NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD Vs. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
Introductory Remarks -
(1.) THE application is made by the petitioner, National THErmal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) to seek revision of O&M expenses for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 in respect of Ramagundam Super THErmal Power Station (Ramagundam STPS).
(2.) The petitioner had filed Petition No. 34/2001 for approval of tariff for Ramagundam STPS for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 during May 2001. This petition was based on the terms and conditions for determination of tariff contained in Ministry of Power notification dated 30.3.1992. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the amended petition on 29.1.2002, based on the terms and conditions notified by the Commission under Section 28 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998. The application was disposed of by order dated 6.8.2003 when the Commission determined the final tariff for the period in question. The petitioner filed an application for review of order dated 6.8.2003, being Review Petition No. 74/2003 on two aspects namely, calculation of interest on loan and interest on working capital components of the fixed charges allowed. This application for review was dismissed by order dated 8.3.2004. Simultaneously, an application for review of order dated 6.8.2003 was also made by one of the beneficiaries namely, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) which was allowed. The original application made by the petitioner for approval of tariff was again heard on 10.6.2004 and disposed of by order dated 24.8.2004.
In the present application, the petitioner has pleaded that it had actually incurred an expenditure of Rs. 52787 lakh under O&M during the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004, though the Commission has approved O&M expenses amounting to Rs. 48360 lakh, leaving an uncovered gap of Rs. 4427 lakh (though the petitioner has referred to this amount as Rs. 4700 lakh). Accordingly, the petitioner has sought revision of O&M expenses allowed by the Commission. According to the petitioner, the difference between the expenses actually incurred and those allowed is on account of the following factors, namely:
(a) inadequacy in the base "employee cost" considered and,
(b) actual O&M expenses incurred during 1995-2000 on ex gratia, incentive payments, professional charges, etc. but not allowed by the Commission in its order dated 6.8.2003, taking them as "abnormal" expenses, during the process of normalisation.
(3.) THE petitioner in support of its claim for revision of O&M expenses has relied upon the observations made in the order dated 21.12.2000 as also para 51 of the order dated 6.8.2003, which according to the petitioner granted it liberty to approach the Commission for reimbursement of actual expenses with proper justification.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.