Case: M.P. Power Trading Company Ltd. Vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

JudgesBhanu Bhushan and R. Krishnamoorthy, Members
IssueElectricity Law
Judgement DateMay 25, 2007
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission


  1. This application was made for review of order dated 16.11.2006 in Petition No. 79/2005, determining the tariff in respect of Kawas Gas Power Station (hereinafter referred to as "the generating station") for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 on different grounds.

  2. The application for review was heard on 22.2.2007 and by order dated 26.2.2007 review was admitted on the limited issue of computation of fuel stock as a component of working capital for the purpose of calculation of interest thereon.

  3. The Commission in the order dated 16.11.2006 had considered liquid fuel stock for 1/2 month for the purpose of working capital. According to the review petitioner, while doing so, the Commission has considered neither the available storage capacity of Naphtha at the generating station nor the liquid fuel stock as on 31.3.2004. The review petitioner has alleged that the Commission accepted the claim of NTPC Ltd (hereinafter "the respondent") for Rs. 5307 lakh as cost of fuel stock without any prudence check. It has been further alleged that the storage capacity at the generating station is only 6800 KL, which would work out only Rs. 1369 lakh in monetary terms. On the other hand, as per the annual accounts for the year 2003-04, Naphtha stock as on 31.3.2004 was only Rs. 1020 lakh. According to the review petitioner, allowing claim of Rs. 5307 lakh on account of 1/2 month liquid fuel stock is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order which needs to be corrected. In this regard, the review petitioner has also relied upon the Commission's order dated 7.4.2005 in Petition No. 31/2001 (Determination of tariff for Kawas GPS) for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 wherein the Commission had considered the actual stock as on 31.3.2001 as a component of working capital. Hence, the present application for review has been made.

  4. The respondent has opposed the application for review on a number of grounds. The following is the gist of the submissions made by the respondent:

    (a) Under the guise of review of order dated 16.11.2006, the review petitioner is seeking re-determination of norms or re-hearing of the case.

    (b) The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations), 2004, (hereinafter referred to as "the regulations") provide for normative half month liquid fuel stock in the case of Combined Cycle Generating Stations.

    (c) It is for the respondent to manage its affairs in such a manner as it...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT