Consumer groups oppose higher charges, retrospective billing in draft electricity rules of Karnataka
Bengaluru: From arbitrary deductions in security deposits and hefty infrastructure charges to retrospective billing demands and the looming threat of disconnection, electricity consumers across Karnataka could face a fresh set of financial and procedural hurdles if proposed regulations are implemented without changes.
Several consumer rights groups , trade and commerce bodies raised objections to the draft Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) Electricity Supply Regulations (ESR), 2026 at a public hearing Monday. They alleged that several provisions could leave consumers bearing the financial consequences of decisions and delays beyond their control.
A contentious proposal is the provision allowing electricity supply companies ( Escoms ) to deduct 10% of the security deposit when an applicant decides not to proceed with a power connection. Tushar M Baddi, general secretary of Vidyuth Grahakara Hitharakshana Vedike, Karnataka, questioned the legality of the deduction. “The Electricity Act, 2003, does not provide for such automatic forfeiture,” he pointed out.
Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association (KASSIA) has also raised concerns over the proposed requirement for occupancy certificates (OCs) or completion certificates (CCs) for power connections. Its vice-president HN Ramakrishnaiah said, “Making both these certificates an absolute precondition for electricity connections is unfair... We are all aware of the lengthy bureaucratic procedures involved in obtaining these documents, and these processes are not in our hands. However, while insisting on these certificates, Escoms should not deny us an essential service, as we would have already invested in raw materials and human resources. They can demand the certificates at a later stage when they visit the premises for verification.”
The financial implications of the proposed infrastructure provisions have triggered another major objection. “If you go by the draft rules, there is a possibility that both consumers and developers could be made to pay twice for the same electricity infrastructure. What is the objective behind levying an additional 5% charge on distribution transformers when developers are already required to deposit 80% of the estimated cost?” said an advocate representing a group of Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs).
MG Prabhakar, an independent energy consultant from Bengaluru, drew attention to the metering and billing provisions in the proposed rules.
“Consumers could face retrospective demands for up to six billing months merely because a meter is found to be non-recording during an inspection. Therefore, laboratory testing should be made mandatory to establish the actual cause and duration of the malfunction before any additional bill is raised,” he said.
He also opposed the provision allowing an additional security deposit demand for a single instance of payment default and sought protection against disconnection while genuine billing disputes are pending before Escom authorities.
Several consumer rights groups , trade and commerce bodies raised objections to the draft Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) Electricity Supply Regulations (ESR), 2026 at a public hearing Monday. They alleged that several provisions could leave consumers bearing the financial consequences of decisions and delays beyond their control.
A contentious proposal is the provision allowing electricity supply companies ( Escoms ) to deduct 10% of the security deposit when an applicant decides not to proceed with a power connection. Tushar M Baddi, general secretary of Vidyuth Grahakara Hitharakshana Vedike, Karnataka, questioned the legality of the deduction. “The Electricity Act, 2003, does not provide for such automatic forfeiture,” he pointed out.
Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association (KASSIA) has also raised concerns over the proposed requirement for occupancy certificates (OCs) or completion certificates (CCs) for power connections. Its vice-president HN Ramakrishnaiah said, “Making both these certificates an absolute precondition for electricity connections is unfair... We are all aware of the lengthy bureaucratic procedures involved in obtaining these documents, and these processes are not in our hands. However, while insisting on these certificates, Escoms should not deny us an essential service, as we would have already invested in raw materials and human resources. They can demand the certificates at a later stage when they visit the premises for verification.”
The financial implications of the proposed infrastructure provisions have triggered another major objection. “If you go by the draft rules, there is a possibility that both consumers and developers could be made to pay twice for the same electricity infrastructure. What is the objective behind levying an additional 5% charge on distribution transformers when developers are already required to deposit 80% of the estimated cost?” said an advocate representing a group of Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs).
MG Prabhakar, an independent energy consultant from Bengaluru, drew attention to the metering and billing provisions in the proposed rules.
“Consumers could face retrospective demands for up to six billing months merely because a meter is found to be non-recording during an inspection. Therefore, laboratory testing should be made mandatory to establish the actual cause and duration of the malfunction before any additional bill is raised,” he said.
He also opposed the provision allowing an additional security deposit demand for a single instance of payment default and sought protection against disconnection while genuine billing disputes are pending before Escom authorities.
Next Story