Judgement

(PER HON’BLE MRS. SEEMA GUPTA, TECHNICAL MEMBER ELECTRICITY)

1. The instant appeal is preferred by the Appellant No.1- Byrnihat Industries Association on behalf of its members namely, Appellant Nos.2 and 3 herein (being Ferro alloys industries operating in the State of Meghalaya) challenging the Tariff Order dated 24.3.2025 passed by the State Commission ( Respondent No.1) in Case No.09/2024 read with the Corrigendum Order dated 18.06.2025. The Appellant No.1 has been participating in tariff proceedings from time to time before the State Commission and placing its objections/suggestions in the interest of its member industrial units for rationalization of tariffs determined for the industrial consumers in the State. Respondent No.1 is the Electricity Regulatory Commission in the State of Meghalaya (hereinafter referred as “MSERC/ State Commission”) and Respondent No.2 is the Distribution company in the State of Meghalaya (hereinafter referred as “MePDCL/State Discom”)

2. The IA 887 of 2025 has been filed by Appellants seeking Stay of the Impugned Order to the extent it imposes the additional open Access charges on the Ferro alloys Industries as well as Stay of Invoices dated 09.05.2025 raised by Respondent No 2 upon Appellant No 2 & 3 levying Open Access Charges as per Impugned Order dated 24.03.2025 for the period from 01.04.2025 – 30.04.2025

3. The Corrigendum order dated 18.06.2025 to the Impugned Tariff Order dated 24.03.2025 was passed by the State Commission, specifying that industries connected at 132 kV and above (EHT level), including that of Appellants, are not liable to pay Distribution Wheeling charges, however Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) was recalculated and was levied including on Ferro alloy industries at EHT level, which was hitherto zero as per Impugned Order dated 24.03.2025. The IA No 1040 of 2025, has been filed by Appellants seeking stay of the Impugned Corrigendum order dated 18.06.2025 to the Impugned Order dated 24.03.2025 to the extent it levies cross subsidy surcharge @ Rs 1.02/ Kwh on Ferro alloys industries under category (>=132 kV ) for FY 2025-26. IA No. 1037 of 2025 has been filed by Appellants to place on record the invoice raised by Respondent No 2 on Appellants 2 & 3, correspondence with State Commission related to Corrigendum Order dated 18.06.2025.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that vide Impugned Order dated 24.03.2025, State Commission had approved the revised net revenue gap/(surplus) for FY 2025-26 including true-up gap/surplus of the previous years, in which for determination of retail supply tariff for FY 2025-26, State Commission observed that there was lack of data regarding cost of supply at various voltage levels, and proceeded on the basis of average cost of supply for working out consumer category-wise cost of supply. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that State Commission has also noted that Respondent No.2 had not proposed any increase in the existing tariffs through the Petition but had only prayed to allow the recovery of the Gap through uniform tariff hike across all categories. The State Commission determined the revision in rates of fixed charges and energy charges for various categories along with average tariff for FY 2025-26. For the Ferro alloys (HT &EHT) industries, the fixed demand charges were approved at Rs.500/kVA/month and the energy charges were approved at Rs.5.92/kWh (HT) and Rs.5.83/kWh (EHT); consequently, the total average tariff was approved at Rs.7.06/kWh (HT) and Rs.6.95/kWh (EHT). Assessing the revenue at revised tariffs as Rs.1,666.55 Cr. for FY 2025-26, the Commission arrived at the net revenue gap/(surplus) including true-up revenue gap/(surplus) of the previous years as detailed below:

5. In the Impugned Order dated 24.03.2025, for Open Access Customers, CTU charges of Rs. 0.58/Kwh and additional surcharge of Rs. 1.35/Kwh & Rs. 1.38 Kwh was levied for HT and EHT Ferro Alloy category respectively as well as Distribut