News
Electricity tariff hike: CEB, PUC violated 2008 Supreme Court formula, says lawyer
The recent electricity tariff hike was a violation of a Supreme Court directive given in 2008, a senior lawyer appearing in support of a public interest petition filed in the apex court has claimed. Senior Counsel K. Thiranagama appearing for petitioner P. K. Rathna Dayangani, a human rights lawyer, claimed that the electricity tariff increase for domestic consumers using more than 90 units was a violation of a Supreme Court directive given in 2008. But the Attorney General argued that the tariff revision was in line with the court directive.
Mr. Thiranagama said the Supreme Court in 2008 directed that the pricing formula stipulated in a Gazette notification on December 26 that year “should be followed with the commensurate increase of the unit price to all categories in order to maintain the same revenue.”
Disregarding this directive, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) had increased the tariff by a much higher margin for the domestic consumers who used over 90 units and this was a violation of the court directive, he argued. Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle rejecting the claims submitted that the tariff increase was in accordance with the court directive the PUC had been vested with power to increase the electricity rates.
But Counsel Thiranagama said the PUC had failed to take into account the concerns expressed by the public when it decided on the increase. In this public interest litigation, petitioner Dayangani is seeking a court declaration that her rights have been violated by the tariff increase by the respondents – the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), its General Manager Nihal Wickremasinghe, the PUC and its Chairman Jayatissa de Costa. She is also seeking interim relief by way of halting the implementation of the new tariff revision approved on May 09, until the final determination of her petititon.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice 44 Mohan Pieris and Justices Sathya Hettige and P.A. Rathnayake fixed the case for support for June 18 with notice to the respondents. Ms. Dayangani, a legal officer at the Lawyers for Human Rights and Development, in her petition said that subsequent to a case filed by her organisation in the Supreme Court, the parties in 2008 agreed on a tariff revision formula with the approval of the court.
She said the PUC disregarding this formula approved the new tariff system on April 18 this year although the tariff hike was strongly opposed by the general public, trade unions and various organisations which participated at the public hearing held by the PUC.
The PUC failed in its primary duty to protect the interest of the consumers, and without any modification had approved the tariff revision proposed by the CEB without any concern as to its fairness and justness, she said.
The petitioners also pointed out that the CEB paid Rs. 90 million annually to run the PUC and therefore there was reasonable doubt as to the fairness and impartiality of the PCU. She said that following public protests, the PUC made some amendments to the tariff structure on May 9 but the new structure was arbitrary, unjust, unfair and discriminatory with consumers using 90-211 units a month being the worst affected.
She also pointed out that the margin of tariff increase – more than 25 per cent — for the domestic category was the highest whereas the tariff revision margin for the hotels, business and industries was comparatively lower and therefore the tariff hike was a violation of her and other consumers’ rights.
She said there was no justification in imposing a fuel adjustment surcharge on domestic consumers because the CEB was compelled to generate thermal power to meet the high demand for power from businesses, hotels and industries. Therefore, she argued that the fuel adjustment charge should be levied from the industries, businesses and hotels.
She also questioned the need to substantially reduce tariff for places of worship without any justification. Apart from “rich” religious institutions, the petitioner argued that wealthy people living in high-rise luxury apartment complexes were also benefiting from the new tariff structure. She claimed that people living in these luxury apartments were being charged at a much lesser rate than the ordinary domestic users.
Ms. Dayangani also accused the CEB of purchasing thermal power from an American company at Rs. 24 per unit and selling it to the consumer at Rs. 7.15.
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus