POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner has made the present application under Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) for approval of fees and charges leviable by the Load Despatch Centres, for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2007 and has claimed these charges from the respondents. THE charges claimed are as under:
(2.) The Commission in its order of 8.5.2003 in Petition No. 109/2000, had, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (10) of Section 55 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (since repealed), approved fees and charges payable to the Regional Load Despatch Centres (RLDCs) by the respondents for undertaking load despatch functions from April 2000 to March 2004, and those for the year 2003-04 were as under:
The methodology adopted by the Commission for arriving at RLDC fees and charges upto 31.3.2004 in the orders dated 22.3.2002 and 8.5.2003 is summarised as under:
(a) For the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, RLDC fees and charges were allowed as per the pre-existing arrangement based on the CEA's letter dated 15th July 1998.
(b) Employee cost was arrived at based on total manpower of 330 employees as recommended by CEA for the year 2000-2001. For the year 2001-02 and onwards an increase of 15% in employee strength over and above that for the year 2000-01 for the purpose of calculation of allowable employee cost was approved in view of the addition to work consequent to implementation of ABT.
(c) The Corporate Office expenses allowed to be included in RLDC fees and charges for the year 2000-01 were Rs 213.01 lakh. This was based on the estimate that 30 executives and non-executives at the Corporate Office were exclusively performing RLDC related functions.
(d) An amount of Rs. 50.31 lakh was approved under the head "Repair and Maintenance" for 2000-01 as against Rs. 68.10 lakh claimed .
(e) Power charges, traveling charges, communication charges, printing and stationery, insurance, miscellaneous expenses, training and recruitment charges and rent were approved as claimed.
(f) Deprecation as claimed was also allowed.
(g) Income of RLDCs was deducted from the RLDC fees and charges so calculated to arrive at net RLDC charges for the base year 2000-01.
(h) Interest on the loans repaid by the employees and the rent recovered from them were excluded from "Other income".
(i) RLDC fees and charges so calculated for the base year 2000-01 (except depreciation) were escalated for future years @ 7% based on the weighted average of consumer price index for industrial workers (CPI_IW) and a special whole sale price index (WPI_RLDC). The method of escalation considered is as under:
WPI_RLDC was obtained as a weighted average of relevant components selected from disaggregated WPI series (1993-94=100) as given herein under:
Annual escalation formula for RLDC charges as per the above weightage schemes are expressed as hereunder:
Annual Escalation = 0.1 x INFLWPI_RLDC + 0.9 x INFLCPI_IW Where:
INFLWPI_RLDC = Annual Average Inflation in WPI_RLDC
INFLCPI_IW = Annual Average Inflation in CPI_IW
(j) Working capital based on one month's receivables was allowed.
(k) Rebate of 1% only on payment of RLDC fees and charges through LC was allowed.
(3.) IT was provided that if the difference between the actual expenditure and RLDC fees and charges approved by the Commission was in the range of ï¿½5%, this was to be settled between RLDCs and the beneficiaries directly, without any reference to the Commission. However, if difference was beyond ï¿½5%, adjustment could be made after obtaining approval of the Commission for which an appropriate petition with proper justification was to be filed before the Commission.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.