- (1.) THE Commission vide order dated 20.2.2014 had approved the tariff of Udupi Thermal Power Station (2 x 600 MW) ('the generating station') for the period from 11.11.2010 to 31.3.2014 for Unit -I and from 19.8.2012 to 31.3.2014 for Unit -II in terms of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 ('the 2009 Tariff Regulations'). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this review petition on the following grounds. (a) Disallowance of Gross Station Heat Rate of 2400 kCal/kWh by not taking into account the GSHR as observed by the Commission in para 49 of the order dated 25.10.2005 and as per PPA. (b) Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 27.56 crore towards replacement of return sea water GRP Pipeline (return pipe) with M.S. Pipeline claimed by the petitioner to meet the directions of the State Pollution Control Board. (c) Inadvertent calculation of the EPC cost in the order as Rs. 3526.64 crore instead of Rs. 3668.85 crore.
(2.) BY order dated 3.6.2014, the Commission rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the issues raised in paragraph 1(a) and (c) above, namely, the 'disallowance of Gross Station Heat Rate' and the 'inadvertent calculation of the EPC cost'. However, by the same order, the petition was admitted on the issue raised in paragraph 1 (b) namely, the 'Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 27.56 crore towards replacement of return sea water GRP Pipeline (return pipe) with M.S. Pipeline', and notice was ordered on the respondents, including the objector, M/s. Janjagrati Samithi, with directions to the parties to complete the pleadings.
(3.) THE distribution licensees of Karnataka (the respondents herein) and the Objector, M/s. Janajagriti Samithi have filed replies in the matter and the petitioner has filed its rejoinder to the said reply. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 15.7.2014 and the Commission while reserving its order in the matter, directed the petitioner to file the details as to the date and year of capitalization of the expenditure incurred towards replacement of GRP pipelines. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Based on the submissions and the documents available on record, we examine the claim of the petitioner in the subsequent paragraphs. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 27.56 crore towards Replacement of Return Sea Water GRP Pipeline (return pipe) with M.S. Pipeline;