KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
KPTCL/B-36/6580/F/ 2002-03/823 Dated 8.11.2003
1 Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. ( KPTCL)
Corporate Office, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.
2 Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (BESCOM)
K.R.Circle, Bangalore – 560 001.
3 Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ( MESCOM).
Maroli, Kulashekara, Mangalore – 570 005.
4 Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ( HESCOM)
T.B. Road, Deshpande Nagar, Hubli – 580 029.
5 Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ( GESCOM)
Main Road, Gulbarga – 585 102.
**************
As directed by the Hon’ble Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, KPTCL / ESCOMs had notified the proposals for Tariff hike in the News Papers dated 16th and 17th of October 2003 and had invited objections for the proposals. In response to the notifications, the following objectors have filed their objections on the proposals.
I KPTCL/ESCOMs REJONIDERS ON OBJECTIONS FILED ON APPLICATION NO. 1 :
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL INCENTIVE SCHEME TO HT CONSUMERS AT Rs.3.80 PER UNIT
Sl. No. / Objection No. / Name of the Objector / Gist of the objection / KPTCL response1. / M-4 / Sri. Bhima Bhat,
Koddapadavu, Bantwal Taluk, Dakishna Kannada District.
AND
Sri. C.V.Gopal Krishna,
S/o C.M. Venkataramanaiah,
Residing at Kelinja,
Veera Kamba Village,
Bantwal Taluk,
Post Koddapadavu – 574 269.
Dakishna Kannada.
Sri. Diwana Gopal Bhat,
S/o. Subraya Bhat,
Residing at Aradhana,
Maril Post, Darbe,
Puttur, Dakishna Kannada.
Sri. M.Venkata Krishna,
S/o Dr. K.Mahabala Bhat,
Residing at Bharavi, Maroli Village,
Mangalore Taluk, Post Kulakeshtra,
Dakishna Kannada District.
Sri K.Venkataramana Bhat,
S/o Late K. Ramakrishna Bhat,
Residing at Kaje, Manchi Village,
Bantwal Taluk, Manchi – 574 323.
Dakishna District. / III. 1. a). The application of Rs.3.80
scheme is not maintainable
either under law or on facts.
b). Applications are not filed in
proper formats.
c). Applications do not disclose
whether the same are
approved by ESCOMs
d). As the above issue is being
agitated in the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka, matter is
sub- judice and the Hon'ble
Commission should stay the
Proceedings till final disposal of
the appeal. / Applications are maintainable under Law, KER Act and on facts.
KPTCL/ESCOMs have notified the application as per the direction of the Hon'ble Commission.
The ESCOMs have authorised KPTCL to file these applications on their behalf.
Pendency of an appeal before High Court will not bar consideration of the applications. The Hon'ble High Court has also issued directions to the Commission to consider the applications filed by the petitioners.
2. a). The proposal to supply power to
HT Industry at Rs.3.80 per unit
inclusive of Electricity Tax is
illegal as it is an Indirect Tax and
to be passed on to the
consumers. / The proposal is legal. No indirect Tax will be passed on to other consumers.
The proposal is not discriminatory as tax is inbuilt into total rate per unit @ 5%.
b). The said proposal is
discriminatory vis-à-vis other
consumers who are paying
Electricity Tax in addition to the
Tariff.
3. The delivery cost of power estimated
at Rs.3.77 had not included the additional cost implications. As such the delivery cost at 11 KV would be much more than the estimated cost and net realization of Rs.3.61 and the proposed scheme may not fetch the cost of delivery of power. / Additional cost implications have been factored while proposing Rs.3.80 scheme. Net realisation of Rs.3.61 will fetch the cost of delivery of power.
IV. 1. a). The application of POCA
formula is not maintainable
either under law or on facts.
b). Applications are not filed in
proper formats.
c). Application does not disclose
whether the same are
approved by ESCOMs / Applications are maintainable under law, KER Act and on facts.
KPTCL / ESCOMs have notified the applications as per the direction of the Hon'ble Commission.
The ESCOMs have authorised KPTCL to file these applications on their behalf.
As per the Article of Association of KPTCL, Chief Engineer Electricity, has been authorised to sign and file the applications and it is maintainable under law.
d). The Chief Engineer of KPTCL cannot file the said application without a duly executed Power of Attorney and hence, the application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
2. Single application filed by KPTCL cannot be considered as applications on behalf of all ESCOMs as they are separate entities.
/ The ESCOMs have authorised KPTCL to file applications on their behalf in respect of the applications now filed with KERC.
3. As the issue is being agitated in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, as admitted in the application itself, the matter is sub- judice and the Hon'ble Commission should stay the proceedings till final disposal of the appeal. / Pendency of an appeal before High Court will not bar consideration of the applications. The Hon'ble High Court has also issued directions to the Commission to consider the applications filed by the petitioners.
4. The Hon'ble Commission has no authority to approve the POCA formula or any other formula as per Section 62 (4) and 2 (62) of Electricity Act 2003 and the changes permitted to a Tariff are under the terms of fuel surcharge formula specified by Regulations made by the Appropriate Commission or the Central Electricity Authority only. That Authority may make any Regulation under Section 177 (3) of the Electricity Act 2003 and the Commission may make any Regulation under Section 181 (3) of the Act, subject to the condition of previous publication. Since no fuel surcharge formula has been specified by Regulations, the Hon'ble Commission has no authority to approve any of the formulas proposed by the applicant in the present proceedings. It is needless to say that Section 27 of KER Act has no application after coming into the force of Electricity Act 2003. / KERC has power to approve POCA formula in exercise of its powers under Section 27 of KER Act 1999.
Non-framing of Regulations will not take away the statutory powers.
5. a). Suggested formula is not correct,
definite and is in vague terms. / The formula is comprehensive, correct, definite and not vague.
b). If it is approved, there will not be
any sanctity to approved ERC. / Approval of POCA formula will not affect the sanctity of ERC and will take into account the adjustments made also.
c). Interest on working capital cannot
be a part of POCA, in view of the
fact that the same are to be taken
into account while approving ERC. / Interest on working capital is a part of POCA.
d). There is no mention about how to
determine the adjustment factor
for over recovery/ under
recovery. / It is made clear that, in case of any excess / shortage of the costs of the components have been considered, the same will be revised suitably and accordingly, the adjustment factor will be arrived on similar lines adopted to arriving at the cost of petroleum products.
/ 6. a). The application is silent on the
frequency of adjustments to be
made in the Tariff. / As per the application, monthly adjustment is proposed, if required.
The excess expenditure incurred in the previous month is the basis of adjustment.
b). Period or cycle of Tariff
adjustment once made.
c). Whether the excess expenditure
incurred in the previous cycle is
the basis of adjustment or the
future estimation is the basis of
adjustment while calculating the
Tariff adjustments under POCA
formula.
Sl. No. / Objection No. / Name of the Objector / Gist of the objection / KPTCL response
1. / K - 1 / Sri. Brigadier BB Sharms,
P-21, Head Quarters Training Command, Indian Air Force Hebbal,
Bangalore – 06. / 8. Approval of the formula amounts to Tariff revision every month as factors like variation in power purchase, interest in working capital, metered sales, unmetered consumption and difference in actuals with approved T & D loss are considered. It is a gross violation of Electricity Act 2003 in which Tariff revision is limited to four in numbers in a financial year.
9. KPTCL to confirm that no further revision of Tariff will take place on above accounts in case Hon'ble Commission agrees to the formula. / Approval of formula will not be in violation of Electricity Act 2003, as such a formula is contemplated in the Act itself. Formula will only take care of variations that occur subsequent to regular revision of tariff.
II KPTCL/ESCOMs REJONIDERS ON OBJECTIONS FILED ON APPLICATION NO. 2 :
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE AND OTHER COST ADJUSTMENT (POCA) FORMULA
Sl. No. / Objection No. / Name of the Objector / Gist of the objection / KPTCL response1. / M-1 / Bharthiya Kisaan Sangha,
Dakishna Kannada, Radha Krishna Building, Mandir Road, Puttur, Dakishna Kannada District. / III. 1. a). The application of Rs.3.80
scheme is not maintainable
either under law or on facts.
b). Applications are not filed in
proper formats.
c). Applications do not disclose
whether the same are
approved by ESCOMs
d). As the above issue is being
agitated in the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka, matter is
sub- judice and the Hon'ble
Commission should stay the
proceedings till final disposal of
the appeal. / Applications are maintainable under Law, KER Act and on facts.
KPTCL/ESCOMs have notified the application as per the direction of the Hon'ble Commission.
The ESCOMs have authorised KPTCL to file these applications on their behalf.
Pendency of an appeal before High Court will not bar consideration of the applications. The Hon'ble High Court has also issued directions to the Commission to consider the applications filed by the petitioners.
2. a). The proposal to supply power to
HT Industry at Rs.3.80 per unit
inclusive of Electricity Tax is
illegal as it is an Indirect Tax and
to be passed on to the
consumers. / The proposal is legal. No indirect Tax will be passed on to other consumers.
The proposal is not discriminatory as tax is inbuilt into total rate per unit @ 5%.
b). The said proposal is
discriminatory vis-à-vis other
consumers who are paying
Electricity Tax in addition to the
Tariff.
3. The delivery cost of power estimated
at Rs.3.77 had not included the additional cost implications. As such the delivery cost at 11 KV would be much more than the estimated cost and net realization of Rs.3.61 and the proposed scheme may not fetch the cost of delivery of power. / Additional cost implications have been factored while proposing Rs.3.80 scheme. Net realisation of Rs.3.61 will fetch the cost of delivery of power.
IV. 1. a). The application of POCA
formula is not maintainable
either under law or on facts.
b). Applications are not filed in
proper formats.
c). Application does not disclose
whether the same are
approved by ESCOMs / Applications are maintainable under law, KER Act and on facts.
KPTCL / ESCOMs have notified the applications as per the direction of the Hon'ble Commission.
The ESCOMs have authorised KPTCL to file these applications on their behalf.
As per the Article of Association of KPTCL, Chief Engineer Electricity, has been authorised to sign and file the applications and it is maintainable under law.
d). The Chief Engineer of KPTCL
cannot file the said application
without a duly executed Power
of Attorney and hence, the
application is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed.
2. Single application filed by KPTCL cannot be considered as applications on behalf of all ESCOMs as they are separate entities.
/ The ESCOMs have authorised KPTCL to file applications on their behalf in respect of the applications now filed with KERC.
3. As the issue is being agitated in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, as admitted in the application itself, the matter is sub- judice and the Hon'ble Commission should stay the proceedings till final disposal of the appeal. / Pendency of an appeal before High Court will not bar consideration of the applications. The Hon'ble High Court has also issued directions to the Commission to consider the applications filed by the petitioners.
4. The Hon'ble Commission has no authority to approve the POCA formula or any other formula as per Section 62 (4) and 2 (62) of Electricity Act 2003 and the changes permitted to a Tariff are under the terms of fuel surcharge formula specified by Regulations made by the Appropriate Commission or the Central Electricity Authority only. That Authority may make any Regulation under Section 177 (3) of the Electricity Act 2003 and the Commission may make any Regulation under Section 181 (3) of the Act, subject to the condition of previous publication. Since no fuel surcharge formula has been specified by Regulations, the Hon'ble Commission has no authority to approve any of the formulas proposed by the applicant in the present proceedings. It is needless to say that Section 27 of KER Act has no application after coming into the force of Electricity Act 2003. / KERC has power to approve POCA formula in exercise of its powers under Section 27 of KER Act 1999.
Non-framing of Regulations will not take away the statutory powers.
5. a). Suggested formula is not correct,
definite and is in vague terms.
b). If it is approved, there will not be
any sanctity to approved ERC. / The formula is comprehensive, correct, definite and not vague.
Approval of POCA formula will not affect the sanctity of ERC and will take into account the adjustments made also.
c). Interest on working capital cannot
be a part of POCA, in view of the
fact that the same are to be taken
into account while approving ERC. / Interest on working capital is a part of POCA.
d). There is no mention about how to
determine the adjustment factor
for over recovery/ under
recovery. / It is made clear that, in case of any excess / shortage of the costs of the components have been considered, the same will be revised suitably and accordingly, the adjustment factor will be arrived on similar lines adopted to arriving at the cost of petroleum products.
/ 6. a). The application is silent on the