ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Hyderabad
Sri. K.Sreerama Murthy, Member
Sri
Surinder Pal, Member
R. P. No.11 of 2005
and
Nil .. Respondent
This petition coming on for hearing on
17-12-2005 in the presence of Sri. P. M. K. Gandhi, Director(RA&CO), and
Sri. Santosh Kamat, Consultant, for the
petitioner and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Commission
delivered the following:
This is a review petition filed under
section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking review of the proceedings
No.Secy/05, dated 20.09.2005 issued by the Commission approving the Fuel
Surcharge Adjustment (hereinafter, the “FSA”) for the period September, 2004 to
March, 2005.
2. The
following are the averments made in the petition:
(a) The Commission approved an amount of Rs.38.22 crores against the petitioner’s proposal of Rs.148.19 crores towards FSA for the period September, 2004 to March, 2005.
(b) The Commission vide letter No.APERC/Secy/Dir-Engg/DD-Trans/E-511/D.No.1719/2004 dated 06.12.2004 issued interim orders to adopt certain revised technical limits, as mentioned therein, for backing down of thermal generating units of Generation Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APGENCO) with a direction to adopt such technical limits from the date of the order.
(c) FSA amounts for the period mentioned
above were computed and submitted by the petitioner as per the technical limits
of backing down approved by the Commission for APGENCO’s thermal generating
stations. The Commission is aware that
during the day-to-day operation of the grid it is not possible to back down any
generating station to zero capacity, and the technical limits of the generating
units are given due consideration while resorting to backing down, only to
ensure the safety and security of the grid for the benefit of consumers. As such,
all the costs associated with these limits on backing down need to be
borne by the consumers.
(d) If technical limits of backing down were
not considered in determination of FSA, the licensees would be subjected to
huge financial loss.
(e) In view of the above, it is prayed that FSA approval for the period September, 2004 to March, 2005 may be revised.
3. Notice was ordered to the petitioner to substantiate its contentions.
4. Heard arguments of Sri P.M.K.Gandhi, Director(RA&CO), and Sri Santosh Kamat, the Consultant representing the petitioner.
5. The point that arises for consideration is --
“whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for”
6. The Commission has prescribed a formula vide the Andhra
Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Amendment
Regulation No.1 of 2003 for computation of Fuel Surcharge Adjustment. The FSA
is based inter-alia on the variations between the variable cost at which the
energy is actually purchased and that taken in the Tariff Order, limited,
however, to the quantum of energy approved in the Tariff Order. For this
purpose, the variable charges of different generating stations, as per the
Merit Order determined by their respective variable costs in ascending order,
aggregated up to the quantum of energy approved in the Tariff Order are taken
into consideration and their weighted average cost is compared with the actual
weighted average cost of the energy actually drawn from different stations, up
to the Tariff Order quantity.
7. The FSA is an ex-poste allocation of variations in cost – mainly
variable – of the Tariff Order–approved volumes of energy. While preferring its
review petition, the APTRANSCO has not taken into account the fact that in this
scheme of things, the full fixed costs of the generating stations already stand
allocated to the consumers of the distribution licensees, through the Tariff
Order–approved quantum of energy. Any purchases by the APTRANSCO / distribution
licensees over and above this quantum of energy -- for trading and even for
increased retail supply to incumbent consumers and the new consumers -- are
thus available to APTRANSCO / distribution licensees at variable cost alone
i.e. at a much reduced cost, shorn of the fixed costs. APTRANSCO / distribution
licensees therefore were put to no undue financial burden due to specification
of technical limits for backing down of generating stations of APGENCO vide
Commission’s order dated:06.12.2004 referred to above. Accordingly, the
Commission has considered it just and appropriate not to allocate to the
consumers of the distribution licencees,
the costs, if any, associated
with not being able to back down to the extent required according to the Tariff Order quantities, of the
generating stations of APGENCO with higher variable cost, on account of technical limitations specified in the Commission’s order dated 6.12.2004.
8.
In view of
the above, there is no case for review / revision of the FSA as determined in
Commission’s proceedings dated 20.09.2005.
9.
In the
result, the petition is dismissed.
The order is corrected and signed on this 3rd day of January, 2006.
|
Sd/- |
Sd/- |
Sd/- |
|
Surinder Pal |
K.Sreerama Murthy |
K.Swaminathan |
|
MEMBER |
MEMBER |
CHAIRMAN |