ANDHRA
PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Sri. K.Sreerama Murthy, Member
Sri Surinder
Pal, Member
R. P. Nos. 7,
8, 9 and 10 of 2005
in
O.P.Nos. 31 to 34 of 2004
Between
1. Central Power Distribution Company Limited of A.P.
(R.P.No. 7/2005 in O.P.No. 31/2004)
2. Northern Power Distribution Company Limited of A.P.
(R.P.No. 8/2005 in O.P.No. 33/2004)
3. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited of A.P.
(R.P.No. 9/2005 in O.P.No. 34/2004)
4. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited of A.P.
(R.P.No. 10/2005 in O.P.No. 32/2004)
…… Petitioners
and
Nil ….. Respondent
These petitions coming on for hearing on
ORDER
1. All the four petitioners filed separate petitions seeking
reconsideration and modification of the
projected income from sale of power to such agricultural consumers who are not
eligible for free power under the modified policy of the Government of Andhra
Pradesh (hereinafter, GoAP), on the following identical grounds:
(a) At the time the GoAP
announced its modified policy in relation to supply of power to agricultural
consumers on 25.01.2005, the petitioner-licensees had already filed their
annual revenue requirements (hereinafter, ARRs) and
filings for proposed tariffs with the Commission for determination of tariffs
for FY 2005-06 on 30.11.2004, as
required. The time, up to 07.02.2005,
then made available by the Commission to the petitioner-licensees to file the
Addendums, if any, to the filings already made by them was too short for the
petitioners to study the impact of the modified GoAP
policy on their revenues. Accordingly,
the petitioners undertook a sample survey and filed, on 07.02.2005, “Addendums” to the
original filings. Later on, they filed
“supplemental information” based on the preliminary lists of agricultural
consumers eligible or not eligible for free power provided by them to all
village Panchayats for display in respective
villages, pending receipt of representations / objections against the lists so
displayed. This “supplemental
information” was not considered by the Commission which took into account,
while passing the Tariff Order on 22.03.2005, only the revenue data filed on
07.02.2005. Subsequent to the issue of
the Tariff Order, the DISCOMs received final findings
of the sample survey which revealed that it was a smaller percentage of
agricultural consumers (except in the case of petitioner No.4) who are not
eligible for free supply of electricity than what was submitted to the
Commission in the form of Addendums to the main filings.
(b) The final
and comprehensive results of the survey, after due examination of the
representations / objections and finalization of the final lists of consumers
not eligible for free power, were available to the petitioners in the last week
of March 2005, i.e. after passing of the Tariff Order by the Commission.
(c ) The information received by the petitioners after completion of
sample survey reveals that there is a material change in the number of
agricultural consumers who are not eligible for free supply of electricity
under the modified policy announced by the GoAP. This
information could not be produced by the petitioners prior to the passing of
the Tariff Order on 22.03.2005, in spite of their best efforts. Such information, if produced, would have led
to a different conclusion with regard to revenues to be realized by the
petitioners from what was arrived at by the Commission in its Tariff Order dated 22.03.2005,
resulting in all the petitioners, except the Petitioner No.4, experiencing a decrease in revenue from sales
which otherwise would entitle the petitioners to receive additional subsidy
from GoAP.
(d) Therefore, it is prayed that the petitions filed by
the petitioners may be allowed and suitable modifications be made in the Tariff
Order dated
2. After perusal of the contents of the petitions, they were
all taken on
file and notices issued to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners at the time of hearing reiterated the
averments made in the petitions and requested for modification of their
projected income from sale of power to agricultural consumers not eligible for
free power.
4. The point that arises for consideration is
“whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief ”
5. In the “Addendums” filed by the petitioners, they had stated
that they were furnishing indicative figures of the likely impact of the GoAP’s new policy on their expected revenues as depicted in
their ARRs for the year 2005-06. They had also requested the Commission to
extend the treatment of ”corrections” for such
deviations once the year is over and the actual consumption and revenue are
known.
6. It is contended by the petitioners that actual and final
data now produced was available to them only after the issue of theTariff Order FY 2005-06.
It is also true that had this information (data) been available to the
respective petitioner-licensees before the issue of the Tariff Order, the
Commission would have estimated a different amount of expected revenue from the
projected sales.
7. This new data now produced has not been created subsequent
to the issue of Tariff Order only for purpose of filing these petitions. The petitioners have stated that the sample
survey had been undertaken in the month of February, 2005 itself and the same
was completed and final figures were available after issue of the Tariff Order.
8. Ordinarily, the Commission will not be undertaking “true-up”
in respect of projected revenues from sales of energy as they are considered to
constitute normal business risk of a licensee.
In view, however, of the fact that the petitioner-licensees now have
come with the information which could not have been produced by them prior to
the issue of the Tariff Order in spite of their best efforts, and since it is
also true that had the material been available, the Commission would have come
to a different conclusion, resulting in the projected revenues from sales being
different and the petitioners becoming entitled to different amounts of subsidy
from GoAP, in respect of supply of power to
agricultural consumers under the changed
policy of GoAP.
The revised estimates of revenue of the petitioner-licensees would,
therefore, have also modified the amounts of subsidy to be received by them from the
Government.
9. The data now produced by the
petitioners is required to be verified regarding its correctness, a process
which may take some time. Consequently,
the Commission is inclined to deviate from the normal procedure, as a special case, and have a “true-up” at the end of the
current financial year. Consequential
corrective action will be as contemplated in para 701 of the Tariff Order for
FY 2005-06, as reproduced below:
“701. The
Subsidy administration mechanism outlined in the Directive in paragraph 860 of
the Tariff Order for FY 2004-05 as extracted below shall apply.
“The DISCOMs shall file before the Commission the actual sales to
subsidized categories of consumers for whom the GoAP
agreed to pay the subsidy every month and the Commission will monitor the units
actually sold by the DISCOMs vis-à-vis the subsidy
provided. At the end of the year,
subsidy adjustments will be made based on the consumption of units in respect
of various subsidized categories.”
10. Ordered accordingly.
This order is corrected and signed on this 24th day of August, 2005.
|
Sd/- |
Sd/- |
Sd/- |
|
SURINDER PAL |
K. SREERAMA MURTHY |
K. SWAMINATHAN |
|
Member |
Member |
Chairman |
CERTIFIED COPY