- (1.) THIS petition has been made by the petitioner, NTPC Ltd., for review of order dated 15.5.2014 in Petition No. 176/GT/2013 whereby the Commission had revised the tariff of Rihand Super Thermal Power Station, Stage -I (1000 MW) for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014 in terms of the proviso to Regulation 6(1) of the 2009 Tariff Regulations.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner has sought review of the said order dated 15.5.2014 on the ground of error apparent on the face of the order, raising the following issues: (a) Revising the allowance of capital expenditure earlier made in the order dated 7.6.2012 in Petition No. 261 of 2009 on Electro Static Precipitators (ESPs) of the value of Rs.13000 lakh; (b) Not allowing exclusion of the de -capitalization of the assets which had become old and unserviceable when the value of the corresponding replaced assets are not allowed to be capitalized. This is in regard to an amount of ( -) Rs. 703.36 lakh and ( -) Rs. 285.99 lakh on account of replacement items and Locos and Wagons respectively; (c) In computing the depreciable value during the tariff periods 2010 -11, 2011 -12, 2012 -13 and 2013 -14, an amount of Rs. 327.38 lakh has not been accounted for on the wrong premise that the same relates to freehold forest land, whereas the related land is on leasehold; (d) De -capitalization of Wagons and Locos effected for the years 2010 -11 and 2011 -12 has not been taken into consideration while computing the cumulative depreciation reduction due to de -capitalization; and (e) The adjustment of cumulative Depreciation on account de -capitalization of spares during the period 2011 -12 which are part of capital cost amounting to ( -) Rs. 27.16 lakh has been considered wrongly in the year 2009 -10 instead of 2011 -12 when the de -capitalization was effected.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner on 'admission'. Considering the submissions of the petitioner and based on the documents available on record, we dispose of the issues raised by the petitioner, for the reasons stated in the subsequent paragraphs. Revising the allowance of capital expenditure earlier made in the order dated 7.6.2012 in Petition No. 261 of 2009 on Electro Static Precipitators (ESPs) The petitioner has submitted that the Commission in its order dated 7.6.2012 in Petition No. 261 of 2009 had allowed the value of Rs. 13000 lakh towards Electro Static Precipitators (ESPs) proposed to be installed by NTPC, in terms of Regulation 9(2)(ii) of the 2009 Tariff Regulations dealing with Change in Law. The petitioner has also submitted that the ESPs were to be installed in compliance with the directions contained under the Pollution Control Laws and having allowed the same after due consideration, the Commission ought not to have reconsidered the claim and rejected the same on the ground that the generating station would be entitled to get Special Allowance from the year 2015 -16 as per the provisions of the 2014 Tariff Regulations since the generating station would have completed 25 years of commercial operation by then. The petitioner has further submitted that the ESP package was awarded on 1.3.2013 after the same was allowed by the Commission and considering the time line of 36 months, the package is likely to be commissioned/capitalised during 2015 -16. The petitioner has contended that the claim for ESP ought to have been considered as per scope of Regulation 9(2)(ii) dealing with change in law and if the claim is admissible under the said provision, it cannot be rejected by reference to any other generic provision such as Regulation 10 of the 2009 Tariff Regulations. The petitioner has stated that R and M of ESPs is for compliance of statutory provision and not for extension of life of the station and therefore should not be linked to Special allowance. The petitioner has argued that the Commission has acted beyond the scope of Regulation 9(2)(ii) in linking the claim with Special allowance and rejecting it consequentially. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted that there is error apparent on the face of the order and the same needs to be rectified.;