Review Petition No. 25/2007 in Petition No. 33/2003. Case: Assam State Electricity Board Vs North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
| Case Number | Review Petition No. 25/2007 in Petition No. 33/2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.K. Hazarika, GM (Comml.) and K. Goswami, Sr. Manager and For Respondents: D. Dey, Adv. |
| Judges | Bhanu Bhushan and R. Krishnamoorthy, Members |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Section 114 - Order 47; Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 - Section 28; Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2001 |
| Citation | 2007 ELR 1396 (CERC) |
| Judgement Date | June 12, 2007 |
| Court | Central Electricity Regulatory Commission |
Order:
-
We have heard Shri P.K. Hazarika, GM (Comml.), with Shri K. Goswami on admission.
-
The application has been made for review of order dated 14.12.2006 in Petition No.33/2003, whereby the Commission had approved tariff in respect of Assam Gas Based Power Station (hereinafter referred to as "the generating station") owned by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004.
-
The tariff for the generating station was initially approved by order dated 22.8.2005. However, the respondent made an application for review of the said order dated 22.8.2005, being Review Petition No.115/2005, on the following grounds, namely:
(a) Calculation of capital cost and deduction of net revenue earned from sale of infirm power from the capital cost,
(b) Computation of interest on loan,
(c) Calculation of interest on working capital, and
(d) Calculation of O&M expenses
-
The Commission by its order dated 2.8.2006 had allowed review on two grounds namely, consideration of the capital cost, and computation of O&M expenses. Consequently, the tariff was re-determined by order dated 14.12.2006, presently sought to be reviewed by the petitioner. Grounds for Present Review Capital Cost
-
In the order dated 22.8.2005, the Commission had arrived at a total capital cost of Rs.145163 lakh after adjusting revenue of Rs.287 lakh earned by the respondent by sale of infirm power. It was, however, submitted by the respondent that an amount of Rs.173 lakh on account of sale of infirm power was already adjusted against the capital cost claimed as on the date of commercial operation. The respondent had submitted that further reduction needed to be restricted to Rs.114 lakh only. The Commission, based on available evidence accepted the plea of the respondent and by its said order dated 14.12.2006, allowed adjustment of Rs.114 lakh on account of additional revenue earned by sale of infirm power and thereby arrived at capital cost of Rs.145336 lakh which was considered for the purpose of determination of tariff for the year 2003-04.
-
The petitioner has submitted that the Commission has accepted the respondent's claim that it had adjusted Rs.173 lakh from capital cost as net income from sale of infirm power based on its submission and on the basis of Auditor's certificate, which in fact did not confirm that the said income was actually adjusted in the capital cost by the respondent. The petitioner has further submitted that if the net income from sale of infirm power was Rs.173 lakh as per audited books of accounts of 1998-99 then the earlier tariff petition filed before the Commission for the period 1998-2001, should have been based on the adjusted capital cost. But from the statements submitted in earlier petition as well the figures do not substantiate the claim of the respondent that the income from sale of infirm power was adjusted.
-
The petitioner has affirmed that the income of Rs.173 lakh on account of sale of infirm power was in fact not adjusted in the project cost claimed by the respondent. The petitioner has also submitted that Form-5 of Petition No. 33/2003 has also not substantiated the claim of the respondent, since it is not clear against which item the respondent adjusted the sale proceeds of infirm power. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the claim of adjustment of infirm power was not based on facts and had not been put into action in tariff petition practically.
O&M Expenses
-
Further, in the main petition, the respondent had claimed O&M expenses in accordance with clause 2.7 (d) (ii) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2001 regulations"). Originally, the Commission in its order dated 22.8.2005 had considered O&M expenses of Rs.2520 lakh, based on the details of actual expenses considered in the order dated 16.1.2004 in Petition No.67/2003 (suo motu), relating to laying down of norms...
To continue reading
Request your trial