Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited v. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd.

The application has been made for approval of provisional transmission tariff for LILO of 400 kV S/C Korba-Raipur transmission line at Sipat (the transmission line) in Western Region from 1.5.2006 to 31.3.2009

2. The investment approval for the transmission system associated with Sipat STPS Stage-I (3 × 660 MW) was accorded by Ministry of Power vide letter dated 10.12.2003 at an estimated cost of Rs. 167298 lakh, which included IDC of Rs. 12323 lakh, consisting of Rs. 145479 lakh (including IDC of Rs. 10828 lakh) for the petitioner's portion and Rs. 21819 lakh (including IDC of Rs. 1495 lakh) for the IPTC's portion. The apportioned approval cost of the transmission line is stated to be Rs. 399.09 lakh. The transmission line was to be completed by February 2007, but has been declared under commercial operation w.e.f 1.5.2006, that is, 9 months ahead of the schedule. The petitioner has explained that during the meeting held on 18.11.2005, NTPC requested to advance commissioning of the transmission line by January 2007 as it was required for start up power and NTPC agreed to bear the transmission charges for the period between readiness of the transmission line and commercial operation of the first generating unit of Sipat STPS Stage-I. The petitioner has also explained that during a meeting of WRPC, preponment of commissioning of the transmission line was agreed to by all the constituents.

3. The details of capital expenditure submitted by the petitioner are as follows:

(Rs. in lakh)

Expenditure up to 31.3.2006 (Audited) 484.82 Expenditure from 1.4.2006 to 30.4.2006 33.22 Balance estimated expenditure 150.59 TOTAL 668.63

4. The petitioner has claimed the following transmission charges based on the capital cost of Rs. 518.04 lakh as on the date of commercial operation:

(Rs. in lakh)

Period Annual Transmission Charges 2006-2007 (Pro rata) 62.75 2007-2008 67.39 2008-2009 66.30

5. The petitioner has published notices in the newspapers on the tariff proposal made in the petition in accordance with the procedure specified by the Commission. However, no suggestions or comments have been received from the general public.

6. The expenditure up to 31.3.2006 has been verified from audited statement of accounts. For the period from 1.4.2006 to 30.4.2006 the expenditure indicated is based on books of accounts, yet to be audited.

7. The petition has been heard after notice to the respondents. Madhya Pradesh Power Trading Co Ltd. (not impleaded by the petitioner) and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited in their reply have raised certain issues. Since the present petition is for provisional tariff only, the issues raised are not being gone into at this stage. The respondents are at liberty to bring up these issues, if so advised when the petition for final tariff is filed in due course and the issues will be examined then. The petitioner shall, however, take these points into account while making the application for approval of final tariff.

8. We allow annual transmission charges of Rs. 52.73 lakh for the transmission line, on provisional basis from the date of commercial operation subject to adjustment after determination of final tariff. The provisional transmission charges allowed are the transmission charges corresponding to the apportioned approved capital cost of Rs. 399.09 lakh which is less than the expenditure of Rs. 518.04 lakh as on the date of commercial operation. The transmission charges for the period 1.5.2006 and up to the date of commercial operation of the first unit of Sipat STPS shall be borne exclusively by NTPC Ltd. (Respondent No. 9) and thereafter the transmission charges shall be shared by respondents No. 1 to 8 in accordance with the Commission's notification dated 26.3.2004

9. The petitioner has sought approval for the reimbursement of expenditure of Rs. 1,57,194/- incurred on publication of notices in the newspapers. The petitioner shall claim reimbursement of the said expenditure directly from respondents 1 to 8 in one installment in the ratio applicable for sharing of transmission charges. The petitioner has also sought reimbursement of filing fee paid. A final view on reimbursement of filing fee is yet to be taken by the Commission for which views of the stakeholders have been called for. The view taken on consideration of the comments received shall apply in the present case as regards reimbursement of filing fee.

10. With the above, the present petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall file a fresh petition for approval of final tariff in accordance with the Commission's regulations on the subject, latest by 31.10.2007

11. The petitioner is also directed to file the following information/clarification at the time of filing of petition for approval of final tariff, namely:—

(a) A certificate, duly signed by the Auditors, certifying the loan details (including Bond XVII and XVIII) duly reconciled with audited accounts of 2006–2007; and

(b) Calculations in support of increase in cost due to increase in quantity of angle tower, hardware fittings, etc.