In a significant public hearing held in Nagpur on Saturday, energy experts, consumer advocates, and solar industry representatives united in strong opposition to a review petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL). The hearing, conducted by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), saw stakeholders term the petition as both illegal and detrimental to consumers, primarily due to the sharp increase in power tariffs it triggered.
Legal Challenge and Consumer Burden
Out of the 110 stakeholders who formally submitted their objections, approximately 16 presented their arguments orally. Leading the charge was prominent power expert and former independent director of the MSEB holding company, RB Goenka. He emerged as one of the most vocal critics, directly questioning the legal validity of MSEDCL's plea.
Goenka pointed out a critical inconsistency: consumers are still receiving bills based on a tariff order that was set aside by the Bombay High Court. He argued that the review petition, which resulted in MERC's order in June, led to a nearly 20% increase in tariffs. He stressed that this drastic change did not fall within the statutory scope of a review, which is typically meant for correcting clerical or arithmetic mistakes.
Citing paragraph 25 of the High Court's judgment, Goenka noted that the court had clearly ruled the impugned order could not be considered a valid review. He highlighted the sheer volume of the documents to underscore his point: the original multi-year tariff (MYT) order issued on March 28 was 95 pages long, while the subsequent review order with annexures spanned 86 pages, indicating it was far from a limited correction.
He further referenced Supreme Court directions, stating that the apex court had only allowed the contested June tariff order to continue for a protection period of 4 weeks from the HC's December 3 order. "That protection period has expired. From December onwards, billing should have reverted to the tariff under the original March order," Goenka submitted.
Contentious Proposals and Solar Sector Alarm
Goenka also took strong exception to the language used by MSEDCL in its petition, describing it as "arrogant and unethical." He quoted portions where the utility questioned MERC's authority to appoint expert committees and accused the Commission of obstructing investment plans.
On the matter of capital expenditure, Goenka defended MERC's decision to disallow nearly Rs 55,000 crore of proposed capex. He asserted that the Commission is fully empowered under the Electricity Act and MYT regulations to grant or deny such approvals.
Another expert, Sudhir Budhay, raised serious concerns regarding proposed changes affecting rooftop solar and renewable energy consumers. He strongly opposed the plan to levy Grid Support Charges (GSC), stating that existing regulations permit such charges only after Maharashtra achieves a rooftop solar capacity of 5,000 MW. Budhay accused MSEDCL of failing to provide verified data to prove this threshold had been met.
Budhay warned that other proposed restrictions, particularly on energy banking and time-of-day (TOD) adjustments, would severely impact the financial viability of existing solar projects. Since solar power is generated mainly during the day, limiting banking to the same time slot and month would effectively nullify earlier incentives. He urged MERC to ensure any such changes apply only to future projects with ample notice, to maintain regulatory certainty. These concerns were echoed by several solar businesses and industry associations present at the hearing.
Citizens Denied a Voice
The public hearing, which began at 10:30 AM, was not without controversy regarding public participation. Many citizens were reportedly not allowed to speak because they had not registered before the hearing commenced. MSEDCL contractor Mahendra Jichkar pointed out that this was the first instance he had witnessed where citizens were barred from speaking. He stated that when he asked MERC officials to provide any written rule or public notice justifying this restriction, no such document was produced.
In response to the arguments presented, a MERC official stated that the Commission had taken note of all the issues raised and would address them in its final order. The outcome of this hearing is now keenly awaited by lakhs of electricity consumers across Maharashtra.
