Seeks interim stay on enhanced tariff, restoration of pre-order rates
Srinagar, August 26: The Federation of Chambers of Industries Kashmir (FCIK) has filed a comprehensive Review Petition before the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) challenging Order No. 06 of 2026 dated August 20, which enhanced electricity tariffs for existing industrial consumers.
The apex industrial chamber has sought reconsideration of the tariff order as well as interim protection pending disposal of its petition.
In its 17-page petition, FCIK has challenged what it termed the central anomaly in the tariff determination, pointing out that KPDCL and JPDCL had proposed a 5 per cent across-the-board increase, while JERC ultimately raised the principal energy charge for LT Industry from ₹4.20 to ₹4.60 per kVAh, an increase of 9.52 per cent.
For HT Industry at 11 kV, the energy charge was raised from ₹4.10 to ₹4.50 per kVAh, an increase of 9.76 per cent, besides increases in fixed and demand charges.
FCIK said the widely publicised overall tariff revenue increase of 6.83 per cent masks the actual near-10 per cent increase imposed on industrial consumers.
The Federation has questioned the basis for the increase, particularly as the tariff order itself acknowledges that category-wise and voltage-wise Cost of Supply data are presently unavailable with the DISCOMs despite earlier directions of the Commission.
FCIK argued that in the absence of such data, there was no transparent category-specific cost determination to explain why industry should face almost twice the increase originally proposed by the utilities.
The petition has also challenged the passing of system-wide inefficiencies on to an essentially fully metered industrial sector. It has pointed to distribution-loss assumptions of around 19 per cent for KPDCL and 15 per cent for JPDCL, projected collection efficiency of only 93 per cent, and provision of over ₹102 crore towards bad debts.
FCIK reminded JERC of its regulatory principle that distribution losses are controllable and that inefficiencies should not be passed on to consumers.
The Federation has further highlighted the DISCOMs’ Business Plans, which project stagnation or only marginal growth in the industrial sector over the next three years. It termed it paradoxical that the industrial outlook was acknowledged to be weak while electricity, a basic input for manufacturing, was simultaneously made substantially more expensive.
FCIK has also raised concerns over the stakeholder consultation process in Kashmir. It said only three persons attended the KPDCL public hearing in Srinagar and no written objection appeared to have been filed by any organisation or consumer from the region.
The Federation said its Head of Advisory Committee, Shahid Kamili, attended the hearing only after being contacted by a JERC official after the proceedings had already commenced, leaving no opportunity to study the petition, consult members or prepare written objections.
According to FCIK, such attendance could not be treated as meaningful institutional consultation.
It further argued that stakeholders had been invited to respond to a 5 per cent across-the-board proposal rather than the near-10 per cent industrial increase eventually imposed. Therefore, even a fully prepared stakeholder could not have specifically objected to the basis for the substantially higher industrial tariff ultimately determined.
FCIK has asked JERC to restore the pre-order tariff for existing industrial consumers until reliable category-wise and voltage-wise Cost of Supply data are determined.
It has also sought disclosure and scrutiny of category-wise losses, collection efficiency, arrears, bad debts and the methodology used to justify the differential increase imposed on industry.
Pending disposal of the Review Petition, FCIK has sought immediate abeyance of the enhanced industrial tariff and continuation of billing at pre-order rates, subject to final adjustment.
“Industry is not asking to escape the legitimate cost of electricity it consumes. The question before JERC is simple: when the utilities sought 5%, what category-specific cost or efficiency finding justified imposing nearly 10% on industry when the data required establishing industry’s actual cost-to-serve are admittedly unavailable?” FCIK said.
