Back
Judgment in Appeal No. 174 of 2012
1
In the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Appeal No. 174 of 2012
Dated: 11th September, 2014
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Nath, Technical Member
Hon’ble Justice Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member
In the matter of:
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
(Successor of Punjab State Electricity Board),
The Mall, Patiala – 147001,
Punjab.
…..
Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission,
SCO NO 220-221, Sector-34-A,
Chandigarh-160022.
….
Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Anand K. Ganesan
Ms. Swapna Seshadri
Counsel for the Respondent (s)
:
Mr. Sakesh Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003
has been preferred by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, a
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE SURENDRA KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Judgment in Appeal No. 174 of 2012
2
generation and distribution Company in the State of Punjab, against the
order dated 16.07.2012, passed by the Punjab State Electricity
Regulatory
Commission
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
‘State
Commission’) in Petition No. 69 of 2011, whereby the State Commission
has approved the Annual/Aggregate Revenue Requirements of the
appellant and determined the retail supply tariff for the appellant for FY
2012-13 and reviewed the finances of the appellant for FY 2011-12.
2. The appellant has raised the following issues in the present appeal
before this Tribunal :-
(i)
O & M and Employees cost,
(ii)
Improvement in efficiency and loss level,
(iii)
Return on Equity,
(iv)
Generation Norms and Target for Recovery of Fixed Charges
and Incentive,
(v)
Interest and Finance Charges on working capital,
(vi)
Reduction of Interest and Finance Charges due to Diversion
of Funds.
3. Thus the main grievances of the appellant by challenging the
impugned order before this Tribunal are that the State Commission has
not fully allowed the revenue requirements of the appellant and it has
also not fully allowed the employees cost, interest and finance charges of
the appellant. On the contrary, the State Commission has reduced the
employees cost by an ad hoc amount of 17.22% without considering the
impact of pay revision in terms of the 6th Pay Commission
recommendations which were applicable for the period from 2006-07.
Judgment in Appeal No. 174 of 2012
3
The State Commission has further not allowed the provisions of the tariff
regulations with regard to the provision of return on equity and the
normative plant availability level and generation incentives.
4. that it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the State
Commission has, in its previous nine Tariff Orders, determined tariff in
pursuance of the ARRs and Tariff Applications submitted by the Punjab
State Electricity Board (the Board) for the years 2002-03 to 2006-07,
2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
(PSPCL) for FY 2011-12. Tariff Order for the FY 2007-08 had been
passed by the Commission in suo motu proceedings.
5. that the appellant Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter
called the ‘PSPCL’) has filed the ARR for FY 2012-13 on November, 30,
2011 submitting that it is one of the successor entities of the erstwhile
Board duly constituted under the Companies Act, 1956, on April 16,
2010 after unbundling of the Board by the Government of Punjab (GoP)
vide notification No. 1/9/08/EB(PR)/196 dated April 16, 2010 under the
“Punjab Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme” (Transfer Scheme). The
balance sheet appended to the Transfer Scheme is provisional and the
Final Transfer Scheme for PSPCL has not been notified yet. Hence,
forecast of various financial parameters have been made on the basis of
assumptions detailed in the ARR petition. PSPCL has, therefore,
requested the State Commission to consider its petition as provisional
ARRpe
