Dear Sir,

As per our telecon,We are happy to inform you that Eureka Forbes Institute of
Environment has been working to promote Rain Water Harvesting for the last 4
years. During these 4 years we have enabled Individuals, Housing Societies,
Organizations & Villages to harness Rain Water for their use. There is now much
more awareness about the benefits of Rain Water Harvesting and we will be happy
to work alongside you in your efforts.

Eureka Forbes Institute of Environment is providing following services:

1.       Education: Incase you require us to meet with the members of the
Housing Society or community to explain what Rain Water Harvesting is about – we
undertake this as part of our education Programme. We have conducted more than
400 awareness programmes in this manner and have also been invited by bodies
like BCCI, Rotary Club, Lions Club, etc as well as Housing Society Federations
and Corporates.

2.       Technical Consultancy- Realizing that consultants charge exorbitant
rates we provide an economical alternative to people like you who are interested
in getting the best services and techniques at affordable value.

3.       Implementation: We are not in to implementation of Rain Water
Harvesting Systems. However we have witnessed the work of a number of
contractors and can support you by way of identifying and deploying them at the
time of your implementations.

While we provide these Services without charging commercial rates, we expect the
beneficiaries to contribute in some measure to promotion of Rain Water
Harvesting.

For Housing Societies we request a token amount of Rs. 1,000 to Rs.10,000/-

In order to support our work and popularize Rain Water Harvesting concept we
insist on an awareness board to be put up once the structure is in place that
states" We practice Rain Water Harvesting thanks to the Technical Support from
Eureka Forbes Institute of Environment"

Contact Eureka Forbes Institute of Environment at 022-32525042

Our efforts have resulted in savings of more than 200 million litres of Rain
Water annually. Some of the sites are

Sunshine Society, Raheja Vihat, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai
L&T, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai
Ma Niketan Institute for underprivileged children, Thane, Maharashtra
Dongari Village, Alibaug, Raigad, Maharashtra

Our objective is to help achieve the goal of 1 Billion Litres of Rain Water
Harvesting saved annually.

Please see attached file for the questionnaire on your society. Please fill in
the details and send the same back to us. On receipt of the same, on a mutually
convenient date and time we can make a visit to the site for survey of the site
conditions from the point of view of rain water harvesting.

We look forward to hearing from you.


Thanks

Dear Friends,
The French president, Sarkozy, has - bluff intended to raise his
prestige in France or because he really means it - threatened to leave
the G20 ( starting Thursday April 2)  before its final announcement, if
it does not really abolish tax havens and take other drastic measures.
Dr Manmohan Singh will also be present . But,  the G20 having been
carefully kept out of general election issues in India, he has not taken
the trouble of giving any assurance on this point.  So Indians can only
wait too see what decisions are finally taken at this important meeting.
Jasmer Singh

----- Original Message -----

From: karmayog.org

To: swatipopat@... ; karmayog@yahoogroups.com

Cc: mr suhas brand manager

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:36 AM

Subject: Re: Any Social Initiatives that you recommend?

From: Swati Popat

 

Cc: mr suhas brand manager

 

we have recently started a kindergarten for autistic children. and we are planning to take this initiative all across mumbai and bangalore, to begin with and then spread across india. we are looking for sponsors so that the burden on the parent of the fees could be marginally reduced. what details do we need to put up on the website?

warm regards,
swati popat vats
president
podar education network

"SCHOOLS HELP BUILD NATIONS. WE HELP BUILD SCHOOLS"

 swatipopat@...

Dear Members of Civil Society,

 Having been recently informed of the very worrisome situation regarding the Indian Institute of Management Shillong, we would respectfully request your urgent attention to this matter, and institution of the necessary measures to prevent its imminent desertion and preserve the pristine glory of IIMs.

 An account of the tragedy engulfing IIM Shillong is enclosed for your kind reference. We urge the esteemed members of media and press to declare solidarity to sustain the academics' right and hegemony.

Sincerely,

Stard

An NGO

Good old trees that have stood the test of times, that have given shelter
and shade to the pedestarians and the senior citizens, and that have been
home to hundreds of migrating birds during the winter, and that which are
located at the periphery of a plot, where construction is taking place and
in no way is an hindrance in the development have been ruthlessly cut,
permission having been granted by the Tree Authorities as alleged comes as a
shock and surprise. What are the circumstances, such permissions are granted
and when the concerned authorities are contacted by the local citizen when
the trees are being cut, both the police and the corporation authorities
take cover under 'permission being granted.' Despite complaints to rush and
investigate the necessity against the cutting of the good old trees, bias
seems to be exhibited. I have taken the pains to complain at the Police
Control room on 100, despite assurance that they will visit the site, they
reach there after neary 90 minutes, despite two more reminders on 100. The
other side is getting away with a Xerox of the so-called permission, and the
police refer to the same. The other side however fail to produce the
original of the permission and fail to turn up at the local police station.
Damage has been done, nature destroyed, that could have been avoided and or
prevented. I am referring to construction at Hindu Friends Society Road,
Jogeshwari (East), opp. of building 'Kusmanor', 74, H F Society, Jogeshwari
(E), where I the complainant and agrieved citizen reside since 1942. The
matter was taken up by me on Tuesday, 31 March 2009. Could I be guided how
to proceed here after to find out how at all such a permission was granted
in the first place and what efforts were made by the authorities to disallow
the permission in the interest of the nature and the comforts of the
citizens of the area? PLEASE HELP!

 
 
R/Sir,
 
KINDLY GIVE YOUR CONTRIBUTION  TO STOP POVERTY OF OUR  COUNTRY.

    In today’s busy life a voice is coming from everywhere      ie ‘THRIFTNESS’.

      I am a man of having a habit of saving small amount of money in small Saving Schemes and due to this my name is entered in Limca Book Of Records in the year of  1997 & 2000. Because of my this habit I have earned few profit & now it is my desire that some other people of society could also be profited.

      If  in our country only 1% of the population on their respective birthday’s Could open one Recurring deposit account with an amount of Rs 50/-in Their nearest post offices for the duration of 60 Months. They should open an another account on their next coming birthday .After the completion of 60 Months they will get a MATURITY VALUE on the 61th month.

      On the other hand every month government will get a profit of Rs 50 crore For the ECONOMIC DEVOLOPEMENTAL ACTIVITIES  in our country

      I have done this experiment on myself by saving money in small saving Schemes.I want to draw your kind attention  of my new IDEA, and if you want to make our country economically powerful then please give this information to other people for economic social welfare, and belive me this type of regular saving practice may utilize to PREVENT POVERTY of our country.

So I request to you kindly do needful in this way and if you require any clarification kindly mail me.

Thanks & regards
Your'sincerally
P.K.Jain
  (pennywise)
Mobile No. +919993025698

Dear All,

The death toll rose to 20 as four more persons succumbed to their injuries during the 24 hours ending at 4.10 pm today in the tornado-hit areas of Rajkanika block of Kendrapara district, Orissa state. Most of the people and animals were killed being crushed under collapsed houses and trees.

According to the preliminary assessment, some 8,000 people and 3000 animals have become homeless in the effected areas as the Tuesday's tornado that lasted for ten minutes destroyed their houses and property causing colossal damage and misery to the victims. The tornado struck almost simultaneously in the same region, blowing away huts in dozens of farming villages in Rajkanika block of Kendrapara district. Many in the village lost families, cattle and crops as well as their homes. Families huddled together under open skies with whatever was left of their belongings. Hundreds of injured locals were rushed to different health complexes and hospitals. The tornado flattened about 1000 mud and straw houses. The tornadoes blew away or leveled thousands of trees and electricity poles, plunging villages into darkness.

Tornado victims in crying need of food, medicine and shelter. The APOWA rescue team has been working to help the distressed people and their animals since Tuesday night. The pictures coming from our team on the ground show scenes of desperation: Families clutching each other as they struggle through raging Tornado.

We need help for our critical rescue and relief efforts in the affected villages of Rajkanika block.

The extent of the damage is as follows:

• Human Death toll:                        20(may be increased)
• Animal Death toll:                         158
• Affected population:                     15026
• Animal affected;                          7430
• District affected:                         1(Kendrapara)
• Number of Blocks affected:            1(Rajkanika)
• Number of Panchayats affected:     5
• Number of villages affected:           15
• Number of people injured               450
• Houses Damaged:                        920

DID YOU KNOW?

1. Last year, India gave 300 crores to Afghanistan for constructing roads,
electricity etc. IN 1991, Maharashtra had 100% electrification, 24 hours a day.
Today in some villages in Maharashtra, electricity supply is restricted between
12 to 4 a.m !!! The result is villagers water their fields, take bath and wash
their clothes between 12 to 4 in the morning !!! While supply of electricity is
reduced the rates have gone up
(New Delhi has announced fresh assistance of $450 million for the reconstruction
of the war torn Afghanistan, weeks after a deadly attack at the Indian embassy
in Kabul... Financial Express, New Delhi, Aug 4 2008)

2. Government of India gave a total of 50 crores- $4.5 million (nearly Rs 23
crore) to Harvard University and £3.2 million (nearly Rs 26 crore) to the
Cambridge University's Judges Business school.(..this while fees in Indian
Universities and Colleges have increased 25% over the last one year)
..dnaindia.com

3. Since 2004, 3850 Indians have died in Terror attacks in over 3000 incidents
!! ... msn.com

4. The day of the Mumbai train blasts, the Government gave Rs 150 crores for
earthquake relief in Pakistan!!  ... msn.com

5. When Madrassas are being shut down in Pakistan, the Indian Government is
giving them CBSE status... expressindia.com, 30th dec 2008
... A Madrassa educated person can get a job in any government office without
going through the secular education system. Can India afford to have
fundamentalists in government departments?

6. Our Government has given 25 lakh scholarships ONLY to minority students...
AndhraNews.net
...why can’t economically backward children from all communities get this
benefit? Why have the minorities in Nagaland, Mizoram & Kashmir not got the
similar privileges like the minorities in other states? Why is the Govt
following different rules for different religions?... msn.com

7. More than Rs. 51,295 crores has gone missing from the Govt. Treasury...see
www.cag.gov.in, chapter 2, comments on accounts

8. Is this Government really pro-poor?
India had some 270 million people below the poverty line in 2004-2005, now it
has gone up by 5.5 crores, or 20%!... msn.com

9. Every day around 6,000 illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators cross the border and
enter Assam, India. Many of these are Islamic militants with links to Al-Queda.
.... India Daily, May 19 2005

10. At least 180 persons trained by the Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Kerala are waiting
to take up the cause of jihad.... RediffNews, March 20,  2009.

11. One of the major political parties has a budget of 1000 crores for
advertising in these elections. With money like that staring them in the face,
which newspaper or news channel is going to seriously follow  up on issues such
as the above?


12.  44% of south Mumbai voted last elections. The winning party acquired only
30% of this vote. Do the maths. This means a party need only 14% of voters to
succeed!! No wonder the politicians indulge in vote bank politics!!! Even today
politicians are going around their vote banks promising them incentives..

You all will agree that to maintain the same standard of living e are working
much harder than we were 5 years ago. This, despite the economic boom till last
year?


Have we forgotten 26/11? Please VOTE. FOR CHANGE. Tell everyone you know and
meet to do so.

Let me not pray to be sheltered from dangers, but to be fearless in facing them.
Let me not beg for the stilling of my pain, but for the heart to conquer it. --
Rabindranath Tagore

~~~~
Inspiration of the Day:
After almost 3,000 miles of rowing, bouts of seasickness, equipment failure and
salt sores, Paul Ridley is back on land. On day 88, Ridley, 25, completed his
solo rowing trip across the Atlantic Ocean, becoming the youngest American ever
to do so. For nearly three months, Ridley has been rowing up to twelve hours a
day on the 2,950-mile journey to raise cancer awareness and hopefully raise
money for cancer research. His organization "Row for Hope" was inspired by the
death of his mother.
http://www.dailygood.org/more.php?n=3649

~~~~
Be The Change:
Read more about Paul's incredible journey in his own words.
http://www.dailygood.org/more.php?n=3649a




**Share A Reflection**
http://www.dailygood.org/view.php?qid=3649


____________________________________________________
A service of CharityFocus: 101,307 subscribers
Archives and more: http://www.dailygood.org
To unsubscribe: http://charityfocus.org/unsubscribe.php

karmayog


I am surprised at educated indians getting swayed by media bombardment of
information where advani and modi are projected as sole persons responsbile for
religious fanatism. Most media donot highlight that babri masjid issue was
created by rajiv gandhi and its obvious to feel that fall of masjid was with
tactic knowledge of congress govt at centre . its true that any politician incl
bjp leaders who fan religious fanatism must be held responsbile but if same yard
stick is used than more than 80 pct will be out of profession. Barring a few
gentle persons everyone has fanned and benifited out of communal and caste
related issues.This is main reason why no politician talk of common civil code
and reservation only for eceonomic poor (both such act will kill vote banks on
basis of religion or caste and there will be fresh attitude of politicians ).I
also wish that educated people shud be aware abt number of muslims which died in
nandigram under cpm  or how cpm blatantly support communalism in kerala .
similarly just see how much price india paid due to action from dmk leaaders for
ltte??How many indians denounce that more than 12 mil
bangladeshis hav been illegally staying in india with clear connivance from
congress leaders in assam and cpm leaders in bengal in last two decades??what
modi/advani does since last few years has been common game of congress for last
three decades hence all need to be blamed.

barring few sensible politicians like sonia,manmohasingh,jaitley, arun shourie,
raghushankar singh of rjd ,praful patel etc almost all leaders

hav been involved in vote bank politics based on caste/religion with no care abt
effect of same on india.

every sensible indian shud simply understand that most of our policitians from
all political parties simply hav desire for power and benifit of power .If we
decide to build opinion abt certain politicians and pardon others (because of
their better media management ) than we will continue to be effected by same
cast/religion politics which has done immense harm to mother india. simply
condemn (with names )  politicians from all parties  who hav been fanning such
politics and insist to dump all of them .

if above is done than it makes sense to blame advani ,modi and all who qualify
in list.


tks
suresh

From: "anirudh.n2008" <anirudh.n2008@...>

In the present political set up andhuge corruption involved in electoral
arena and the political set made in our democracy, it is dificult for
'honest' independent candidate to win.  The money power and muscle power
decide which candidate going to win.

Unless and until we did not make any systemic change like right to recall,
negative voting, fixation of age, barring candidate who are elected more
than twice are such a major changes which need in this present political set
up. Other thing is that instead of political parties decide the the
candidate, people choose candidate of their choice through various debates
and other methods.

In the present scenario, we are making fake election. We cannot trust
anymore the bureaucracy and politician even the EVM used.

Other major suggestion is that, all polling both connected with CCTV and
internet and the result should be declared immediately after the election
without further delay.  That is not happening now.  There is no surety about
tamper proof EVM.

Atleast some of the basic done, we won 50%. This kind of debate ensure that
the need for change in electoral politics, which is good.

Hello Mrs & Mr.Chaves,

Syamantak is voluntary organisation working on education through development program. We are running a residintial center "school without walls" in a beautiful hamlet at the border of Maharshtra and Goa state.
If education means training for the real life, then obviously the curriculum will have to be changed. "School without walls is a one year multi-skill residential program. Students work in each of Engineering, Home & health, Agriculture-Animal husbandry and Energy-Environment section. During that period they are given some project work in each section. Beside these skills they are also given training on costing, budget, planning, skills of operating computer & internet technology. Students take their meals together. Common kitchen is a place to exchange idea, values and discussion on various topics. A record of grocery and calories intake is maintained by students in spreadsheet program.At the end of the year student appear for Diploma in basic rural technology exam recognized NIOS, New delhi.
We will be intreseted to support students (age 14-21, min qualification 8th pass/fail) for this residential program. for more details visit www.syamantak.org / call us at 02365-255620

Regards

SACHIN DESAI

MERC Case 150 of 2008 - R-Infra's FAC Petition of Rs. 2,189 croresþ

All,

     If MERC decides on this matter without calling for a Public Hearing, it will be a violation of Section 64(3) read with Section 62(4) of the EA 2003.

     64 (3) states that Tariff has to be determined after hearing all comments and suggestions received from the 'public' (and not ONLY the consumer representatives)

     62(4) states that FAC is part of Tariff.

     When both are read together, it is clear that Tariff has to be determined only after the PUBLIC is heard (like the hearing we had on March 26th) and FAC is a part of Tariff - so it must also warrant receiving suggestions and objections from the PUBLIC.

     The only difference between Tariff and the FAC part - is that the FAC part is allowed to be 'adjusted' more than once in any Financial Year - while Tariff can be determined only ONCE in any Financial Year.

READ THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF MERC in case no 102 of 2008:(Full ORDER)

  Before the

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13^th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005.

Tel. No. 022 22163964/65/69 – Fax 022 22163976

E-mail mercindia@...

Website: www.mercindia.org.in

  Case No. 102 of 2008

In the matter of

Petition filed by M/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited seeking review of Regulations relating to Fuel Adjustment Cost Formula as specified in the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005.     

            Shri. V.P Raja, Chairman

    Shri. A. Velayutham, Member

   Shri. S. B. Kulkarni, Member

ORDER

Dated: March 30, 2009

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (“MSEDCL”) submitted a Petition under affidavit on November 24, 2008. MSEDCL has, thereunder, sought to invoke Regulations 84.1 and 85.1 of the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005 (“Tariff Regulations”) to seek the removal of cap/ceiling on Fuel Adjustment Cost (“FAC”) charge.

2.                  The prayers made by MSEDCL in the Petition are as under :

1.      In view of the various reasons explained in the petition, it is respectfully submitted that the Honourable Commission may approve the removal of cap on FAC Charges recovery taking into consideration the fuel cost variations and power purchases for full eligible amounts;

2.       Honourable Commission may issue an Interim Order to MSEDCL to charge or recover FAC in full and MSEDCL to submit FAC computations for post-facto approval till the time the Cap removal Order is issued by the Honourable  Commission;

3.      The Honourable Commission may kindly consider this petition expeditiously due to the severe liquidity problems being faced by MSEDCL and approve the removal of cap on FCA Charges recovery to ensure that MSEDCL mitigates the load shedding problem in that state to the extent possible.

4.      This Hon’ble Commission may condone any inadvertent errors/omissions and also permit the Petitioner to alter/modify/amend this Petition, if required and also to make additional submissions during the proceedings in support of the prayer.

3.                  It is averred in the Petition by MSEDCL that the Commission in its Order dated July 31, 2001 (Case No. 15 of 2000) in the matter of ‘The Proposal of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) for Determination of Fuel and Other Cost Adjustment Charge (FOCA) (2000-01) and Approval of Formula for Computation of FOCA from time to time’ approved the principle to pass on the effect of adjustment on account of any increase of costs (beyond the control of erstwhile MSEB), or reduced per unit cost, as the case may be, on month to month basis.

4.                  It has also been averred that the Commission, in exercise of its powers under the Electricity Act, 2003, notified the Tariff Regulations in supersession of the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004. It has been further submitted that the Tariff Regulations provide for passing on adjustments due to changes in the cost of power generation and power procured due to changes in fuel cost, through FAC formula with effect from September 2005. This FAC charge excludes “Other Costs” as previously considered under FOCA charge. MSEDCL further submitted that the determination of FAC charge is based on operating norms as approved by the Commission under various Tariff Orders.

5.                  MSEDCL has submitted that Regulation 82.6 of the Tariff Regulations specifies as under:      

“82.6  The monthly FAC charge shall not exceed 10% of the variable component of tariff, or such other ceiling as may be stipulated by the Commission from time to time:

Provided that any excess in the FAC charge over the above ceiling shall be carried forward by the Distribution Licensee and shall be recovered over such future period as may be directed by the Commission.”

6.                  In the Petition MSEDCL has submitted that the Government of India notified the Tariff Policy on January 6, 2006, in continuation with National Electricity Policy (NEP) notified on February 12, 2005. MSEDCL further submitted that many of the guiding principles/provisions relating to Distribution Licensees as stipulated in the Tariff Policy needs to be considered for removal of cap/ceiling on FAC, as the Tariff Regulations were notified prior to the Tariff Policy.

7.                  MSEDCL has also submitted that in the recent past, there has been an acute power shortage at the national as well as State level. As a consequence of limited availability of power throughout the country, the cost of power procurement has increased significantly. MSEDCL submitted that in its efforts to restrict / reduce load shedding in the State of Maharashtra, MSEDCL has attempted to procure available power from the market, grid, etc., at a very high cost without considering its own financial conditions/ limitations.

8.                  MSEDCL further submitted that the Commission discontinued the concept of Additional Supply Charge (ASC) vide its Tariff Order dated June 20, 2008 in Case No. 72 of 2007, which resulted into consideration of all the approved power purchase sources including traders as well as Kawas-Gas power station in the FAC charge computation.

9.                  MSEDCL submitted that power purchase cost has considerably increased as against the rates approved by the Commission in its Order dated June 20, 2008 in Case No. 72 of 2007. MSEDCL submitted that it expects that since the demand for power would increase further in the coming months it would need to continue to purchase costly power to meet the demand and bridge the demand ~ supply gap. For illustrative purposes, MSEDCL submitted the details of the power purchase cost and FAC (as submitted in Format 4.1 for FAC Vetting) computation for the months of May 2008 and August 2008 to justify the above submission. The summary of the power purchase cost and FAC charge computation for the months of May 2008 and August 2008 is shown in the Table below:  

Table: Power Purchase Cost for May 2008 and August 2008

Table: Summary of FAC charge computations for May 2008 and August 2008    

10.              MSEDCL has submitted that in accordance with Regulation 82.6 of the Tariff Regulations, MSEDCL is permitted to pass on adjustments due to changes in the cost of power generation and power procured due to changes in fuel cost through the FAC formula mechanism, which is capped at 10% of the energy charge (variable component of tariff), which in turn is inadequate to compensate MSEDCL for its power purchase costs. MSEDCL has further submitted that the permissible recovery for it through FAC works out to around Rs. 140 Crore to Rs. 150 Crore per month.

11.              MSEDCL has submitted that the provision to carry forward under-recovered FAC does not provide adequate relief as the under-recovered FAC gets accumulated over subsequent months. MSEDCL submitted that based on its past experience and facts, FAC has been more than the FAC cap to an extent of 50% to 70%, resulting into substantial amount of FAC remaining under-recovered. MSEDCL further submitted that in monsoon, the generation from hydro is maximum and also the usage of electricity reduces to some extent, resulting into less FAC. Further, it submitted that it was only during these 2 to 3 months of monsoons, the carried forward recovery could be used else in every month the computed FAC is higher than FAC cap.

12.              MSEDCL submitted that Regulation 82.6 of the Tariff Regulations, which stipulates a cap / ceiling on FAC recovery, has left the financial problems of MSEDCL unattended to by restricting the recovery of legitimate costs and accordingly, it has been requested that the Commission considers the removal of the aforesaid cap on FAC recovery. MSEDCL further submitted that the cap on FAC recovery did not serve the purpose for which it was intended, as at the end of the year the consumer had to pay for any increase either in FAC or in energy charges after truing up of under-recovered FAC. MSEDCL added that as the fuel prices would continue to increase over the period, the under-recovered portion of FAC would continue to increase, which may lead to increase in the energy charge. MSEDCL further submitted that the above said Regulations also provide for interest on working capital for under-recovered FAC amount, however, this relief is only notional.

13.              MSEDCL submitted that it experienced a similar cash flow problem in the year 2005 and 2006 and filed a Petition before the Commission on February 23, 2006 seeking removal of the said 10% ceiling / cap on FAC recovery.

14.              In the Petition MSEDCL has referred to one portion of the Commission’s Order dated March 21, 2006 in Case No. 52 of 2006 which reads as under:    

                    i.            “Para 34 - The Commission has examined the details of actual source wise power purchase for the period October 2005 to February 2006. Based on the details submitted by MSEDCL, it is observed that the FAC charge to be levied on consumers works out in the range of 40 paisa/unit – 80 paisa/unit, though detailed vetting of the costs have not been done, as MSEDCL is yet to submit the FAC data in required formats for vetting by the Commission. The FAC charge of 40-80 paisa/unit is based on the generation and power purchase data as submitted by MSEDCL, and does not factor the disallowance of increase in fuel cost of generation towards normative parameters such as heat rate, transit loss and T&D losses.

                  ii.            Para 35-Based on actual FAC per unit for the month of September 2005 as approved by the Commission and the FAC per unit to be charged to the consumers based on generation and power purchase cost data submitted by MSEDCL, the Commission is of the opinion that there is a need to modify the FAC ceiling to improve the liquidity position of MSEDCL and to enable MSEDCL to continue the short term power purchase to mitigate the load shedding to the extent possible. Considering the quantum of FAC to be recovered based on data submitted by MSEDCL, the enhancement of ceiling from 10% of variable charge to say 20% of variable charge will not suffice. However, it may not be appropriate to completely remove the FAC ceiling and permit MSEDCL to levy a substantial high charge as FAC to consumers, without prior approval of the Commission.

                iii.            Para 37-The Commission will approve the FAC to be recovered by MSEDCL in excess of existing ceiling on recovery through FAC charge, i.e., 10% of variable charge, after detailed vetting of the actual FAC data on case-to-case basis. However, this mechanism will only be applicable in case of MSEDCL till the Commission issues the Order on ARR and Tariff of MSEDCL for FY 2006-07. MSEDCL has already filed the ARR Petition for FY 2006-07 and the Commission will consider the same while determining the power purchase costs of MSEDCL.

                 iv.            Para 38-The Commission directs the MSEDCL to submit the details of FAC Computations in the formats prescribed by the Commission for vetting for the period October 2005 to January 2006 by 25th March 2006. For subsequent months, i.e., from February 2006, the MSEDCL should submit the details of FAC computations for vetting in a timely manner, if it is serious to mitigate its projected liquidity problems. The Commission, after vetting the FAC computations submitted by MSEDCL, will approve the FAC charge to be recovered in excess of the existing FAC cap.”

15.              In the Petition, MSEDCL has referred to one another Order dated May 18, 2007 in Case No. 65 of 2006, a portion whereof has been reproduced as under:

              i.                  “In case of any variation in the fuel prices, MSEDCL will be able to pass on the corresponding increase to the consumers through the existing FAC mechanism, subject to the stipulated ceiling of 10% of average energy charges. The FAC will be charged on a monthly basis;

            ii.                  In case the FAC ceiling of 10% is reached, leading to under-recovery of power purchase costs to MSEDCL, either on account of replacement of non-costly sources of power with costly sources of power as discussed above, or due to increase in the fuel price of non-costly sources, the Commission may consider pass through of FAC in excess of this ceiling of 10%, subject to prior validation on a case by case basis by the Commission.”

16.              MSEDCL submitted that in accordance with Regulation 82.6 of the Tariff Regulations, the Commission can stipulate a different ceiling than the existing ceiling of 10% of the variable component of tariff and hence, has powers to amend or vary the said existing cap / ceiling. MSEDCL further submitted that the Electricity Act, 2003 emphasizes the need for full cost recovery by all Utilities.

17.              MSEDCL has referred to Clause 5.3 (h) (4) of the Tariff Policy notified on January 6, 2006 that reads as under:

“4)Uncontrollable costs should be recovered speedily to ensure that future consumers are not burdened with past costs. Uncontrollable costs would include (but not limited to) fuel costs, costs on account of inflation, taxes and cess, variations in power purchase unit costs including on account of hydro-thermal mix in case of adverse natural events.”

18.              MSEDCL has submitted that there is an urgent and serious need to reconsider the present regulatory framework in view of the aforesaid stipulation in the Tariff Policy, which has been notified subsequent to the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005.

19.              Shri. Ponrathnam, in the capacity of being a public spirited consumer of electricity, submitted an Intervention Application on affidavit dated December 10, 2008. The contentions raised therein by Shri Ponrathnam are:

                    i.            The price of power generated should reduce and FAC charge should be shown as over recovery from the consumers since there has been a steep reduction in the input prices.

                  ii.            No change in tariff should be allowed for a period of one year, which is in accordance with Section 62 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as power is a basic necessity for all consumers and input for all commercial and industrial consumers.

                iii.            MSEDCL does not have any legal basis for requesting the Commission to remove the cap on FAC recovery and hence, the Commission should reject the Petition filed by MSEDCL in the above matter as it is in violation of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005.

                iv.            This particular matter is closely related with tariff increase; hence, the Commission is not empowered to decide on the matter without public consent and a Public Hearing in the matter is required.

                  v.            MSEDCL has actually prayed for recovery of cost of power purchase by making a prayer seeking the removal of cap on FAC recovery, which is not in accordance with any of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

                vi.            MSEDCL should ensure a power purchase agreement is in place to provide uninterrupted power supply to all consumers in its area of supply.   

              vii.            Since MSEDCL is unable to provide uninterrupted power supply in its area of supply, MSEDCL’s Distribution Licence may be suspended in accordance with Section 24 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

            viii.            The Commission should levy penalty on MSEDCL for submitting baseless Petitions and thereby wasting the precious time of the Commission and the consumer representatives.             

20.              The Commission, vide its Notice dated December 2, 2008, scheduled a hearing in the matter on December 16, 2008, and directed MSEDCL to serve a copy of its Petition along with its accompaniments to the four Consumer Representatives authorised on a standing basis under Section 94(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to represent the interest of the consumers in the proceedings before the Commission. Subsequently, the hearing in the matter stood postponed to January 14, 2009. At the hearing held in the matter on January 14, 2009, Shri. Vijay L. Sonavane representing MSEDCL, reiterated the submissions made in the Petition as discussed above. During the hearing, Shri Sonavane also submitted as under:  

                    i.            FAC has been levied from September 2005 and in accordance with the Tariff Regulations, FAC is charged on the basis of actual variation in fuel cost.  He stated that variation in fixed and other costs is not allowed to be recovered under the FAC mechanism.

                  ii.            The Commission had removed the cap on FAC recovery vide its Order dated March 21, 2006 in Case No. 52 of 2005 and as per the Commission’s Order dated June 20, 2008 in Case No. 72 of 2007, the monthly cap on recovery of FAC is 10% of the energy charge, i.e., Rs. 0.31 per kWh. 

                iii.            MSEDCL submitted that the power purchase expense contributes to around 85% of its total expenses, so any under-recovery on account of variation in power purchase cost causes cash / liquidity problems. 

                iv.            In the past, power purchase expenses from traders were in the range of Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 per kWh, however, at present the same has increased to Rs. 8 to Rs. 9 per kWh. The cost of power generation from MSPGCL stations was Rs. 1.82 per kWh, however, on account of lower generation from MSPGCL’s generating stations; the same power was procured at Rs. 8 to Rs. 9 per kWh from external sources. Further, UI rates were also increased to Rs. 10 per kWh. All these facts led to increase in the power purchase cost resulting in under-recovery of FAC on account of cap on FAC recovery as stipulated by the Commission.

                  v.            For the past few months, FAC charge varied from Rs. 0.33 per kWh to Rs. 0.61 per kWh, due to which some over recovery of FAC was made and the same was adjusted so as to bring the FAC charge to Rs. 0.31 per kWh, which is the FAC cap applicable as on date.

21.              The Commission enquired of MSEDCL regarding the approved average power purchase expense. MSEDCL replied that the same is around Rs. 2.12 per kWh.

22.              The Commission further enquired of MSEDCL regarding the expected FAC under-recovery for the remaining period considering the cap on FAC recovery, i.e., Rs. 0.31 per kWh. The Commission directed MSEDCL to submit the detailed computations for the expected FAC under-recovery for the remaining months. MSEDCL agreed to submit the computations for the same. Further, MSEDCL submitted that expected FAC amount on account of variation in power purchase expense for RGPPL and Uran gas based station was in the range of Rs. 0.50 to Rs. 0.70 per kWh as on date.

23.              In the context of over-recovery, the Commission directed MSEDCL to submit the complete details of over-recovery including the period of over-recovery. The Commission further enquired whether the FAC under-recovery of Rs. 147 Crore for the month of August 2008 as shown in the previous table that was carried forward, included the carrying cost. The Commission also directed MSEDCL to submit the details of actual FAC recovery till October 2008.

24.              MSEDCL submitted that there is no cap on power purchase bills from MSPGCL and in accordance with the provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement that has been executed between MSEDCL and MSPGCL, MSEDCL needs to pay for the power purchase to MSPGCL within a week. It was further submitted that the cost of power purchase from MSPGCL has increased on account of increased use of imported coal. 

25.              As regards MSEDCL’s contention regarding the removal of cap on FAC recovery vide its Order dated March 21, 2006, the Commission clarified that in the above-said Order in Case No. 52 of 2005), it had not removed the cap on FAC recovery, and had ruled that after the prior vetting of FAC computations submitted by MSEDCL, the Commission would approve the FAC charge to be recovered in excess of the existing FAC cap.    

26.              Shri. N. Ponrathnam, the Intervener, submitted that in accordance with the provisions of the Tariff Regulations, FAC is levied only on account of change in cost of generation and power purchase due to variation in fuel cost, whereas MSEDCL has projected the costly power purchase and included the same under FAC. He added that there are provisions to recover the under-recovered FAC through the ARR in the subsequent months or years.

27.              The Commission enquired of MSEDCL regarding the contribution of power purchase from traders to the total power purchase expense, MSEDCL submitted that it was in the range of 2 % to 3 %. 

28.              In accordance with the directions given by the Commission during the hearing, MSEDCL made additional submissions on affidavit dated January 22, 2009, seeking review of Regulations relating to FAC formula.

29.              MSEDCL submitted that the Commission, in its Order dated June 20, 2008 in Case No. 72 of 2007, has held that in case of increase in energy requirement and/or shortfall in energy availability from other sources, MSEDCL may consider purchase of power from traders and from other sources to meet the energy requirement. MSEDCL submitted that in view of the above, the power purchase from traders may also be considered for determination/computation of FAC recovery.

30.              MSEDCL submitted the computations of projected FAC for the period from November 2008 to March 2009 on the basis of the following assumptions:

  i.                  The details of actual generation cost based on normative parameters for the period from April 2008 to October 2008 is shown  in the Table below:

Table: Details of Actual Normative Generation cost from April 2008 to October 2008

31.              MSEDCL submitted that it has considered the fuel cost projections for the period from October 2008 to March 2009 based  on the details as received from MSPGCL as shown in the Table below:

Table: Projected Fuel Cost from October 2008 to March 2009

32.              Accordingly, MSEDCL has considered the fuel cost of Rs. 1.63 per kWh for FAC (projections) over the balance period of FY 2008-09 (i.e., November 2008 to March 2009). MSEDCL has considered the thermal energy generation of 3891 MU per month for FAC computation.

33.              MSEDCL submitted that the quantum of external power purchase (i.e., power purchase from sources other than MSPGCL) estimated in the APR Petition for FY 2008-09 is 35238 MU; whereas, till October 2008, MSEDCL had purchased only 17882 MU. Further, the balance quantum of 17356 MU for 5 months appears to be very high, i.e., 3470 MU against actual average purchase of 2555 MU per month. MSEDCL submitted the details of actual power purchase cost for the period from April 2008 to October 2008 as shown in the Table below:

Table: Actual Weighted Average cost of Costly and Non-Costly Power

34.              MSEDCL submitted that the provisional cost of power purchase for the month of November 2008 was Rs. 2.35/kWh for around 2800 MU. Based on the above, MSEDCL considered a quantum of 3000 MU with a weighted average cost of Rs. 2.50 per kWh for FAC projections for the period from November 2008 to March 2009. MSEDCL submitted that the average rate of FAC for the period from November 2008 to March 2009 works out to Rs. 0.46 per kWh and if a 10% cap on recovery of FAC is considered (i.e., cap of  Rs. 0.31 per kWh), FAC under-recovery would be Rs. 83.67 Crore per month on average basis over the said period.

35.              MSEDCL, in its additional submission, also confirmed that there has been no under-recovery on account of FAC till October 2008. MSEDCL submitted the details on interest paid/interest payable to various banks on account of short-term borrowings for the period from April 2008 to December 2008. MSEDCL added that it had not claimed any interest on working capital under FAC recovery on account of the following reasons:

              i.      Regulation 82.5 of the Tariff Regulations on FAC recovery provides for pass through of such interest costs if it is actually incurred on account of change in fuel costs. MSEDCL thus, needs to identify or quantify such borrowings attributable solely to power purchase.

            ii.      The Commission, in its APR Order dated June 20, 2008 in Case No. 72 of 2007 and Multi Year Tariff (MYT) Order dated May 18, 2007 in Case No. 65 of 2006 has not approved any interest on working capital on account of FAC recovery.

          iii.      In the earlier submissions of MSEDCL on FAC recovery, it had claimed interest expense in order to meet its working capital requirements but the same was disallowed by the Commission. MSEDCL reproduced the relevant abstract from the report on ‘Levy of FAC by MSEDCL for the month of September 2005’ dated February 24, 2006

“5.       Interest on working capital

Claim by MSEDCL:

MSEDCL had not considered interest on working capital in its original proposal dated 6th January 2006. However, it has considered the same at Rs.75 lacs in its revised proposal submitted vide letter dated 25th January 2006.  Actual incurred interest for the period  6th June 2005 to 30th September, 2005 has been informed as Rs.3 crore and the interest for the month is taken as Rs.75 lacs.  However, MSEDCL has not forwarded the details of the working of working capital interest. 

Commission’s vetting:

As per MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff), Regulations 2005, the interest on working capital on account of change in fuel cost is allowed. As MSEDCL has not forwarded the details of working of the Working Capital, the interest is not considered in the FAC calculations for the month of September 2005.”

36.              Heard MSEDCL and Shri. Ponrathnam. None of the authorised Consumer representatives made any submission. On consideration of the material placed on record, the Commission is of the finding as under:

(i)         As regards the contention raised by the Intervener that the cost of power generated should reduce and FAC charge should be shown as over-recovery as there has been steep reduction in the input prices, the Commission clarifies that FAC is being computed and levied in accordance with provisions of Tariff Regulations and is being vetted by the Commission on post facto basis. Regulation 82.1 of the MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005 specifies as follows:

“82.1 With effect from the first day of September 2005, the Distribution Licensee shall pass on the adjustments, due to the changes in the cost of power generation and power procured due to changes in fuel cost, through the Fuel Cost Adjustment (FAC) formula as specified below”

Further, Regulation 82.3 specifies as follows:

“82.3 The FAC charge shall be computed and charged on the basis of actual variation in fuel costs relating to power generated from own generation stations and power procured during any month subsequent to such costs being incurred, in accordance with these Regulations, and shall not be computed on the basis of estimated or expected variation in fuel costs.”

In accordance with the provisions of Regulation 82 of the Tariff Regulations, MSEDCL submits details of FAC in the prescribed format to the Commission. The Commission vets the computations of FAC and FAC charge on a post-facto basis. In view of these provisions, which have accordingly been given effect to from time to time, the contentions raised by Shri. Ponrathnam do not have a basis for interjection in the present proceedings.       

37.              Shri. Ponrathnam has also raised the following issues:-

                    i.                  A Public hearing in the matter should be conducted as it is related to increase in the electricity tariffs in line with Section 62 of Electricity Act, 2003;

                  ii.                  No change in tariff should be allowed for a period of one year in accordance with Section 62 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

A regards these issues, the Commission is of the view that the present Petition is not a case of base tariff revision. This is a matter of recovery of increase in actual fuel costs. In this regard, Section 62 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 stipulates as follows:

“No tariff or part of any tariff may ordinarily be amended more frequently than once in any financial year, except in respect of any changes expressly permitted under the terms of any fuel surcharge formula as may be specified.”(emphasis added)

Further, Para 5.3 (h) (4) of the Tariff Policy notified by the Government of India stipulates as follows:

“Uncontrollable costs should be recovered speedily to ensure that future consumers are not burdened with past costs. Uncontrollable costs would include (but not limited to) fuel costs, costs on account of inflation, taxes and cess, variations in power purchase unit costs including on account of hydro-thermal mix in case of adverse natural events”

Moreover, the variation in fuel cost of own generation and power purchase has to be passed through to the retail consumers as an uncontrollable expense, in accordance with Regulation 82 of the Tariff Regulations. Further, Regulation 82.6 of the Tariff Regulations specifies, as under:-

“82.6 The monthly FAC charge shall not exceed 10% of the variable component of tariff, or such other ceiling as may be stipulated by the Commission from time to time:

Provided that any excess in the FAC charge over the above ceiling shall be carried forward by the Distribution Licensee and shall be recovered over such future period as may be directed by the Commission.”

In view of the above, the contentions raised by Shri. Ponrathnam including on the maintainability of the Petition as filed by MSEDCL, are not sustainable and hence, dismissed.

38.              Shri. Ponrathnam has also raised the following issues :-

                    i.      MSEDCL’s Distribution Licensee may be cancelled / suspended in the view of its inability to provide uninterrupted power supply;

                  ii.      The Commission should levy penalty on MSEDCL for filing a baseless Petition.

Looking at the objective of the Petition, the Commission is of the view that the aforesaid issues have absolutely no relation to the reliefs sought under the present Petition filed by MSEDCL, which seeks removal of the FAC cap. The Commission is of the view that such type of non-joinder of causes are a futile exercise. These contentions are therefore dismissed.

39.              As regards the contention raised by the MSEDCL that the power purchase from traders may be considered in the computation of FAC recovery, the Commission clarifies that MSEDCL was allowed to purchase from traders in case of increase in energy requirement and/or shortfall in energy availability from other sources. The relevant extracts of Order dated June 20, 2008 (Case No. 72 of 2007) in this regard are reproduced below:

“Considering the total energy input requirement of MSEDCL for FY 2008-09 and projected energy availability from other sources, the Commission in this Order has not considered any power purchase from traders during FY 2008-09. However, in case of increase in energy requirement and/or shortfall in energy availability from other sources, MSEDCL should consider purchase of power from traders to meet the energy requirement. If required, MSEDCL may approach the Commission separately for prior approval for purchase of power from traders in accordance with Regulation 25 of MERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2005.”

However, MSEDCL has not submitted any details to the Commission in this regard.

40.              As regards the contention raised by MSEDCL regarding speedy recovery of uncontrollable costs like variation in fuel cost and variation in power purchase costs, MSEDCL has confirmed in its additional submission that there is no FAC under-recovery till October 2008, hence, there appears to be no ground for removal of FAC cap at this stage. Further, in the past also, the Commission has recognised the need for allowing early recovery of such significant variation in fuel cost and power purchase costs and accordingly approved the recovery of the actual under-recovered FAC on case to case basis, over and above the FAC cap, in the following cases –

(i)   Case No. 52 of 2005 (MSEDCL’s Petition for review of Regulations relating to FAC formula);

(ii) Case No. 59 of 2008 (BEST’s Petition to allow recovery of ‘under-recovered FAC’ for the period of October 2007 to March 2008, increase in the cap over FAC and allow it to recover actual FAC);

(iii)Case No. 65 of 2008 (RInfra’s Petition for Recovery of Variation in Power Purchase Cost approved by the Commission in REL-D Tariff Order dated June 4, 2008) and

(iv)Case No. 70 of 2008 (TPC’s Petition on Removal/ Relaxation of cap on the Fuel Adjustment Charge as per Regulation 82.6 of Tariff Regulations).

41.              On the issue of removal of FAC cap on the basis of projected FAC under-recovery for the period from November 2008 to March 2009, the Commission is of the view that it may not be appropriate to remove the ceiling on FAC recovery on the basis of projected data and permit MSEDCL to levy a substantially high FAC charge to consumers without prior approval of the Commission as that may lead to a huge tariff shock for the consumers. Since, the objective of having a cap on FAC recovery is to avoid automatic pass through of such expenses without prior approval and hence, avoid the causing of tariff shock to the consumers, the Commission is not inclined to amend or vary the present FAC cap which is 10% of the variable component of tariff.

However, taking into account the proviso to Regulation 82.6 which permits that any excess in the FAC charge over the above ceiling shall be carried forward by the Distribution Licensee and shall be recovered over such future period as may be directed by the Commission, the Commission will approve the FAC to be recovered by MSEDCL in excess of existing ceiling on recovery through FAC charge, i.e., 30.9 paise/kWh, after a detailed vetting of the actual FAC data on case-to-case basis.

Accordingly, in order to recover any excess in the FAC charge over the above ceiling and over such future period as may be directed by the Commission, MSEDCL is required to submit the details of FAC Computations in the formats prescribed by the Commission for vetting for the period November 2008 to February 2009 based on actual data.

42.       After submission of such data as aforesaid, there will be a detailed vetting of the actual FAC and how the excess in the FAC charge over the ceiling would be recovered over a future period would be as directed by the Commission. In this view of the matter, and taking into account similar directions issued by the Commission in similar petitions filed by MSEDCL, Regulation 82.6 of the Tariff Regulations is not being varied or amended. Accordingly, MSEDCL’s present Petition in Case No. 102 of 2008 stands dismissed, with liberty to MSEDCL to submit the details of FAC Computations in the formats prescribed by the Commission for vetting for the period November 2008 to February 2009 based on actual data, if MSEDCL wishes to recover any excess in the FAC charge over the above ceiling of 10% of the variable component of tariff.

 Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                          Sd/-

(S.B. Kulkarni)                                    (A. Velayutham)                     (V.P. Raja)

 Member                                              Member                                   Chairman

                                                                                                            (P.B. Patil)

                                     Secretary,MERC                                                                                                       

Pls find attached file.

If one finds difficult to open PDF file, may click here: Link: http://www.karmayog .org/policedepar tments/policedep artments_ 23086.htm

Sandeep Jalan

Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West,

Mumbai- 400056.

Rashtra Prem ke Bhaavna……………an inspirational love of innocent childhood………………. take flight as we grow and learned.