Mumbai: In a strong letter submitted to the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), former Deputy Mayor of Mumbai and General Secretary of the INC, Rajesh Sharma has raised a red flag over Adani Power’s bid to obtain parallel power distribution licenses in key urban areas of Maharashtra. Calling it a “direct threat to the sustainability and integrity” of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), Sharma has urged the Commission to reject the application in the larger public interest.
Sharma’s objection comes in the wake of Adani Power’s proposal to operate in high-density, high-revenue areas including Mulund, Bhandup, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Panvel, Kharghar, Taloja, and Uran. These urban belts, according to Sharma, are already fully electrified and enjoy robust power infrastructure, raising questions about the private player’s real intention—profit, not public service.
Sharma accused Adani Power of “blatant cherry-picking,” stating that the company has shown interest only in affluent, urban, and semi-urban zones that are commercially lucrative and pose minimal infrastructure investment needs. “Why hasn’t Adani applied for licenses in underserved districts like Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, or Nandurbar—where service quality is poor and infrastructure investment is badly needed?” Sharma asked pointedly.
He further argued that over 70% of the power demand in the selected regions comes from high-paying commercial, industrial, and upper-middle-class residential consumers. These very consumers form the financial backbone of MSEDCL, which uses their tariff surplus to cross-subsidise nearly ₹8,000 crore annually for farmers and low-income rural users. “If Adani siphons away these high-paying consumers, MSEDCL’s model will collapse,” Sharma warned.
Highlighting another major flaw, Sharma criticised the potential duplication of existing infrastructure in the proposed areas. “MSEDCL already has a robust distribution network in place. Adani’s plans to create parallel infrastructure serve no public need and merely reflect a strategy to capture margin-rich segments,” he wrote.
He also drew parallels to the situation in South Mumbai, where private players including Tata and Adani have historically avoided slum areas and low-income communities. “The lack of commitment to universal service obligation is a clear indication of social irresponsibility,” the letter said.
Sharma cited views from noted energy policy think tanks like Prayas Energy Group and union bodies such as the MAHADISCOM Karmachari Sanghatana, both of which have consistently raised concerns about the partial privatisation of power distribution. They argue that allowing private players to operate only in profit-generating regions undermines the very principle of equitable electricity access.
“Parallel licensing makes sense only if every consumer—rich or poor, urban or rural—is served. Otherwise, it’s economic segregation,” one of the expert statements quoted in the letter said.
Key supporting data mentioned in the letter:
• Cross-subsidy by MSEDCL from industrial/commercial clients: ₹8,000–10,000 crore/year
• Aggregate Technical & Commercial (AT&C) losses:
• Urban areas: 10–12%
• Rural areas: 30–45%
• Tariff margins:
• Commercial: ₹8–₹10/unit
• Agriculture: ₹1–₹2/unit
While acknowledging that private entry might improve reliability and offer consumer choice in the short term, Sharma insisted that any reform must be rooted in equity and sustainability. “Empowering MSEDCL to improve its efficiency and serve all sections of society is the need of the hour—not opening the doors for selective privatisation,” the letter concluded.
Rajesh Sharma’s letter has once again ignited debate over the privatisation of critical infrastructure in India’s power sector. With MERC expected to rule on the matter soon, the outcome could have lasting implications for the future of public utilities and universal access to electricity in the state.
