In a significant public hearing held in Pune, consumer activists and citizens have strongly demanded the enforcement of a regulatory order that would slash electricity bills and called for the outright rejection of a utility company's plea that seeks to increase tariffs. The digital hearing, presided over by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Merc), became a platform for widespread opposition to the proposed hike by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL).
Legal Battle Over Power Tariffs
The hearing is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal dispute concerning electricity costs for consumers across Maharashtra. The saga began on March 28, 2025, when Merc passed an order setting multi-year tariffs for the period from Financial Year 2026 to FY30, which considerably reduced power rates. Unhappy with this decision, MSEDCL filed a review petition. Subsequently, on June 25, 2025, the tribunal passed a revised order permitting the tariff increase sought by the distribution company.
This move was challenged in the Bombay High Court, which set aside the June order and sent the matter back to Merc for reconsideration. Following an appeal to the Supreme Court by concerned citizens, the apex court on November 17, 2025, directed Merc to settle the case within 12 weeks after conducting a diligent public e-hearing to gather objections and suggestions. Thursday's session in Pune was a direct result of this Supreme Court directive.
Consumers Voice Their Anguish
During the hearing, prominent voices highlighted the severe impact of the proposed hike. Activist Vivek Velankar stated that consumers across all categories are already facing a 5%-10% increase in their electricity bills due to Merc's reviewed order from June 2025. He emphasized the need to revert to the original, consumer-friendly order.
Maharashtra Legislative Council member Satej Patil argued that the increased charges MSEDCL is pursuing would be detrimental to the state's 3.5 crore consumers. He described the move as "pulling the rug from under their feet." Council member Arun Lad also attended the meeting, which notably saw no participation from any MLA or MP.
Energy experts provided a technical critique of MSEDCL's approach. Shantanu Dixit of the Prayas Energy Group pointed out that the discom is attempting to recover additional costs of approximately Rs 11,751 crore through the aggregate revenue requirement mechanism. He argued that this method, instead of the variable cost-based fuel adjustment charge model, leads to significant tariff shocks for consumers, defeating the purpose of protecting them from sudden price spikes.
Solar Policy Draws Flak
Beyond the tariff debate, activists and industry representatives also criticized recent changes to rooftop solar regulations. They targeted Merc's decision to restrict the use of banked solar energy under a revised time-of-day mechanism. Previously, consumers could utilize their banked solar power for 17 hours a day, but the new system limits this to just eight hours, reducing the financial benefit of installing solar panels.
Chinmay Kulkarni, Treasurer of the Maharashtra Solar Manufacturers Association, warned that this lack of clarity and supportive policy risks Maharashtra's position as a leading state in solar manufacturing. "Investors might move to other states," he cautioned. Furthermore, representatives from several farmers' organisations in Kolhapur raised practical issues, stating that solar pumps were failing to draw water beyond a certain depth. They urged the tribunal to implement solar pumps only in areas where they are technically viable.
The Pune hearing, led by Merc chairperson Sanjay Kumar and members Anand Limaye and Surendra Biyani, recorded 1,124 written objections to MSEDCL's review petition. Around 350 stakeholders were scheduled to present their views. This was the sixth such public hearing in Maharashtra, following similar sessions in Amravati, Nagpur, Navi Mumbai, Nashik, and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The commission is now tasked with weighing this substantial public feedback against MSEDCL's claims before issuing a final order.
