V.J.TALWAR, J. - (1.) THE Appellant Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam is the State Transmission Utility and Transmission licensee in the state of Haryana. 1st Respondent is the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Central Commission). 2ndRespondent Power Grid Corporation of India (POWERGRID) is the Central Transmission Utility. Respondents 3 to 13 are either Distribution Licensees or Transmission Licensees in the constituent states of Northern Region. 14th Respondent Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) is a Generating and Transmission Company.
(2.) THE present Appeal is directed against the Central Commission's Order dated 11.4.2008 in review Petition No. 133 of 2006 in petition No. 139 of 2005 whereby the Central Commission allowed the petitions of the 2nd Respondent POWERGRID for recovery of charges for Unified Load Despatch Centre (ULDC).
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned Order of Central Commission dated 11.4.2008, the Appellant, one of the beneficiaries of the ULDC has filed this Appeal. The short facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows: (i) POWERGRID (R -2) proposed to establish a Unified Load Despatch Centre Scheme in the Northern Region. This Scheme was devised to operate, monitor and control the regional power grid in a unified, well -coordinated and integrated manner. (ii) The Central Electricity Authority accorded techno economic clearance for ULDC Scheme on 12.1.1994. In March 1995 the Government of India accorded administration and expenditure sanction for the establishment/ augmentation of ULDC Scheme for Northern Region. However, till the final commissioning of the scheme the project cost got increased on account of general price escalation and change in scope of approved items and foreign exchange variation. The revised estimated cost was also approved by Government of India. (iii) The necessary works to put the scheme commercially operational was completed on 11.1.2002 and from 1.8.2002 the scheme was declared to be commercially operational. The POWERGRID (R -2) filed a petition in Petition no. 82 of 2002 claiming that the tariff regulations notified by the Central Commission on 26.3.2001 namely the Central Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2001 would not be suitable for recovery of cost of the ULDC Scheme from beneficiaries and proposed a levelised tariff meaning thereby that a uniform amount would be recovered for a period of 15 years. (iv) The Central Commission passed an interim Order on 9.9.2002 holding that POWERGRID (R -2) was entitled to provisionally charge 70% of the tariff from the date of commercial operation of the ULDC system in Northern Region subject to adjustment in final Order. The Central Commission passed another Order on 24.10.2002 whereby POWERGRID (R -2) was directed to place on record certain additional information. (v) The audited account results of the scheme for financial year 2002 -03 was specified in the amended Petition that the project cost came to amount at Rs. 57228.65 lakhs. The Central Commission in its Order dated 2.9.2005 adapted this project cost. (vi) The Central Commission approved the recovery of loan and equity based on the weighted average rate of interest and Return on Equity. Recovery Factor for loan and equity for 15 years worked out to be 0.107 and 0.1794 respectively using the following formula : Recovery Factor = i x (1+i)n i = rate (1+i)n -1 n = period (vii) POWERGRID (R -2) filed another petition being Petition No. 139/2005 before Central Commission for approval of charges for ULDC Scheme for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.7.2017 and additional capitalization after Date of Commercial Operation during 2002 -03 and 2004 -05. (viii) The Central Commission on Petition No. 139/05 passed Order dated 9.5.2006 approving additional Capital expenditure and De -capitalization on account of Foreign Exchange Rate Variation. Weighted average rate of interest was allowed @ 6.037% and Return on Equity (RoE) at @ 14% for the period 2004 -09. Recovery factors for recovery of loan and equity in 15 years were worked out using the same formula as mentioned in para (vi) above. (ix) POWERGRID (R -2) filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) No. 61/2006 in Petition No. 139/2005 which was later on converted into Review Petition no. 133/2006. In this review petition POWERGRID (R -2) claimed that for calculating the recovery factors for the tariff block 2004 -09, Return on equity @ 14% and interest on loan @ 6.037% has been used by the Central Commission. The Central Commission has worked out the recovery factors using reduced RoE and rate of interest as above and period for 15 years on basic cost. POWERGRID (R -2) claimed that this methodology adopted by the Central Commission would lead to under recovery of ULDC charges in 15 years. The POWERGRID (R -2) proposed that first 2 year recovery charges to be based on 16% RoE and 6.593% rate of interest for 15 years while 3rd year onward, the recovery must be on the basis of 14% RoE and 6.037% rate of interest for 13 years on outstanding principal amount as on 01.04.2004. (x) At this stage the Appellants submitted before the Central Commission that by computing instalments on yearly basis and claiming it on monthly basis, the entire equity amount gets paid back in 167th month and entire loan gets paid back in 175th month, instead of both getting paid back in 180th month. According to the Appellant the 2nd Respondent is benefited by Rs. 19.21 for Rs. 100 equity and by Rs. 4.58 for Rs. 100 loan. To rectify this situation, it was requested that ULDC charges be computed on monthly basis. (xi) The Central commission passed an Order on 6.12.2006 to examine the proposal of POWERGRID (R -2) and the proposals made by various constituents including the appellant by a one member Bench. The matter was then again heard by single member bench which did not approve the contention of the constituents regarding computation of instalment on monthly basis even if the payment is to be made every month. (xii) The Central commission vide impugned Order dated 11.4.2008 endorsed the recommendations of the single member bench. (xiii) Aggrieved by this impugned Order of the Central Commission dated 11.4.2008, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. ;