Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) has rejected a plea to review its verdict that Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (Tangedco) is not entitled to collect both development charges and extension/estimate cost from the consumer while effecting new service connection.
In 2021, the TNERC heard a slew of petitions and held that cost pertaining to distribution transformers (DT) and related structures has to be incurred by Tangedco, while the cost pertaining to the installation of the high tension (HT) line and low tension (LT) line must be paid by the consumers.
It also said all petitioners are entitled to refund of extension cost/estimate cost after adjusting the cost pertaining to the portion of the HT line/LT installation works. Tangedco filed a review petition against the orders.
The prayers sought in the review petition are to pass an order to include the cost of DT erected within the consumer premises with respect to extension of LT service connections and to include the actual cost of extension of HT service connections, the TNERC noted.
Tangedco sought a review of the orders citing lack of jurisdiction and also pointed out that the huge cost incurred by it in installing distribution transformers and other necessary infrastructure to effect new service connection has not been considered by the Commission. TNERC ruled that the grounds of lack of jurisdiction are not legally tenable.
As for the cost of distribution transformer on the premises of consumers is concerned, the TNERC has said it has amended Regulation 29 (11) of the Distribution Code to add more clarity that the cost of the distribution transformer and allied structure materials are to be borne by Tangedco, it added.
It said the regulation has not been challenged by the review petitioner. The same has been notified in gazette and as such very much in force. The licensee (Tangedco) is obligated under the Electricity Act, 2003 to comply with the regulation unless it is challenged in a manner mandated in law. The regulation enacted by the Commission cannot be agitated in a review petition which is impermissible in law, TNERC ruled.
The prayer sought by Tangedco is no less than requesting the Commission to rewrite its orders by revisiting the facts and reappreciation of evidence on record. But the same is impermissible under law, it noted and dismissed the review petition.
