Kathmandu — The Electricity Regulatory Commission (ERC) has rejected the claims made by industrial firms in relation to the long-standing dispute over dedicated feeder and trunk line electricity tariffs. In a hearing held on Sunday, the commission ruled that the claims submitted by Panchakanya Plastic and Panchakanya Steel did not meet the required legal and regulatory grounds.
The two companies had filed an application at the commission seeking the cancellation of what they described as an unjust decision by the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) to collect outstanding electricity dues from industries that had received power through dedicated feeder and trunk line connections. The companies had also demanded compensation, arguing that the billing method and subsequent recovery process were unfair. However, after reviewing the case and hearing arguments from both sides, the commission concluded that the demands made by the applicants could not be justified under the existing legal framework.
According to data provided by the Nepal Electricity Authority, Panchakanya Plastic still has outstanding electricity dues amounting to approximately Rs 2.463 million, while Panchakanya Steel owes around Rs 5.211 million. Following requests from the authority, the companies have already made partial payments. Panchakanya Plastic has paid Rs 77,975, while Panchakanya Steel has paid around Rs 186,000 toward the outstanding amount.
ERC Chairperson Ram Prasad Dhital stated that the commission reached its decision after examining relevant laws, regulatory provisions, and past precedents related to electricity tariff disputes. With the commission’s decision now in place, the Nepal Electricity Authority has effectively been cleared to proceed with the collection of the remaining dues from the concerned industries.
The case forms part of a broader controversy that has persisted in Nepal’s industrial sector regarding electricity supplied through dedicated feeder and trunk line systems. During periods of severe power shortages in the past, industries that required uninterrupted electricity were provided with special feeder lines, often at higher tariffs. However, disputes later emerged regarding how electricity consumption was calculated and billed, leading to multiple legal and regulatory challenges.
The commission emphasized that it has been conducting hearings on such disputes on a continuous basis. Each case is examined individually by considering the relevant legal provisions, regulatory guidelines, and historical precedents. During the recent hearing, legal representatives from the applicant companies presented their arguments, while three officials from the legal department of the Nepal Electricity Authority appeared on behalf of the authority.
As Nepal’s sectoral regulatory body for electricity, the commission plays a central role in resolving disputes between utilities and consumers, particularly large industrial users. While the commission’s decision is binding at the regulatory level, affected parties still retain the right to challenge the ruling in court if they believe the decision is inconsistent with the law or regulatory procedure.
Analysts say the latest decision could have broader implications for similar cases involving other industrial firms that have contested electricity dues linked to dedicated and trunk line supplies. If upheld, the ruling may strengthen the authority’s position in recovering pending electricity revenues and reinforce regulatory oversight in the country’s energy sector.
Nepsetrading