Metered domestic consumers, even small, unfairly treated by JKSERC
Daya Sagar Sharma
November 21, 2010
Jammu and Kashmir is a welfare state. All consumer categories can not be discussed in detail here. I would make some references only to domestic consumer metered power supply.
The most funny conduct has been that even the small domestic consumers have been taxed more after the THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION { JKSERC } came into existence instead of enforcing work efficiency on the distribution company { Power Development Department PDD}. Rather the small domestic consumer has been more irrationally treated.
To quote in 2005 the consumption unit slabs and tariff for domestic metered consumers were better than what they were in 2007 /2008 .Earlier the highest rate per unit for metered domestic connections was applicable after consumption of 400 units but now the same is applicable after 200 units. A consumer with one Kw connected load who consumed 400 units per month in 2005 was to pay Rs.616 {including 22 % percent Electricity Duty }. The same consumer in 2007 /2008 had to pay Rs.814 and in 2010 Rs. 941. A small 400 unit consumer pays 52 percent more in 2010 than what he paid in 2005 / 2006 . Where as those domestic consumers who consumed 1000 units /pm in 2005 paid only 31 percent more in 2010.Where as those who consume still large quantity of power say 2000 units /pm in 2005 paid Rs.4520 and in 2010 they pay Rs..5723. In other words those who consumed 2000 units per month in 2005 paid only 26.6 percent more in 2010 where as those who consumed 400 units pay 52 percent more in 2010.It is obligatory on the part of government to accommodate the min needs of low strata people { a domestic consumer who consumes lesser power surely falls in lower strata }. But PDD department operating under the vigilance / control of JKSERC appears to have ignored this principle as would apply to a welfare state like India..
J&K Cabinet had approved some amendments in relation to the Jammu and Kashmir Electricity Act of Samvat 1997 on 30 December 2004. Then people had hoped that the intentions were to save the common man from undue burden of undue taxes and losses due to inefficiency. The then Minister for Finance and Planning Muzaffar Hussain Baig had said that the mounting deficit in the revenue from power is not only huge burden on exchequer but is also adding to debt liabilities. The Minister had disclosed that the State would spend 1900 crore rupees on purchase of power from northern grid during 2004/05 where as the collection from power sales had till then been only Rs.320 crore rupees { including Rs.250 Cr as collected from government department }. The position has not much changed since then. In 2004 the power meters in many government buildings, government quarters & bungalows allotted to government staff ( even superior service officers) did not meter and billing was done on minimum charges basis. The position is not much different in 2010. Why can not these meters run ? Where does lie the logic of those who point fingers on the hook load from the juggies and slums dwellers to justify their as high as 65 percent TD losses ?
THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION was constituted under ACT NO: VIII OF 2000. Among other things the objectives and functions included {i} rationalization of electricity tariff,{ii} determining the tariff for electricity {iii} promoting competition, efficiency and economy in the activities {iv} aiding and advising the Government, in matters concerning electricity distribution and supply {v} to setting standards for the electricity industry including quality,{ vi} continuity and reliability of service; {vii} promoting competitiveness / participation of private sector and {viii} ensuring fair deal to the consumers.
A honest careful review of the performance of the JKSERC over the years would fetch no much appreciations. JKSERC had to monitor only one supplier. The JKSERC has in a way worked like a limb of JK Power development Department { JKPDD}. Had it exercised its statutory authority and obligations the performance of the JKPDD { a sole licensee for transmission and distribution in the State of J & K } would not have been that dismal year after year atleast after 2005. How far JKSERC has succeeded in {i} ensuring a fair deal to the consumers{ii} determining truthful tariff {iii} promoting efficiency and economy in the activities of the PDD {iv} professionally advising the Government in matters distribution , {v} continuity and reliability of service and {v} rationalization of electricity tariff could be questioned.,
As per JK State Power Development Department data in 2008/09 the total number of consumers was 12,27,435 { connections } and the connected load was 1357.11 MW. For 2009/10 the total connections projected were 12,70,432 with connected load as 1,435.38 MW. For 2010/11 133400 total connections with 1507 MW connected load have been estimated. Taking an average family of 5 members per domestic connection there should be atleast 24 to 25 Lakh families in JK. Therefore if we go by the PDD data , then nearly 50 percent of JK State domestic house hold is not served with power supply { it is not believable}. Surely No doubt there are reasons to raise fingers on the working of the JK State Power Development department. But JKSERC too can not escape the responsibilities since the situation is very very grave. But available information does not show that JKSERC is that serious on such issues..
Transmission and Distribution Losses { TD Losses } approved by JKSERC for 2007/08 were 61.9 % and for 2008/09 TD it was 61.31 % { PDD raised it to 65.78 % in revised proposals}. For 2009-10 TD losses were quoted as 63.60. What has been the JKSERC doing any body could question. But instead JKSERC has accepted PDD formulae for accounting the so unrealistic TD losses for determining the cost of sales { cost of power to the department to be used for working out sale price}..
It had been pleaded { for 2010/2011 } by PDD that against the cost of Rs.6.97 per unit to the department the average cost recovered by the department was just Rs. 2.34 per unit. JK ESRC reworked the average recovered cost as Rs.2.42 per unit. But so strangely at the same time the overall average per unit cost of sales { power cost to PDD} was also worked as Rs. 7.05 per unit by JKSERC. Imagine average purchase cost as just Rs 2.43 per unit and the sales / handling overheads as Rs 4.62. per unit { 192 percent }.Who would allow it?. Why should the consumer pay for the in efficiency ? Why did not the JKSERC recommend to the government for putting financial riders on the performance of the PDD staff { at individual levels} relating it to transmission losses ? How would JKSERC justify its role?.
The scheme of minimum charges as levied for the contract domestic load too needs review. Instead even re naming as service charges / demand charges could be considered. The present system of minimum charges /Kw is putting the metered consumer to disadvantage. Although the minimum charges have been reduced after 2005 from Rs. 120 /Kw to Rs.40/ Kw with the intervention of JKSERC for domestic metered supply but still review is needed. Some consumers suffer when they are away from their home for longer periods. The other disadvantage is that the consumer makes efforts to keep his contract load minimum. This way the true demand load estimation of PDD goes faulty and hence the projections / planning. So the min charges / service charges could be reviewed for further reduction ( Rs.15 to 20 per Kw}..
In case the JKSERC can not enforce discipline in the power supply and watch the interest of the consumer as well as the State the very purpose of creation of JKSERC is lost. Rather the Commission´s establishment itself becomes a burden on the state exchequer. Incase the serving department {PDD} can not improve it´s efficiency, why should the consumer pay for inefficiency?. In case the politicians had any vote bank interests that came in the way of the enforcement staff of PDD, the JKSERC should have asked the government to meet the short fall from other sources instead of sending the message that the power is being supplied at heavy subsidy to the consumers. Where as government actually is subsidizing the non performance of the PDD. . But since the losses / leakages are as high as 60 to 65 percent tough action at the administrative level is the immediate need
Ofcourse the PDD officers exposed to the public wrath should be provided with effective judicial powers . No doubt under prevailing circumstances personal security staff too need be provided to PDD officers in their offices as well as while on out door duty. . No doubt for social awareness Simply accusing the electric inspectors/ meter readers too does not absolve the common citizen of their responsibility. Voluntary organizations could be involved at social levels.
( (*Daya Sagar is a senior coloumnist on Jammu &Kashmir Affairs, dayasagr45 @yahoo.com )
The most funny conduct has been that even the small domestic consumers have been taxed more after the THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION { JKSERC } came into existence instead of enforcing work efficiency on the distribution company { Power Development Department PDD}. Rather the small domestic consumer has been more irrationally treated.
To quote in 2005 the consumption unit slabs and tariff for domestic metered consumers were better than what they were in 2007 /2008 .Earlier the highest rate per unit for metered domestic connections was applicable after consumption of 400 units but now the same is applicable after 200 units. A consumer with one Kw connected load who consumed 400 units per month in 2005 was to pay Rs.616 {including 22 % percent Electricity Duty }. The same consumer in 2007 /2008 had to pay Rs.814 and in 2010 Rs. 941. A small 400 unit consumer pays 52 percent more in 2010 than what he paid in 2005 / 2006 . Where as those domestic consumers who consumed 1000 units /pm in 2005 paid only 31 percent more in 2010.Where as those who consume still large quantity of power say 2000 units /pm in 2005 paid Rs.4520 and in 2010 they pay Rs..5723. In other words those who consumed 2000 units per month in 2005 paid only 26.6 percent more in 2010 where as those who consumed 400 units pay 52 percent more in 2010.It is obligatory on the part of government to accommodate the min needs of low strata people { a domestic consumer who consumes lesser power surely falls in lower strata }. But PDD department operating under the vigilance / control of JKSERC appears to have ignored this principle as would apply to a welfare state like India..
J&K Cabinet had approved some amendments in relation to the Jammu and Kashmir Electricity Act of Samvat 1997 on 30 December 2004. Then people had hoped that the intentions were to save the common man from undue burden of undue taxes and losses due to inefficiency. The then Minister for Finance and Planning Muzaffar Hussain Baig had said that the mounting deficit in the revenue from power is not only huge burden on exchequer but is also adding to debt liabilities. The Minister had disclosed that the State would spend 1900 crore rupees on purchase of power from northern grid during 2004/05 where as the collection from power sales had till then been only Rs.320 crore rupees { including Rs.250 Cr as collected from government department }. The position has not much changed since then. In 2004 the power meters in many government buildings, government quarters & bungalows allotted to government staff ( even superior service officers) did not meter and billing was done on minimum charges basis. The position is not much different in 2010. Why can not these meters run ? Where does lie the logic of those who point fingers on the hook load from the juggies and slums dwellers to justify their as high as 65 percent TD losses ?
THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION was constituted under ACT NO: VIII OF 2000. Among other things the objectives and functions included {i} rationalization of electricity tariff,{ii} determining the tariff for electricity {iii} promoting competition, efficiency and economy in the activities {iv} aiding and advising the Government, in matters concerning electricity distribution and supply {v} to setting standards for the electricity industry including quality,{ vi} continuity and reliability of service; {vii} promoting competitiveness / participation of private sector and {viii} ensuring fair deal to the consumers.
A honest careful review of the performance of the JKSERC over the years would fetch no much appreciations. JKSERC had to monitor only one supplier. The JKSERC has in a way worked like a limb of JK Power development Department { JKPDD}. Had it exercised its statutory authority and obligations the performance of the JKPDD { a sole licensee for transmission and distribution in the State of J & K } would not have been that dismal year after year atleast after 2005. How far JKSERC has succeeded in {i} ensuring a fair deal to the consumers{ii} determining truthful tariff {iii} promoting efficiency and economy in the activities of the PDD {iv} professionally advising the Government in matters distribution , {v} continuity and reliability of service and {v} rationalization of electricity tariff could be questioned.,
As per JK State Power Development Department data in 2008/09 the total number of consumers was 12,27,435 { connections } and the connected load was 1357.11 MW. For 2009/10 the total connections projected were 12,70,432 with connected load as 1,435.38 MW. For 2010/11 133400 total connections with 1507 MW connected load have been estimated. Taking an average family of 5 members per domestic connection there should be atleast 24 to 25 Lakh families in JK. Therefore if we go by the PDD data , then nearly 50 percent of JK State domestic house hold is not served with power supply { it is not believable}. Surely No doubt there are reasons to raise fingers on the working of the JK State Power Development department. But JKSERC too can not escape the responsibilities since the situation is very very grave. But available information does not show that JKSERC is that serious on such issues..
Transmission and Distribution Losses { TD Losses } approved by JKSERC for 2007/08 were 61.9 % and for 2008/09 TD it was 61.31 % { PDD raised it to 65.78 % in revised proposals}. For 2009-10 TD losses were quoted as 63.60. What has been the JKSERC doing any body could question. But instead JKSERC has accepted PDD formulae for accounting the so unrealistic TD losses for determining the cost of sales { cost of power to the department to be used for working out sale price}..
It had been pleaded { for 2010/2011 } by PDD that against the cost of Rs.6.97 per unit to the department the average cost recovered by the department was just Rs. 2.34 per unit. JK ESRC reworked the average recovered cost as Rs.2.42 per unit. But so strangely at the same time the overall average per unit cost of sales { power cost to PDD} was also worked as Rs. 7.05 per unit by JKSERC. Imagine average purchase cost as just Rs 2.43 per unit and the sales / handling overheads as Rs 4.62. per unit { 192 percent }.Who would allow it?. Why should the consumer pay for the in efficiency ? Why did not the JKSERC recommend to the government for putting financial riders on the performance of the PDD staff { at individual levels} relating it to transmission losses ? How would JKSERC justify its role?.
The scheme of minimum charges as levied for the contract domestic load too needs review. Instead even re naming as service charges / demand charges could be considered. The present system of minimum charges /Kw is putting the metered consumer to disadvantage. Although the minimum charges have been reduced after 2005 from Rs. 120 /Kw to Rs.40/ Kw with the intervention of JKSERC for domestic metered supply but still review is needed. Some consumers suffer when they are away from their home for longer periods. The other disadvantage is that the consumer makes efforts to keep his contract load minimum. This way the true demand load estimation of PDD goes faulty and hence the projections / planning. So the min charges / service charges could be reviewed for further reduction ( Rs.15 to 20 per Kw}..
In case the JKSERC can not enforce discipline in the power supply and watch the interest of the consumer as well as the State the very purpose of creation of JKSERC is lost. Rather the Commission´s establishment itself becomes a burden on the state exchequer. Incase the serving department {PDD} can not improve it´s efficiency, why should the consumer pay for inefficiency?. In case the politicians had any vote bank interests that came in the way of the enforcement staff of PDD, the JKSERC should have asked the government to meet the short fall from other sources instead of sending the message that the power is being supplied at heavy subsidy to the consumers. Where as government actually is subsidizing the non performance of the PDD. . But since the losses / leakages are as high as 60 to 65 percent tough action at the administrative level is the immediate need
Ofcourse the PDD officers exposed to the public wrath should be provided with effective judicial powers . No doubt under prevailing circumstances personal security staff too need be provided to PDD officers in their offices as well as while on out door duty. . No doubt for social awareness Simply accusing the electric inspectors/ meter readers too does not absolve the common citizen of their responsibility. Voluntary organizations could be involved at social levels.
( (*Daya Sagar is a senior coloumnist on Jammu &Kashmir Affairs, dayasagr45 @yahoo.com )
Print
Email
