- (1.) Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (MSETCL) submitted a Petition on 28 March, 2014 in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation 85 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004, seeking review of the Order dated 13 February, 2014 in Case No. 39 of 2013 passed by the Commission in the matter of Petition filed by MSETCL for approval of final Truing up for FY 2011 -12, Annual Performance Review for FY 2012 -13 and determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement for the MYT Second Control Period from FY 2013 -14 to FY 2015 -16. 1.1. The Prayers in the Petition are as under: " a. The Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to admit the Review Petition; b. The Hon'ble Commission may permit review of the impugned Order dated 13 February, 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Commission in Case No. 39 of 2013; c. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Commission is humbly requested to re -determine the True -up till FY 2010 -11 d. The Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to re -determine the ARR and true - up for FY 2011 -12 and Annual Performance Review of FY 2012 -13; e. The Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to re -determine the ARR for the MYT Second Control Period from FY 2013 -14 to FY 2015 -16; f. The Hon'ble Commission may please condone any inadvertent omissions / errors / short comings in the present Review Petition and may further permit the Review Petitioner to add / modify / change / amend / alter the present Review Petition and to make further submissions as may be required during the proceedings; g. The Hon'ble Commission may pass such further and other Orders as the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the Present Review Petition. "1.2. The Petitioner has sought a review of the said Order dated 13 February, 2014 (Case No. 39 of 2013) on the following issues: a. Return on Equity in FY 2009 -10 and corresponding impact on Incentive for Higher Availability; b. Operation and Maintenance Expenses for FY 2013 -14 to FY 2015 -16; c. Capitalisation of Wind Evacuation Scheme for FY 2011 -12; d. Reduction in loan amount due to retirement of assets for FY 2012 -13 to FY 2015 -16; and e. Advance Against Depreciation for FY 2011 -12 and FY 2012 -13. 1.3. The Petitioner stated that it carried out detailed analysis of the impugned Order in Case No. 39 of 2013 and claimed that certain errors have occurred in the impugned Order which fall in the purview of Regulation 85 of the MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 which provides as follows: "85.(a) Any person aggrieved by a direction, decision or order of the Commission, from which (i) no appeal has been preferred or (ii) from which no appeal has been allowed, may, upon the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the direction, decision or order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent from the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reasons, may apply for a review of such order, within forty -five (45) days of the date of the direction, decision or order, as the case may be, to the Commission." 1.4. The Petitioner submitted that the Petition has been submitted for consideration and rectification of the said mistakes and errors apparent, so that the resultant Revenue Gap after final Truing up for FY 2011 -12, Annual Performance Review of FY 2012 - 13 and ARR for FY 2013 -14 to FY 2015 -16 are appropriately restated to ensure that the Petitioner is sufficiently able to discharge its duties as mandated in the Electricity Act, 2003. 1.5. The Petitioner further submitted that no Appeal under Section 111 of EA 2003 has also been preferred against the impugned Order and the Review Petition has been filed within the prescribed time limit. 1.6. A notice dated 20 May, 2014 was issued to the Petitioner and to the Consumer Representatives authorised under Section 94(3) of the EA 2003 intimating the date of hearing in the present matter. The Commission scheduled the hearing in the matter on 3 June, 2014. During the hearing, the Petitioner reiterated the issues raised in the Petition. The Commission, on hearing the issues, directed that a meeting be held between the staff of the Commission and the Petitioner to discuss the issues raised in the Petition. The meeting was held on 3 June, 2014 between the staff of the Commission and the Petitioner. Subsequent to this meeting, the Petitioner made additional submissions on 12 June, 2014. 1.7. The issues raised and the Commission's rulings thereon after hearing the Petitioner and considering the material placed on record, are provided in the following Paragraphs:
(2.) Return on Equity: 2.1. The Petitioner submitted that in the Impugned Order, the Commission has approved the disallowed capitalisation of the previous years and has thereby approved net capitalisation for year FY 2009 -10 as Rs 1193.55 Crore. Further, the Commission has considered a Debt to Equity ratio of 80:20. The Commission has approved equity portion of net capitalisation for FY 2009 -10 as Rs 222.59 Crore instead of Rs 238.71 Crore which is 20% of Rs 1193.55 Crore. 2.2. The Petitioner has requested the Commission to revise the equity portion of net capitalisation to Rs 238.71 Crore and the corresponding return on equity for FY 2009 - 10. 2.3. Further, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve the impact in return on equity due to the change in the equity portion of net capitalisation in FY 2009 -10 for the subsequent years from FY 2010 -11 to FY 2015 -16. 2.4. The Commission has noted the submissions made by the Petitioner for revision in RoE for FY 2009 -10 to FY 2015 -16. The submissions made by Petitioner for the revision of the equity portion of net capitalisation during FY 2009 -10 are found to be correct. Accordingly, the Commission approves the equity portion of net capitalisation for FY 2009 -10 as Rs 238.71 Crore and RoE for FY 2009 -10 as Rs 427.22 Crore. The Commission approves the revision in the equity portion capitalisation as shown in the table below: JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(ET)6_2014.htm 2.5. The Commission approves RoE for FY 2009 -10 to FY 2015 -16 as mentioned in the table below: JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(ET)6_20141.htm
(3.) Incentive for Higher Availability: 3.1. The Petitioner prayed to the Commission to revise incentive for higher availability for FY 2009 -10 to FY 2011 -12 due to revision in the equity portion of net capitalisation for the year FY 2009 -10 and ROE for FY 2009 -10 and the subsequent years. 3.2. The Commission has noted the submission made by the Petitioner. The Commission approves the additional impact on incentive for higher availability due to the change in ROE for FY 2009 -10 and subsequent years. 3.3. Accordingly, the Commission approves the revised incentive on higher availability as shown in table below: JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(ET)6_20145.jpg;