Refund Excess Open Access Charges to Serum Institute: MERC

Refund Excess Open Access Charges to Serum Institute: MERC

The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has directed the state power utility to refund over Rs. 7.7 million in excess wheeling and transmission charges to Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. (SIIPL), in a ruling that may benefit other open-access consumers.

The refund, covering the period from September 2021 to May 2023, must include interest and be completed within one month, the regulator said in an order issued this week. The case stems from a petition filed by SIIPL in August 2024, challenging billing practices by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL).

SIIPL, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, operates 29 captive wind generating units across Maharashtra and draws power through open access.

The company alleged that MSEDCL calculated wheeling and transmission charges based on the gross energy injected into the grid, instead of the net energy drawn at the consumption point, violating Regulation 14.6 of the MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016. SIIPL cited earlier rulings, including a January 2023 MERC order in the Sridevi Trading Company case, which held that charges should be levied on actual drawal.

MSEDCL argued that it complied with Section 42(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and had already revised its billing methodology from June 2023. It contended that the Sridevi order pertained only to wheeling charges, not transmission charges, and denied any overcharging.

However, the Commission rejected MSEDCL’s arguments, stating that both wheeling and transmission charges must be levied based on net energy drawal, accounting for system losses. It also dismissed MSEDCL’s claims that the tariff orders excluded such provisions.

While the regulator upheld the retrospective applicability of an October 2022 judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), it limited SIIPL’s refund to the period specifically claimed, due to insufficient data on earlier transactions.

The Commission further directed MSEDCL to initiate refunds for all similarly placed open access consumers, in line with previous rulings and the APTEL judgment. It stopped short of penalizing the utility under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, citing MSEDCL’s partial compliance but criticized its inconsistent filings as “entirely unacceptable.”

The ruling reinforces regulatory clarity around open access billing and marks a win for industrial consumers using captive renewable energy sources.

Let me know if you’d like a shorter summary or headline options.