- (1.) These proceedings arise from the directives of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) in its Order dated 16 September, 2011 in Appeal No. 197 of 2010 filed by Solapur Bioenergy Systems Pvt. Ltd (SBSPL) challenging the Commission's Order dated 3 September, 2010 in Case No. 65 of 2009. In that Order, the Commission had determined the tariff for electricity supplied by SBSPL's Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) based power project at Solapur.
(2.) SBSPL had filed a Petition dated 21 October, 2009 in Case No. 65 of 2009 before the Commission for determination of tariff for its MSW based power project at Solapur. Vide Order dated 3 September, 2010, the Commission approved a levelised tariff of Rs. 4.88/kWh, applicable for 20 years. The estimated capacity of the project was 2.83 MW, with capital cost of Rs. 36.14 crore.
(3.) Aggrieved by that Order, SBSPL filed an Appeal before the ATE. In its Order dated 16 September, 2011, the ATE held as follows: "7.21. We feel that the State Commission can determine the capital cost of the MSW project based on its own Regulation or Central Commission's Regulations or on the basis of cost of similar projects commissioned in the country and in the absence of adequate number of projects in the country project data of other countries, by prudence check of the expenditure incurred by the appellant, inputs from study conducted by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy or other Government agencies, cost data available from the manufacturers/suppliers, etc. Admittedly, the Regulations of the State and the Central Commissions do not stipulate capital cost for MSW Power Project and the same has to be determined on case to case basis. As already decided earlier, the Pre -Treatment Plant is an integral part of the MSW Power Project and its cost has to be included in the capital cost of the Project. It is not the correct approach to exclude the capital cost of the Pre -Treatment Plant on the basis of the indicative range of capital cost of MSW plant given in the Integrated Energy Policy Report. It is also not made clear if the Integrated Energy Policy Report included a study of capital cost of the composite MSW Projects which can be adopted for determination of tariff. In our opinion, the State Commission should carry out the exercise of determination of the capital cost of the appellant. 7.22. We find that the State Commission in paragraph 3.4.14 of the impugned order has recorded that in the absence of any similar reference project cost available in India, it will not be possible to compare and comment whether the proposed capital cost stated by the appellant is appropriate. Thereafter, instead of determining the capital cost, the State Commission considered the cost data submitted by the appellant in four alternatives viz. including the pretreatment and post -treatment, including pre -treatment but excluding post -treatment, excluding both pretreatment and post -treatment and excluding pretreatment but including post -treatment and adopted the alternative with excluding the capital cost of the pre -treatment and including post -treatment. We do not agree with the approach of the State Commission. In our opinion, the State Commission has to determine the capital cost as per paragraph 7.21 above. 7.23. We find that the appellant has also not given adequate data to establish that the capital cost claimed by the appellant is reasonable. It is, therefore, necessary that the State Commission should carry out the exercise of determination of capital cost de novo after providing opportunity to the appellant to submit the supporting data. 7.24. We, therefore, remand the matter to the State Commission to re -determine the capital cost of the project including the pre -treatment plant according to the directions given in paragraphs 7.21 to 7.23." ;