NHPC LIMITED Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner, NHPC limited for revision of tariff of Chamera -I Hydroelectric Power Station (3 x 180 MW) ("the generating station") for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2014 after truing -up exercise in terms of Regulation 6 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms &Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 ("the 2009 Tariff Regulations") and for determination of annual fixed charges for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2019 in accordance with the provisions of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014 ("the 2014 Tariff Regulations").
(2.) THE generating station having a capacity of 540 MW is located in the State of Himachal Pradesh and was declared under commercial operation on 1.5.1994. The tariff of the generating station for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 was approved by the Commission vide its order dated 9.5.2006 in Petition No. 39/2005 and was revised by order dated 5.2.2007 in Review Petition No. 64/2006 (in Petition No. 39/2005). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed Appeal No. 84/2007 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (the Tribunal) raising the issues namely, (a) Allocation of additional capitalization for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 towards debt and equity(b) on adoption of new debt equity ratio, the calculations of gross loan, return on equity and interest on loan have been completely distorted; and (c) Error in calculation of depreciable value in respect of unclassified land. As regards the allocation of additional capitalization for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004, the Commission undertook to review the debt -equity ratio as 68.99:31.01 for the period 2004 -09 (instead of 69.63:30.37) in the light of the decision in Loktak HEP (another generating station of the petitioner) and pass necessary orders segregating the additional capital expenditure as considered for tariff determination for the period 2001 -04. Accordingly, the Tribunal by order dated 5.2.2008 directed the Commission to pass consequential orders. The relevant extract of the order dated 5.2.2008 is as under:
"Having considered the whole matter we allow the appeal only to the extent of the two grounds mentioned above and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the CERC for reconsideration of the appellants claim.
"1. With regard to the apportioning of the additional capitalization (including de -capitalization and FERV) for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 in the same debt -equity ratio of 68.99:31.01 as admitted in the previous tariff period and
2. With regard to the adoption of new debt equity ratio, the calculations of gross loan, RoE and Interest on loan.
The Commission is at liberty to give further relief which will be consequent upon the Commission decision on the two above issues. The appellant as well as other respondents will be at liberty to challenge the order that CERC may now pass consequent upon the present directions."
(3.) BASED on this, the only issue considered by the Tribunal in the said appeal was the error in the calculation of depreciable value of unclassified land and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.12.2009. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Commission vide order dated 21.12.2009 in Petition No. 97/2009 had revised the annual fixed charges for the generating station after considering the additional capital expenditure incurred during the years 2004 -05 and 2005 -06. Subsequently, by order dated 3.9.2010 in Petition No. 206/2009, the annual fixed charges for 2004 -09 was revised after considering the impact of additional capital expenditure for the period 2006 -09.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.