TPC-D cannot use review to disown its own earlier submission (Rs 22.65 crore adjustment) that the Commission had accepted; however flagged prima facie double accounting and directed a detailed submission in the upcoming MYT proceedings
- Rejected the meter-charge correction claim (Rs 5,700 vs approved Rs 4,700), noting the lower charge was a conscious decision to align TPC-D with parallel licensee AEML-D
- Overall: Review Petition in Case No. 67 of 2024 dismissed in entirety
- Review Petition (Case 67 of 2024) stands dismissed with immediate effect from date of this order (31 Dec 2024)
- TPC-D directed to make detailed submissions on the alleged double counting of standby-charge refunds/adjustments in its upcoming MYT (Multi-Year Tariff) proceedings
- TPC-D may resubmit CSS recovery claim from Indian Railways with documentary evidence (invoices/payment confirmation) in its next tariff petition, as already permitted in the original order
- No change to tariffs, ARR figures, gap computation or schedule of charges approved in the 6 March 2024 order — all remain as originally determined
- No appeal was filed before APTEL against the original 6 March 2024 order on the issues raised in this review; that order's findings stand undisturbed
- • No tariff relief from this order — TPC-D's approved FY2024-25 tariffs, ARR and revenue gap recovery mechanism (including full one-year recovery of wire-business past gap) remain unchanged; C&I consumers on TPC-D network should not expect any downward revision from this review
- • Open-access consumers, particularly large users like Indian Railways, should watch TPC-D's next tariff petition where CSS recovery (Rs 1014 crore) may resurface with evidence, potentially affecting future cross-subsidy surcharge computations
- • The unresolved 'double accounting' flag on standby charges could affect future ARR/tariff computations in TPC-D's upcoming MYT filing — worth monitoring for potential future tariff adjustments (refund or additional recovery)
- • Confirms MERC's consistent stance against creating regulatory assets/deferred recovery absent natural calamity — C&I consumers on any Mumbai discom should expect full-year recovery of approved gaps rather than spread-out tariff smoothing
This is essentially a compliance/procedural order — MERC held firm that review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-litigate matters already reasoned out, dismissing TPC-D's substantive asks (CSS offset, gap deferment, uncontrollable cost treatment, meter charge) largely on grounds of insufficient evidence or lack of new facts. The one actionable outcome — the standby-charges double-counting flag — is procedural and pushed to the next MYT cycle. For C&I buyers on TPC-D's network, near-term tariffs are unaffected; the real signal is that MERC will not entertain regulatory-asset-style deferrals outside calamity situations, reinforcing predictable but front-loaded tariff impacts when past gaps are trued up.
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.