MERC dismissed MSEDCL's review petition seeking exclusion of POA consumer demand from Base TCR or retention of POA transmission charges instead of remitting to STU
Case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. seeking review of Commission’s Order dated 31 March 2023 in Case No. 239 of 2022 in the matter of Truing-up of Intra-State Transmission System Tariff (InSTS) for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, Provisional Truing-up of FY 2022-23 and determination of revised InSTS Tariff for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25
MSEDCL filed a review petition under Section 94(1)(f) of EA 2003 against MERC's 31 March 2023 MTR Order (Case 239/2022) on InSTS tariff truing-up. MSEDCL sought either exclusion of Partial Open Access (POA) consumer demand (~1900 MW, 8-10% of its total demand) from its Base TCR/CPD-NCPD computation, or alternatively, permission to retain ~Rs.350 Cr of transmission charges collected from POA consumers instead of remitting to STU, claiming double financial burden and an annual net impact of ~Rs.35 Cr on MSEDCL and its consumers. AEML-D and TPC-D supported the petition on similar grounds.
- Dismissed MSEDCL's review petition in entirety as not maintainable under Regulation 28 of MERC (Transaction of Business and Fees and Charges) Regulations, 2022
- Held there is no error apparent on the face of record and no new fact was placed that was unavailable earlier
- Ruled that POA consumer demand must continue to be included in Distribution Licensee's Base TCR/CPD-NCPD as per MYT Regulations 2019 and State Grid Code 2020 scheduling provisions
- Directed that Distribution Licensees shall continue to remit transmission charges collected from POA consumers to STU (not retain them), consistent with Regulation 14.1(v) of DOA Regulations, 2019 and prior Order in Case 361 of 2018
- Confirmed there is no double-counting/double-payment as the POA charges remitted are deducted from TTSC, benefiting all Distribution Licensees' consumers via reduced transmission tariff
- Rejected MSEDCL's claim of increased TTSC share being due to POA inclusion, clarifying it stemmed from actual vs projected Base TCR variance (Para 3.3, Table 4 of impugned Order)
- Impugned MTR Order (Case 239 of 2022) dated 31 March 2023 stands as-is; no modification to InSTS tariff methodology
- Distribution Licensees must continue remitting POA transmission charges to STU in the immediate next billing cycle upon collection
- STU to maintain and publish monthly, distribution-licensee-wise statements of such POA remittances along with quarterly reconciliation on its website
- Any review/revision of Base TCR determination principles for POA consumers can only be taken up for the next MYT Control Period, not via MTR/review
- AEML-D's related appeal (Appeal No. 12 of 2017) on similar POA transmission charge issue remains pending before APTEL
- No further compliance timeline set; matter closed with dismissal of the petition
- • No change for open access users: POA consumers continue to pay transmission charges to their Distribution Licensee, which are then remitted to STU and net off against TTSC, so no additional levy is created by this order
- • C&I open access/POA consumers' demand will continue to be counted within the host Distribution Licensee's forecasted load and Base TCR computation, reinforcing predictability of transmission charge treatment
- • Distribution Licensees (including MSEDCL, TPC-D, AEML-D) cannot pass on any relief from this dispute to their consumers by retaining POA charges, so no reduction in wheeling/open-access cost structure should be expected from this order
- • RE/OA developers relying on partial open access in MSEDCL, TPC-D, AEML-D areas gain regulatory certainty that the current POA transmission charge remittance mechanism is stable and unlikely to change mid-control-period
This is a technical inter-utility dispute over cost allocation, not a tariff or open-access policy change—C&I/OA users see no direct financial impact. The order reinforces that POA charge remittance to STU is settled practice, giving open-access developers confidence that mid-control-period disputes between DISCOMs won't disrupt their OA cost structure. Watch APTEL's pending ruling on AEML-D's Appeal 12/2017, which could still reopen this issue for the next MYT control period from FY2025-26 onward.
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.