APERC’s aviation categorisation forces CPDCL to approach apex court

While the cash-strapped central discom is forced to reduce power tariff for aviation-related activities by way of a separate category since April, it is interesting to note that all the State-run airports were being charged under the ‘commercial’ category for the last five decades or more.

CPDCL officials inform that the consumers categorised under HT II (Others) - generally referred to as ‘commercial’ category-- are not strictly commercial consumers, as they include many public utility services such as bus stations, railway stations, and government offices, and till recently, airports.

“Creation of a separate category for aviation could lead to many other players from the service sector seeking similar concessions,” notes P. Rajagopal Reddy, the Director (Finance) of the discom. It is also notable that the creation of separate category has, behind it, a tireless pursuit by the GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (GHIAL) to have its 132 KV connection shifted from HT II (Others) to HT I(A) (Industrial) category, so as to avail the resultant tariff reduction.

The company’s petition to the APERC also cites a letter from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the government here in 2008 recommending the category conversion. Unable to cut any ice with the CPDCL authorities even after a number of representations, the company has filed an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE), and partially succeeded, by bringing pressure upon the APERC towards creation of a separate category. By then, the ATE had already been approached thrice by the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) - the joint venture arm led by GVK Group that manages the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport in Mumbai - with a similar petition seeking directions to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission.

The ATE issued directions asking the commission to re-determine the tariff for the company, so that the commercial and aviation operations can be charged under two different categories. However, if no such segregation of loads is possible, the State commission could start a separate category and determine composite tariff clubbing both the activities.

Upon being approached by the GHIAL, the ATE, in July 2011, simply issued the same order to the APERC. However, rather than following its counterpart in Maharashtra which has kept the orders aside thrice in a row, the APERC has willingly created a separate category for the aviation activities forcing the CPDCL to resort to the Supreme Court for recourse.

CPDCL officials contend that the load segregation between aviation and commercial operations will go against the General Terms and Conditions (GTCs) which define that separate establishments should have distinct set-ups and staff, or owned or leased by different persons, or covered by different licenses or registrations.

Going by the GTCs, even if a consumer runs a grocery shop within the same premises as his home, the company charges him with commercial tariffs. “We charge even the bus stations and railway stations together with all the small kiosks within under the HT II (Others) category,” says Mr. Reddy, adding that the segregation of aviation loads will only set a precedent for many others seeking the same.