Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited v. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Jan 25, 2006
Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Petition No. 51/2005

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner (Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. — PGCIL) filed Petition No. 51/2005 seeking approval of transmission charges for the 400 kV D/C Biharsharif–Sasaram–Sarnath transmission lines with associated bays under the Eastern–Northern inter-regional HVDC transmission system (the transmission lines) for the tariff period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2009. The claim was made under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 (the 2004 regulations).

The petitioner also sought (a) return on equity (ROE) on additional capitalisation for capital expenditure incurred during 2001–2004 after the date of commercial operation, and (b) approval for reimbursement of expenditure incurred in publishing notices in newspapers and reimbursement of the petition filing fee.

Administrative approval and expenditure sanction for the Eastern–Northern inter-regional HVDC transmission system were accorded by the Central Government (Ministry of Power) on 4 September 1998 at an estimated cost of Rs. 67,156.00 lakh (including IDC of Rs. 9,219.00 lakh). A revised estimate of Rs. 59,310.00 lakh (including IDC of Rs. 4,607.00 lakh and financing charges Rs. 464.00 lakh) was approved by the CEA. The apportioned TEC cost for the subject lines was Rs. 18,233.00 lakh.

The date of commercial operation of the transmission lines is 1 July 2001. The line lengths for operation & maintenance purposes are 388 ckt-km for Biharsharif–Sasaram and 154 ckt-km for Sasaram–Sarnath (total 542 ckt-km). The Commission had earlier decided annual transmission charges for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 March 2004 in its order dated 3 March 2005 (Petition No. 55/2002), admitting a gross block of Rs. 17,950.00 lakh.

Replies to the instant petition were filed by several state utilities (West Bengal State Electricity Board, Bihar State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.). No public comments were received in response to the notice published under section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether transmission charges for the Biharsharif–Sasaram–Sarnath 400 kV D/C lines for the period 1.4.2004–31.3.2009 should be approved under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004, and if so, in what amounts and on what basis.
  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to return on equity on additional capitalisation incurred during 2001–2004 after the date of commercial operation, and if so, on what quantum and from which date.
  3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of expenditure incurred for publishing statutory notices and for the petition filing fee, and the manner/timing of such reimbursement.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis proceeded by applying the specific provisions of the 2004 regulations and relevant prior administrative/commercial facts explicitly set out in the petition and earlier orders. The court's reasoning can be summarised in the following stepwise manner (each step follows only from the text of the opinion):

1. Basis for capital cost to be used for tariff

- Regulation 52(2) of the 2004 regulations directs that for projects existing up to 31.3.2004, the project cost admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff prior to 1.4.2004 shall form the basis for tariff determination. The Commission therefore began with the gross block and admitted costs forming the basis of its earlier order dated 3.3.2005 (gross block Rs. 17,950.00 lakh).

2. Treatment of additional capitalisation and de-capitalisation (2001–2004)

- The petitioner claimed additional capital expenditure of Rs. 51.05 lakh incurred in 2002–2003 for committed liabilities; the Commission found this claim in order and admitted it.

- The petitioner also disclosed that two 50 MVA line reactors previously shifted to Sarnath became surplus after changes in the system and were shifted out; their capital cost of Rs. 620.00 lakh was de-capitalised. Considering the admitted additional capitalisation (Rs. 51.05 lakh) and the de-capitalisation (Rs. 620.00 lakh), the net de-capitalisation for 2002–2003 worked out to Rs. 568.95 lakh.

3. Foreign Exchange Rate Variation (FERV)

- The petitioner claimed FERV adjustments and computed FERV net amount of Rs. 862.51 lakh (de-capitalisation). Regulation 1.13(a) of the 2001 regulations (quoted in the opinion) deals with admissibility of extra-rupee liability due to foreign exchange rate variation; regulation 1.7 of the 2001 regulations provides for direct recovery from beneficiaries subject to objections being raised. No objections were raised by beneficiaries to the petitioner's FERV claim; the Commission admitted the FERV claim after verifying the petitioner's calculations.

4. Gross block and gross block for tariff as on 1.4.2004

- The petitioner initially computed capital expenditure of Rs. 17,138.54 lakh after accounting for certain adjustments; however the Commission, for reasons given (noting the reactor de-capitalisation described above), adopted a gross block of Rs. 17,381.05 lakh excluding FERV for tariff computation. After adjustment for FERV the gross block as on 1.4.2004 was fixed at Rs. 16,518.54 lakh.

5. Debt–Equity ratio and allocation

- The Commission applied regulation 54 of the 2004 regulations concerning debt–equity for existing projects (the order dated 3.3.2005's ratio was to be taken). The petitioner had claimed an 81.51:18.49 ratio as per the earlier order; the petitioner also represented that the approved ratio is 80:20 and, for tariff purposes, the Commission apportioned de-capitalisation amounts between debt and equity to bring the admitted capital structure into the approved 80:20 ratio.

- After the specified apportionments, the Commission treated Rs. 3,303.71 lakh as equity and Rs. 13,214.83 lakh as debt (80:20) as on 1.4.2004 for tariff calculations.

6. Return on Equity (ROE)

- Regulation 56(iii) prescribes ROE @ 14% per annum on the equity base determined under regulation 54. Using the adopted equity of Rs. 3,303.71 lakh, the Commission determined the annual ROE entitlement to be Rs. 462.52 lakh for each year of the tariff period.

7. Interest on loan — method and computation

- The Commission applied regulation 56(i) requiring loan‑wise computation using the loans arrived at under regulation 54, normative repayment rules, and weighted average interest rates. The opinion describes the method used: taking gross notional loan and cumulative repayments admitted in the earlier order; adjusting for de‑capitalisation against loan (Rs. 1,416.29 lakh adjusted against loan in the Commission's working); considering notional loan arising from additional capitalisation and FERV; computing normative repayment proportionate to actual loan repayments; computing weighted average rate of interest (applying actual historic rates to loan components) and applying the weighted rate to the notional average loan to arrive at interest on loan for each year.

- Floating-rate foreign currency loans were treated by applying the rate as applicable on 1.4.2004, subject to mutual settlement if rate resetting occurred during the tariff period.

- The resulting year‑wise interest on loan figures as worked out by the Commission for the tariff years are set out in the order (2004‑05: Rs. 659.46 lakh; 2005‑06: Rs. 560.83 lakh; 2006‑07: Rs. 500.90 lakh; 2007‑08: Rs. 449.56 lakh; 2008‑09: Rs. 396.01 lakh).

8. Depreciation

- The Commission applied regulation 56(ii) prescribing straight line method over the useful life, 90% maximum depreciable value (residual 10%). Using gross block as on 1.4.2004 of Rs. 16,518.54 lakh, the gross depreciable value (90%) is Rs. 14,866.68 lakh.

- Cumulative depreciation and AAD recovered up to 31.3.2004 was Rs. 1,276.25 lakh; remaining depreciable value as on 1.4.2004 was Rs. 13,590.44 lakh. The Commission computed annual depreciation for the period 1.4.2004–31.3.2009 as Rs. 435.79 lakh per year (using a depreciation rate of 2.6382%).

9. Advance Against Depreciation (AAD)

- Regulation 56(ii)(b) permits AAD subject to the formula: AAD = (loan repayment amount as per regulation 56(i), subject to ceiling of 1/10th of gross loan) minus depreciation as per schedule, and only if cumulative repayment exceeds cumulative depreciation up to that year. The Commission applied the regulation, accounting for cumulative figures including AAD admitted in the earlier order.

- The Commission's working produced AAD values for the tariff years (AAD allowed only in years where cumulative repayment exceeded cumulative depreciation): 2004‑05: 0.00; 2005‑06: 0.00; 2006‑07: 0.00; 2007‑08: 94.74; 2008‑09: 635.22 (Rs. in lakh).

10. Operation & Maintenance (O&M) expenses

- Clause (iv) of Regulation 56 prescribes norms for O&M. The Commission applied the per ckt‑km and per bay rates provided by the regulations to the admitted quantities (542 ckt‑kms line length and 4 bays) and allowed O&M expenses as computed for each year (for example, total O&M in 2004‑05: Rs. 235.51 lakh; rising to Rs. 275.77 lakh in 2008‑09).

- The petitioner mentioned wage revision effective 1.1.2007 and sought revision of O&M; the Commission observed that the matter did not arise for decision at this stage and invited the petitioner to seek relief at an appropriate time as per law.

11. Interest on Working Capital

- Regulation 56(v) requires components: maintenance spares (1% of historical cost escalated @6% p.a. from DOCO), one month O&M, and receivables equal to two months' billing at target availability; and the short‑term SBI PLR as on 1.4.2004 for interest rate. The petitioner claimed working capital and interest at 10.25% (SBI PLR as on 1.4.2004); the Commission accepted the methodology and allowed interest on working capital computed accordingly (example Commission figures: interest on working capital 2004‑05: Rs. 55.10 lakh; 2008‑09: Rs. 68.36 lakh — per Commission tables).

12. Consolidation into allowed transmission charges

- Using the admitted capital base, debt–equity allocation, ROE @14%, interest on loan as computed, depreciation, AAD where applicable, O&M and interest on working capital, the Commission arrived at annual transmission charges for each year of the tariff period. The Commission summarised the allowed totals in a table (for example 2004‑05 total allowed charges: Rs. 1,848.39 lakh; 2008‑09: Rs. 2,273.68 lakh).

13. Impact of adjustments on amounts already collected for 2001–2004

- The Commission applied principles previously used in NTPC petitions concerning treatment of additional capital expenditure and de‑capitalisation. As a result, the Commission directed that the petitioner shall adjust amounts already recovered by respondents through tariff for the period ending 31.3.2004 to reflect the apportionment of de‑capitalised amounts between debt and equity. The specific impact table in the order shows that for 2003–2004 the adjustment is (Interest on Loan) (−) Rs. 33.94 lakh and (Return on Equity) (−) Rs. 0.96 lakh, total (−) Rs. 34.90 lakh.

14. Reimbursement of notices and filing fee

- The petitioner sought reimbursement of Rs. 3,71,206/‑ for newspaper publication costs; the Commission directed the petitioner to claim reimbursement directly from respondents in one installment in the ratio applicable for sharing transmission charges.

- Regarding the filing fee of Rs. 5 lakh, the Commission stated that a final view is yet to be taken and that stakeholders' comments have been called for; the view taken will apply in this case.

15. Interim/provisional billing

- The petitioner had been billing respondents provisionally under interim directions; the Commission directed that provisional billing be adjusted in light of the final tariff approved in this order.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

- The Commission approved the transmission charges for the 400 kV Biharsharif–Sasaram–Sarnath transmission lines for the tariff period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 as computed in the order, applying the 2004 regulations and adjustments for additional capitalisation and de‑capitalisation (including FERV). The order disposes of Petition No. 51/2005.

- Direct financial consequences for the parties (as stated in the opinion):

  • The admitted gross block as on 1.4.2004 was fixed at Rs. 16,518.54 lakh (after adjustments including FERV).
  • Means of finance accepted for tariff purposes: Debt Rs. 13,214.83 lakh (80%) and Equity Rs. 3,303.71 lakh (20%).
  • ROE allowed @ 14% on the admitted equity: Rs. 462.52 lakh per year during the tariff period.
  • Yearly transmission charges were allowed as set out in the Commission's summary (e.g., 2004‑05 total Rs. 1,848.39 lakh; 2008‑09 total Rs. 2,273.68 lakh) and will be included in the regional transmission tariff for the Eastern and Northern Regions and shared in accordance with the 2004 regulations.
  • The petitioner may claim reimbursement of notice publication costs from respondents in the sharing ratio; decision on petition filing fee reimbursement pending stakeholder comments.
  • Amounts already provisionally billed shall be adjusted against the final tariff now approved; specific small adjustments for periods 2002‑2003 and 2003‑2004 were identified (net impact total (−) Rs. 34.90 lakh for the years shown).

- The opinion does not purport to lay down any new general legal precedent; it applies the prescriptions of the 2004 regulations and the Commission's prior determinations (including the earlier order dated 3.3.2005) to the facts and accounts of this transmission element. No case law precedents are cited in this opinion.

Annex: Key numerical outcomes (as recorded in the opinion)

Selected figures taken directly from the Commission's computations in the opinion (Rs. in lakh):

Item 2004‑05 2005‑06 2006‑07 2007‑08 2008‑09
Depreciation 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79
Interest on Loan 659.46 560.83 500.90 449.56 396.01
Return on Equity 462.52 462.52 462.52 462.52 462.52
Advance Against Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.74 635.22
Interest on Working Capital 55.10 54.95 55.56 58.05 68.36
O&M Expenses 235.51 244.91 255.01 264.73 275.77
Total Transmission Charges 1,848.39 1,759.00 1,709.78 1,765.38 2,273.68

Note: This summary reproduces and organises only the information expressly contained in the provided opinion. No facts, findings or legal propositions beyond those present in the opinion have been added or inferred.

Show all summary ...

The petition has been filed for approval for transmission charges for 400 kV D/C Biharsharif-Sasaram-Sarnath transmission lines with associated bays under Eastern-Northern inter-regional HVDC transmission system (the transmission lines) for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009, based on the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as “the 2004 regulations”). The petitioner has also prayed that it be allowed return on equity on additional capitalisation for the capital expenditure during 2001–2004 after date of commercial operation and that the reimbursement of expenditure from the beneficiaries towards publishing of notices in newspapers and petition filing fee be approved.

2. The administrative approval and expenditure sanction for Eastern-Northern inter-regional HVDC transmission system was accorded by the Central Government in Ministry of Power under its letter dated 4.9.1998 at an estimated cost of Rs. 67156.00 lakh, including IDC of Rs. 9219.00 lakh. Subsequently, because of change in the scope of work based on system studies, the revised cost estimate for Rs. 59310.00 lakh, including IDC of Rs. 4607.00 lakh and financing charges of Rs. 464.00 lakh was approved by CEA. The apportioned TEC cost of the transmission lines is Rs. 18233.00 lakh. The date of commercial operation of the transmission lines is 1.7.2001 and line lengths (for O&M) are as given below:

400 kV D/C Biharsharif - Sasaram transmission line - 388 ckt-kms 400 kV D/C Sasaram-Sarnath transmission line - 154 ckt-kms 542

3. The annual transmission charges for the period 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2004 were decided by the Commission in its order dated 3.3.2005 in petition No. 55/2002 at a gross block of Rs. 17950.00 lakh.

4. The petitioner has claimed the transmission charges as under:

(Rs. in lakh)

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Depreciation 458.12 458.12 458.12 458.12 458.12 Interest on Loan 694.12 642.40 588.72 530.95 472.77 Return on Equity 449.46 449.46 449.46 449.46 449.46 Advance against Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138.67 Interest on Working Capital 56.02 56.68 57.42 58.15 61.41 O & M Expenses 235.51 244.91 255.01 264.73 275.77 Total 1893.23 1851.57 1808.73 1761.41 1856.20

5. The details submitted by the petitioner in support of its claim for interest on working capital are given hereunder:

(Rs. in lakh)

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Maintenance Spares 211.32 224.00 237.44 251.69 266.79 O & M expenses 19.63 20.41 21.25 22.06 22.98 Receivables 315.54 308.60 301.46 293.57 309.37 Total 546.48 533.01 560.15 567.32 599.14 Rate of Interest 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% Interest 56.02 56.68 57.42 58.15 61.41

6. The replies to the petition have been filed by West Bengal State Electricity Board, Bihar State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. No comments or suggestion have been received from the general public in response to the notices published by the petitioner under section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Additional Capitalisation - 2001–04

7. The petitioner has sought approval of tariff after accounting for additional capital expenditure of Rs. 51.05 lakh incurred during the 2002–2003 on account of left over/balance payments for the transmission line.

8. The expenditure was not considered by the Commission in its order dated 3.3.2005 ibid while approving tariff for the period ending 31.3.2004 The capital expenditure claimed is found to be in order as it was against the committed liability. Accordingly, the additional capital expenditure of Rs. 51.05 lakh is in order.

9. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 29.8.2005 in Petition No. 109/2004 wherein it has been stated that two Nos 50 MVA line reactors were shifted from Moga sub-station installed as a part of Chamera Stage-1 Transmission System in Northern Region to Sarnath sub-station under the transmission lines presently under consideration. The petitioner by its affidavit dated 25.8.2005 has advised capitalisation of an amount of Rs. 62,013,006/- for installation of these two Nos 50 MVAR line reactors at Sarnath sub-station, which is already included in the capital cost of Rs. 17950.00 lakh considered by order dated 3.3.2005 ibid. The petitioner has further stated in the affidavit that after commercial operation of Sasaram HVDC station on I. 12.2002 and completion of Biharsharif-Sasaram-Sarnath line up to Allahabad, the two 50 MVAR line reactors at Sarnath sub-station have become surplus, and are being shifted to Rihand-II transmission system. It implies that these 50 MVAR line reactors in question were useful for the transmission lines from 1.7.2001 to 30.11.2002 and have become redundant thereafter. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 620.00 lakh, representing the capital cost of two 50 MVAR line reactors has been de-capitalised. The net de-capitalisation during 2002–2003, thus works out to Rs. 568.95 lakh after adjusting additional capitalisation of Rs. 51.05 lakh as per para 8 above.

CAPITAL COST

10. As per clause (2) of regulation 52 of the 2004 regulations in case of the projects existing up to 31.3.2004, the project cost admitted by the Commission for determination of tariff prior to 1.4.2004 shall form the basis for determination of tariff.

11. The petitioner has considered the capital expenditure of Rs. 17138.54 lakh after accounting for additional capitalization of Rs. 51.05 lakh and decapitalization on account of FERV of Rs. 862.51 lakh for the period 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2004 over the capital expenditure of Rs. 17950.00 lakh admitted by the Commission in the order dated 3.3.2005 ibid. However, for the reason given in para 9 above, gross block of Rs. 17381.05 lakh excluding FERV has been considered by us for the purpose of tariff.

Extra Rupee Liability during the years 2001–04:

12. Regulation 1.13(a) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2001 provided as under:

(a) Extra rupee liability towards interest payment and loan repayment actually incurred, in the relevant year shall be admissible; provided it directly arises out of foreign exchange rate variation and is not attributable to Utility or its suppliers or contractors. Every utility shall follow the method as per the Accounting Standard-11 (Eleven) as issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to calculate the impact of exchange rate variation on loan repayment

(b) Any foreign exchange rate variation to the extent of the dividend paid out on the permissible equity contributed in foreign currency, subject to the ceiling of permissible return shall be admissible. This as and when paid, may be spread over the twelve-month period in arrears

13. Regulation 1.7 of the 2001 further provided that recovery of foreign exchange rate variation would be done directly by the utilities from the beneficiaries without filing a petition before the Commission. In case of any objections by the beneficiaries to the amounts claimed on these counts, they may file an appropriate petition before the Commission.

14. As no objections are raised by the beneficiaries to the petitioner's claim for de-capitalization of Rs. 862.51 lakh on account of FERV, and FERV worked out is matching with calculations submitted by the petitioner, the claim has been admitted for tariff calculations.

15. Based on the above, gross block of Rs. 17381.05 lakh (excluding FERV) as on 1.4.2004 has been considered for the purpose of tariff. After adjustment of FERV, the gross block as on 1.4.2004 comes to Rs. 16518.54 lakh.

DEBT-EQUITY RATIO

16. Regulation 54 of the 2004 regulations inter alia provides that,—

(1) In case of the existing project, debt-equity ratio Considered by the Commission for fixation of tariff for the period ending 31.3.2004 shall be considered for determination of tariff.

(2) In case of the transmission system for which investment approval was accorded prior to 1.4.2004 and which is likely to be declared under commercial operation during the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009, debt-equity in the ratio of 70:30 shall be considered:

Provided that where deployment of equity is less than 30%, the actual equity deployed shall be considered for the purpose of determination of tariff.

Provided further that the Commission may in appropriate case consider equity higher than 30% for the purpose of determination of tariff, where the transmission licensee is able to establish to the satisfaction of the Commission that deployment of equity more than 30% was in the interest of general public;

(3) In case of the transmission system for which investment approval is accorded on or after 1.4.2004, debt-equity in the ratio of 70:30 shall be considered for the purpose of determination of tariff:

Provided that where deployment of equity is less than 30%, the actual equity deployed shall be considered for the purpose of determination of tariff.

(4) The debt and equity amount arrived at in accordance with above sub-clause (1), (2) or (3), as the case may be, shall be used for calculation of interest on loan, return on equity, advance against depreciation and foreign exchange rate variation.”

17. The petitioner has claimed tariff based on debt-equity ratio of 81.51:18.49 as considered by the Commission in its order dated 3.3.2005 ibid. The entire amount of Rs. 51.05 lakh on account of additional capitalisation during 2002–2003 has been taken by the petitioner as equity and the de-capitalised amount of Rs. 862.51 lakh on account of FERV has been apportioned between debt and equity in the same ratio as considered in the order dated 3.3.2005 Based on this, Rs. 3210.45 lakh as on 1.4.2004 has been taken as the equity by the petitioner for the purpose of determination of tariff in the present petition.

18. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the approved debt-equity ratio is 80:20. Therefore, in order to bring debt and equity equal to the approved debt-equity ratio, the amounts of Rs. 568.95 lakh and Rs. 862.51 lakh (total Rs. 1431.46 lakh) de-capitalized on account of works and FERV respectively have been apportioned between debt and equity as Rs. 1416.29 lakh and Rs. 15.17 lakh respectively. Accordingly, for the purpose of tariff, an amount of Rs. 3303.71 lakh has been considered as equity as on 1.4.2004 against the equity of Rs. 3318.88 lakh considered in the order dated 3.3.2005

RETURN ON EQUITY

19. As per clause (iii) of regulation 56 of the 2004 regulations, return on equity shall be computed on the equity base determined in accordance with regulation 54 @ 14% per annum. Equity invested in foreign currency is to be allowed a return in the same currency and the payment on this account is made in Indian Rupees based on the exchange rate prevailing on the due date of billing.

20. The petitioner has claimed return on equity of Rs. 3210.45 lakh after accounting for equity of Rs. 51.05 lakh on account of additional capitalization for the period 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2004 and decapitalization of Rs. 159.48 lakh on account of FERV over equity of Rs. 3318.88 lakh considered in the order dated 3.3.2005 ibid. For the reasons given hereinabove, we have taken equity of Rs. 3303.71 lakh. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to return on equity @ Rs. 462.52 lakh each year during the tariff period.

INTEREST ON LOAN

21. Clause (i) of regulation 56 of the 2004 regulations inter alia provides that,—

(a) Interest on loan capital shall be computed loan wise on the loans arrived at in the manner indicated in regulation 54.

(b) The loan outstanding as on 1.4.2004 shall be worked out as the gross loan as per regulation 54 minus cumulative repayment as admitted by the Commission for the period up to 31.3.2004 The repayment for the period 2004–09 shall be worked out accordingly on normative basis.

(c) The transmission licensee shall make every effort to swap the loan as long as it results in net benefit to the long-term transmission customers. The costs associated with such swapping shall be borne by the long-term transmission customers.

(d) The changes to the loan terms and conditions shall be reflected from the date of such swapping and benefits passed on to the beneficiaries.

(e) In case any moratorium period is availed of by the transmission licensee, depreciation provided for in the tariff during the years of moratorium shall be treated as repayment during those years and interest on loan capital shall be calculated accordingly.

22. The partitioner has claimed interest on loan in the following manner:

(i) Gross loans, cumulative loan repayment up to 31.3.2004 and outstanding balance up to that year as admitted by the Commission in the order dated 3.3.2005 have been taken.

(ii) On the basis of actual rate of interest on actual average loan, the weighted average rate of interest on loan is worked out for various years.

(iii) Loans as admitted by the Commission in the order dated 3.3.2005 ibid has been considered as notional loan and the weighted average rate of interest on loan for respective years as per above has been has been multiplied to arrive at interest on loan.

(iv) Notional loan component of FERV up to 31.3.2001 has been considered separately and actual applicable rate of interest on foreign loan have been considered to workout the interest on this component

23. In our calculation, the interest on loan has been worked out as detailed below:

(i) An amount of Rs. 1416.29 lakh on account of de-capitalisation has been adjusted against loan.

(ii) Details of net outstanding loan as on 31.3.2004, repayment schedule for the period 2004–09, rate of interest as on 1.4.2004, exchange rate as on 31.3.2004 etc. have been taken from above loan allocation statement for working out weighted average rate of interest.

(iii) Gross notional loan and cumulative repayment up to 31.3.2004 has been taken from the order dated 3.3.2005

(iv) Notional loan arising out of additional capitalisation and FERV during the years 2001–04 has been considered.

(v) Repayment of notional loan arising due to additional capitalisation and FERV during the years 2001–04 has been worked out in proportion to the repayment of actual loan during these years.

(vi) Tariff is worked out considering normative loan and normative repayments. Once the normative loan is arrived at, it is considered for all purposes in the tariff. Normative repayment is worked out by the following formula:

(vii) Moratorium in repayment of loan is considered with reference to normative loan and if the normative repayment of loan during the year is less than the depreciation during the year, it is considered as moratorium and depreciation during the year is deemed as normative repayment of loan during the year.

(viii) Weighted average rate of interest on actual loan worked out as per (i) above is applied on the notional average loan during the year to arrive at the interest on loan.

(ix) PNB-I, Corporation Bank, Bank of India Foreign Currency Loan and IBRD-II loans carry floating rate of interest and rate of interest as applicable as on 1.4.2004 has been considered in the calculation, subject to mutual settlement between the parties in case of any change/resetting of the interest rate during the tariff period:.

24. Based on the above, the year-wise details of interest worked out are given hereunder:

(Rs. in lakh)

Details of loan Up to 31.3.2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Interest on Loan Gross loan as per order dated 3.3.2005 14631.12 Addition due to additional capitalisation (−) 562.92 Addition due to FERV (−) 853.37 Gross Normative Loan 13214.83 13214.83 13214.83 13214.83 13214.83 13214.83 Cumulative Repayment up to Previous Year 226.58 748.36 1270.13 2050.48 3114.16 Net Loan-Opening 12988.25 12466.47 11944.70 11164.35 10100.67 Repayment during the year 521.77 521.77 780.35 1063.68 1071.02 Net Loan-Closing 12466.47 11944.70 11164.35 10100.67 9029.65 Average Loan 12727.36 12205.59 11554.52 10632.51 9565.16 Weighted Average Rate of Interest on Loan 5.1814% 4.5949% 4.3351% 4.2281% 4.1401% Interest 659.46 560.83 500.90 449.56 396.01

DEPRECIATION

25. Sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of Regulation 56 of the 2004 regulations provides for computation of depreciation in the following manner, namely:

(i) The value base for the purpose of depreciation shall be the historical cost of the asset.

(ii) Depreciation shall be calculated annually based on straight line method over the useful life of the asset and at the rates prescribed in Appendix II to these regulations. The residual value of the asset shall be considered as 10% and depreciation shall be allowed up to maximum of 90% of the historical capital cost of the asset. Land is not a depreciable asset and its cost shall be excluded from the capital cost while computing 90% of the historical cost of the asset. The historical capital cost of the asset shall include additional capitalisation on account of Foreign Exchange Rate Variation up to 31.3.2004 already allowed by the Central Government/Commission.

(iii) On repayment of entire loan, the remaining depreciable value shall be spread over the balance useful life of the asset.

(iv) Depreciation shall be chargeable from the first year of operation. In case of operation of the asset for part of the year, depreciation shall be charged on pro rata basis.

26. The gross depreciable value of the asset, as per (ii) above, is 0.9 × Rs. 16518.54 lakh = Rs. 14866.68 lakh. Cumulative depreciation and AAD recovered in tariff up to 31.3.2004 is Rs. 1276.25 lakh. Remaining depreciable value as on 1.4.2004 is thus Rs. 13590.44 lakh.

27. For the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 the depreciation works out to Rs. 435.79 lakh each year by applying rate of depreciation of 2.6382% as shown below:

(Rs. in lakh)

Details of Depreciation Up to 31.3.2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 As per order dated 3.3.2005 17950.00 Addition during 200104 due to Additional Capitalisation (−) 568.95 Addition during 200104 due to FERV (−) 862.51 Gross Block as on 31.3.2004 16518.54 16518.54 16518.54 16518.54 16518.54 16518.54 16518.54 Rate of Depreciation 2.6382% Depreciable Value 90% 14866.68 14866.68 14866.68 14866.68 14866.68 Balance Useful life of the asset — — — — — Remaining Depreciable Value 13590.44 13154.64 12718.85 12283.06 11752.52 Depreciation 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79

ADVANCE AGAINST DEPRECIATION

28. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of Regulation 56 of the 2004 regulations, in addition to allowable depreciation, the transmission licensee is entitled to Advance Against Depreciation, computed in the manner given hereunder:

AAD = Loan repayment amount as per regulation 56(i) subject to a ceiling of 1/10th of loan amount as per regulation 54 minus depreciation as per schedule

29. It is provided that Advance Against Depreciation shall be permitted only if the cumulative repayment up to a particular year exceeds the cumulative depreciation up to that year. It is further provided that Advance Against Depreciation in a year shall be restricted to the extent of difference between cumulative repayment and cumulative depreciation up to that year.

30. The petitioner has claimed Advance Against Depreciation in the following manner:

(i) 1/10th of gross loan is worked out from the gross notional loan admitted by the Commission order dated 3.3.2005

(ii) Cumulative loan as well as repayment of notional loan during the year have been considered.

(iii) Depreciation as claimed in the petition.

(iv) In cumulative depreciation, Advance Against Depreciation allowed up to 2003–2004 as per order dated 3.3.2005 ibid has not been considered.

31. In our calculation, the Advance Against Depreciation has been worked as under:

(i) 1/10th of gross loan has been worked out from the gross notional loan as per para 24 above.

(ii) Cumulative loan as well as repayment of notional loan during the year has been considered as per para 24 above.

(iii) Depreciation as worked out as per para 27 has been taken into account.

(iv) In cumulative depreciation recovered up to 2003–2004, Advance Against Depreciation has been included as per order dated 3.3.2005 ibid.

32. The details of Advance Against Depreciation allowed for the transmission line, is given hereunder:

(Rs. in lakh)

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 1/10th of Gross Loan(s) 1321.48 1321.48 1321.48 1321.48 1321.48 Repayment of Loan 521.77 521.77 780.35 1063.68 1071.02 Minimum of the above 521.77 521.77 780.35 1063.68 1071.02 Depreciation during the year 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79 (A) Difference 85.98 85.98 344.56 627.88 635.22 Cumulative Repayment of the Loan 748.36 1270.13 2050.48 3114.16 4185.18 Cumulative Depreciation/Advance against Depreciation 1712.04 2147.83 2583.63 3019.42 3549.95 (B) Difference (−) 963.68 (−) 877.70 (−) 533.15 94.74 635.22 Advance Against Depreciation Minimum of (A) and (B) 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.74 635.22

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES

33. In accordance with clause (iv) of Regulation 56 the 2004 regulations, the following norms are prescribed for O&M expenses

(Rs. in lakh)

Year 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 O&M expenses (Rs. in lakh per cktkm) 0.227 0.236 0.246 0.255 0.266 O&M expenses (Rs in lakh per bay) 28.12 29.25 30.42 31.63 32.90

34. The petitioner has claimed O&M expenses for 542 ckt-kms of line length and 4 bays (two each at Biharsharif and Sarnath sub-stations), which has been allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner's entitlement to O&M expenses has been worked out as given hereunder:

(Rs. in lakh)

Year 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 O&M expenses for 542 ckt-kms line length 123.03 127.91 133.33 138.21 144.17 O&M expenses for 4 bays 112.48 117.00 121.68 126.52 131.60 Total 235.51 244.91 255.01 264.73 275.77

35. The petitioner has submitted that the wage revision of its employees is due with effect from 1.1.2007 Therefore, O&M expenses should be subject to revision on account of revision of employee cost from that date. In the alternative, it has been prayed that the increase in employee cost due to wage revision be allowed as per actuals for extra cost to be incurred consequent to wage revision. We are not expressing any view, as this issue does not arise for consideration at this stage. The petitioner may approach for a relief in this regard at an appropriate stage in accordance with law.

INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL

36. The components of the working capital and the interest thereon are discussed hereunder:

(i) Maintenance spares

Regulation 56(v)(1)(b) of the 2004 regulations provides for maintenance spares @ 1% of the historical cost escalated @ 6% per annum from the date of commercial operation. In the present case, element-wise capital expenditure on the date of commercial operation is Rs. 17950.00 lakh, which has been considered as the historical cost for the purpose of the present petition and maintenance spares haven worked out accordingly by escalating 1% of the historical cost @ 6% per annum. In this manner, the value of maintenance spares works out to Rs. 209.91 lakh as on 1.4.2004

(ii) O&M expenses

Regulation 56(v)(1)(a) of the 2004 regulations provides for operation and maintenance expenses for one month as a component of working capital. The petitioner has claimed O&M expenses for 1 month of O&M expenses of the respective year as claimed in the petition. This has been considered in the working capital.

(iii) Receivables

As per Regulation 56(v)(1)(c) of the 2004 regulations, receivables will be equivalent to two months average billing calculated on target availability level. The petitioner has claimed the receivables on the basis 2 months' transmission charges claimed in the petition. In the tariff being allowed, receivables have been worked out on the basis 2 months' transmission charges.

(iv) Rate of interest on working capital

As per Regulation 56(v)(2) of the 2004 regulations, rate of interest on working capital shall be on normative basis and shall be equal to the short-term Prime Lending Rate of State Bank of India as on 1.4.2004 or on 1st April of the year in which the project or part thereof (as the case may be) is declared under commercial operation, whichever is later. The interest on working capital is payable on normative basis notwithstanding that the transmission licensee has not taken working capital loan from any outside agency. The petitioner has claimed interest on working capital @ 10.25% based on SBI PLR as on 1.4.2004, which is in accordance with the 2004 regulations and has been allowed.

37. The necessary computations in support of interest on working capital are appended hereinbelow:

(Rs. in lakh)

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Maintenance Spares 209.91 222.50 235.85 250.00 265.00 O & M expenses 19.63 20.41 21.25 22.06 22.98 Receivables 308.06 293.17 284.96 294.23 378.95 Total 537.60 536.08 542.07 566.29 666.93 Rate of Interest 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% 10.25% Interest 55.10 54.95 55.56 58.05 68.36

TRANSMISSION CHARGES

38. The capital cost and other relevant details are contained in the summary sheet attached. The transmission charges being allowed for transmission lines are summarised below:

(Rs. in lakh)

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Depreciation 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79 435.79 Interest on Loan 659.46 560.83 500.90 449.56 396.01 Return on Equity 462.52 462.52 462.52 462.52 462.52 Advance against Depreciation 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.74 635.22 Interest on Working Capital 55.10 54.95 55.56 58.05 68.36 O & M Expenses 235.51 244.91 255.01 264.73 275.77 Total 1848.39 1759.00 1709.78 1765.38 2273.68

39. In addition to the transmission charges, the petitioner shall be entitled to other charges like income-tax, incentive, surcharge and other cess and taxes in accordance with the 2004 regulations. These transmission charges shall be included in the regional transmission tariff for Eastern and Northern Regions and shall be shared by the two regions and the regional beneficiaries in accordance with the 2004 regulations.

Impact of additional capitalization for the years 2001–04

40. In the petitions filed by NTPC for approval of revised fixed charges for additional capitalization for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004, the Commission has decided that additional capital expenditure be added to the gross block as on 1.4.2001 to arrive at gross block as on 1.4.2004 for the purpose of fixation of tariff for the period 2004–2005 to 2008–2009. The Commission has further ordered that NTPC would be entitled to earn return on equity @ 16% on equity portion of additional capitalization approved and interest on loan at the rate as applicable during 2001–2002 to 2003–2004. The return on equity and interest on loan are payable on additional capitalization from 1st April of the financial year following the financial year to which additional capital expenditure relates. These principles are equally applicable in case of de-capitalisation of expenditure.

41. Based on the above, the petitioner shall adjust the following amounts already paid by the respondents through tariff for the period ending 31.3.2004 on account of apportionment of de-capitalised amount between debt and equity:

(Rs. in lakh)

Impact of ACE As worked out 2002-2003 2003-2004 Total Interest on Loan 0.00 (−) 33.94 (−) 33.94 Return on Equity 0.00 (−) 0.96 (−) 0.96 Total 0.00 (−) 34.90 (−) 34.90

42. The main reasons for difference in the impact of additional capitalisation for the years 2001–04 as allowed and as claimed by the petitioner are that the petitioner has not considered de-capitalisation of Rs. 620.00 lakh on account 2 Nos 50 MVAR line reactors that have become surplus at Sarnath sub-station and segregating notionally between debt and equity the de-capitalised amount on account of FERV and ACE during 2001–04, so as to restrict over all debt-equity to the approved ratio of 80:20.

43. The petitioner has sought approval for the reimbursement of expenditure of Rs. 3,71,206/- incurred on publication of notices in the newspapers. The petitioner shall claim reimbursement of the said expenditure directly from the respondents in one installment in the ratio applicable for sharing of transmission charges. The petitioner has also sought reimbursement of filing fee of Rs. 5 lakh paid. A final view on reimbursement of filing fee is yet to be taken by the Commission for which views of the stakeholder 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.

44. The petitioner is already billing the respondents on provisional basis in accordance with the Commission's interim directions. The provisional billing of tariff shall be adjusted in the light of final tariff now approved by us.

45. This order disposes of Petition No. 51/2005.

Summary Sheet Name of the Company: PGCIL Name of the Element: 400 kV Biharshariff-Sasaram-Sarnath Transmission lines alongwith bays etc. under Eastern-Northern interregional HVDC Transmission System Actual DOCO: 01.07.2001 Petition No.: 51/2005 Tariff setting Period: 2004-09 (Rs. in lakh) 1 Capital Cost of the Project 18233.00 2 Admitted Capital Cost as on 1.4.2004 for Calculation of Debt and Equity 17950.00 3 Additional Capitalisation(works) (−)568.95 2001-2002 0.00 2002-2003 (−)568.95 2003-2004 0.00 Total (−)568.95 4 Additional Capitalisation(FERV) (−)862.51 2001-2002 123.38 2002-2003 (−)239.58 2003-2004 (−)746.31 Total (−)862.51 5 Total Capital Cost as on 1.4.2004(2+3+4) 16518.54 6 Means of Finance: Debt 80.00% 13214.83 Equity 20.00% 3303.71 Total 100.00% 16518.54 7 Gross Loan as on 01.04.2004 13214.83 8 Cumulative Repayment upto 31.3.2009: 4185.18 Repaid up to 31.3.2004 250.87 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 (ACE & FERV) -24.28 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 3958.59 Total 4185.18 9 Balance Loan to be repaid beyond 31.03.2009: 9029.65 10 Depreciation recovered up to 31.3.09: 4185.18 Dep AAD Total Recovered up to 31.3.2004 1319.62 0.00 1319.62 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 (ACE & FERV) -43.37 0.00 -43.37 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 2178.97 729.96 2908.93 Total 4185.18 11 Balance Depreciation to be recovered beyond 31.3.2009: 10681.51 Capital cost for the purpose of Depreciation 17950.00 ACE + FERV -1431.46 Capital cost as 1.4.2004 16518.54 Less: Land Cost 0.00 16518.54 90% of Capital Cost as above 14866.68 Cum. Depreciation to be recovered up to 31.3.09 4185.18 Balance Depreciation to be recovered beyond 31.3.09 10681.51