THE CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
No.7/2000 in Petition No.12/2000
the matter of:
filed by PGCIL for seeking approval for transmission tariff for
Line with Associated Bays in Southern Region.
the matter of:
M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
were present for the applicant:
1. Shri Suresh Sachdeva, GM, PGCIL
petition has been filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (PGCIL)
seeking approval of the Commission for
220 KV – D/C Kayamkulam – Pallom Transmission Line with Associated
Bays in Southern Region, in commercial operation since 1.12.1999.
The petitioner has also filed an Interlocutory Application No.
7/2000 for interim order in its favour till final determination of tariff
by the Commission and disposal of the main petition.
The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent
– Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), for execution of the Associated
Transmission System for Kayamkulam Power Project which involves the
220 KV D/C Kayamkulam – Pallom Line.
220 KV D/C Kayamkulam – Edmon Line.
Establishment of 220 KV Switchyard at Kayamkulam.
Extension of 220 KV Substation of KSEB at Pallom & Edmon.
The petitioner has already constructed 220 KV D/C Kayamkulam Edmon
The estimated completion cost of the project covered by the present
petition as per Auditors Certificate is Rs. 86.09 crores.
The tariff proposal was discussed by the petitioner with the
respondent. It is seen from
the minutes dated 03.02.2000 that the respondent had agreed to pay 80% of
the tariff provisionally, because it had some reservations on the existing
Today the application for interim relief was listed for hearing,
Shri Suresh Sachdeva, General Manager representing PGCIL pleaded that the
petitioner is entitled to 100% of the transmission tariff on provisional
basis because the respondent is using the transmission system to its full
advantage and is also making full payment of tariff in respect of the
other line i.e. Kayamkulam – Edmon Line.
It was clarified by Shri Suresh Sachdeva that the same norms as
applied for Edmon Line, were
also applied for the calculation of tariff for the instant transmission
line. He explained that
ordinarily PGCIL is dealing with inter-state transmission system and it
was on a special request of KSEB that their project exclusively dedicated
to Kerala, was undertaken. He
clarified that the cost does not include contingent liability of Rs. 1.27
crores which relates to the claim of
compensation for the trees, mainly coconut trees by private
parties. If it is settled in favour of the claimants it is bound to
affect the capital cost of the project which will invariably require
upward revision of tariff.
Shri P.G.Yohannan, Chief Engineer, KSEB submitted that the Board has
serious reservations about
the correctness of the norms applied by the petitioner
for determination of tariff. When
transmission tariff in respect of Edmone Line was decided , CERC was not
established and as such the respondent had no opportunity to question the
validity of said norms. Besides
this, there had been delay in the completion of the project and,
therefore, the respondent cannot be made to suffer for the consequences of
delay. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled to
more than 80% of the tariff claim.
On the aspect of delay, it was clarified by the representative of
the petitioner that the transmission line was ready but the generating
station was not ready, therefore, there was delay in commercial operation
of the line.
of the facts on record and the submissions made by the representatives of
the petitioner and the respondent, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the transmission system
constructed by it and being used by the respondent, presently on
provisional basis. The issues
raised by the respondent in regard to validity of the tariff norms applied
and other related issues shall be considered at the time of final hearing
of the petition.
We find that the project was to be completed at an estimated cost
of Rs. 86.09 crores. We had
the opportunity of perusing the certificate dated 21.12.1999 (Enclosure-4
to the petition) and noted that out of the above amount, an expenditure of
Rs. 20.75 crores was yet to be incurred.
It was clarified by the representative of respondent that after the
issuance of the certificate dated 21.12.1999, a sum of Rs. 5.00 crores has
already been spent and the remaining amount of Rs. 15.75 crores is to be
spent during the current financial year i.e upto 31.03.2001.
Under these circumstances, we do not feel any justification for
ordering reimbursement of full transmission charges claimed by the
petitioner since as per petitioner’s own admission, about 17.5% of the
total estimated cost is yet to be incurred by the petitioner.
On consideration of these facts, we are satisfied that the
respondent should be made liable to pay 85% of the transmission charges
and we order accordingly, though the petitioner may raise the bills for
the full amount claimed.
10. IA No. 7/2000 is accordingly disposed of.
Us] [Extracts of Acts]
[Regulations][Orders] [Publications] [Power Data] [Annual Report]
[Schedule of Hearings][Bulletin Board] [Jobs] [Contact Us] [Search] [Links] .