PSERC, power corpn lock horns
PSPCL asks open- access consumers to sign agreements by May 1 or lose right to draw power; regulatory commission wants action stalled
CHANDIGARH: Reminding Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal of his commitment against vendetta cases slapped on Congress workers, Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee ( PPCC) president Capt Amarinder Singh on Thursday pointed out that former MLA Gurpreet Kangar and 21 other Congressmen were falsely implicated in a case under Section 307 ( attempt to murder) of the IPC.

The PPCC president, i n a statement here, brought to the chief minister’s notice that the case was registered against twoti me Rampura Phul MLA Kangar on January 11 at the behest of the latter’s political opponents. After investigation, the case was cancelled, he said.

Amarinder stated that immediately after the election results were declared on March 6, the case against Kangar and others was reopened at the behest of the Congress l eader’s opponents. He claimed that despite having joined the investigation, the police misled the court that Kangar was not cooperating, which led to the rejection of the latter’s bail plea.

“The police are doing it with the clear intent of intimidating Kangar and his supporters,” Amarinder stated.

The PPCC chief expressed the hope that the chief minister would take note of this and other such cases and ask the state police to desist f rom such vendetta and victimisation, lest the Congressmen be forced to come on the roads to seek justice. CHANDIGARH: The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ( PSPCL or Powercom) and the P unj a b St at e El e c t r i c i t y Regulatory Commission ( PSERC) a re at l o ggerheads over open- access consumers.

In the last week of March, t he PSPCL had s t a r t e d sending notices to about 350 industrial houses with power load of 1 megawatt ( MW) or a bove, s t at i ng t hat i n t he absence of any bilateral agreement, drawing of power from the PSPCL’S distribution and transmission system would be considered illegal with effect from May 1.

The PSPCL said it was acting on the advisory issued by the union power ministry in November 2011, as per which i t has no “universal service obli gati on” t o compulsorily s upply power t o s uch co nsumers. In case open- access consumers want power from the PSPCL, they have to sign an agreement and also i ntimate requirements a month in advance.

The PSERC, i n a communiqué sent to the Punjab power secretary two days after the PSPCL started sending notices to consumers, has suggested not taking any action on the advisory.
The PSERC has quoted a judgment of the appellate tribunal on electricity, saying that there is no provision that stipulates t hat an existing consumer of the PSPCL who seeks open access shall cease to be a consumer.

The commission also said t hat t he advisory i s against provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The PSPCL chairman- cummanaging di re c t o r KD Chaudhari wrote to the power secretary, refusing to go by the regulatory commission’s direct i ve a nd s t at i ng t hat t he PSPCL had started steps to implement the advisory.

The advisory says, “… the opinion of union ministry of law and justice in consultation with the attorney general of India, all concerned may note that all 1 MW or above consumers are deemed to be openacce s s co nsumers a nd t he regulatory has no jurisdiction over fixing energy charges for them. It is requested that nece s s a r y s t e ps be t a ken fo r i mmediately i mplementing provisi ons re l at i ng t o open access”.

“… The PSERC has informed that the said opinion o f t he minis t r y o f l aw a nd justice was discussed by the forum of regulators and it held that the opinion rendered is of advisory nature and not binding on state electricity commissions or power utilities in the state. The PSERC has further advised the PSPCL not to take any action on the matter. However, t he PSPCL considers that the directives of the union power ministry are to be complied with and so is not stalling its implementation,” Chaudhari told the power secretary in his reply.

The co nsumers who got not i ce s f ro m t he PSPCL account for 30% of the total power co nsumption o f t he state. As per the advisory, the PSERC has no right to fix tariff of these consumers.

Open- access c onsumers would have to sign individual agreements, which would also involve fixing of the power tariff.

The move is said to be prone to manipulation as the tariff would be negotiated differentl y with various open- access consumers, even as the PSPCL c l a i ms t hat drawing power through open access causes fluctuations of up to 1,500 MW, making their operations unviable.

As per reports, some industrial houses have moved the PSERC, seeking respite from the PSPCL notices.