Uniform power tariff in Mumbai and the suburbs is likely to remain a distant dream since the state government has alleged that Reliance Energy is still not in favour of the idea, citing a loss of Rs 1
Uniform power tariff in Mumbai and the suburbs is likely to remain a distant dream since the state government has alleged that Reliance Energy is still not in favour of the idea, citing a loss of Rs 150 crore. To verify this claim, the government has decided to carry out an audit of the private utility’s demand-supply record of the past 10 years, said state energy minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule.
The state government has planned to provide uniform tariff for consumers utilising up to 100 units in Mumbai and its suburbs. At present, different firms — both private and public — that have their own rates serve these customers.
Mr Bawankule said: “While BMC-run BEST, Tata Power Co. and Mahadiscom (a government entity) are ready for uniform tariff, Reliance Energy is still not ready. Reliance Energy is yet to agree as it is saying it would cost it an additional '150 crore. We’ve asked it to reduce administrative costs to offset the loss.” He added: “As per an announcement made in the Vidhan Sabha recently, we have started the audit process of Reliance Energy after seeking the opinion of the law and judiciary department. Facts — such as what investments they have made, what their expenditure is, whether their billing system is correct or not and whether they have inflated any figures or not — will be examined for the past 10 years.”
The power companies are sending their petitions on deciding the tariff amount directly to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), without intimating the state government. Once the tariff is decided, the state has the power to implement uniform tariff, Mr Bawankule said.
Speaking on the subject, a Reliance Energy spokesperson said, “Tariff determination is a prerogative of MERC. RInfra’s views on URT are consistent with MERC. We are not against implementation of uniform tariff but at the same time we want to protect the interest of all the consumers (sic).”
