RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION JAIPUR

 

 

In the matter of

Distribution Code

 

Proposed by:

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jodhpur

 

Bench of the Commission:

 

Mr Shanti Prasad, Member

Mr S. M. Dharendra, Member

 

Present:

     

Proposers

1.      Mr R. P. Goyal for Jaipur Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur

2.      Mr K. C. Modi for Ajmer Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer

3.      Mr P. K. Gupta for Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jodhpur

 

Objectors

None

 

Date of order                                                                             11th  June, 2003

 

ORDER

 

1.      The Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act- 1999 provides under section 9(h) for the Commission to regulate operation of power system within the State.  In terms of section 18 of the said act, the Commission has granted licences to following companies for distribution and supply of electricity within their respective areas of supply:

i)        Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur (JVVNL),

ii)       Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer (AVVNL) &

iii)     Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Jodhpur (Jd VVNL).

 

2.      As per condition 13 of the licence granted, each licencee was required to submit to the Commission for its approval, a draft of distribution code within a period of three months from 1st May, 2001, the date of commencement of the licence. 

3.      In pursuance to the above licence condition, above Vitran Nigams ('Nigams') furnished draft of ‘General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges cum Distribution Code’ in the month of Sept. 01. The documents were found lacking in respect of distribution planning & operation and construction & maintenance practices. The Vitran Nigams were intimated accordingly. The earlier document was considered as ‘General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges’. First drafts of distribution code were then received in the month of Feb 2002, which were examined, by the Commission and observations/ comments were sent to the Vitran Nigams in the month of March, 2002 for revising the drafts accordingly.

 

4.      The revised drafts alongwith comments were received from the Vitran Nigams in the month of July, 2002, which were still found lacking, so a common draft was prepared by the Commission in the month of Oct, 2002 and sent to each Vitran Nigam with an advice to have further discussion with the Member of the Commission by 15th Nov, 2002 before finalisation. Only Dy. CE (Comml.), JVVNL, Jaipur had discussion on the draft.  Considering the same, Commission formulated amendments and all the Vitran Nigams were advised vide Commission's letter dt 11.12.2002 to incorporate the amendments in the draft code, get its Hindi translation and publish notice in two leading state-level Hindi newspapers and one leading National level English newspaper (not later than 6th January 2003) inviting suggestions/ comments from all stakeholders on the distribution code upto 5th Feb, 2003.  These notices were published between 2nd to 7th Jan. 2003 in the news papers as under: -

 

Name of Discom

JVVNL, Jaipur

AVVNL, Ajmer

Jd VVNL, Jodhpur

Rajasthan Patrika

05.01.03

-

02.01.03

Dainik Bhaskar

05.01.03

06.01.03

02.01.03

Dainik Navjyoti

-

04.01.03

-

Hindustan Times

-

07.01.03

03.01.03

Times of India

05.01.03

-

-

 

5.      In response to these notices the Commission received only two objections/suggestions on draft proposed by AVVNL from the following: -

i)     Mr Surendra Lodha, Ajmer Zila Laghu Udyog Sangh, Ajmer in reference to notice published by Ajmer Vitran Nigam, and

ii)    Mr R. V. Maheshwari, RIICO colony, Beawar in reference to notice published by Ajmer Vitran Nigam.

 

6.      Objections/suggestions received were sent to AVVNL for their reply directly to the objectors under intimation to the Commission. Ajmer Vitran Nigam made the compliance accordingly. This bench was constituted to hear the objections/suggestions and decide the distribution code.

 

7.      The Commission fixed the date of hearing on 20th May, 2003 and served notices to the objectors, proposers and RVPN along with SLDC-Incharge. 

 

8.      On the appointed date, the representatives of the Nigams briefed the code & replies given by the objectors.  No representative from RVPN or SLDC was present.  No objector was present during the course of hearing. However, Mr R. V. Maheshwari came to the Commission after the hearing was over and furnished a rejoinder to the reply given by Ajmer Vitran Nigam for the consideration of the Commission. The Bench decided to consider the said document.

 

9.      In passing this order, the Bench has considered the objections (including aforesaid rejoinder) & the submission by the Vitran Nigams.

 

Consideration of objections/suggestions

 

10. Review panel

Mr Lodha suggested that one member from the small-scale industrial consumers should also be incorporated in review panel  (vide clause 6) to represent main consumer group.  While disagreeing to this suggestion, Ajmer Vitran Nigam stated that there are several other categories of consumers who may also like to be nominated.

 

The 'distribution code' covers planning & operations and construction & maintenance practices for the distribution system. These mainly involve Nigam's own functions & their interaction with generation & transmission utilities. Consumer's input is limited. The Commission, therefore, considers provision of one member to be nominated by State government to represent main consumer groups as adequate.

 

11. Non-compliance of standards

Mr Maheshwari stated that the Indian Electricity Act/rules, General Conditions of Supply are not complete, as a result human safety has been endangered. Further construction & maintenance practices adopted in the field are not in line with the requirement of the relevant specifications.  The Nigam does not take care for augmentation of the distribution system, even the capacity of the conductor and substation transformers are not augmented as per the requirement.  The consumers are deprived of proper voltage during single phasing operations, which is in contravention of prevailing provisions under Indian Electricity Rules-1945. He expressed about lack of testing facilities & competent manpower and technical capabilities of the management.

 

Ajmer Vitran Nigam had denied all allegations stating that every care is taken for augmentation of works as per requirement and proper voltage is also maintained.  Mr Maheshwari, through his rejoinder, reiterate his point that the Nigam is not following the standards.

 

The Commission is of the view that remedies of non-compliance of Act/rules are provided therein. General Conditions of Supply is under consideration of the Commission, and any aspects of General Conditions of Supply can be brought out to the Commission. Though safety aspects are covered under IE rules, even then realising its importance, Commission is bringing out a separate ‘Safety Code’ & objections, if any ,can be raised on it. Other aspects directly or indirectly relate to standard of performance & any deviation/non compliance can be brought out before the Commission. The Commission realises that technical deficiency of the system cannot be set right overnight as it involves capital investment, yet the aspects raised by the objectors should be kept in view by discoms in distribution system planning. 

 

12. General objections

Following are the objections/suggestions, which are not related to the proposed distribution code:

 

Mr Lodha requested the Commission to also consider the comments/suggestions given by the Sangh on the drafts of General Conditions of Supply, Standard of Performance, Charter of Consumers' Rights, Metering Code for Distribution and Grid Code. No specific aspect relevant to this code was cited. While finalising any document the Commission has considered/will consider the objections/comments made on that document. Objectors are advised to raise objection against appropriate document or seek review of any of its provisions.

 

Mr Maheshwari also brought the following aspects: -

i)        Complaint centres have been abolished in rural areas & reduced in urban areas, manpower is being reduced day by day, resulting in detoriation of the quality of supply & services including emergency conditions.

ii)       Feeder metering has been completed and results can be achieved to minimise the losses.

iii)     No levy may be permitted to be imposed in the form of transformer rental and transformation losses on MIP consumers on connections released before dt 7.8.90.

iv)   Industrial tariff should be reviewed and considered on a lower side.

v)     Fixed charges in tariff may not be charged.

 

13. The suggestions/comments at no. (i) relates to standard of performance, which already stands finalised & any deterioration to SoP can be brought before the Commission. S.No. (ii) is only a suggestion. S.No. (iii) relates to General Conditions of Supply & may be raised by Shri Maheshwari when the same is finalised. S.No. (iv) & (v) pertains to tariff for supply of electricity & objector, if considered appropriate, may raise the same when tariff petition is filed by discom(s). The Commission, therefore, does not deal  with the above issues in this order, as the same are not related to the distribution code under reference.

 

14. In view of the forgoing paras, the draft of distribution code is approved without any amendment. The distribution code will be issued by the respective Vitran Nigams within one month along with Hindi translation.  The distribution code shall be made applicable from its date of issue by the respective Vitran Nigam.

 

15. Copy of order will be supplied to all proposers, objectors and RVPN.

 

16. Signed on 11th  June, 2003.

 

 

 

(S.M.Dharendra)                                             (Shanti Prasad)

      Member                                                           Member