Petroleum regulator moots LPG interoperability among fuel companies to cut delays in cylinder deliveries to households

The proposed model is in line with best practices in various other countries. For instance, in the European Union countries, uninterrupted energy supply is a protected consumer right, with mandatory “supplier of last resort” systems ensuring continued service even if one service provider fails.

Currently, a consumer is locked into one OMC’s ecosystem. For example, an IOC LPG customer can only get refills from an IOC distributor. If that distributor faces a stock out, logistics issue, or any outage—like a bottling plant breakdown or transport strike—the consumer’s refill is delayed until the issue is resolved. At present, the onus is on the individual OMC and distributor to meet the demand, with limited options for the consumer to seek alternative supply without formally switching the connection to another OMC. This can be problematic during supply disruptions or a surge in demand—like during the festival seasons or at times of natural disasters—when one OMC’s network might be overstretched while another’s has spare capacity.

“The proposed framework introduces a Cross-PSU (public sector undertaking) Service Mechanism where the nearest available LPG distributor—regardless of company—would complete delivery if the primary company’s distributor cannot do so within 24 hours of booking. This revolutionary approach transforms three separate distribution silos into one unified national LPG service system,” the PNGRB said. The regulator has proposed a “carefully phased approach” beginning with pilot programmes in select urban and rural areas to test coordination systems and inter-company processes.

With over 32 crore domestic LPG connections and nearly 100 per cent coverage nationwide, the country now faces the challenge of ensuring service excellence, the regulator said, noting that a high-level expert committee constituted by it found that grievances pertaining to delivery delays dominated the over 1.7 million LPG-related complaints that are registered annually. Nearly half of all complaints recorded by the OMCs relate to cylinder delivery issues, with consumers often waiting days or even weeks beyond the currently stipulated 48-hour delivery norm.

According to the regulator, the rationale for such a mechanism is rooted in the principle of universal service obligation as all the OMCs ultimately have the same mandate from the government—to ensure that cooking fuel reaches every household reliably at an affordable price and in reasonable time. The three companies operate under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), sell LPG at uniform prices, and are collectively accountable for energy access goals.

“From the consumer’s perspective, Indane (IOC’s LPG brand), Bharat Gas (BPCL), or HP Gas (HPCL) cylinders serve an identical purpose; they are standardized 14.2 kg cylinders with identical regulator fittings and gas composition. In effect, these brands are substitutable from a user standpoint, even if the commercial entities are different. This interchangeability is what allows us to envision a cross PSU service solution,” the PNGRB said.

“In India’s context, all three LPG companies are government owned and often collaborate on Infrastructure sharing. It is thus logical that they should collectively guarantee the service to every LPG customer. If one’s network hits a snag, the others can immediately fill the gap. This approach would transform the customer experience by making the service provider boundaries invisible to the consumer during emergencies or delays,” the regulator said.

From the homepage

Canada designates Lawrence Bishnoi gang a terrorist entity

What the FIR into Vijay’s Karur rally stampede says – and what it doesn’t

Modi writes foreword to Giorgia Meloni’s memoir, calls the book her ‘Mann Ki Baat’