Appeal No.242 of 2016 & IA No. 522 of 2016. Case: Jaigad Power Transco Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission World Trade Centre. APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity)
| Case Number | Appeal No.242 of 2016 & IA No. 522 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Aman Anand Mr. Manpreet Lamba Mr. Aman Dixit Counsel and For Respondents: Mr. Buddy A Ranganadhan Mr. D V Raghu Vamsy Mr. Raunak Jain Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advs. |
| Judges | Mrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson and Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member |
| Issue | Electricity Act, 2003 |
| Judgement Date | May 11, 2017 |
| Court | APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) |
Judgment:
Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member
-
The present Appeal is being filed by M/s Jaigad Power Transco Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 challenging the Order dated 27.06.2016 ("Impugned Order") passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission"), in Case No. 12 of 2016, for Truing up of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2014-15, Provisional Truing up for FY 2015-16 and approval of ARR for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20. The present Appeal is concerning about the consideration of Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) as a part Non-Tariff Income (NTI) of the Appellant while provisionally truing up the ARR for FY 2015-16.
-
The Appellant, M/s Jaigad Power Transco Ltd., a Transmission Licensee is a Joint Venture Company (JVC) between JSW Energy Ltd. (JSWEL) and Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (MSETCL), set up for the purpose of developing, operating and maintaining a transmission system, consisting of two transmission lines along with associated equipment and terminal bays at MSETCL''s New Koyna and Karad Sub-Stations.
-
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission is the Regulatory Commission for the State of Maharashtra, exercising jurisdiction and discharging functions in terms of the Electricity Act, 2003.
-
Brief of Issues raised in the present Appeal:
a) The State Commission on 04.2.2011 notified the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission''s (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011 (herein referred as Tariff Regulations, 2011). These Regulations are applicable for the control period FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16.
b) The Appellant on 28.11.2014 filed a petition in Case No. 208 of 2014 before the State Commission for true up of ARR for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 and provisional true up of ARR for FY 2014-15 and revised estimate of ARR for FY 2015-16. The State Commission issued order on 26.6.2015 in this petition. In this order the State Commission considered DPC amount of Rs. 16.73 Cr. payable by STU to the Appellant as a part of NTI for FY 2015-16. The Appellant has filed Appeal No. 250 of 2015 before this Tribunal which is pending.
c) The Appellant on 28.1.2016 filed a petition being Case No. 12 of 2016, before the State Commission for approval of true up or FY 2014-15, provisional true up of ARR for FY 2015-16 and estimates for the control period FY 2016-17 to FY 2019-20.
d) The State Commission vide Order dated 27.06.2016 (Impugned Order) decided Case No. 12 of 2016. In this order the State Commission has considered DPC amount of Rs. 20.22 Cr. as NTI for FY 2015-16. The amount of DPC for FY 2015-16 increased to 20.22 Cr. (provisional true up in Case No. 12 of 2016) from 16.73 Cr. (revised estimate of ARR in Case No. 208 of 2014).
e) Aggrieved by the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal on the issue of adjustment of DPC as NTI from ARR for FY 2015-16.
-
QUESTIONS OF LAW
The Appellant has raised the following questions of law in the present appeal:
a. Whether the State Commission was justified in including the DPC payable by the STU/ transmission system users to the Appellant in the Non-Tariff Income while conducting the provisional true up of ARR for FY 15-16, more so when admittedly no amount was realised from the STU during FY 15-16?
b. Whether the State Commission has correctly interpreted and applied the MYT Regulations, while treating DPC as part of the Non-Tariff Income?
-
We have heard at length the learned counsel for the parties and considered carefully their written submissions, arguments put forth during the hearings etc. Gist of the same is discussed hereunder.
-
The learned counsel for the Appellant has made following arguments/submissions for our consideration on the issues raised by it:
a) The Regulation 62 of the Regulations, 2011 states that the amount of NTI related to transmission business shall be deducted from ARR while determining the annual tranmission charges of the Transmission Licensee. The Appellant in the petition has submitted the details of NTI (Rs. 0.44 Cr under the head Income from contingency Reserve Investments for FY 2015-16) as per Regulation 36 of the Tariff Regulations, 2011.
b) The State Commission in the Impugned Order has erred in considering DPC payable by the STU to the Appellant as a part of NTI while...
To continue reading
Request your trial