ANDHRA
PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Sri. K.Sreerama Murthy, Member
Sri Surinder
Pal, Member
R.P.No.6 of 2005
in
O.P.No. 30 of 2004
and
The
petition coming on for hearing on 23.09.2005 and 22.10.2005 in the presence of
Sri P.M.K.Gandhi, Director (RAC & Co-ord) for the petitioner, and having stood over for
consideration till this day, the Commission made the following:
This is a review petition made under section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. The following are the averments made in the petition:
(a) The Commission while taking into consideration, 700 MW of load in respect of open access consumers/generators in the Tariff Order for FY 2005-06 has determined the transmission tariff at Rs.69.25/kW/month and SLDC charges at Rs.4.10/kW/month.
(b) The petitioner would like to bring to the attention of the Hon’ble Commission that its wheeled capacity is 455.89 MW, as per the details provided in Annexure-A to the petition, whereas the wheeled capacity considered by the Hon’ble Commission is 700 MW.
(c ) The petitioner would also like to mention that based on the wheeled capacity of 455.89 MW, the transmission charges would work out to Rs.70.75/kW/month and the SLDC charges as Rs.4.18/kW/month.
(d) The petitioner wishes to emphasize that by applying the Hon’ble Commission’s approved transmission and SLDC charges, the petitioner shall be under-recovering revenues to the extent of Rs.20.29 crs and Rs.1.20 crs respectively during FY 2005-06 because of the difference between the wheeled capacity of 700 MW mentioned in the Tariff Order and the petitioner’s estimate of 455.89 MW. The petitioner has not, however, taken into account the Open Access consumers in its estimate and, in case of recovery of transmission and SLDC charges from them, the same shall be considered in the revised ARR (Aggregate Revenue Requirement), to be filed by the petitioner at the appropriate time, including the estimated ARR for the FY 2006-07. The Hon’ble Commission may true it up in its Tariff Order for FY 2006-07.
(e) The Commission in its Tariff Order for the year 2005-06, at page 249, has stated that the transmission and wheeling charges fixed by the Commission shall however be subject to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court in the pending appeals which have arisen out of the interpretation of the provisions of the A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998, and have been the subject matter of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
(f) The Commission may reconsider the said direction as the issues before the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court relate to different Tariff year and not to the current Tariff year. In any event, the Electricity Act, 2003, provides the authority to the Commission to approve the transmission and SLDC charges and the same should not be subject to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court proceedings which are not pursuant to the current year (FY 2005-06).
3. Notice was ordered to the petitioner to substantiate its contentions.
4. Sri P.M.K.Gandhi, Director (RAC & Co-ord), representing the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition at the time of hearing.
5. The point that arises for consideration is
“whether the petitioner is
entitled to the relief prayed for”
6. The petitioner has contended that the Commission has projected revenue from transmission and SLDC charges on transmission of 700 MW of power, higher than the real / possible transmission of power and the revenue therefrom. The petitioner has not, however, stated any reasons/grounds for review of the projected/estimation made by the Commission of power to be transmitted by the petitioner, like whether there is a mistake of fact, or whether information now available with the petitioner could not be produced before passing of the Tariff Order by the Commission and whether had such information been produced and been available, the Commission would have come to a different conclusion.
7. The staff of the Commission during public hearing held before the issue of Tariff Order for FY 2005-06, had specifically mentioned in their presentation that the APTRANSCO had computed the tariff using the capacity allocated to DISCOMS only and the capacity of other users estimated to be 700 MW based on the data furnished by the petitioner in the load forecast and power procurement plan was also to be taken into account. The petitioner did not offer any objection thereagainst, either at the time of hearing or later, till 17.03.2005, i.e. just 5 days prior to the date of issue of Tariff Order (22.03.2005). Consequently, there was no time for verification of the same and for inviting objections from consumers and other stakeholders. Besides, the estimation of transmission of energy during FY 2005-06 as 215MW of power projected in that communication is at variance with the estimation (455.89MW) now submitted in the petition under consideration.
8. In fact, the Commission has only made a projection of revenue on estimated quantity of transmission of power. Such estimated (projected) transmission of power and corresponding revenue may be less or higher than the revenue actually collected. Any such variation of income (true-up) will be taken into consideration, while finalizing the tariff for the subsequent year.
9. Therefore, for these reasons, the petitioner has not made any grounds for reconsideration of the said projected estimation of transmission of power and the corresponding revenue.
10. In page 249 of the Tariff Order for the year 2005-06, the Commission issued the following direction:
“iv. These rates passed by
the Commission shall, however, be subject to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending appeals, which have
arisen out of the interpretation of the provisions of the Reform Act and have
been the subject matter of the order passed by the Hon’ble
High Court. This order shall be read
subject to any order, directions, etc. that may be issued by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the pending proceedings…………”
11. The contention of the petitioner that issues pending before the High Court relate to different tariff year and not to the tariffs for the current year is not tenable, in view of the fact that the Hon’ble High Court held that this Commission has no jurisdiction to fix wheeling and transmission charges other than what was fixed by the Government prior to the establishment of the Commission. Appeals have been filed by the petitioner as well as the Commission and are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Commission made the above direction and it does not require any modification.
12. The petitioner has not shown any authority to collect transmission and wheeling charges fixed by the Commission year after year irrespective of the pendency of appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner has not made any ground for deletion of the said direction.
13. Therefore, for these reasons, the petition is dismissed.
The order is corrected and signed on this 31st day of
October, 2005.