MERC dismissed 14 HT steel consumers' plea to relax MSEDCL's HT wheeling charges fixed under the 30-Mar-2020 MYT Order, upholding tariff as approved
Petition filed by M/s Sant Gyaneshwar Steels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (13) seeking relaxation from the applicable wheeling charges, levied by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. as per the Commission's Multi-Year Tariff Order dated 30 March 2020 in Case No. 322 of 2019.
14 HT (33kV) iron & steel consumers of MSEDCL, for whom power is ~60% of production cost, sought relaxation from wheeling charges for FY2020-21 and FY2021-22 as fixed in the MYT Order (Case 322/2019). They argued a 700% jump (Rs0.08 to Rs0.57/kVAh) was a tariff shock, uniform HT charging across 11/22/33kV was discriminatory, load factor/GFA assumptions were imprudent, past ARR gaps of Rs3528 Cr were being unfairly passed on, and they lacked regional subsidies (up to Rs2.05/unit) available to Vidarbha/Marathwada/Wada consumers, hurting competitiveness amid COVID-19 stress.
- Petition dismissed as not maintainable in present form; proper remedy was Appeal under Section 111 EA-2003 or a Review Petition, not a miscellaneous relaxation plea
- Wheeling charge rise is not a standalone tariff shock: total variable charge (Energy+Wheeling+FAC) for HT-Industry 33kV actually fell 10.92% (Rs8.52 to Rs7.59/unit) post-MYT Order
- Uniform wheeling charges across 11kV/22kV/33kV within HT category upheld as per MYT Regulations 2019's stated policy of consistent statewide methodology
- Assumed load factor (66%, 720 hours) and voltage-wise GFA allocation ratios upheld as reasoned, consistent with past Tariff/MTR Orders
- Recovery of past period gap of Rs3528 Cr (FY17-18 to FY19-20) via current wheeling charges upheld under 'going concern' accounting principle applicable to all current consumers
- Regional subsidy disparity and cross-category relaxation requests rejected as beyond Commission's purview (State Government's prerogative) and devoid of merit
- No relaxation granted; MYT wheeling charges (Rs0.57 to Rs0.53/kVAh, FY2020-21 to FY2024-25) continue to apply as originally notified
- Aggrieved consumers directed to pursue Appeal under Section 111 EA-2003 or Review Petition under Regulation 85, not a fresh miscellaneous petition
- For non-SOP voltage relaxation (billing-demand-based lower charges), consumers must first approach MSETCL for appropriate EHV connection and obtain MSEDCL field-officer certification of non-availability
- Existing Bulk Supply Discount (1-2% on energy+FAC) and incremental consumption rebate (Rs0.75/kVAh) remain available levers for HT-Industrial consumers to offset effective tariff
- No further modification to MYT structure for 4th Control Period; wheeling charge methodology remains fixed till FY2024-25 unless changed via proper regulatory process
- • HT/EHV C&I consumers cannot expect case-by-case relaxation from approved wheeling charges via miscellaneous petitions—only Appeal/Review routes are viable, raising the bar for challenging MYT tariff design
- • Uniform wheeling charge across 11kV/22kV/33kV within HT category is now settled policy in Maharashtra—developers should factor this into voltage-level connection planning rather than expect differentiated relief
- • Past ARR under-recoveries (Rs3528 Cr here) get loaded onto current wheeling charges regardless of when the consumer connected—new entrants/OA users inherit legacy revenue gaps
- • Regional subsidy disparities (e.g., Vidarbha/Marathwada benefits up to Rs2.05/unit) are a real competitiveness factor for C&I siting decisions in Maharashtra, and MERC will not equalize this through tariff orders—site selection should account for it explicitly
This is less a policy shift than confirmation that MERC will not entertain backdoor challenges to a reasoned MYT Order via relaxation petitions. For C&I buyers, the real signal is that wheeling charges must be read together with energy charges—net variable tariff fell despite the wheeling line-item rising sharply, so headline percentage jumps in one tariff component can mislead cost planning. Developers evaluating open-access or captive setups in MSEDCL area should model full landed tariff (wheeling+energy+cross-subsidy trends, which are declining) rather than react to isolated charge heads, and should also weigh regional subsidy gaps into site selection given MERC's clear stance that it won't equalize these via tariff relief.
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.