Regulatory Clarification on Transmission Tariffs and Asset Classification in Damodar Valley Corporation v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
Introduction
The case of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited And Another adjudicated by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) on February 5, 2020, addresses pivotal issues concerning the determination and approval of transmission tariffs for both existing and newly commissioned transmission assets under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014.
DVC, the petitioner, sought approval for transmission tariffs related to its existing assets (Assets I, II, and III) as well as a new asset (Asset IV) for the tariff period 2017-19. The respondent was the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBS State Electricity Distribution Company Limited) along with another party.
The key issues revolved around the classification of assets as ISTS (Inter-State Transmission System) and Non-ISTS lines, the admissibility of capital expenditures, condonation of time overruns during asset commissioning, determination of return on equity (RoE), and operational expenses (O&M Expenses).
Summary of the Judgment
The CERC meticulously examined the petitions filed by DVC for tariff determination of its transmission assets. The Commission adhered to previous directives that necessitated the separate filing for existing and new transmission assets. The core decisions made in this judgment included:
- Approval of transmission tariffs for Assets I, II, and III from their respective dates of commissioning until March 31, 2019.
- Approval of transmission tariffs for Asset IV from its Commercial Operation Date (COD) on August 30, 2017, until March 31, 2019.
- Disallowance of additional capital expenditures claimed by DVC for the period 2017-18 and 2018-19 due to lack of supporting documentation.
- Condooration of a significant portion of time overruns attributed to delays beyond DVC’s control, such as forest clearance approvals.
- Determination of Return on Equity (RoE) at the base rate without allowing gross-up for non-ISTS lines carrying ISTS power.
- Approval of Operational and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses in accordance with the norms specified in the 2014 Tariff Regulations, while disallowing additional O&M Expenses claimed by the petitioner.
- Reimbursement entitlements for filing fees, publication expenses, licence fees, and RLDC (Regional Load Despatch Centre) fees as per regulatory clauses.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The judgment references several key precedents that influenced its decisions:
- Petition No. 547/TT/2014: Addressed the need to separately account for new and existing transmission assets, emphasizing the individual assessment of commercial operation dates and capital expenditures.
- Order dated 8.6.2011 in Petition No. 248/2010: Disallowed time over-run claims due to theft of equipment, a stance upheld by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in Order dated 13.10.2017 in Petition No. 221/TT/2016.
- Order dated 9.8.2019 in Petition No. 150/TT/2018: Approved capital costs up to March 31, 2017, and additional expenditures for 2017-18, setting a precedent for handling similar future petitions.
- Order dated 4.9.2019 in Petition No. 197/MP/2016: Rejected Pension and Gratuity contributions over and above normative O&M expenses, emphasizing the necessity for supporting documentation.
These precedents collectively underscore the Commission’s commitment to meticulous evaluation of tariff petitions, ensuring adherence to regulatory frameworks and the necessity for comprehensive supporting evidence.
Legal Reasoning
The Commission’s legal reasoning was anchored in the strict adherence to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014. The key aspects of their reasoning included:
- Asset Classification: Distinguishing between new and existing transmission assets was crucial. The Commission required separate filings to ensure accurate assessment of each asset's capital expenditure and operational timelines.
- Capital Expenditure Admissibility: Additional capital expenditures were scrutinized for proper documentation and approval. Without adequate supporting evidence, such claims were disallowed to prevent arbitrary cost escalations.
- Time Over-run Condonation: The Commission differentiated between delays within and beyond the petitioner’s control. Delays due to regulatory approvals (e.g., forest clearance) were condoned, while those resulting from operational inefficiencies (e.g., theft of materials) were not.
- Return on Equity (RoE): RoE was set at the base rate without allowing a gross-up for Non-ISTS lines carrying more than 50% ISTS power, maintaining consistency and fairness in tariff calculations.
- Operational and Maintenance Expenses: O&M Expenses were approved based on established norms, ensuring that only justified and regulated costs were recuperated through tariffs.
The Commission emphasized prudence, compliance with regulatory frameworks, and the necessity for transparent, well-substantiated claims from the petitioner.
Impact
This judgment has significant implications for the electricity transmission sector:
- Enhanced Regulatory Oversight: The clear demarcation between new and existing assets, and the stringent requirements for additional capital expenditure claims, reinforce the need for transparency and accountability.
- Tariff Determination Precedence: The methodologies and reasoning applied set a benchmark for future tariff determination cases, ensuring consistency and adherence to regulatory standards.
- Operational Efficiency: By disallowing time overruns caused by operational inefficiencies like theft, the judgment incentivizes utilities to implement robust security and project management practices.
- Financial Planning: Utilities are now compelled to provide detailed financial documentation and justification for capital and operational expenses, fostering better financial discipline.
Overall, the judgment strengthens the regulatory framework governing electricity transmission tariffs, ensuring that consumer interests are safeguarded while providing a clear structure for utilities to recover justified costs.
Complex Concepts Simplified
1. ISTS and Non-ISTS Lines
ISTS (Inter-State Transmission System) Lines: These are high-voltage transmission lines that facilitate the interstate movement of electricity. They are crucial for balancing supply and demand across different states.
Non-ISTS Lines: These lines primarily handle in-state electricity distribution. In this judgment, certain Non-ISTS lines were carrying more than 50% ISTS power, necessitating their separate classification and tariff determination.
2. Capital Cost Admissibility
This refers to the process by which a regulatory commission approves the capital expenditures incurred by a utility. Only expenditures that are justified, documented, and within regulatory guidelines are considered admissible.
3. Time Over-run Condonation
Time over-run refers to delays beyond the planned completion date of a project. Condonation is the regulatory acceptance of these delays, contingent upon the reasons being beyond the control of the utility.
4. Return on Equity (RoE)
RoE is the rate of return that a company expects to earn on the equity invested by its shareholders. It is a critical component in tariff calculations as it affects the overall pricing of electricity.
Conclusion
The Damodar Valley Corporation v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited And Another judgment serves as a pivotal reference in the realm of electricity transmission tariff determination. By meticulously differentiating between various asset types, enforcing stringent documentation requirements, and ensuring that only justified delays and expenditures are considered, the CERC has reinforced a robust regulatory framework that balances utility interests with consumer protection.
The decision underscores the necessity for utilities to maintain high standards of operational efficiency, financial transparency, and regulatory compliance. As a result, future cases will likely follow the precedents set forth in this judgment, ensuring consistency, fairness, and accountability in electricity transmission tariff determinations.
In essence, this judgment not only resolves the specific disputes between DVC and the State Electricity Distribution Company but also fortifies the broader legal and regulatory landscape governing the electricity sector in India.
Comments