Give reason for powercuts,discom told

“The extent of loadshedding carried out by this particular discom is truly unprecedented and therefore we have had to resort to extreme measures,” a senior DERC official said on the condition of anonymity.

The DERC has asked the BRPL to explain by August 13 why its distribution licence should not be suspended as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Electricity Act 2003.

Section 24 stipulates that if a distribution licencee “has persistently failed to maintain uninterrupted supply of electricity conforming to standards regarding the quality of electricity to consumers,” the regulatory authority may suspend their licence for a period not exceeding one year.

“This is a rarely used clause but the commission is of the view that the discom completely failed to live up to its commitment to the public,” the DERC official said.

BRPL is responsible for distributing power to over 12.2 lakh consumers across 19 districts in South and West Delhi. Consumers in these areas were subjected to power cuts ranging from 2 to 10 hours for nearly two weeks in June.

BSES was served an ultimatum personally by the Chief Minister towards the end of the month,following which the power situation improved.

The DERC has also invoked Section 142 of the Electricity Act 2003,which empowers the regulator to impose a “penalty which shall not exceed Rs one lakh for each contravention.”

For this purpose,the DERC will calculate how many hours of loadshedding were carried out.

For every slot of 15 minutes of loadshedding that was uncalled for,the BRPL will have to pay a fine of Rs one lakh.

The BRPL was summoned by the DERC for a hearing on July 20 where they “failed to provide an explanation” for the long hours of loadshedding.

“We are providing the discom with another opportunity to explain why it failed to make adequate arrangements for electricity in June,and why it was overdrawing so drastically. Why were they exporting power to other states while Delhi is facing severe shortage of power? If we are dissatisfied by the response to the showcause notice,we will have no choice but to impose a penalty as well as suspension of licence,” the official said.

Adding insult to injury,the showcause notice has also asked BRPL to explain why its CEO Arun Kanchan should not be personally penalised under Section 149 of the Electricity Act 2003.

Section 149 stipulates that if “an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence … is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director,manager,secretary or other officer of the company,such director,manager,secretary shall also be deemed to be guilty of having committed such offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

Discom BRPL refused to make a statement regarding the showcause notice,with one official saying that the “issue will be addressed at an appropriate time.”