Bina Tariff Order 080816-P-05-2016

BINA MYT Order FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19
MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

5th Floor, "Metro Plaza", Bittan Market, Bhopal - 462 016
Petition No. 05 of 2016
PRESENT:
Dr. Dev Raj Birdi, Chairman
A.B. Bajpai, Member
Alok Gupta, Member
IN THE MATTER OF:

Determination of generation tariff for 2x250MW (Phase-I) coal based power
project at Bina, District Sagar (M.P.) for the control period of FY 2016-17 to FY
2018-19 based on the tariff petition filed by Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited
under Section 62 and 86(1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
M/s Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Uttar Pradesh: PETITIONER
1. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd., Jabalpur
2. M. P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Jabalpur
3. M. P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Bhopal RESPONDENTS
4. M. P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Indore
M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 1

ORDER
(Passed on this day of 08th August’ 2016)
1. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as

“the Commission or MPERC”) issued MPERC (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 {RG-26(III) of 2015}
(hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations” 2015) for the new control period i.e.
FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. These were notified in the official gazette on 1st
January’ 2016.
2. M/s Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner” or

“JPVL”) filed the subject petition on 24th February’ 2016 for determination of
generation tariff of its 2X250 MW (Phase-1) coal based Thermal Power Plant at
Bina, District Sagar (M.P) for the next Control Period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-
19. The subject petition is filed under section 62 and 86 (1) (a) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 and in terms of MPERC (Terms & Conditions for Determination of
Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015.
3. The Commission has scrutinized the subject petition in accordance with the
principles, methodology and the norms specified in the above mentioned MPERC
(Terms & Conditions for determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015.
4. The Bina Thermal Power Plant (Phase I) comprises of two generating units of
250 MW each. Date of Commercial Operation (CoD) of both units of the
petitioner’s power plant under Phase 1 are as given below:
Table 1: Capacity and COD of Generating Units under Phase-1

Date of Commercial
S. No Units Installed Capacity (in MW) Operation
1 Unit-I 250 MW 31st August' 2012
2 Unit-II 250 MW 07th April' 2013
5. Earlier, vide tariff order dated 26th November’ 2014 (in petition no. 40 of 2012),
the Commission determined the final generation tariff for 2X250 MW of Bina
Thermal Power Project under Section 62 of the Electricity Act 2003 for FY 2012-
13 and FY 2013-14, based on the Annual Audited Accounts. In the aforesaid
tariff order, the generation tariff for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 was determined
on provisional basis subject to true up on the basis of Audited Accounts for the
respective year.
6. On 23rd January’ 2015, the petitioner filed a review Petition No. 05 of 2015

seeking review of the aforesaid Commission’s order dated 26th November’ 2014
on some issues.
7. Vide order dated 8th May’ 2015 in the aforesaid review petition, the Commission
revised the Annual Capacity (fixed) charges on the basis of revision in only one
issue i.e. interest and finance charges on loan. Regarding other issues, the
petitioner has filed an appeal with the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity,
New Delhi. The issues in the aforesaid Appeal are sub judice before the Hon’ble
Tribunal for Electricity.
8. Further, vide order dated 3rd June’ 2016, the Commission determined the true-up
of generation tariff for FY 2014-15 based on Annual Audited Accounts for FY
2014-15. True-up petition for FY 2015-16 is to be filed by the petitioner after
finalization of its Annual Audited Accounts for FY 2015-16.
9. The element- wise Annual Capacity (fixed) charges claimed by the petitioner in
the subject petition for next control period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 are as
given below:
Table 2: Element-Wise Annual Capacity (fixed) Charges filed: (` in Crores)

Particular FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Return on Equity 212.67 212.67 212.67
Interest on Term Loan 230.27 208.53 186.80
Depreciation 177.12 177.12 177.12
O&M Expenses 135.00 143.50 152.55
O&M Expenses (Transmission Lines & Bay) 0.32 0.33 0.34
Interest on Working Capital 58.06 58.09 58.15
Lease Charges 0.27 0.28 0.30
Total 813.71 800.53 787.93
68.42% of Capacity Charges 556.75 547.73 539.11
10. The petitioner filed the following Energy (variable) charges for the control period
of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19:-
Table 3: Energy Charges Filed in the Petition (`/Unit)

Financial Years Energy Charges
FY 2016-17 2.481
FY 2017-18 2.481
FY 2018-19 2.481

11. The petitioner broadly prayed the following in its petition:
a. “Determine the Generation Tariff of the 2x250 MW (Coal Based Power

Project at Bina, Dist. Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, for the period commencing
from 1st April, 2016 upto 31.03.2019 as required under the PPA dated
05.01.2011;
b. The Petitioner may be allowed to raise bills from April, 2016 onwards as
per tariff already determined for the year 2015-16, pending the
determination of MYT tariff for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19;
c. Allow the recovery of the filing fees as and when paid to the Commission
and also the publication expenses from the beneficiaries;
d. Petitioner respectfully seeks an opportunity to present their case prior to

the finalization of the Tariff Order. The Petitioner believes that such an
approach would provide a fair treatment to all the stakeholders and may
eliminate the need of a review or clarification”
12. While scrutinizing the subject petition, the Commission has considered the
opening figures of capital cost and funding of the project as admitted by the
Commission in its true-up order for FY 2014-15 issued on 3rd June 2016.
13. The Commission has also examined the subject petition in light of the comments/
suggestions offered by the Respondent No. 1 (MPPGCL) / other stakeholders
and considering the response of petitioner on the same.
Procedural History
14. Motion hearing in the subject matter was held on 26th April’ 2016, when the
petition was admitted and the petitioner was directed to serve copies of petition
on all Respondents in the matter. The respondents were also asked to file their
comments/ response on the petition if any, by 26th May’ 2016.
15. By affidavit dated 26th May’ 2016, Respondent No. 1, M.P. Power Management
Company Ltd. filed its comments on the petition.
16. Vide Commission’s letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the information gaps in the
subject petition were communicated to the petitioner and it was asked to file a
comprehensive reply along with relevant supporting documents by 20th June’
2016.
17. Vide letter dated 20th June’ 2016, the petitioner sought time extension of 30 days

for filing its response. Vide Commission’s letter dated 29th June’ 2016, the
petitioner was allowed to file its response at the earliest but not later than 20 th
July’ 2016.
18. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner filed its response on the issues
raised by the Commission. The details of the issues raised in Commission’s letter
dated 31st May’ 2016 along with the response filed by the petitioner by affidavit
dated 19th July’ 2016 are mentioned in Annexure-I enclosed with this order.
19. The public notice inviting comments/suggestions from all stakeholders was
published on 2nd July’ 2016 in the following news papers:
a) Raj Express, Bhopal (Hindi)
b) Raj Express, Gwalior (Hindi)
c) Raj Express, Indore(Hindi)
d) Raj Express, Jabalpur (Hindi)
e) Times of India, Bhopal (English)
20. By affidavit dated 20th July’ 2016, JPVL filed its reply on comments offered by
(M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.) Respondent No.1 in the matter. The
comments offered by MPPMCL and the response of JPVL are mentioned in
Annexure-II enclosed with this order.
21. Public hearing in the subject petition was held on 26th July’ 2016. The
comments/objections filed by the objector and the response of the petitioner on
the same are mentioned in Annexure II with this order.
Capital Cost
Petitioner’s Submission:
22. The details of Gross Fixed Assets as on 1st April’ 2015, proposed/provisional
additional capitalization during FY 2015-16 and Gross Fixed Assets as on 1st
April’ 2016 as field by petitioner are given below:
Table 4: Opening GFA as on 1.04.2016 Filed by the Petitioner (` in Crores)

Particulars Amount
Opening GFA as on 1.04.2015 3497.37
Additional Capitalization during FY 2015-16 100.16
GFA as on 1.04.2016 3597.54
Provisions in Regulation:
23. With regard to capital cost, Regulation 15 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for

Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that,
“15.1 Capital cost as determined by the Commission after prudence check in

accordance with this Regulation shall form the basis of determination of tariff for
existing and new projects.
15.2 Capital cost for a Project shall include
(a) the expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred up to the date of

commercial operation of the project;
(b) Interest during construction and financing charges, on the loans (i) being
equal to 70% of the funds deployed, in the event of the actual equity in
excess of 30% of the funds deployed, by treating the excess equity as
normative loan, or (ii) being equal to the actual amount of loan in the event
of the actual equity less than30% of the funds deployed;
Any gain or loss on account of foreign exchange risk variation pertaining

to the loan amount availed during the construction period shall form part of
the capital cost.
(c) Increase in cost in contract packages as approved by the Commission;
(d) Interest during construction and incidental expenditure during

construction as computed in accordance with Regulation 17 of these
Regulations;
(e) capitalised Initial spares subject to the ceiling rates specified in Regulation
19 of these Regulations;
(f) expenditure on account of additional capitalization and de-capitalisation

determined in accordance with Regulation 20 of these Regulations; and
(g) adjustment of revenue due to sale of infirm power in excess of fuel cost
prior to the COD as specified under Regulation 24 of these Regulations;
15.3 The Capital cost of an existing project shall include the following:
(a) the capital cost admitted by the Commission prior to 1.4.2016 duly trued
up by excluding liability, if any, as on 1.4.2016;
(b) additional capitalization and de-capitalization for the respective year of

tariff as determined in accordance with Regulation 20; and

(c) expenditure on account of renovation and modernization as admitted by

the Commission in accordance with Regulations 21.
Commission’s Analysis:
24. Based on Annual Audited Accounts for FY 2014-15, the Commission issued last
True-Up order for FY 2014-15 on 3rd June’ 2016 in this matter and the petition for
true-Up of generation tariff for FY 2015-16 is to be filed by petitioner on
availability of Annual Audited Accounts for FY 2015-16.
25. To work out the capital cost as on 1st April’ 2016 in this order, the Commission
has considered the closing Gross Fixed Assets of ` 3484.12 crores as on 31st
March’ 2015 (as admitted in its true up order dated 3rd June’ 2016 for FY 2014-
15) as a base figure for 1st April’ 2015.
Additional Capitalization during FY 2015-16
26. The petitioner filed the provisional additional capitalization during FY 2015-16
and its corresponding funding as given below:
Table 5: Additional Capitalization and Funding during FY 2015-16 (` in Crores)

Particulars Amount
Additional Capitalization during FY 2015-16 100.16
Loan 70.11
Equity 30.05
27. Vide Commission’s letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to file a
comprehensive reply to the following issues on additional capitalization with all
relevant supporting documents:
(i) Whether the addition of assets is on account of the reasons (a) to (e) in clause
20.1 of the MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation
tariff) Regulations, 2012.
(ii) Whether the assets capitalized during the year are under original scope of
work. Supporting documents were also sought in this regard.
(iii) Whether the additional capitalization is within the cut-off date of the project.
(iv) Statement showing the detailed break-up of the project cost originally
approved by the competent authority, cost incurred up to 31 st March, 2015,
addition capitalization proposed during FY 2015-16, along with the reasons of
increase in each item of additional capitalization proposed during FY 2015-16
was also sought.

(v) Details of the works completed as on 31st March’ 2016 along with supporting
documents were sought.
(vi) Reasons for delay in completion of works under additional capitalization and
the anticipated date of completion of these additional works were also sought.
(vii) Details of any penalty/LD if any, imposed on the contractor for delay in
completion of these works under additional capitalization were sought.
28. The petitioner was also asked to file the following:

(i) The copy of its Board of Director’s approval for additional capitalization of
`100.16 Crore filed by it during FY 2015-16.
(ii) Board’s Resolutions for equity investments and shareholder certificate for the
equity infusion for the additional capital investment of `100.16 in FY 2015-16.
29. In response to above, by affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted
the following:
(i) Reply to issue (i), (ii) and (iii)

“The additional proposed capitalization of Rs 100.16 Crs falls within the
norms specified under Regulation 20.1 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions
for determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2012. The said
Regulation reads as under:-
“The Capital Expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred, on the
following counts within the original scope of work, after the Date of
Commercial Operation and up to cut-off date may be admitted by the
Commission, subject to prudent check:
(a) Undisclosed liabilities

(b) Work deferred for execution
(c) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of order or
decree of a court,
(d) Change in Law,
(e) Procurement of initial spares within the original scope of work, subject
to the provisions of Regulation 17.1(b)
Provided that the details of works included in the original scope of along
with estimates of expenditure, un-discharged liabilities and works deferred
for execution shall be submitted along with the application for Tariff.”
The Petitioner would humbly like to draw the kind attention of Hon’ble
Commission in the light of the above Regulation that the said additional
capitalization is within the original scope of the work authorized by the
Resolution of Board of Directors dated May 17th, 2014 and is also within
the prescribed cut-off date.”

(ii) Reply to issue (iv)

Break up of Originally Approved Project Cost, Revised Project Cost
Proposed capitalization during 2015-16 and Final Project Cost are given
as under:-
(Rs in Crores)
Particulars Original Revised Final Cost Proposed
Project Project Project Incurred Capitalization
Cost Cost Cost upto 31- during 2015-
03-2015 16
Land 7 7 7 6.86
BTG 1294 1338 1381 1740.80 7
BOP 480 575 954 1153.70 47
Civil Cost 433 686 479 596.02 46
Overhead & 201 201 253
Pre-Operative
IDC/IEDC 294 398 524*
Margin Money 45 35
Total 2754 3240 100
3598 3497.38
* This includes Rs 23.46 Crs approved by Hon’ble Commission towards

interest from COD of Unit I to COD II on Debt Component of unallocated
capital cost as on COD of Unit I vide Para 4.30 and 4.31 Order dated Nov
26th, 2014.
Reasons of increase/decrease between proposed capitalization during
2015-16 and actual capitalization shall be provided after approval of
shareholders in Annual General Meeting of Balance Sheet as on March
31st, 2016 of Jaypee Bina Thermal Power Plant.
(iii) Reply to issue (v)

Details of work completed up to March 31st, 2016 will be furnished only
after approval of shareholders in Annual General Meeting of Balance
Sheet as on March 31st, 2016 of Jaypee Bina Thermal Power Plant.
(iv) Reply to issue (vi)

In response to the query a detailed chart is enclosed herewith as
Annexure-2.
(v) Reply to issue (vii)

As regards Liquidated Damages & Legal Remedies, the same shall be
looked into after the completion of balance of works as our current priority
is to ensure that progress of work in not hampered.

30. With regard to Board’s approval for additional capitalization, the petitioner
submitted that since, this addition is part of original scope of work with a project
completion cost of `3575 Crores, hence it does not require fresh approval of its
Board of Director. The petitioner enclosed the Board’s approval for Rs 3,575 Crs
with its reply.
31. On perusal of the reply and documents filed by the petitioner, the Commission
observed that the reply filed by the petitioner regarding the proposed additional
capitalization during FY 2015-16 is not to the satisfaction and it will require
detailed examination on several counts specified in the MPERC (Terms and
Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2012. Based on
the information made available by JPVL, this exercise may be carried out while
undertaking true up exercise for FY 2015-16 based on Annual Audited Accounts
and other necessary details in this regard. The true-up exercise upto FY 2014-15
has been undertaken by the Commission and the petition for true-up of FY 2015-
16 is to be filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Commission shall consider the
asset addition during FY 2015-16 at the time of dealing with the true up petition
for FY 2015-16 based on the Annual Audited Accounts and also on detailed
examination of assets addition in terms of applicable Regulations.
32. Accordingly, the status of opening Gross Fixed Assets (GFA) as on 1 st April’
2016 will remain same in this order as considered by the Commission as on 31st
March’ 2015, in its true up order dated 3rd June’ 2016 for FY 2014-15.
33. The petitioner has not claimed any additional capitalization during the control
period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. Therefore, the same Gross Fixed Assets as
on 1st April 2016 is considered till 31st March 2019.
Funding Status
Equity
34. To work out the equity balance as on 1st April’ 2016, the petitioner considered the
closing balance of equity as on 31st March’ 2015, as filed in the true up petition
for FY 2014-15 as opening equity base figure as on 1st April’ 2015 and further,
equity addition of 30% of proposed/provisional additional capitalization filed
during FY 2015-16 is considered. The petitioner has not filed any additional
capitalization during the control period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
35. The details of the opening balance of equity as on 1st April’ 2015, addition during

FY 2015-16 and opening balance of equity as on 1st April’ 2016, as filed by

petitioner are as given below:
Table 6: Opening Equity as on 1.04.2016 (` in Crores)

Particulars Amount
Opening equity as on 1.04.2015 1049.21
Additions during FY 2015-16 30.05
Opening equity as on 1.04.2016 1079.26
Loan
36. To work out the loan balance as on 1st April’ 2016, the petitioner considered the
closing balances of loan as on 31st March’ 2015, as filed in the true up petition for
FY 2014-15 as opening loan as on 1st April’ 2015. Further, loan addition of 70%
of proposed/provisional additional capitalization filed during FY 2015-16 is
considered and repayment equivalent to estimated depreciation during FY 2015-
16 has also been considered by the petitioner to arrive at the loan balance as on
1st April’ 2016. The petitioner has not filed any additional capitalization during the
control period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
37. The details of the opening balance of loan as on 1st April’ 2016, repayment during
the control period for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and closing loan balances filed
by the petitioner are as given below:
Table 7: Opening and Closing Balance of Loan Filed (` in Crores)

Financial Years Opening Balance Repayments Closing Balance
FY 2016-17 1964.92 177.12 1787.80
FY 2017-18 1787.80 177.12 1610.67
FY 2018-19 1610.67 177.12 1433.55
38. With regard to funding of the project, Regulation 25 of MPERC (Terms and
Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides
that,
Debt-Equity Ratio:
25.1 For a project declared under commercial operation on or after 1.4.2016,

the debt-equity ratio would be considered as 70:30 as on COD. If the
equity actually deployed is more than 30% of the capital cost, equity in
excess of 30% shall be treated as normative loan:

Provided that:
a. where equity actually deployed is less than 30% of the capital cost, actual
equity shall be considered for determination of tariff:
b. the equity invested in foreign currency shall be designated in Indian
rupees on the date of each investment:
c. any grant obtained for the execution of the project shall not be considered
as a part of capital structure for the purpose of debt : equity ratio.
Explanation.-The premium, if any, raised by the generating company while

issuing share capital and investment of internal resources created out of
its free reserve, for the funding of the project, shall be reckoned as paid up
capital for the purpose of computing return on equity, only if such premium
amount and internal resources are actually utilised for meeting the capital
expenditure of the generating station.
25.2 The generating company shall submit the resolution of the Board of the
company regarding infusion of fund from internal resources in support of
the utilization made or proposed to be made to meet the capital
expenditure of the generating station.
25.3 In case of the generating station declared under commercial operation

prior to 1.4.2016, debt- equity ratio allowed by the Commission for
determination of tariff for the period ending 31.3.2016 shall be considered.
25.4 In case of the generating station declared under commercial operation

prior to 1.4.2016, but where debt: equity ratio has not been determined by
the Commission for determination of tariff for the period ending 31.3.2016,
the Commission shall approve the debt: equity ratio based on actual
information provided by the generating company.
25.5 Any expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred on or after 1.4.2016

as may be admitted by the Commission as additional capital expenditure
for determination of tariff, and renovation and modernisation expenditure
for life extension shall be serviced in the manner specified in clause 25.1
of this Regulation.
Equity as on 1st April’ 2016

39. Regulation 25.3 of MPERC (Terms & Conditions for Determination of Generation
Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that “in case of the generating station declared
under commercial operation prior to 1st April’ 2016, the debt-equity ratio allowed

by the Commission for determination of tariff for the period ending 31 st March’
2016, shall be considered”. Thus, the Commission has considered the opening
equity as on 1st April’ 2015, based on the true-up order for FY 2014-15 issued on
3rd June’ 2016.
40. Further, the Commission has not considered the provisional additional
capitalization during FY 2015-16 in this order. Therefore, the equity balance of
`1045.24 crore as on 31st March’ 2015, as approved by the Commission in true
up order dated 3rd June’ 2016 for FY 2014-15 would remain same as on 1st April’
2016.
41. The petitioner has not filed any equity additional during the control period FY
2016-17 to FY 2018-19. Therefore, the equity amount of `1045.24 crore shall
remain unchanged during the control period till 31st March 2019.
Loan balances as on 1st April’ 2016

42. In light of the aforesaid Regulation 25.3 of MPERC (Terms & Conditions for
Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015, the Commission has
considered the loan amount as on 1st April’ 2015, based on the true-up order for
FY 2014-15 issued on 3rd June’ 2016.
43. Further, as discussed in preceding paragraphs of this order, the Commission has
not considered the proposed/provisional additional capitalization during FY 2015-
16 at this stage. Therefore, the loan balance as on 1st April’ 2016 is worked out
by considering the estimated repayment equivalent to depreciation for FY 2015-
16.
44. Based on the above, the status of loan balances as on 1st April’ 2015, repayment
during FY 2015-16 and loan balances as on 1st April’ 2016 are worked out as
given below:
Table 8: Loan as on 1st April’ 2015, Repayment during the FY 2015-16 and loan
as on 1st April’ 2016 (` in Crores)
Particulars Amount
Opening Loan as on 1.04.2015 2061.37
Repayment during FY 2015-16 171.94
Loan balance as on 1.04.2016 1889.43
45. The petitioner has not filed any loan addition during the control period of FY
2016-17 to FY 2018-19. Therefore, no loan addition is considered during the
control period in this order.

Cumulative depreciation as on 1st April’ 2016:
46. For computation of cumulative depreciation as on 1st April’ 2016, the Commission
has considered the closing cumulative depreciation as on 31st March’ 2015, as
approved in true-up order dated 3rd June’ 2016 for FY 2014-15 and depreciation
during FY 2015-16 has been computed using the weighted average rate of
depreciation as filed by the petitioner.
47. In view of the above, the status of cumulative depreciation as on 1 st April’ 2015,
addition during FY 2015-16 and cumulative depreciation as on 1st April’ 2016 is
worked out as given below :
Table 9: Cumulative Depreciation as on 1st April’ 2015, depreciation during FY

2015-16 and Cumulative Depreciation as on 1st April’ 2016 (` in Crores)
Particulars Amount
Opening Cumulative Depreciation as on 1.04.2015 377.51
Depreciation during FY 2015-16 171.94
Cumulative depreciation as on 1.04.2016 549.45
48. The details of opening GFA, Loan balance, equity balance and cumulative
depreciation as on 1st April’ 2016 considered in this order are as follows:
Table 10: Status as on 1st April’ 2016 (` in crores)

Particulars Amount
Gross Fixed Assets 3484.12
Loan Balance 1889.43
Equity Balance 1045.24
Cumulative Deprecation 549.45
Annual Capacity (fixed) Charges

49. As per Regulation 27 of the MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of
Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015, the Annual Capacity (Fixed) Charges shall
consist of the following components:
(a) Return on Equity;

(b) Interest on Loan Capital;
(c) Depreciation;
(d) Interest on Working Capital;
(e) Operation and Maintenance Expenses;

Return on Equity
Petitioner’s Submission
50. The petitioner filed the Return on Equity during control period of FY 2016-17 to
FY 2018-19 in form 1(II) of the petition as given below:-
Table 11: Return on Equity Filed (` in Crores)

Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Opening Equity 1079.26 1079.26 1079.26
Equity Additions 0.00 0.00 0.00
Closing Equity 1079.26 1079.26 1079.26
Average Equity 1079.26 1079.26 1079.26
Base Rate of ROE 15.50% 15.50% 15.50%
Tax Rate considered under MAT 21.34% 21.34% 21.34%
Pre-Tax Rate of Return on Equity 19.71% 19.71% 19.71%
Return on Equity 212.67 212.67 212.67
Provisions in the Regulation:
51. With regard to Return on Equity, Regulation 30 and 31 of MPERC (Terms and
that,
30 Return on Equity:
“30.1 Return on equity shall be computed in rupee terms, on the equity base
capital determined in accordance with Regulation 25.
30.2 Return on equity shall be computed at the base rate of 15.5% for thermal
generating stations and hydro generating stations.
Provided that
(a) in case of Projects commissioned on or after 1 st April, 2016, an
additional return of 0.5% shall be allowed if such Projects are
completed within the timeline specified in Appendix-I :
(b) the additional return of 0.5% shall not be admissible if the Project is not
completed within the timeline specified above for reasons whatsoever.
(c) the rate of return of a new project shall be reduced by 1% for such
period as may be decided by the Commission, if the Generating station
is found to be declared under commercial operation without

commissioning of any of the Restricted Governor Mode Operation

(RGMO)/ Free Governor Mode Operation (FGMO):
(d) as and when any of the above requirements are found lacking in a
generation station based on the report submitted by the respective
SLDC/RLDC, ROE shall be reduced by 1% for the period for which the
deficiency continues:
31 Tax on Return on Equity:
31.1 The base rate of return on equity as allowed by the Commission under
Regulation 30 shall be the shall be grossed up with the effective tax rate for the
Year respective financial years. For this purpose, the effective tax rate shall be
considered on the basis of actual tax paid in the respective financial year in line
with the provisions of the relevant Finance Acts by the concerned generating
company. The actual income tax on other income stream including deferred tax
i.e., income of non generation business shall not be considered for the
calculation of “effective tax rate”.
31.2 Rate of return on equity shall be rounded off to three decimal places and
shall be computed as per the formula given below:
Rate of pre-tax return on equity = Base rate / (1-t)

Where t is the applicable tax rate in accordance with Regulation 31.1 of this
Regulation and shall be calculated at the beginning of every financial year based
on the estimated profit and tax to be paid estimated in line with the provisions of
the relevant Finance Act applicable for that financial year to the company on pro-
rata basis by excluding the income of non-generation business and the
corresponding tax thereon. In case of generating company paying Minimum
Alternate Tax (MAT), “t” shall be considered as MAT rate including surcharge
and cess. For example: - In case of the generating company paying
(i) Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) @ 20.96% including surcharge and cess:
Rate of return on equity = 15.50/(1-0.2096) = 19.610%
(ii) In case of generating company paying normal corporate tax including

surcharge and cess:
(a) Estimated Gross Income from generation business forFY2016-17 is Rs 1000

crore.
(b) Estimated Advance Tax for the year on above is Rs 240 crore.
(c) Effective Tax Rate for the year 2016-17 = Rs 240 Crore/Rs 1000 Crore =24%
(d) Rate of return on equity = 15.50/ (1-0.24) = 20.395%

31.3 The actual tax paid together with any additional tax demand including
interest thereon, duly adjusted for any refund of tax including interest received
from the income tax authorities pertaining to the tariff period 2016-17 to 2018-19
on actual gross income of any financial year shall be trued-up every year.
However, penalty, if any, arising on account of delay in deposit or short deposit of
tax amount shall not be claimed by the generating company. Any under-recovery
or over-recovery of grossed up rate on return on equity after truing up, shall be
allowed to be recovered or refunded to beneficiaries on year to year basis.”
Commission’s Analysis
52. As discussed in preceding paragraphs of this order, the Commission has not
considered the provisional additional capitalization proposed during FY 2015-16.
Thus, the equity balance as on 1st April’ 2016 shall remain same as admitted by
the Commission in last true-up order for FY 2014-15 as on 31st March’ 2015.
Further, the petitioner has not filed the additional capitalization during FY 2016-
17 to FY 2018-19, therefore, the equity balance as on 1st April 2016 shall remain
unchanged during the control period.
53. On scrutiny of the petition, it was observed that the petitioner claimed Return on
Equity by grossing up the base rate with MAT. Therefore, vide Commission’s
letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to explain with supporting
documents whether the Petitioner’s Bina Power Project is eligible for MAT in
accordance with the balance sheet of Bina Power Project.
54. In response, by affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted that the
Generation Company (JPVL) has been paying MAT upto 2014-15 on the basis of
which the petitioner has grossed up base rate with MAT. The petitioner further
submitted that the Income Tax Return is yet to be prepared and filed.
55. Regulation 31.1 of the Regulations 2015, provides that the base rate of return on
equity shall be grossed up with the effective tax rate of the respective financial
year. For this purpose the effective tax rate shall be considered on the basis of
actual tax paid in the respective financial year by the generating company.
56. In terms of the above Regulation, the Commission shall deal with the tax liability
based on the Annual Audited Accounts during truing- up exercise for each
financial year under the control period. Accordingly, while computing the return
on equity in this order, the Commission has not considered the grossing up of
the base rate of return i.e.15.5% with MAT at this stage and worked out the
Return on Equity for the control period FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 at the base

rate as given below:
Table 12: Return on Equity Allowed (` in Crores)

Opening Equity 1045.24 1045.24 1045.24
Equity Additions 0.00 0.00 0.00
Closing Equity 1045.24 1045.24 1045.24
Average Equity 1045.24 1045.24 1045.24
Base Rate of ROE 15.50% 15.50% 15.50%
Return on Equity 162.01 162.01 162.01
57. The petitioner is directed to file the details of actual tax status of Bina Thermal
Power Station in light of the Annual Audited Account with the true-up petitions of
each year of the control period.
Interest on Loan Capital
Petitioner’s submission:
58. The petitioner submitted the detailed break-up of opening loan balances,
repayment during the year, closing balance of loan, weighted average rate of
interest and interest on loan in form TPS 13 A of the petition as given below:
Table 13: Loan and Interest Filed (` in Crores)

Opening Loan Balance 1964.92 1787.80 1610.67
Repayments during the Year 177.12 177.12 177.12
Closing Loan Balance 1787.80 1610.67 1433.55
Average Loan Balance 1876.36 1699.23 1522.11
Weighted Average rate of interest 12.27% 12.27% 12.27%
Interest on Loan balance 230.27 208.53 186.80
Provisions in Regulation
59. With regard to Interest on loan capital, Regulation 32 of MPERC (Terms and
that,
“32.1 The loans arrived at in the manner indicated in Regulation 25 shall be

considered as gross normative loan for calculation of interest on loan.
32.2 The normative loan outstanding as on 1.4.2016 shall be worked out by

deducting the cumulative repayment as admitted by the Commission up to

31.3.2016 from the gross normative loan.
32.3 The repayment for the Year of the Tariff period 2016-19 shall be deemed to
be equal to the depreciation allowed for the corresponding year/ period. In case
of de- capitalization of assets, the repayment shall be adjusted by taking into
account cumulative repayment on a pro rata basis and the adjustment should not
exceed cumulative depreciation recovered upto the date of de-capitalisation of
such asset.
32.4 Notwithstanding any moratorium period availed by the Generating

Company, the repayment of loan shall be considered from the first Year of
commercial operation of the Project and shall be equal to the annual depreciation
allowed for the year or part of the year.
32.5 The rate of interest shall be the weighted average rate of interest
calculated on the basis of the actual loan portfolio after proving appropriate
accounting adjustment for interest capitalized.
Provided that if there is no actual loan for a particular Year but normative
loan is still outstanding, the last available weighted average rate of interest
shall be considered:
Provided further that if the generating station does not have actual loan,
then the weighted average rate of interest of the Generating Company as
a whole shall be considered.
32.6 The interest on loan shall be calculated on the normative average loan of
the Year by applying the weighted average rate of interest.
32.7 The Generating Company shall make every effort to re-finance the loan as
long as it results in net savings on interest and in that event the costs associated
with such re-financing shall be borne by the Beneficiaries and the net savings
shall be shared between the Beneficiaries and the Generating Company, in the
ratio of 2:1.
32.8 The changes to the terms and conditions of the loans shall be reflected from
the date of such re-financing.
32.9 In case of dispute, any of the parties may make an application in

accordance with the MPERC (Conduct of Business) Regulation, 2004, as
amended from time to time:
Provided that the beneficiaries shall not withhold any payment on account

of the interest claimed by the generating company during the pendency of

any dispute arising out of re-financing of loan.
60. Regulation 32.2 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of

Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that the normative loan
outstanding as on 1st April’ 2016, shall be worked out by deducting the
cumulative repayment as admitted by the Commission up to 31 st March’ 2016,
from the gross normative loan.
61. The Commission has worked out the loan balances as on 1st April’ 2016,
considering the following approach:
a) Loan balances (as on 31st March’ 2015) admitted by the Commission in last
true-up order for FY 2014-15 are considered as the base figures for loan
balance as on 1st April’ 2015,.
b) The proposed additional capitalization during FY 2015-16 and its

corresponding loan has not been considered in this order.
c) Thereafter, depreciation for FY 2015-16 computed by applying depreciation

rate as filed by the petitioner for FY 2015-16 is considered as repayment
during the FY 2015-16 to arrive at the opening balances of loan as on 1 st
April’ 2016.
62. The petitioner has not filed any loan addition during the control period. Therefore,
the loan balance for each financial year is worked out accordingly by considering
the normative repayment equivalent to depreciation for the respective year.
63. It is observed that in TPS form 13 of the petition, the petitioner has taken
loan/debt from 10 different lending agencies and the weighted average rate of
loan has been worked out by considering the loan balances of all lending
agencies.
64. Vide letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the Commission asked the petitioner to file
supporting documents in respect of weighted average rate of interest claimed in
the petition.
65. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted that “To substantiate
the Rate of Interest, a summary of Actual amount of monthly interest paid, rate of
interest, sample payment instructions to Bank along with the true copy of bank

statement showing payment thereof has been attached herewith as Annexure-4.
66. Based on the above details submitted by petitioner, the interest on loan is worked
out during the control period as given below:
Table 14: Interest on Loan considered (` in Crores)

Opening Loan Balance 1889.43 1718.01 1546.59
Repayments 171.42 171.42 171.42
Closing Loan Balance 1718.01 1546.59 1375.17
Average Loan Balance 1803.72 1632.30 1460.88
Weighted Average rate of Interest 12.27% 12.27% 12.27%
Interest Amount 221.32 200.28 179.25
67. The petitioner is directed to file actual weighted average rate of interest in
respect of each lending agency along with supporting documents while filing the
true-up petitions for each year of the control period.
Depreciation
68. The petitioner submitted the opening Gross Fixed Assets, closing Gross Fixed
Assets and depreciation in form TPS 12 of the Petition are as given below:-
Table 15: Depreciation on the Assets Filed (` in Crores)

Financial Year FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Opening Capital Cost 3597.54 3597.54 3597.54
Closing Capital Cost 3597.54 3597.54 3597.54
Average Capital Cost 3597.54 3597.54 3597.54
Rate of Depreciation 4.92% 4.92% 4.92%
Depreciation on Capital Cost 177.12 177.12 177.12
Cumulative Depreciation at the end of year 730.48 907.60 1084.72
Provisions of the Regulation:
69. Regulation 33 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation

Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that,
“33.1 Depreciation shall be computed from the date of commercial operation of a

generating station or unit thereof. In case of the tariff of all the units of a
generating station for which a single tariff needs to be determined, the
depreciation shall be computed from the effective date of commercial operation
of the generating station taking into consideration the depreciation of individual

units.
Provided that effective date of commercial operation shall be worked out
by considering the actual date of commercial operation and installed
capacity of all the units of the generating station for which single tariff
needs to be determined.
33.2 The value base for the purpose of depreciation shall be the capital cost of
the asset admitted by the Commission. In case of multiple units of a generating
station, weighted average life for the generating station shall be applied.
Depreciation shall be chargeable from the first year at the commercial operation.
33.3 The salvage value of the asset shall be considered as 10% and
depreciation shall be allowed up to maximum of 90% of the capital cost of the
asset:
Provided that in case of Hydro generating stations, the salvage value

shall be as provided in the agreement signed by the developers with the
State Government for creation of the site:
Provided further that the capital cost of the assets of the hydro generating
station for the purpose of computation of depreciable value shall
correspond to the percentage of sale of electricity under Long-term power
purchase agreement at regulated Tariff.
Provided also that any depreciation disallowed on account of lower

availability of generating station or generating unit shall not be allowed to
be recovered at a later stage during the useful life and extended life.
Provided also that salvage value for IT equipment and softwares shall be
considered as NIL and 100 % value of the assets shall be considered
depreciable.
33.4 Land other than land held under lease and the land for reservoir in case of
hydro generating station shall not be a depreciable asset and its cost shall be
excluded from the capital cost while computing depreciable value of the asset.
33.5 Depreciation shall be calculated annually based on ‘Straight Line Method’

and at rates specified in Appendix-II to these Regulations for the assets of the
generating station:
Provided that, the remaining depreciable value as on 31st March of

the Year closing after a period of 12 Years from the Date of

Commercial operation shall be spread over the balance Useful life of

the assets.
33.6 In case of the existing Projects, the balance depreciable value as on

1.4.2016 shall be worked out by deducting the cumulative depreciation as
admitted by the Commission upto 31.3.2013 from the gross depreciable value of
the assets.
33.7 The rate of Depreciation shall be continued to be charged at the rate

specified in Appendix-II till cumulative depreciation reaches 70%. Thereafter the
remaining depreciable value shall be spread over the remaining life of the asset
such that the maximum depreciation does not exceed 90%.
33.8 Depreciation shall be chargeable from the first Year of commercial

operation. In case of commercial operation of the asset for part of the Year,
depreciation shall be charged on pro rata basis.”
33.9 The generating company shall submit the details of proposed capital
expenditure during the fag end of the project (five years before the useful life)
along with justification and proposed life extension. The Commission based on
prudence check of such submissions shall approve the depreciation on capital
expenditure during the fag end of the project.
33.10 In case of de-capitalization of assets in respect of generating station or

unit thereof, the cumulative depreciation shall be adjusted by taking into account
the depreciation recovered in tariff by the de-capitalized asset during its useful
services.”
Commission’s Analysis:-
70. The Commission has worked out the accumulated depreciation as on 1st April’
2016, considering the following:
a) Accumulated depreciation as on 31st March’ 2015 as admitted by the

Commission in the last true-up order for FY 2014-15 is considered as the
base figure as on 1st April’ 2015, for Accumulated Depreciation.
b) Thereafter, Depreciation is worked out during FY 2015-16 by applying the

weighted average rate of depreciation as filed by the petitioner to arrive at
the opening balance of Accumulated depreciation as on 1st April’ 2016.
71. Vide Commission’s letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to

furnish a statement showing year wise details of depreciation un-recovered if

any, till 31.03.2016, on account of plant availability lower than the NAPAF and
ensuring adherence with third proviso under Regulation 33.3 of MPERC (Terms
and Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 along
with asset cum depreciation register in support of depreciation worked out in this
petition.
72. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted the statement of year-
wise details of depreciation un-recovered. The petitioner submitted that there is
no unrecovered depreciation in any year except FY 2012-13. However the unit
no. 1 of the project was under operation only for part of the year and PAF was
lower than the norms fixed in the Regulations. Further with regard to Asset-cum-
Depreciation, the petitioner submitted that the Balance sheet as on 31-03-2016 is
yet to be approved by shareholder in the Annual General Meeting, hence, as
soon as the same is approved, the Asset-cum-Depreciation register shall be
submitted to the Commission.
73. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to file a detailed year-wise Assets-
Cum-Depreciation register with the true-up petition for respective years.
74. The depreciation on the Gross Fixed Assets (considered as on 1st April’ 2016) is
worked out by the Commission on the following basis:
i) For the purpose of computation of depreciation, the opening Gross Fixed

Assets as on 1st April’ 2016, is worked out as explained in preceding
paragraphs.
ii) The petitioner has not filed any additional capitalization during the control
period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
iii) The depreciation during the control period has been computed on the
aforesaid Gross Fixed Assets by applying the weighted rate of
depreciation as filed by the petitioner during the control period.
75. Based on above, the depreciation is worked out in this order as given below:-
Table 16: Depreciation allowed (` in Crores)

Financial Year FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Opening Capital Cost 3484.12 3484.12 3484.12
Additions 0.00 0.00 0.00
Closing Capital Cost 3484.12 3484.12 3484.12
Average Capital Cost 3484.12 3484.12 3484.12

Rate of Depreciation 4.92% 4.92% 4.92%

Depreciation for the year 171.42 171.42 171.42
Cumulative Depreciation 720.87 892.29 1063.71
Operation & Maintenance Expenses
76. The petitioner filed the Operation & Maintenance expenses of thermal power
station (in Form TPS 1) and Operation & Maintenance expenses of Transmission
lines & Bay are as given below:
Table 17: Operation & Maintenance Expenses Filed (` in Crores)

Operation & Operation &
Maintenance Maintenance Expenses
Expenses for Thermal (Transmission lines &
Financial Years Power Station Bay)
FY 2016-17 135.00 0.32
FY 2017-18 143.50 0.33
FY 2018-19 152.55 0.34
77. Regulation 35.7 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of

Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that,
“The Operation and Maintenance expenses admissible to existing thermal

power stations commissioned prior to 01.04.2012 comprise of employee
cost, Repair & Maintenance (R&M) cost and Administrative and General
(A&G) cost. These norms exclude Pension and Terminal Benefits, EL
encashment, Incentive, arrears to be paid to employees, taxes payable to
the Government, and fees payable to MPERC. The generating company
shall claim the rate, rent & taxes payable to the Government, cost of
chemicals and consumables, fees to be paid to MPERC, EL encashment
and any arrears paid to employees separately as actuals. The claim of
pension and Terminal Benefits shall be dealt as per Regulation 35.4 of
these Regulations.
Table 18: O&M Norms for Thermal Generating Units Commissioned on or after
01.04.2012 (` in lakh/MW)
Units (MW) FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
45 32.07 34.09 36.24
200/210/250 27.00 28.70 30.51

Units (MW) FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

300/330/350 22.54 23.96 25.47
500 18.08 19.22 20.43
600 16.27 17.30 18.38
Commission’s Analysis:-
78. Based on the above Regulations, the operations and maintenance expenses
allowed for thermal power station during control period FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-
19 are worked out as given below:-
Table 19: Operation & Maintenance Expenses Allowed (` in Crores)

Norms ` in Operation &
lakh/MW/year Maintenance
Financial Years Expenses
FY 2016-17 27.00 135.00
FY 2017-18 28.70 143.50
FY 2018-19 30.51 152.55
79. Vide Commission’s letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to justify
its claim for the O&M charges of transmission lines & bay on the basis of norms
prescribed under MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of
Transmission Tariff) Regulations.
80. By affidavit 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted the following
“The O&M expenses of Transmission lines & bay has been claimed on the basis
of the norms prescribed under MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination
of Transmission Tariff) Regulations.
The Generation Project of the Petitioner having two units of 250 MW each
achieved COD of Unit – 1 on 31-08-2012 and Unit – 2 on 07-04-2013. The PPA
entered into with MPPMCL (Procurer) dated 05-01-2011 in Article 4.8 has the
following provision:-
“The Contracted Capacity shall be evacuated by a dedicated transmission line of

400 KV to be constructed by the Company from the Delivery Point to 400 KV S/s
of MPPTCL at Bina. Since contracted capacity has been increased from 42%
(forty two percent) to 70% (seventy percent) for Phase – I (i.e. 2X250 MW), the
sharing of the cost of dedicated transmission line shall be decided mutually
between the Company and the GoMP. In this arrangement, the procurer shall not
be liable to pay transmission charges of PGCIL’s (Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited) network of Western Region transmission system.”

During the proceedings for determination of final tariff for the station, there were
two options to be mutually agreed between the Generator and the Procurer. The
first being sharing of the cost of construction of this transmission line in a
mutually agreeable ratio wherein the original percentage of 50% of sharing of
cost was based on 42% supply of power to Procurer which increased to 70% at
the time of signing of PPA. The second option was to include the cost of this
dedicated transmission line as a part of the Generation Project.
The Procurer agreed to Option No.2 i.e. to include the cost of this dedicated
transmission line as a part of the Generation Project and the Hon’ble
Commission was pleased to determine the capital cost of the Generation Project
which included the cost of this dedicated transmission line.
Due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Petitioner, the O&M cost of this
transmission line was not claimed for the periods 2012-13 and 2013-14. Since
the provisions for O&M in the generation tariff are based on per MW cost which
cater only for the generation assets, hence the only option left with the Petitioner
to be compensated for the expenditure incurred against operation and
maintenance of this dedicated transmission line was to adopt per Circuit km and
per Bay O&M cost as provided under the MPERC (terms and conditions for
determination of tariff) Regulations.
81. It is evident from the above submission of the petitioner that the Transmission
line in the subject petition is a dedicated line and its cost has been appropriately
included in the capital cost of the 2x250 MW (Phase-I) of petitioner’s power plant
while determining its final tariff vide Commission’s order dated 26.11.2014.
Further, the petitioner had never claimed the operation and maintenance (O&M)
expenses for the said dedicated transmission line in its any of the petitions filed
for determination of provisional tariff of each generating unit and also the final
tariff of the petitioner’s power plant. For the first time in the last true-up petition
for FY 2014-15, the O&M expenses of dedicated transmission line was claimed
by the petitioner.
82. The status of the aforesaid dedicated transmission line has already been dealt
with in para 27 to 30 of the Commission’s first order dated 12th December’ 2012 in
Petition No. 40 of 2012. Further, the remaining issue has been dealt with in
relevant paras of Commission’s order dated 26.11.2014. The Commission has
already decided this issue in paragraph 91 to 96 of the true up order issued on
3rd June 2016 for FY 2014-15 for the petitioner’s power plant
83. The extracts of the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Commission’s order are

as follows:
The dedicated transmission lines is neither a transmission lines in terms of sub-

section (72) of section 2 of the Electricity Act’ 2003 nor it is a distribution system
connecting the point of a connection to the installation of consumer in terms of
sub-section (19) of the Section 2 of the Act. The O& M expenses of transmission
line are part of the Annual fixed Cost of the line of a transmission licensee
whereas; the petitioner is not a transmission licensee. The cost of dedicated line
has been considered in the capital cost of the petitioner’s power plant and the
tariff of the said power plant has been determined in terms of MPERC (Terms
and Conditions for determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2012 which
does not provide for any O&M expenses of dedicated transmission line
separately. In view of aforesaid, the claim of petitioner for O&M expenses of
dedicated transmission line has no merit hence not considered in this order.
84. Taking a consistent approach, the Commission has not considered the claim of
petitioner towards O&M expenses of transmission system in this order also.
Interest on Working Capital
85. The petitioner has filed the interest on working capital in form TPS 13B of the
petition as given below :-
Table 20: Interest on Working Capital filed (` in Crores)

S.
No Particulars FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
1 Cost of Coal/ Lignite 137.95 137.95 137.95
2 Cost of Main Fuel Oil (HFO) 0.89 0.89 0.89
3 O&M Expenses 11.25 11.96 12.71
O&M Expenses (Transmission lines
4 & Bay) 0.03 0.03 0.03
5 Maintenance Spares 27.00 28.70 30.51
Maintenance Spares (Transmission
6 lines & Bay) 0.06 0.07 0.07
7 Receivables 276.45 274.26 272.16
8 Total Working Capital 453.63 453.84 454.31
9 Rate of Interest 12.80% 12.80% 12.80%
10 Interest on Working Capital 58.06 58.09 58.15
86. Regulation 34 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation

Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that,
34.1 “The Working Capital shall cover:

(1) Coal- based thermal generating stations
(a) Cost of coal towards stock, if applicable, for 15 Days for pit-head
generating stations and 30 days for non-pit-head generating
stations for generation corresponding to the normative annual
plant availability factor or the maximum coal stock storage
capacity whichever is lower;
(b) Cost of coal for 30 days for generation corresponding to the

normative annual plant availability factor;
(c) Cost of secondary fuel oil for two months for generation
corresponding to the normative availability factor, and in case of
use of more than one secondary fuel oil, cost of fuel oil stock for
the main secondary fuel oil.
(d) Maintenance spares @ 20% of the Operation &maintenance

expenses specified in Regulation 35 ;
(e) Receivables equivalent to two months of capacity charges and

energy charges for sale of electricity calculated on the Normative
Annual Plant Availability Factor; and
(f) Operation and Maintenance expenses for one month.
34.2 The cost of fuel shall be based on the landed cost incurred (taking into
account normative transit and handling losses) by the Generating Company and
Gross Calorific Value of the fuel as per actual for the three months preceding the
first month for which tariff is to be determined and no fuel price escalation shall
be provided during the Tariff period.”
34.3 “Rate of interest on working capital shall be on normative basis and shall be
considered as the bank rate as on 1.04.2016 or as on 1st April of the year during
the tariff period 2016-17 to 2018-19 in which the generating station or a unit
thereof, is declared under commercial operation, whichever is later.
34.4 Interest on working capital shall be payable on normative basis

notwithstanding that the Generating Company has not taken loan for working
capital from any outside agency.

87. The working capital for Thermal and Hydel power stations is worked out based
on the aforesaid norms for working capital as given below :
(a) Cost of coal towards stock and cost of coal towards generation
explain the basis of the cost of coal for two months’ considered in the petition for
working capital in light of the maximum coal stock storage provisions specified
under the Regulations, 2015
89. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted the following
“Petitioner’s Plant is a non-pit-head generating station. Therefore, as per

Regulation 34.1(1)(a), cost of coal towards stock for 30 days for non-pit-head
generating station for generation corresponding to the normative annual plant
availability factor or the maximum coal stock storage capacity whichever is lower,
is allowed to be covered in working capital;
(Here, the Petitioner humbly wishes to add that the coal stock storage capacity of
Petitioner’s Plant is to keep stock of coal for more than 75 days)
As per Regulation 34.1(1)(b), cost of coal for 30 days for generation

corresponding to the normative annual plant availability factor, is also allowed to
be covered in working capital.
For the reasons cited above, the Petitioner has considered cost of coal for 60
days (30 days for stock for generation corresponding to the normative annual
plant availability factor and for cost of coal for 30 days for generation
corresponding to the normative annual plant availability factor).
90. It is observed from the above reply, that the petitioner has coal storage capacity
of its coal yard for more than one month. Accordingly, as per above Regulations,
the Commission has considered cost of coal towards stock for 30 days for non-pit
head generating stations for generation and cost of coal for 30 days for
generation corresponding to the normative annual plant availability factor.
Therefore, the cost of coal for 60 days has been considered for working capital
purpose.
91. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner filed weighted average GCV of
coal on ‘as received basis’. Thus, the cost of coal for 60 days is worked out by
considering weighted average landed price of coal and GCV on “ as received

basis” for the working capital purpose as given below:
Table 21: Cost of Coal for Working Capital

Particulars Units Amount
Installed Capacity MW 500
NAPAF % 85%
GSHR kCal/kWh 2450
Gross Generation MUs 3723
GCV of Coal kCal/Kg 3828
Sp. Coal Consumption kg/kWh 0.64
Annual Coal Consumption MT 2377207
60 days Coal Stock MT 390774
Weighted Average Rate of Coal `/MT 3490
Coal Cost (60 Days Stock ) Rs in Cr. 136.37
(b) Secondary Fuel Oil Cost
92. The petitioner filed the cost of secondary fuel oil based on the fuel oil procured
during FY 2015-16. The petitioner submitted the details of different fuel oil
procured and worked out the weighted average rate of secondary fuel oil.
93. Regulation 34.1 (c) of the Regulations, 2015 provides that, in case of use of more
than one secondary fuel oil, cost of fuel oil shall be for the main secondary fuel
oil. Accordingly, the fuel oil component for working capital is worked out as given
below:
Table 22: Cost of Secondary Fuel Oil for Working Capital

Particulars Units Amounts
Installed Capacity MW 500
GSHR kCal/kWh 2450
Gross Generation MUs 3723
GCV of Oil kCal/Ltr 10000
Sp. Oil Consumption Ml/kWh 0.50
Annual Oil Consumption KL 1862
Two Month Oil Stock KL 310
Rate of Oil (HFO) `/KL 28611
Oil Cost (Two Month stock) ` in Cr. 0.89
(c) Maintenance Spares
furnish the reasons for considering the maintenance spares on Transmission
lines & Bay while calculating the interest on working capital in light of the MPERC

(Terms and Condition for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015.
95. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the Petitioner submitted that “Reasons and
background of the claim explained in Reply to Para 3 entitles the Petitioner to
consider 20% of Operations & Maintenance as maintenance spares as per
Regulation 34.1(1) (d).”
96. Maintenance spares for the working capital purpose is worked out as 20% of the
normative annual O&M expenses allowed for the thermal power station in this
order in accordance to the provision under Regulations.
Table 23: Maintenance Spares (` in Crores)

Particular Annual O&M 20% of O&M
Expenses Expenses
FY 2016-17 135.00 27.00
FY 2017-18 143.50 28.70
FY 2018-19 152.55 30.51
(d) Receivables
97. Receivables for thermal power stations is worked out equivalent to two months’
of Capacity (Fixed) charges and Energy Charges for sale of electricity calculated
on the basis of Normative Annual Plant Availability Factor.
Table 24: Receivables for 2 Months (` in Crores)

2 Month
Fixed 2 Month Energy
Financial Years Charges Charges Total
FY 2016-17 124.33 139.37 263.70
FY 2017-18 122.25 139.37 261.62
FY 2018-19 120.26 139.37 259.63
(e) O&M Expenses
98. Operation and Maintenance expenses of one month as approved for thermal
power station in this order are considered for working capital as given below:
Table 25: O&M Expenses for One Month (` in Crore)

Particular Annual O&M O&M Expenses for
Expenses one Month
FY 2016-17 135.00 11.25

FY 2017-18 143.50 11.96

FY 2018-19 152.55 12.71
99. The interest on working capital equal to Base Rate of SBI as on 1 st April’ 2016
(9.30% + 3.50%) i.e. 12.80% is considered in this order. Accordingly, the interest
on working capital for the control period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is worked
out as given below:
Table 26: Interest on Working Capital Allowed (` in Crores)

Financial Years FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Cost of Coal 136.37 136.37 136.37
Cost of Secondary Fuel Oil 0.89 0.89 0.89
O&M Expenses 11.25 11.96 12.71
Maintenance Expenses 27.00 28.70 30.51
Receivables 263.70 261.62 259.63
Total 439.20 439.53 440.11
Rate of Interest on Working Capital 12.80% 12.80% 12.80%
Lease Charges
100. With regard to lease charges claimed by the petitioner, vide Commission’s letter
dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to inform under what provisions of
the Regulations, 2015 lease charges are claimed by it.
101. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted that it is paying lease
rent on account of land lease and railway land lease which is a part of the
project.
102. The Commission observed that to deal with the claim of the petitioner on this
issue, shall require detailed scrutiny of the Asset cum depreciation register which
is yet to be filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this issue shall be dealt with while
undertaking the true up exercise of each year of the control period based on the
Annual Audited Accounts and Asset cum Depreciation register in terms of
MPERC Tariff Regulations’ 2015 .
Non-Tariff Income
103. The Petitioner has not filed non-tariff income during the control period of FY

2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
104. Regulation 53 of the MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of

Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that
53.1 “Any income being incidental to the business of the generating company
derived from sources, including but not limited to the disposal of assets, income
from investments, rents, income from sale of scrap other than the decapitalized
/written off assets, income from advertisements, interest on advances to
suppliers/contractors, income from sale of fly ash/rejected coal, and any other
miscellaneous receipts other than income from sale of energy shall constitute the
non tariff/other income
53.2 The amount of Non-Tariff /Other Income relating to the Generation Business
as approved by the Commission shall be deducted from the Annual Fixed Cost in
determining the Annual Fixed Charge of the Generation Company:
Provided that the Generation Company shall submit full details of its forecast of
Non-Tariff Income to the Commission in such form as may be stipulated by the
Commission from time to time. Non tariff income shall also be Trued-up based on
audited accounts.”
105. Vide Commission’s letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to file
projected non-tariff/other income during the control period of FY 2016-17 to FY
2018-19 in terms of Regulation 53 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for
Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015.
106. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted that “looking into the
current scenario where most of the time the petitioner’s plant is under backing
down instructions by procurer, there is reduced generation of Fly Ash which is a
major contributor of Non-Tariff Income. Still an estimated approximate detail of
non-tariff income or FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is under.
Table 27: Non-Tariff Income (` in Crores)
Year Non-Tariff Income
2016-17 0.50
2017-18 0.50
2018-19 0.50

107. For the purpose of instant order, the Commission has considered the non tariff
income as filed by the petitioner, which is subject to true-up based on Annual
Audited Accounts of each year of the control period. The petitioner is directed to
file full details of actual non tariff income for each year based on Annual Audited
Accounts with the true-up petition of the respective year.
Normative Annual Plant Availability Factor

108. Normative Annual Plant Availability Factor (NAPAF) for the (2X250 MW) Bina
Thermal Power Plant as per the MPERC (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Generation tariff) Regulations, 2015 shall be considered for
recovery of full capacity (fixed) charges. The NAPAF for the said power plant as
per the Regulations, 2015 is 85%.
Summary of Annual Capacity (Fixed) Charges

109. The Annual Capacity (Fixed) Charges for each year of the control period allowed
in this order are summarized in the table given below :
Table 28: Head Wise total Annual Capacity (Fixed) Charges

AFC Allowed (` in Crore)
Return on Equity 162.01 162.01 162.01
Interest on Term Loan 221.32 200.28 179.25
Depreciation 171.42 171.42 171.42
O&M Expenses 135.00 143.50 152.55
Total 745.97 733.47 721.57
Less: Non-tariff Income (0.50) (0.50) (0.50)
Annual Capacity (Fixed) Charges 745.47 732.97 721.07
Annual Capacity (Fixed) Charges
corresponding to the contracted capacity in
PPA (65%) 484.55 476.43 468.69
110. The aforesaid Annual Capacity Charges have been computed based on norms
specified under the Regulations, 2015. The above Annual Capacity (fixed)
Charges are determined corresponding to the contracted capacity under PPA.
The recovery of Annual Capacity (Fixed) charges shall be made by the petitioner
in accordance with Regulations 36.2 to 36.4 of the Regulations, 2015.
111. The petitioner claimed recovery of 68.42% of Annual Capacity Charges instead

of 65% of the contracted capacity as agreed to in the long term PPA dated 5th
January’ 2015. The Commission has already dealt with and decided this issue at
length in its order dated 8th May’ 2015 in Review Petition No. 5 of 2015 filed by
the petitioner against the final tariff order issued by the Commission on 26th
November’ 2014.
Energy (Variable) Charges
112. The petitioner has worked out the Energy(Variable) charges for its 2X250 MW
Bina Thermal Power Plant by considered the following:
Table 29: Energy Charges Rate (` in kWh)

Particular FY2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
Gross station heat rate kCal/kWh 2450 2450 2450
Specific Fuel Oil Consumption in ml/ kWh 0.50 0.50 0.50
Calorific Value of Secondary Fuel in ml/
10 10 10
kWh
Weighted Average Landed Price of the
0.040 0.040 0.040
Secondary Fuel in ` per ml.
Weighted Average Landed Price of the
3.490 3.490 3.490
Primary Fuel in Rs per Kg.
Gross Calorific Value of the Primary Fuel
3792.99 3792.99 3792.99
as Fired in Kcal/Kg
Normative Auxiliary Energy Consumption
8.5 8.5 8.5
Percentage
845.01 845.01 845.01
Total Energy Cost (` in Crore)
ECR (energy charges) (` in kWh) 2.481 2.481 2.481
113. For calculating the Energy charges (variable charges) of thermal power stations,
Regulation 28 & 36 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff)
Regulations, 2015 provides that,
28. Energy Charges:
Energy charges shall be derived on the basis of the Landed Fuel Cost (LFC) of a
generating station (excluding hydro) and shall consist of the following cost:
(a) Landed Fuel Cost of primary fuel; and
(b) Cost of secondary fuel oil consumption

36.5 “The energy charge shall cover primary and secondary fuel cost and shall
be payable by every beneficiary during the calendar month on ex-power plant
basis, at the energy rate of the month (with fuel price adjustment). Total energy
charges payable to the generating company for a month shall be:
(Energy charge rate in `/kWh) X {Scheduled energy (ex-bus) for a month in

kWh.}
36.6 Energy charge rate (ECR) in Rupees per kWh on ex-power plant basis shall
be determined to three decimal places as per the following formula:
(i) For coal based stations
ECR = {(GHR – SFC x CVSF) x LPPF/CVPF+SFC xLPSFi} x100/ (100 – AUX)}
Where,
AUX = Normative Auxiliary Energy Consumption in percentage.
CVPF = (a) Weighted Average Gross Calorific Value of coal as received, in
kCal per kg, for coal based stations.
CVSF = Calorific Value of secondary fuel, In kCal per ml.
ECR = Energy Charge Rate, in Rupees per kWh sent out.
GHR = Gross Station Heat Rate, in kCal per kWh.
LPPF = Weighted average Landed price of Primary Fuel, in Rupees per kg,
per liter or per standard cubic meter, as applicable, during the month.(In case
of blending of fuel from different from different sources, the weighted average
landed price of primary fuel shall be arrived in proportion to blending ratio)
SFC = Specific Fuel Oil Consumption, in ml/kWh
LPSFi =Weighted Average Landed Price of Secondary Fuel in `./ml during

the month
36.7 The generating company shall provide to the beneficiaries of the

generating station details of parameters of GCV and price of fuel i.e. domestic
coal, imported coal, e-auction coal etc., as per the forms prescribed to these
regulations.
Provided that the details of blending ratio of the imported coal with
domestic coal, proportion of e-auction coal and weighted average GCV
of fuels as received shall be provided separately along with the bills of
the respective month:

Provided further that a copy of the bills and details of parameters of

GCV and price of fuel i.e. domestic coal, imported coal, e-auction coal
etc., details of blending ratio of the imported coal with domestic coal,
proportion of e-auction coal shall also be displayed on the website of the
Generating Company. The details should be available on its website for
a period of a three months------“.
114. The above mentioned Regulations of the Regulations, 2015 provide that the
energy (variable) charges shall cover both primary and secondary fuel costs and
shall be payable for the total energy scheduled to be supplied to beneficiary
during the calendar month on ex-power plant basis.
115. In order to determine the energy charges of thermal power station, the operating
parameters i.e, gross calorific value, landed cost of coal and secondary fuel oil
need to be examined as per provisions under Regulations 2015.
Operating Parameters:
116. With regard to Gross Station Heat Rate of existing power stations commissioned
during 1.04.2012 to 31.03.2016, Regulation 39.3 (C) (a) of MPERC (Terms and
Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides the
following;
“Existing Coal based thermal generating stations having COD on or after

1.4.2012 till 31.03.2016, (other than those covered under clause 39.2) shall be
the heat rate norms approved during FY 2012-13 to FY 2015-16.”
117. The Units of 2X250 MW Bina Thermal Power Plant (Phase I) achieved COD on
31st August’ 2012, and 07th April’ 2013, respectively which fall under the period
mentioned in the aforesaid Regulation. Further, the Commission issued the final
tariff order for Bina Thermal Power Plant (Phase I) on 26th November’ 2014. The
same norm for Station Heat Rate approved by the Commission in the aforesaid
final tariff order is considered in this order for the control period of FY 2016-17 to
FY 2018-19.
118. Regarding auxiliary energy consumption and specific oil consumption, the norms
fixed under the Regulations, 2015 have been considered. The petitioner’s power
station is having natural draft cooling tower. Therefore, the auxiliary energy
consumption is considered accordingly.

119. The Bina thermal Power Plant is non pit head power station. Accordingly, the
norms for transit and handling losses are considered as per Regulation 36.8 of
the Regulations, 2015.
120. In view of above, the details of the operating norms as prescribed in the
Regulations, 2015 for the control period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 and
considered in this order are as given below :
Table 30: Norms for Operating Parameters

Particulars Unit Norms
Gross Station Heat Rate kCal/kWh 2449.50
Specific Oil Consumption ml/kWh 0.50
Aux. Energy Consumption % 8.50%
Transit Loss % 0.80%
Gross Calorific Value of Coal:
121. With regard to GCV of coal for Coal based Thermal Power Stations, Regulation
36.6 (a) of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation
Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that weighted average gross calorific value of
coal “as received” in kCal per kg is considered for determination of energy
charges. The aforesaid Regulation further provides that in case of blending of
fuel from different sources, the weighted average GCV of primary fuel shall be
arrived in proportion to blending ratio. On scrutiny of the petition, the
Commission observed that the petitioner worked out energy charges based on
the weighted average GCV of coal on fired basis for three preceding months of
Nov.15 to Jan. 16 as 3792.99 kCal/kg.
the power station wise weighted average GCV of coal “as received basis” for
three preceding months in terms of Regulation 36.6 of Regulations, 2015. The
petitioner was also asked to file the GCV of coal as per bills/invoices raised by
the coal companies along with copies of invoices and laboratory test report in
support of weighted average GCV “as received basis”.
123. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted the weighted average
GCV of coal on” as received basis” along with sample invoice and laboratory test
reports for FSA coal, Non FSA coal and imported coal for FY 2015-16. Details of
month wise Gross Calorific Value of coal and coal quantity in proportion to
blending ratio from different sources is filed by petitioner in annexure 5 of its
submission.

124. On scrutiny of the aforesaid sources-wise details of GCV of coal filed by the
petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner has filed month wise weighted
average GCV of Coal for each month. Based on the details filed by the petitioner,
the Commission has worked out the following weighted average GCV of coal as
received basis for three preceding months i.e. November 2015 to January 2016:
Table 31: Weighted Average Gross Calorific Value of Coal

Total Quantity of Weighted Weighted
FSA, Non FSA and average monthly average GCV of
Particulars Imported Coal GCV of Coal Coal
Nov-15 77907 3825
Dec-15 183676 3782
Jan-15 122668 3900
Total 384251 3828
125. Weighted average gross calorific value of coal on “ as received basis” as worked
out above is considered for the determination of Energy Charges for the control
period FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 in this order.
Landed Cost of Coal:
126. In TPS 15 of the petition, the petitioner worked out the weighted average landed
price of coal based on the details of coal purchased from different sources from
April 2015 to March’ 2016.
127. Regarding the landed cost of coal, Regulation 36.8 of MPERC (Terms and
Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides as
follows:
“The landed cost of fuel for the month shall include price of fuel corresponding to
the grade and quality of fuel inclusive of royalty, taxes and duties as
applicable, transportation cost by rail / road or any other means, and, for
the purpose of computation of energy charge, and in case of coal shall be
arrived at after considering normative transit and handling losses as percentage
of the quantity of coal dispatched by the coal supply company during the month
as given below:
Pithead generating stations: 0.2%
Non-pithead generating stations: 0.8%
Provided that in case of pit head stations if coal is procured from

sources other than the pit head mines which is transported to the station
through rail, transit loss of 0.8% shall be applicable:
Provided further that in case of imported coal, the transit and

handling losses shall be 0.2%
128. Vide Commission’s letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the following queries were asked
from the petitioner regarding the landed price of coal as filed in Form TPS 15:
a. The details filed in the aforesaid format shows that the weighted average
landed price of coal for the control period is `3462/MT whereas, the
petitioner has claimed the energy charges by considering the weighted
average landed price of coal as `3490/MT. The petitioner was asked to
explain the reason for the aforesaid difference.
b. Further, while determining the wt. average rate of coal in form TPS-15, the
petitioner has considered the normative transit and handling loss for
determination of quantity of coal supplied by the coal company. On
perusal of the statement of coal consumption during FY 2015-16 filed with
the petition, it was observed that the petitioner has also considered the
normative transit and handling loss on the rate of coal determined in
aforesaid form.
In view of the above, the petitioner was asked to explain the reasons for
double accounting the transit and handling loss in this regard.
c. Detailed calculation sheet for arriving at the weighted average rate of coal
and weighted average GCV of coal claimed in the petition alongwith
supporting documents was sought from the petitioner.
129. In response to the aforesaid queries, by affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the
petitioner submitted the following:
“In TPS-15, during the control period 2016-19 weighted average landed
price of coal has been taken as Rs 3,461.71 per MT (Rs 3.462/kg). This
price was arrived at after considering coal received during November ’15
to January ‘16. This price works out to be Rs 3,489.63 per MT (Rs
3.490/kg) after taking into account the Normative Transit & Handling Loss
of 0.8%. Since an allowance of Normative Transit & Handling Loss of
0.8% is provided by the Regulation 36.8 to arrive at Energy charges, the
Petitioner has considered Rs 3,489.63 per MT (Rs 3.490/kg).
Calculation of above coal cost was supported by the statement of the

same on Page No. 80 of the current Petition. However, Page No.80 is

being attached as Annexure-6.
130. Regulation 36.8 of Regulations, 2015 provides that the landed cost of coal shall
be arrived at by considering normative transit and handling losses as percentage
of the quantity of coal dispatched by the coal supply company during the month.
On perusal of the aforesaid response filed by the petitioner. The Commission
observed that while determining the weighted average landed cost of coal, the
petitioner has considered the normative transit and handling losses. Therefore,
the transit and handling losses are not considered separately in determination of
Energy charges rate in this order.
131. In its petition and the supplementary submissions, the petitioner submitted the
following details for the landed cost of coal:
Table 31(A):Details of quantity and cost of coal received during the months of FY 2015-16
FSA Non-FSA/E-Auction Imported Total
Quantity Landed Qty Landed Qty. Lande Qty. Landed
(MT) Cost Cost d Cost Cost
(`)
Nov. 64154.55 215289178.9 64154.55 215289178.93
Dec. 96182.61 347660466 96182.61 347660466.04
Jan. 99836.50 330793921.7 17972.4 69118241.7 117808.9 399912163.46
Feb.
& NIL
Mar.
Total 260173.7 893743566.7 17972.4 69118241.69 0 0 278146.1 962861808.43
132. While determining the landed cost of coal, the Commission has considered only
the actual net generation ex-bus for the Contracted Capacity as per PPA
executed by the petitioner on long term basis. It is observed that the quantity of
FSA coal received during the months of November 2015 to January 2016 was
not adequate for generation of electricity for the Contracted Capacity as per PPA
executed by the petitioner on long term basis. Based on the above submissions
made by the petitioner regarding the quantity and cost of coal received by the
petitioner during November’ 2015 to January’ 2016, the Weighted Average
landed price of coal is worked out as given below in terms of Regulation 36.6(a)
of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation Tariff)
Regulations, 2015:

Table 31(B) : Landed Cost of Coal for preceding three months considered in this order:
Particulars Total Quantity Cost of Coal Rate of Coal Weighted average
Coal Received (` Cr.) Received Landed price of Coal
(MT) (`/MT) including normative
transit loss (` /MT)
November, 2015 64,154.55 21.53 3355.79
December, 2015 96,182.61 34.77 3614.59
January, 2016 117,808.92 39.99 3394.58
Total 278,146.08 96.29 3,461.71 3489.63
Landed Cost of Secondary Fuel Oil:
133. The petitioner worked out the weighted average landed price of secondary fuel
oil during the months in which secondary fuel is purchased during FY 2015-16.
The details of the weighted average rate of secondary fuel oil cost as filed by the
petitioner is given below:
Table 32: Details of Secondary Fuel Oil Filed

Month Wise LDO & HFO Received From 01.04.2015 To 31.01.2016
LDO HFO
Landed Cost Landed Cost
Month including Per Unit including Per Unit
QTY.(KL) QTY.(KL)
transportatio Rate transportati Rate
n cost (Rs) on cost (Rs)
APR-15 78 3,367,968 43,179 130 4,542,579 34,956
MAY-15 0 - 0 -
JUNE-15 0 - 0 -
JULY-15 0 - 0 -
AUG.-15 0 - 0 -
SEP-15 203 8,835,472 43,524 112 2,985,894 26,570
OCT-15 171 6,704,543 39,208 108 2,727,799 25,243
NOV.-15 18 826,383 45,910 20 498,722 24,886
DEC-15 58 2,194,449 37,835 46 1,171,469 25,236
TOTAL 528 21,928,815 41,532 417 11,926,462 28,611
Per Unit 41,531.85 28,611
Rate
landed price secondary fuel oil purchased during preceding three months in
accordance with the provisions under the Regulations, 2015 along with invoices
in respect of oil purchased.

135. On further scrutiny of the petition, it was observed that while determining the
energy charges, the petitioner has considered the weighted average rate of
secondary fuel oil consumed during the year, whereas, Regulation 36.6 of the
Regulations, 2015 provides that the weighted average landed price of the
secondary fuel is to be considered. In view of the aforesaid, vide Commission’s
letter dated 31st May’ 2016, the petitioner was asked to explain the reasons for
this discrepancy.
136. In response to above, by affidavit dated 19 th July’ 2016, the petitioner submitted
the following:
Rate of Rs 40,494/KL was taken on the basis of consumption data upto Jan-16,
wherein cost of issuance of HFO was taken as Rs 35,267.02 per KL and LDO
consumption cost is Rs 44,657.42 per KL. Since energy charge includes cost of
secondary fuel also, the weighted average of the secondary fuel was taken on
consumption basis while determining energy charges. For the purpose of working
capital, cost of stock for two months of main secondary fuel i.e. HFO is to be
taken which is not on consumption basis. The Landed Cost of main secondary
fuel (HFO) is Rs 28,610.92 per KL.
137. In view of the above, the Commission observed that for determination of energy
charges the landed price of secondary fuel oil is required to be considered in light
of provisions under the Regulations, 2015. The Commission has worked out the
weighted average landed price of secondary fuel (oil) as follows:
Table 33: Weighted Average Rate of Secondary Fuel

Weighted Average
Landed cost (` Landed Price of
Particular QTY.(KL) per KL) Secondary Fuel
LDO 528 41532
HO 417 28611
Total 945 35831
138. By affidavit dated 19th July’ 2016, the petitioner also filed the copies of
bills/invoices in respect of secondary fuel purchased during the last three months
(i.e. Nov’15 to Jan’16).
139. In view of above, the rate of weighted average secondary fuel is worked out by
the Commission based on the details filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the
Energy Charges for the control period of FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 are worked
out as given below:

Table 34: Computation of Energy Charges

FY 2016-17 to FY
Particular Units 2018-19
Installed capacity MW 500
NAPAF % 85%
Gross Generation MU's 3723.00
Auxiliary Consumption % 8.50%
Net Generation MU's 3406.55
Gross Station Heat Rate kCal/kWh 2449.50
Sp. Fuel Oil Consumption ml/kWh 0.50
Weighted average GCV of oil kCal/ltr. 10000
Weighted average GCV of coal kCal/kg 3828.39
Weighted average landed cost of coal `./MT 3489.63
Weighted average price of oil `./KL 35,831
Heat Contribution from HFO kCal/kWh 5.00
Heat Contribution from coal kCal/kWh 2444.50
Sp. coal Consumption kg/kWh 0.6385
Rate of energy charges from oil Rs/per unit 0.018
Rate of energy charges from coal Rs/per unit 2.228
Total energy charges Rs/per unit 2.246
Total Rate of energy charges at Ex bus Rs/per unit 2.455
140. The base rate of the energy charges shall however, be subject to month to month
adjustment of actual fuel price and actual GCV of coal on received basis. The
recovery of energy charges shall be made in accordance with Regulations 36.6
to 36.8 of the Regulations, 2015.
141. The Commission would like to mention in this order that the approach for
determination of Energy Charge Rate (ECR) in MPERC (Terms and Conditions
for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 has been changed
from GCV of coal on “as fired basis” to “as received basis” as specified by the
Central Commission in CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2014
for determination of tariff of Generation Companies. In Writ Petition No. 1641 of
2014 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 07.09.2015, directed the
Central Commission to decide the issue i.e. at what stage the GCV of coal on “as
received basis” should be measured. Vide order dated 25th June’ 2016, in
Petition No. 283/GT/2014 CERC decide the issue. The relevant portion of
aforementioned CERC’s order is extracted as under:

“55. The only practicable alternative is to take samples from the wagons either
manually or by installing Hydraulic Auger at the suitable places. GUVNL vide
affidavit dated 30.11.2015 has submitted the video recording of the samples of
coal being collected from the railway wagon at the generating stations of GSECL,
namely at Ukai TPS and Wanakbori TPS. They have also filed the laboratory
testing procedure of the samples taken from the wagons/ Coal Rakes at
Wanakbori TPS. From the examination of the video recording, it is observed that
samplings of coal were being collected from the railway wagons using Hydraulic
Auger. The process of taking samples was found to be smooth, capable of taking
representatives samples from any depth of the wagon, from different locations
without taking too much of time and the process appears to be same and
reliable. GSECL has been successfully using the Hydraulic Auger for collection of
samples from the top of the wagons and NTPC and other generating companies
can adopt and improvise the protocol for collection of samples from the wagons.
As regards the threat to the safety of the personnel, the issue has been
discussed in detail in para 41 of this order and the safeguards suggested in the
said para should be adopted.”
“58. In view of the above discussion, the issues referred by the Hon ’ble High
Court of Delhi are decided as under:
(a) there is no basis in the Indian Standards and other documents relied upon by
NPTC etc. to support their claim that GCV of coal on as received basis should be
measured by taking samples after crusher set up inside the generating station, in
terms of Regulation 30(6) of the 2014 Tariff regulations.
(b) The samples for the purpose of measurement of coal on as received basis
should be collected from the loaded wagons at the generating stations either
manually or through the Hydraulic Auger in accordance with provisions of IS
436(Part 1/Section 1)-1964 before the coal is unloaded. While collecting the
samples, the safety of personnel and equipment as discussed in this order
should be ensured. After collection of samples, the sample preparation and
testing shall be carried out in the laboratory in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in IS 436 (Part 1/ Section 1)-1964 which has been elaborated in the
CPRI Report to PSERC.”
142. In view of above, the Petitioner and Respondents are directed to ensure that the
GCV of coal on “received basis” be considered in accordance with the above
methodology decided by CERC. The petitioner and Respondents are also
directed to ensure compliance with Regulation 36.7 to 36.10 of the Regulations
2015 for appropriate billing and payment of Energy Charges.

Other Charges:
Petitioner’s Submission
143. The Petitioner has filed recovery of the filing fees as and when paid to the
Commission and also the publication expenses from the beneficiaries.
Commission’s Analysis
144. The petitioner is allowed to recover the fees to be paid to MPERC and
publication expenses as per Regulation 52 of (Terms and Conditions for
Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 subject to true up based
on audited accounts.
145. In exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 64 of the Electricity Act,
2003, the Commission directs that the generation tariff determined in this order
shall be applicable from 1st April’ 2016, and will continue to be operative till 31 st
March’ 2019, under Multi Year Tariff Principles. The difference between the
billing done in accordance with Regulation 7.11 (i) of the Tariff Regulations 2015
for the period starting from 01.04.2016 and the tariff determined in this order shall
be recovered or refunded by the generating company in terms of Regulations
7.11(ii) of the Regulations 2015.
146. The petitioner must take steps to implement this order after giving seven (7)
days’ public notice in accordance to Regulation 1.30 of MPERC (Details to be
furnished and fee payable by licensee or generating company for determination
of tariff and manner of making application) Regulations, 2004 and its
amendments and must also provide information to the Commission in support of
having complied with this order.
147. With the above directions, this Petition No. 05 of 2016 is disposed of
(Alok Gupta) (A. B. Bajpai) (Dr. Dev Raj Birdi)

Member Member Chairman
Date: 08th August, 2016

Place: Bhopal

Annexure-I
Summary of response filed by Petitioner on the issues raised by the Commission
A. Capital Cost and Additional Capitalization:
1. Issue: With regard to the additional capitalization during FY 2015-16 filed in the
petition, the petitioner is required to file a comprehensive reply to the following issues
with all relevant supporting documents.
i. Whether the addition of assets is on account of the reasons (a) to (e) in clause
20.1 of the MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation
tariff) Regulations, 2012.
ii. Whether the assets capitalized during the year are under original scope of
work. Supporting documents be also filed in this regard.
iii. Whether the additional capitalization is within the cut-off date of the project.
Petitioner’s reply:
The Petitioner humbly submits that the additional proposed capitalization of Rs

100.16 Crs falls within the norms specified under Regulation 20.1 of MPERC
(Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2012.
The said Regulation reads as under:-
“The Capital Expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred, on the following

counts within the original scope of work, after the Date of Commercial
Operation and up to cut-off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject
to prudent check:
(a) Undisclosed liabilities

(b) Work deferred for execution
(c) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of order or
decree of a court,
(d) Change in Law,
(e) Procurement of initial spares within the original scope of work, subject to
the provisions of Regulation 17.1(b)
Provided that the details of works included in the original scope of
along with estimates of expenditure, un-discharged liabilities and
works deferred for execution shall be submitted along with the
application for Tariff.”
The Petitioner would humbly like to draw the kind attention of the Commission in the
light of the above Regulation that the said additional capitalization is within the

original scope of the work authorized by the Resolution of Board of Directors dated
May 17th, 2014 attached herewith as Annexure-1 and is also within the prescribed
cut-off date.
iv. Statement showing the detailed break-up of the project cost originally
approved by the competent authority, cost incurred up to 31 st March, 2015,
addition capitalization proposed during FY 2015-16, along with the reasons of
increase in each item of additional capitalization proposed during FY 2015-16
be filed.
Break up of Originally Approved Project Cost, Revised Project Cost Proposed

capitalization during 2015-16 and Final Project Cost are given as under:-
(Rs in Crores)
Particulars Original Revised Final Cost Incurred Proposed
Project Project Project upto 31-03- Capitalization
Cost Cost Cost 2015 during 2015-16
Land 7 7 7 6.86
BTG 1294 1338 1381 1740.80 7
BOP 480 575 954 1153.70 47
Civil Cost 433 686 479 596.02 46
Overhead & 201 201 253
Pre-
Operative
IDC/IEDC 294 398 524*
Margin 45 35
Money
Total 2754 3240 3497.38 100
3598
* This includes Rs 23.46 Crs approved by Hon’ble Commission towards

interest from COD of Unit I to COD II on Debt Component of unallocated
capital cost as on COD of Unit I vide Para 4.30 and 4.31 Order dated Nov
26th, 2014.
Reasons of increase/decrease between proposed capitalization during
2015-16 and actual capitalization shall be provided after approval of
shareholders in Annual General Meeting of Balance Sheet as on March
31st, 2016 of Jaypee Bina Thermal Power Plant.
v. Details of the works completed as on 31st March’ 2016, along with supporting
documents be filed.

Details of work completed up to March 31st, 2016 will be furnished only after
approval of shareholders in Annual General Meeting of Balance Sheet as on
March 31st, 2016 of Jaypee Bina Thermal Power Plant.
vi. Reasons for delay in completion of works under additional capitalization. What
was the anticipated date of completion of these additional works.
In response to the query a detailed chart is enclosed herewith as Annexure-2.
vii. Details of any penalty/LD if any, imposed on the contractor for delay in
completion of these works under additional capitalization.
As regards Liquidated Damages & Legal Remedies, the same shall be looked into
after the completion of balance of works as our current priority is to ensure that
progress of work in not hampered.
2. Issue: The petitioner is required to file the copy of its Board of Director’s approval for
additional capitalization of `100.16 Crore filed by it during FY 2015-16. Board’s
Resolutions for equity investments and shareholder certificate for the equity infusion
for the additional capital investment of `100.16 in FY 2015-16 be also submitted.
The petitioner has proposed to make an addition of Rs 100.16 Crs during FY

2015-16 and the same is to be financed entirely out of the equity/ reserves/
internal accruals.
Since, this addition is part of original scope of work with a Project Completion
Cost of Rs 3,575 Crs, hence it does not require fresh approval of Board of
Directors. The approval for Rs 3,575 Crs is attached as annexure to the Reply to
Para 1 (i), (ii) & (iii).
B. Operation & Maintenance Charges on Transmission Lines & Bay:
3. Issue: The petitioner had never claimed the O&M charges of transmission lines &
bays neither in its petition (P-40/2012) for determination of provisional tariff nor in the
petition for determination of final tariff. However, in the subject true-up petition, the

petitioner has claimed O&M expenses of transmission lines and bay on the basis of
norms prescribed under MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of
In view of the above and in light of the MPERC (Terms and Condition for
Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 the petitioner is required to
justify its claim for such a dedicated transmission line, the cost of which has been
appropriately considered in the capital cost of its power plant.
The O&M expenses of Transmission lines & bay has been claimed on the basis of
the norms prescribed under MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of
The Generation Project of the Petitioner having two units of 250 MW each achieved
COD of Unit – 1 on 31-08-2012 and Unit – 2 on 07-04-2013. The PPA entered into
with MPPMCL (Procurer) dated 05-01-2011 in Article 4.8 has the following provision:-
“The Contracted Capacity shall be evacuated by a dedicated

transmission line of 400 KV to be constructed by the Company from
the Delivery Point to 400 KV S/s of MPPTCL at Bina. Since contracted
capacity has been increased from 42% (forty two percent) to 70%
(seventy percent) for Phase – I (i.e. 2X250 MW), the sharing of the cost
of dedicated transmission line shall be decided mutually between the
Company and the GoMP. In this arrangement, the procurer shall not
be liable to pay transmission charges of PGCIL’s (Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited) network of Western Region
transmission system.”
During the proceedings for determination of final tariff for the station, there were two
options to be mutually agreed between the Generator and the Procurer. The first
being sharing of the cost of construction of this transmission line in a mutually
agreeable ratio wherein the original percentage of 50% of sharing of cost was based
on 42% supply of power to Procurer which increased to 70% at the time of signing of
PPA. The second option was to include the cost of this dedicated transmission line
as a part of the Generation Project.
The Procurer agreed to Option No.2 i.e. to include the cost of this dedicated
transmission line as a part of the Generation Project and the Hon’ble Commission
was pleased to determine the capital cost of the Generation Project which included
the cost of this dedicated transmission line.

Due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Petitioner, the O&M cost of this
transmission line was not claimed for the periods 2012-13 and 2013-14. Since the
provisions for O&M in the generation tariff are based on per MW cost which cater
only for the generation assets, hence the only option left with the Petitioner to be
compensated for the expenditure incurred against operation and maintenance of this
dedicated transmission line was to adopt per Circuit km and per Bay O&M cost as
provided under the MPERC (terms and conditions for determination of tariff)
Regulations.
C. Interest on working Capital
4. Issue: With regard to cost of coal for working capital of thermal power stations,
Regulation 34.1 (1) of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation
Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides as under:
“Cost of coal towards stock, if applicable, for 15 days for pit-head generating
stations and 30 days for non-pit-head generating stations for generation
corresponding to the normative annual plant availability factor or the
maximum coal stock storage capacity whichever is lower;
Cost of coal for 30 days for generation corresponding to the normative annual
plant availability factor;”
In view of the above, the petitioner is required to explain the basis of the cost
of coal for 60 days considered in the petition in light of the above provision
under Regulations.
The Petitioner respectfully humbly submits that:-
I. Petitioner’s Plant is a non-pit-head generating station. Therefore, as per
Regulation 34.1(1)(a), cost of coal towards stock for 30 days for non-pit-
head generating station for generation corresponding to the normative
annual plant availability factor or the maximum coal stock storage capacity
whichever is lower, is allowed to be covered in working capital;
(Here, the Petitioner humbly wishes to add that the coal stock storage
capacity of Petitioner’s Plant is to keep stock of coal for more than 75
days)
II. As per Regulation 34.1(1)(b), cost of coal for 30 days for generation
corresponding to the normative annual plant availability factor, is also
allowed to be covered in working capital.

For the reasons cited above, the Petitioner has considered cost of coal for
60 days (30 days for stock for generation corresponding to the normative
annual plant availability factor and for cost of coal for 30 days for
generation corresponding to the normative annual plant availability factor).
5. Issue: The petitioner is also required to furnish the reasons for considering the
maintenance spares on Transmission lines & Bay while calculating the interest on
working capital in light of the MPERC (Terms and Condition for determination of
Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015.
Reasons and background of the claim explained in Reply to Para 3 entitles the
Petitioner to consider 20% of Operations & Maintenance as maintenance spares
as per Regulation 34.1(1)(d).
6. Issue: The petitioner is required to explain the basis with all supporting document for
computing the rate of interest on working capital.
Rate of interest claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2015-16 & FY 2016-17 are
13.50% & 12.80% which are in conformity with the Regulation 34.3 to be read
with Regulation 4.1(e) of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015.
Regulation 34.3 reads as under:
“Rate of interest on working capital shall be on normative basis and

shall be considered as the bank rate as on 1.4.2016 or as on 1st April
of the year during the tariff period 2016-17 to 2018-19 in which the
generating station or a unit thereof , is declared under commercial
operation, whichever is later.”
Further, Regulation 4.1(e) reads as under:
“” ‘Bank Rate’ means the base rate of interest as specified by the

State Bank of India from time to time or any replacement thereof for
the time being in effect plus 350 basis points”
Accordingly, Interest on Working Capital was claimed as under:-

Particulars FY 2015- FY 2016-

16 17
Base Rate as on 1st April of the year specified by 10.00% 9.30%

State Bank of India
Plus 350 basis point 3.50% 3.50%
Rate of Interest on Working Capital Claimed 13.50% 12.80%
To substantiate the Base Rate as on 1st April of the respective year, Base Rate Chart
downloaded from SBI Corporate Website is attached herewith as Annexure-3.
D. Depreciation
7. Issue: With reference to Proviso to Regulation 33.3 of MPERC (Terms and

Conditions for determination of Generation tariff) Regulations, 2015 the petitioner is
required to furnish a statement showing the year-wise details of depreciation un-
recovered if any, till 31.03.2016 on account of plant availability lower than the NAPAF
and ensuring adherence with third proviso under aforesaid Regulation 33.3.
The petitioner is also required to file the Asset-cum-Depreciation register in support

of depreciation worked out in this petition.
Statement of year-wise details of depreciation un-recovered is furnished as

under:-
Year PAFY NAPAF AFC Depreciation Depreciation Under

allowed Component Component Recovery of
in AFC Recovered Depreciation
Component
In Crs In Crs In Crs In Crs
FY 2012-13 68.12% 85% 142.34 26.87 23.84 3.03
FY 2013-14 94.86% 85% No under recovery of depreciation
During 2012-13 Petitioner’s plant was operational for 213 days.
It is further submitted that the Balance sheet as on 31-03-2016 is yet to be
approved by shareholder in the Annual General Meeting, hence, as soon as
same is approved, the Asset-cum-Depreciation register shall be submitted.

E. Interest and Financing Charges
8. Issue: The petitioner is required to file supporting documents in respect of weighted

average rate of interest claimed in the petition.
To substantiate the Rate of Interest, a summary of Actual amount of monthly

interest paid, rate of interest, sample payment instructions to Bank along with the
true copy of bank statement showing payment thereof has been attached
herewith as Annexure-4 (Colly).
F. Return on equity
9. Issue: The petitioner has claimed Return on Equity by grossing up the base rate with
MAT. The petitioner is required to explain with supporting documents whether the
Petitioner’s Bina Power Project is eligible for MAT in accordance with the balance
sheet of Bina Power Project? Supporting documents needs to be filed in this regard.
The Petitioner respectfully submits that the Generating Company (JPVL) has
been paying MAT upto 2014-15, on the basis of which the Petitioner has grossed
up MAT with base rate. However, the Income Tax Return is yet to be prepared
and filed.
G. Lease Rent:
10. Issue: The petitioner has claimed the expenses payable against the lease rent. The
petitioner is required to inform under what provisions of the Regulations, 2015 these
expenses are claimed by the petitioner.
The Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner is paying lease rent on
account of Land Lease and Railway Lease Land which is a part of the Project.
On this basis, the Petitioner has prayed the payable Lease Rent to be allowed
while arriving at AFC.
H. Non-tariff Income
11. Issue: The petitioner has not filed projected non-tariff income during the control
period. The petitioner is required to file the detailed break-up of projection of Non

Tariff / other income for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 in accordance to the Regulation

53 of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generation tariff)
Regulations, 2015.
The Petitioner respectfully submits that looking into the current scenario where
most of the time the Petitioner’s plant is under backing down instructions by
procurer, there is reduced generation of Fly Ash which is a major contributor of
Non-Tariff Income. Still an estimated approximate detail of non-tariff income or
FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 is under.
(`in Crores)
Year Estimated Non-Tariff Income
2016-17 0.50
2017-18 0.50
2018-19 0.50
I. Performance Parameters:
12. Issue: With regard to performance parameters, the petitioner is required to file the
details of operating parameters actually achieved by its thermal generating units
during last three years.
Actual Operational Parameters actually achieved by the Petitioner’s Plant during

the last three years has been summarized as under:-
Year Generation Aux. Net GSHR Sp. Coal Sp. Oil PAFM
Cons. Consum Consu
ption mption
(MUs) % (MUs) kCal/kWh Kg/kWh ml/kWh %
2013-14 1,562.64 8.68% 1,427.06 2,663.64 0.735 2.33 94.86%
2014-15 2,444.70 8.50% 2,236.95 2,523.45 0.675 0.77 97.30%
2015-16 1,318.85 8.35% 1,208.79 2,535.78 0.666 0.72 99.82%
J. Energy Charges:
(i) Issue: With regard to energy charges claimed in the petition, the petitioner
has considered GCV of coal as fired basis for three preceding months.

 Regulation 36.6(a) of MPERC (Terms and Conditions for determination

of generation tariff) Regulations, 2015 stipulated that the energy
charge rate shall be determined based on weighted average rate of
coal as ‘received’ basis.
 Regulation 36.6(b) of the aforesaid Regulations, 2015 provides that “in
case of blending of fuel from different sources, the weighted average
gross calorific value of primary fuel shall be arrived at in proportion to
blending ratio.
In view of the above, the petitioner is required to file the weighted average
GCV of coal “as received basis” for three preceding months in terms of
Regulation 36.6 of the Regulations, 2015. The petitioner is also required to file
the GCV of coal as per bill/invoice raised by the coal companies along with the
copies of invoices.
(ii) Issue: Laboratory test report in support of weighted average GCV “as
received basis” be also filed in this regard.
Laboratory test Reports of Weighted Average GCV of coal on “As Received

Basis” along with the sample invoices is attached herewith as Annexure-5
(Colly.).
(iii) Issue: With regard to details for computation of landed price of coal filed in
Form TPS 15 prescribed under the Regulations, 2015 the Commission has
observed the following:
(a) The details filed in the aforesaid format shows that the weighted
average landed price of coal for the control period is `3462/MT
whereas, the petitioner has claimed the energy charges by
considering the weighted average landed price of coal as
`3490/MT. The petitioner is required to explain the reason for the
aforesaid difference.
In TPS-15, during the control period 2016-19 weighted average landed price of
coal has been taken as Rs 3,461.71 per MT (Rs 3.462/kg). This price was arrived
at after considering coal received during November ’15 to January ‘16. This price
works out to be Rs 3,489.63 per MT (Rs 3.490/kg) after taking into account the
Normative Transit & Handling Loss of 0.8%. Since an allowance of Normative
Transit & Handling Loss of 0.8% is provided by the Regulation 36.8 to arrive at

Energy charges, the Petitioner has considered Rs 3,489.63 per MT (Rs

3.490/kg).
Calculation of above coal cost was supported by the statement of the same on
Page No. 80 of the current Petition. However, Page No.80 is being attached as
Annexure-6.
(b) Further, while determining the wt. average rate of coal in form TPS-
15, the petitioner has considered the normative transit and handling
loss for determination of quantity of coal supplied by the coal
company. On perusal of the statement of coal consumption during
FY 2015-16 filed with the petition, it is observed that the petitioner
has also considered the normative transit and handling loss on the
rate of coal determined in aforesaid form.
In view of the above, the petitioner is required explain the reasons for double
accounting the transit and handling loss in this regard.
It is humbly submitted that TPS-15 of the current Petition in respect of FY 2015-

16 is on the basis of the True up Petition for FY 2014-15 (Petition No.70 of 2015).
In this Format there is no consideration of Normative Transit & Handling Loss
since the same is not required by the Format. This Format requires only
Normative Transit & Handling Loss Quantity, not the effect of the same. The
Landed Price for the same is on the basis of last three months’ purchases made
during FY 2014-15.
TPS-15 of True up Petition for FY 2014-15 & Summary of coal received during
2014-15 was submitted at Page Nos. 245 & 246 respectively, both the pages are
being attached as Annexure-7.
(c) Detailed calculation sheet for arriving at the weighted average rate
of coal and weighted average GCV of coal claimed in the petition
along with supporting documents be filed.
Detailed calculation sheet for arriving at weighted average rate of coal as claimed
in the petition is attached as Annexure-8. Detailed calculation sheet for arriving at
weighted average GCV of coal as claimed in the petition is attached as
Annexure-9.

K. Secondary Fuel Oil:
(i) Issue: At page 81 of the petition, the petitioner provided the detailed calculation
for arriving the wt. average rate of secondary fuel oil. On perusal of the aforesaid
details, the following is observed:
a. The petitioner has worked out the wt. average rate of secondary fuel oil
based on LDO/HFO consumption during FY 2015-16 (till Jan. 2016) and
same has been considered while determining the Energy Charges. As per
Regulation 36.6(a) of the Regulations, 2015 the wt. average landed price
of secondary fuel oil is required.
In view of the above, the petitioner is required to file the landed price
of secondary fuel oil purchased during three preceding months in
accordance with the provisions under the Regulations, 2015.
After considering combined weighted average rate of LDO & HFO for the last
three months (ie Nov ’15 to Jan ’16), statement of weighted average price of
landed fuel is attached as Annexure-10.
(ii) Issue: Supporting documents (Bills/ invoices) in respect of price of oil purchased be
filed by the petitioner.
Sample Bills of the Secondary Fuel purchased during the last three months (ie.
Nov ’15 to Jan ’16) is attached herewith as Annexure-11.
(iii) Issue: While determining the energy charges, the petitioner has worked out the wt.
average rate of secondary fuel oil as `40,494 /KL by considering the rate of HFO of
`35,267.02/KL whereas, for determination of two months’ cost of HFO for working
capital purpose, the petitioner has considered the rate of HFO as `28,610/KL. The
reasons for this discrepancy be explained by the petitioner.
Rate of Rs 40,494/KL was taken on the basis of consumption data upto Jan-16,
wherein cost of issuance of HFO was taken as Rs 35,267.02 per KL and LDO
consumption cost is Rs 44,657.42 per KL. Since energy charge includes cost of

secondary fuel also, the weighted average of the secondary fuel was taken on
consumption basis while determining energy charges. For the purpose of working
capital, cost of stock for two months of main secondary fuel i.e. HFO is to be
taken which is not on consumption basis. The Landed Cost of main secondary
fuel (HFO) is Rs 28,610.92 per KL.
L. Formats
(i) Issue: In format TPS-5B, the petitioner has filed the detailed break-up of capital
expenditure at different point of time. The petitioner is required to file a comparison of
these capital cost components with the original estimate as per investment approval.
The petitioner is also required to file specific reasons for variance if any, in this
regard.
The break-up of original project cost in TPS-5B format along with the component
wise variance and explanation thereto is attached herewith as Annexure-12. The
Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to note that though there are some minor
variations within the sub-groups of the Project Cost, the overall capital
expenditure as on 31.03.2016, is well within the estimated cost of completion of
Rs 3,575 Crs. The details are as under:-
Particulars Rs in Crs
Estimated Cost of Completion 3,575.00
Add: Interest for intervening period between COD of Unit I & 23.46
COD of Unit II on Debt Component of unallocated costs
allowed by Commission vide its Order dated Nov 26th, 2014.
Adjusted Cost of Completion 3598.46

Currently Estimated Cost upto 31.03.2016 3,597.34
Following formats are either left blank or filled-up partially:
(i) Issue: Format TPS-9A and TPS-9B, are not as per the formats under the tariff
Regulations, 2015 for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
The Petitioner, during FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, has not claimed any additional
capitalization, TPS 9-A of Regulations, 2015 is being attached herewith as Annexure-
13 by marking them “Not Applicable”. Similarly, since Petitioner’s Plant has still not

reached the Fag End of useful life of the Project, the TPS 9-B of Regulations, 2015 is
being attached herewith as Annexure-14 by marking them “Not Applicable”.
However, the Petitioner would humbly like to submit that the estimated Additional
Capitalization of Rs 100.16 Crores projected for 2015-16 may flow in 2016-17.
(ii) Issue: The petitioner is required to furnish the complete information under form TPS-
10.
Duly filled up TPS-10 is being attached as Annexure-15.
(iii) Issue: The petitioner has not furnished any information under format TPS-9C, D, E,
F, and TPS 14A, TPS-17. The petitioner is required to furnish the reason of non-
furnishing or non availability of such information.
Since no addition is being claimed during FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, TPS-9C was
not provided and there are no exclusions in claims also, hence TPS-9D is also not
applicable. However, TPS-9E & TPS-9F are being provided as Annexure-16. Since
TPS-14A pertains to period upto COD only, TPS-14A was not furnished.

Annexure-II
Petitioner’s response on the comments offered by the Respondent No.1:
1. Comment: The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Section 62 of
Electricity Act 2003 read with MPERC (Terms and conditions for determination of
Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 (for short the Tariff Regulations) for
Determination of Tariff of 2x250 MW Coal based power project at Bina, Dist.:
Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, for the period commencing from1st April, 2016 for Unit
1 and Unit 2 upto 31.03.2019.
2. Comment: That, in the present Petition the Petitioner, inter-alia, has made
following prayers before this Hon’ble Commission :
PRAYER
15. In view of the above,

a. Determine the Generation Tariff of the 2x250 MW (Coal Based Power
Project at Bina, Distt. Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, for the period commencing
from 1st April 2016 upto 31.03.2019 as required under the PPA dated
05.01.2011;
b. The Petitioner may be allowed to raise bills from April, 2016 onwards as per
tariff already determined for the year 2015-16, pending the determination of
MYT tariff for FY 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2018-19;
c. Allow the recovery of the filing fees as and when paid to the Hon’ble
Commission and also the publication expenses from the beneficiaries.
d. ………..
e. ………..
f. ………..
3. Comment: That, Form TPS-1- Page No.29, at Sl. No. 7, the Petitioner has
claimed 68.42% of Capacity charge against 65% capacity of Unit-1 and Unit-2
being provided on Regulated Tariff. This is strongly opposed, and it is humbly
submitted that this may not be allowed.
Petitioner’s Reply
“The contents of Para 11 (a) is denied as the issue whether Capacity charge of
68.42% is to be determined is an issue pending before the Hon’ble APTEL in
Appeal No. 25 of 2016 and the same cannot be rejected summarily.”

4. Comment: That, in the same form, at Sl. No. 8, the Petitioner has claimed 70%
of cost of fuel against 65% capacity of Unit-1 and Unit-2 being provided on
Regulated Tariff. This is strongly opposed, and it is humbly submitted that this
may not be allowed.
“The contention of the Respondent No.1 in Para 11 (b) that the Petitioner has
claimed 70% of the cost of fuel on Regulated tariff is wrong. In fact, figures given
at Sl No.8 of the TPS-1 forms is only for indicative purpose and it does not have
any relation with Regulated Tariff.”
5. Comment: That, in the same form, at Sl. No. 2.1 and 2.2, the Petitioner has
claimed Landed Coal cost as ` 3489.63 per MT for the years 2016-17, 2017-18
and 2018-19. However, the petitioner has claimed Coal cost for existing year
2015-16 as ` 4005.85 per MT. The Petitioner has failed to give reason that if he
can extrapolate lower costs of coal in the coming years, which obviously is based
on historical data available with him, then why such high coal cost was claimed in
the existing year. It is apparent that the actual cost of coal was much less than
the cost claimed for the year 2015-16. It is humbly prayed that suitable prudence
check in this regard may be carried out by the Hon’ble MPERC and also be
shared with this respondent.
“It is humbly submitted that the contention of Respondent No. 1 that the
Petitioner has extrapolated lower cost of the coal for 2016-17 to 2018-19 is
strongly opposed. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Commission that
cost of the coal for FY 2015-16 is on the basis of True up Petition for FY 2014-15
(Petition No.70 of 2015). The Per Tonne Rate of the coal for FY 2015-16 is Rs
4,005.85 per MT after taking into account Normative Transit & Handling Loss, this
Landed Price was taken on the basis of last three months’ purchases made
during FY 2014-15. A chart showing the summary of coal received during 2014-
15 was submitted at Page No.246 of True up Petition for FY 2014-15 and is
attached as Annexure-1.
The rate of coal at Rs 3,489.63 per MT for the control period FY 2016-17 to FY
2018-19 has been taken on the basis of weighted average price of coal

purchased during November ’15 to January ’16 (not the complete year) after
taking into account Normative Transit & Handling Loss. Calculation of the cost of
coal same was supported by a statement which was on Page No. 80 of the
current Petition. However, Page No.80 is being attached as Annexure-2 as ready
reference.
6. Comment: That, It is humbly submitted that as brought out by the Petitioner in

Page 80 of the submission, the quantity of coal received from CCL and SECL is
not sufficient to provide contracted energy to the Respondent. The Petitioner has
to buy coal from open market at a much higher cost. Hon’ble Commission is also
not inclined to accept the use of other sources of high cost coal for supply of
power to the Respondent which would be a burden to the end consumers in the
state. It is, therefore, humbly requested that while arranging coal from other
sources, prior consent of Respondent should be obtained by the Petitioner. The
consent shall be conveyed depending upon the demand matrix at the time and
fixed charge, as applicable, shall be paid to the Petitioner.
“That the above contention of the Respondent No. 1 is specifically denied for the
following reasons:
1.1 It is submitted that in the current coal scenario, as explained in the Tariff
Petition on the overall coal materialization from CCL and SECL, the shortfall in
supply of coal has to be met by procurement from private sources. Further the
Government of India has even permitted generators supplying under Section 63
route to import coal. Also, the scheme of the Act or the PPA does not provide for
prior approval being taken from the Procurer before Coal is sourced. Hence, such
a contention is baseless and is liable to be rejected. It is also pertinent to mention
herein that the said condition is also subject matter of the decision of the Hon’ble
Commission in Review Petition No. 81 of 2012 dated 06.02.2013 wherein the
Hon’ble Commission has already ruled upon prior-approval of the procurer for
sourcing coal not being required under the PPA. Hence, the said issue has also
attained finality and the Respondent cannot raise the same herein. Moreover, the
contention of the Respondent if to be accepted would amount to amendment into
a statutorily approved PPA which cannot be done in the present proceedings.
The Relevant extracts of the Order dated 06.02.2013 is being reproduced as
follows:-

“10. The second objection of the petitioner is regarding the Commission’s

direction dated 7th September, 2012 that it would have to seek the
concurrence of the procurer to the terms and conditions etc. of the FSA.
The petitioner believes that the amendment directed by the Commission
would confer on the procurer an extra right to walk out of a duly executed
PPA at its own pleasure. The petitioner believes that giving such right to
one party will violate the balance of responsibility and authority inherent in
any agreement between parties. The petitioner feels that this makes the
agreement unequal and can, at the hand of the procurer, adversely impact
the long term prospects of the power generation venture. Such a PPA
would also raise doubts in the minds of the lenders who could demand
unaffordable guarantees to cover unforeseen and indeterminate risks. The
petitioner would have no objection to any authority of this kind being
vested in the Commission itself but definitely to the way the procurer is
sought to be authorized. The petitioner is willing to submit the FSA for
examination according to law by the Commission.
11. Having considered this argument, the Commission find itself in agreement
with the petitioner that the suggested amendment would, in a manner,
confer on the procurer a virtual regulatory authority which would not be in
order.”
7. Comment: That, in Form 1(I) on Page 30 of the Petition, Per MW cost of project,
as prayed by the Petitioner for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, comes
to `3597.53 Cr/ 500MW = `7.19 Cr/MW. In itself, the existing Per MW cost of
project for year 2015-16, which has been vehemently opposed and continuously
brought to notice of Hon’ble Commission several times, comes to `3497.38 Cr/
500MW = `6.99 Cr/MW which is one of the highest in the country and not in line
with CERC guidelines. It is humbly requested that strict prudence check may
again be applied by Hon’ble MPERC to verify the expenses to the extent of
`100.16 Cr, claimed to be added in the Capital cost during the year 2015-16.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that the cost of 2x250 MW Chhabra TPS in
Rajasthan, which is of same capacity and which was commissioned in recent
past on 04.05.2010, comes to only `5.55 Cr./ MW, excluding the cost of barrage
& Transmission line. In Petitioner’s case, out of project cost of`3497.38 Cr,
barrage cost is claimed to be `117 Cr and Transmission line cost is `61 Cr. So
comparative Project Cost = `3497.38- `117- `61=`3319.38 Cr. and Per MW

cost=`3319.38/500=`6.63 Cr/MW, which is still much higher than that of Chhabra

TPS. It is humbly prayed that benchmark for 250 MW plants may kindly be
evolved. Till such time the benchmark are specified by MPERC, the benchmark
specified by CERC for plants of 500 MW and above capacity may be considered
at arriving at a just and reasonable capital cost. The cost of Satpura TPS is also
much lower at `6.065 Cr/MW without barrage & transmission lines. A
comparative statement showing the per MW cost of plants of similar capacity,
which have been commissioned recently, is given below :
Name of Plant Capacity Organization Date of Cost per MW

Commercial (` in Cr)
Operation
Bakreshwar (U#4 & 5) 2 X 210 WBPDCL iv-06.03.09 4.04
MW v-27.06.09
Sagardighi (U#1 & 2) 2 X 300 WBPDCL I– 07.09.08 4.45
MW
Parichha Extn. Stage 2 2 X 250 UPRVUNL Provisional 4.71
MW
Santaldih TPS Extn 1 X 250 WBPDCL Apr-09 4.97
MW
New Parli TPS 2 X 250 MSPGCL I – 01.11.07 5.07
II -31.07.10
ROSA Stage-1 2 X 300 Reliance Power I – 10.02.10 5.19
MW II– 28.03.12
Harduaganj TPS Extn. U# 1 X 250 UPRVUNL Sep-11 5.21
8 MW
New Paras TPS 2 X 250 MSPGCL I – 31.03.08 5.32
MW II– 31.08.10
JPVL, Bina (Phase-1) 2 X 250 JPVL I– 31.08.12 7.19
MW II-07.04.13
Therefore, it can be seen that the per MW cost, either approved earlier or
claimed now by the Petitioner, is on very high side and not in line with other
plants of similar capacity. It is humbly requested that the capital cost of JPVL
Bina TPS may be approved/ revised on the basis of ROSA Stage-1, which was
commissioned in 2012, the same year in which JPVL, Bina was commissioned. It
is humbly requested that strict prudence check may again be applied by Hon’ble
MPERC, if deemed fit, by means of independent site inspection and technical
study by “Expert Commission” etc. to verify the expenses claimed.
8. Comment: That, in the earlier submission for determination of Final Tariff, the
Petitioner had attempted to justify increase in Civil Cost by `142 Cr. over revised
estimated figure of `710 Cr. (Original estimate was `432 Cr.), i.e., total increase
so far of about 97% from original estimate of `432 Cr, which is very high. This

assumes greater significance as the civil contract was placed on a related party,
i.e., M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL), on negotiated basis as a variable price
escalable contract. JAL was given the Contract on the condition that they accept
civil work rates equivalent to rates at which they were working for Bokaro Cement
(Provisional Tariff order for Unit-1, Pg 29). So a question arises as to why the
cost of civil work has increased by such large margin. The Petitioner may be
directed to submit documents showing Statutory Compliance and Central
Government approval in terms of Section 297 of Companies Act 1956, with copy
of same to this Respondent. It is humbly requested that strict prudence check
may again be applied by Hon’ble MPERC to verify the expenses claimed.
following reasons:
1.1 That the expenditure claimed qua increase in Civil Cost has already been
determined by this Commission in the Final Tariff Petition i.e. Petition No. 40
of 2012 and the same cannot be raised again in the present Petition. Further
as far reliance being placed on Section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956 it is
humbly submitted that the applicable provision of law, has been complied
with. It is most respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue has been
adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Commission in Case No. 40 of 2012 and
therefore, the Respondent No.1 cannot re-agitate the issue again in the
present proceedings.
1.2 That the expenditure claimed qua increase in Capital Cost has also been
determined by this Commission in the Petition No. 40 of 2012 and the same
cannot be raised again in the present Petition. It is further submitted that
Comparison of the project cost has to be done for similar cost of the other
projects and any cost deviations are due to certain project specific
conditions and hence the Petitioner Project cannot and ought not to be
equated with other projects. Moreover, it is most respectfully submitted that
the aforesaid issue has been adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Commission
in Case No. 40 of 2012 and therefore, the Respondent No.1 cannot re-
agitate the issue again in the present proceedings. Further, the reliance on
CERC’s norms for fixation of Tariff is also of no use as the same issue was
previously raised by the Answering Respondent in Petition No. 40 of 2012

and the Hon’ble Commission after considering the submissions of the

Respondent No. 1 passed the final Order. The said issue has attained
finality and the Respondent No.1 by doctrine of Res-Judicata is barred in
law to re-agitate the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark
case of State of T.N. v. State of Kerala, (2014) 12 SCC 696, has held as
follows:-
162. The rule of res judicata is not merely a technical rule but it is based on high
public policy. The rule embodies a principle of public policy, which in turn, is
an essential part of the rule of law. In Duchess of Kingston 70, the House of
Lords (in the opinion of Sir William de Grey) has observed:
“From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in

evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as
generally true: first, that the judgment of a court of concurrent
jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence,
conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly
in question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of
exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is, in like manner,
conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming
incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose.”
163. Corpus Juris explains that res judicata is a rule of universal law pervading
every well-regulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds,
embodied in various maxims of the common law; the one, public policy and
necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an
end to litigation; and the other, the hardship on the individual that he should
be vexed twice for the same cause.”
9. Comment: In the Order dated 08.05.2015, this Hon’ble Commission has

determined Blended Annual Capacity Charge for Unit No. 1 and 2. This is
strongly opposed, and it is humbly submitted that blended tariff for both the Units
together may not be allowed. Instead, it is humbly submitted that Unit wise tariff
be determined.
10. Comment: That, it is humbly submitted that Unit wise tariff be determined.

following reasons:
1.1 It is submitted that the present Power Project has been envisaged and
designed as a single generation station consisting of two similar units of 250
MW each and having similar capacity and parameters for generation of
power.
1.2 That the source of supply of coal for both the units for generation of
electricity is common. Further, the electricity generated from both the units
will be evacuated through a common bus-bar. Therefore, the request of the
Respondent No.1 that Unit wise Tariff is to be determined is outside the
scope of the PPA signed between the parties and is legally untenable.
1.3 The contract entered into by the Petitioner for supply of electricity from the
project with MPPMCL have proceeded on the basis that the power
generated from both the units will be supplied to MPPMCL under the PPAs
to meet the supply obligations. Therefore, the two units of the Power Project
form part and parcel of one generating station with similar characteristics in
terms of cost and operational parameters.
1.4 It is therefore submitted that the present project qualifies for determination
of combined tariff for the two units under the MPERC 2015 Tariff
Regulations. Clause5.1 of the Tariff Regulations provides that the tariff in
respect of a generating station may be determined for the whole of the
generating station or a stage or unit or block of the generating station. The
relevant extract of Regulation 5.1 is being reproduced as follows:-
“5.1 Tariff in respect of a generating station may be determined for the

whole of the generating station or stage or generating unit or block of the
generating station.
Provided that: (i) where all the generating units of a stage of a
generating station have been declared under commercial operation
prior to 1.4.2016, the generating company shall file consolidated
petition in respect of the entire generating station for the purpose of
determination of tariff for the period 2016-17 to 2018-19:
1.5 It is most respectfully submitted that the proviso of Regulation 5.1
specifically provides that if a project has commissioned prior to 01.04.2016
then the Tariff of the Project as a whole is to be determined. Admittedly in
the present case the Petitioner’s Units were commissioned prior to

01.04.2016 and therefore in terms of the First Proviso of Regulation 5.1 the
Combined Tariff of the entire Project shall be determined.
1.6 Moreover, since the supply of power under the different PPAs/
arrangements will be made from both units combined, it would be
operationally convenient to have a combined Tariff for the entire station as
opposed to a Unit-Wise Tariff. Hence, as stated earlier in Petition No. 70 of
2015 there is absolutely no question of Unit wise Tariff being determined in
terms of the PPAs signed by the parties.
11. Comment: That, It is stated that in the definition of ‘Declared Capacity’ in PPA,
the DC of the Power Station at any time means the net capacity of the Power
Station declared at the relevant time. For example, if Unit-2 is ‘off-bar’, then the
Generator cannot declare the capacity of Unit-2. At any point of time, the procurer
is not privy to the reasons whether and why any Unit is off-bar. The chances of
‘misuse’ cannot be ruled out. This may result in costly power in case of misuse of
blended tariff. Providing blended tariff may result in
-Higher tariff for end consumers of the state, and
-Undue benefit to the generator.
It is stated that neither the PPA nor the Regulations provide for Procurer to pay
fixed charges for off-bar Unit.
12. Comment: That, It is stated that the Procurer is liable to pay fixed charges in
case of only On-bar Units because it provides back-up in case of tripping of any
one Unit. In the present scenario, if 95 % of power in the instant case is being
scheduled from U#1 while U#2 is off-bar, then in case of tripping of U#1, the
Procurer will be left without power from the Power station as U#2 will take at least
8-12 hrs for cold start. However, if both Units are on-bar, then in case of tripping
of any one Unit, the Procurer will be affected only to the extent of 65% power of
that Unit, and scheduling of 65% power from other Unit may continue unabated.
Thus it is required that both the Units should be on-bar and Fixed charge for only
on-bar Units shall be paid in lieu of back-up or a cushion in case of tripping of any
one Unit.
13. Comment: It is stated that the Procurer is liable to pay fixed charges in case of
only On-bar Units because it provides back-up in case of tripping of any one Unit.
In the present scenario, if 95 % of power in the instant case is being scheduled
from U#1 while U#2 is off-bar, then in case of tripping of U#1, the Procurer will be

left without power from the Power station as U#2 will take at least 8-12 hrs for
cold start. However, if both Units are on-bar, then in case of tripping of any one
Unit, the Procurer will be affected only to the extent of 65% power of that Unit,
and scheduling of 65% power from other Unit may continue unabated. Thus it is
required that both the Units should be on-bar and Fixed charge for only on-bar
Units shall be paid in lieu of back-up or a cushion in case of tripping of any one
Unit.
following reasons:
1.1 The contention raised by the Respondent that the procurer is only liable to pay
fixed charges for the On-Bar Unit is completely misplaced as it is an accepted
practise that the procurer is obligated to pay to the Generator, the fixed
charges for the contracted capacity under the PPA. Further since the
generator is supplying power in accordance with the demand of the procurer it
is not relevant whether a Unit is on bar or off bar.
1.2 Further, it is most respectfully submitted that it is an accepted industry practise
that if the station or the unit is backed down under the instruction of SLDC and
or the Procurer, it will be considered as deemed available in so far as the
recovery of fixed charges are concerned. However, it is pertinent to mention
that the subject matter of these proceedings is determination of Tariff for the
Control Period 2016-19 and the issue raised by the Respondent is not
relevant. Whether Tariff is to be paid On Bar or Off Bar at best can be looked
into when the PPA between the parties is in question and not during the Tariff
determination proceedings under Section 86 (1)(a) of the Act.”

Comments received from other stakeholder and the Petitioner’s response:
1. That Shri Rajendra Agarwal and Shri Rajesh Choudhary in their joint
submissions/objections have inter-alia raised the following issues: -
(a) That the provisions stated by the Petitioner, for determination of tariff
under section 62 of the Electricity Act 2003 and as required under PPA
dated 05.01.2011 is defective, as the Hon’ble Commission has no
authority under various provisions of the Regulations and law presently in
force to determine the Tariff for any private entity.
(b) That the provision of MOU and the Implementation Agreement executed
between the then Bina Power Supply Company and Government of M.P
has been violated by substitution of the word “determined” in place of
“approved” by the appropriate Commission.
(c) That the PPA dated 05.01.2011 executed at Jabalpur between the then
Madhya Pradesh Power Trading Company and Bina Power Supply
Company is patently invalid rendering it not executable in the eyes of law.
(d) That due to non-adherence of competitive bidding route for procurement
of power, mis-interpretation of execution dates and invalid Power
Purchase Agreement executed by Madhya Pradesh Power Trading
Company Limited, Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company has
been procuring expensive power thereby burdening the general public of
the state by way of enhanced tariff.
Comment:
A. That the provisions stated by the petitioner, for determination of tariff under
section 62 of the electricity act 2003 and as required under ppa dated 05.01.2011
is defective, as the hon’ble commission has no authority under various provisions
of the regulations and law presently in force to determine the tariff for any private
entity.
Petitioner’s Response:
(a) The objector has submitted that according to Clause 26 of the MPERC Power
Purchase and Procurement Process Regulation 2004, Revision – I, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the “MPERC Procurement Process Regulation
2004”), it is mandatory for all Distribution Licensees that all future requirement of
power should be procured competitively. Therefore, if the Commission proceeds
to determine the Tariff of the Petitioner (a private entity) under Section 62 of the
Electricity Act 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) the Commission will be
acting contrary to and in violation of the provision of the above stated Regulation.
(b) That the above contention of the Objector is specifically denied for the following
reasons: -

(i) It is most respectfully submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Power
issued a letter dated 9th December 2010 giving clarification regarding clause 5.1
and 7.1 of the Tariff Policy. The Government of India, Ministry of Power vide the
said letter also exempted certain projects from Tariff based competitive bidding
route. The projects exempted from Tariff based competitive bidding route are as
follows: -
(A) Generation (excluding hydro) projects of PSU/CPSU

(i) The expansion of already commissioned projects
(ii) Projects for which the PPA(S) have been signed on or before
5.01.2011.
A true copy of the Government of India, Ministry of Power letter dated 9 th
December 2010 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXXURE A/1.
(ii) It is most respectfully submitted that the M/s Bina Power Supply Company
Limited (herein referred to as “BPSCL”) entered into a Power Purchase
Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “PPA”) with Madhya Pradesh Power
Trading Company Limited on 05.01.2011 pursuant to which the present Thermal
Power Project has been developed. In view of the above it is submitted that the
Petitioner entered into a PPA only on 05.01.2011, hence in light of the letter
dated 9th December 2010 the Petitioner’s project is unequivocally exempted from
the embargo provided under Clause 5.1 of the Tariff Policy 2006 and Clause 26
of the MPERC Procurement Process Regulation 2004with regard to procurement
of power by Discoms through tariff based competitive bidding route. It is further
submitted that the Petitioner project falls outside the scope of clause 5.1 of the
Tariff Policy 2006 and hence the commission while determining the Tariff of the
Petitioner under section 62 of the Act will not be acting contrary to or in violation
of the Tariff policy and/or clause 26 of the MPERC Procurement Process
Regulation 2004.
(iii) It is further submitted that there are two routes and options provided under the
Electricity Act: (a) tariff determination under Section 62(1)(a) by the Appropriate
Commission in terms of Section 79 and Section 86 of the Electricity Act and (b)
tariff discovery in terms of the Competitive Bidding Process in accordance with
the Guidelines issued by the Government of India which shall be binding on the
Appropriate Commission under Section 63 of the Electricity Act. It is most
respectfully submitted that the power under Section 62(1)(a) and Section 62(1)(b)
conferred on the State Commission for determination of tariff through negotiated
route is a statutory power, which cannot in any manner be restricted or whittled
down by way of a policy document or a subordinate legislation or notification
issued by the Government/Executive and any rules or executive instructions or
notifications which are contrary to any provisions of the statute.

(iv) It is further submitted that the State Commission has discretionary powers either
to choose Section 62, 62(1)(a) to give approval to the PPA or to direct the
distribution licensee to resort to the Competitive Bidding Process as per Clause
5.1 of the National Tariff Policy read with Section 63 of the Electricity Act. In the
present case the State Commission has chosen Section 62 for determination of
tariff through negotiated route for which it cannot be faulted.
(v) It is the contention of the objector that the only way to procure power on long-
term basis is through Competitive Bidding route. It is most respectfully submitted
that if such arbitrary contention of the objector is accepted then the entire tariff
determination exercise under Section 62 and Section 86(1)(b) of the Act will be
rendered otiose.
(vi) It is most respectfully submitted that the MPERC Procurement Process
Regulation 2004 is in the nature of a delegated legislation framed by the Hon’ble
State Commission under the power vested on it by Section 181 of the Act, which
is a statutory power of promulgating regulations as and when required. This
power is in the nature of subordinate legislation and is derived from the enabling
act, which is the Electricity Act 2003. It is most respectfully submitted that it is a
settled position of law that a delegated legislation cannot override the provisions
of the parent/enabling Act. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director
(2003) 3 SCC 321 has held that Rules cannot be made to supplant the provisions
of the enabling Act but to supplement it. The relevant portion of Judgment is
extracted as below: -
A Regulation is a rule or order prescribed by a superior for the management

of some business and implies a rule for general course of action. Rules and
Regulations are all comprised in delegated legislations. The power to make
subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and it is fundamental
that the delegate on whom such a power is conferred has to act within the
limits of authority conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be made to supplant the
provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Samsthana Chethu
Thozhilali Union versus State of Kerala and Ors (2006) 4 SCC 327 has held
that: -
“17. A rule is not only required to be made in conformity with the provisions
of the Act whereunder it is made, but the same must be in conformity
with the provisions of any other Act, as a subordinate legislation cannot
be violative of any plenary legislation made by Parliament or the State
Legislature.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
versus M/s G.S. Dall and Flour Mills (1992) Supp (1) SCC 150 has held that: -

“19. The second ground on which the Full Bench has sought to invoke the
instructions is also not correct. Executive instructions can supplement a
statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend. But they
cannot run contrary to statutory provisions or whittle down their effect”.
In view of the above it is submitted that the power conferred on the State
Commission under Section 62(1)(a) and Section 62(1)(b) of the Act for
determination of tariff through negotiated route is a statutory power, which cannot
in any manner be restricted or supplanted by way of Clause 26 of the MPERC
Procurement Process Regulation 2004 and Clause 5.1 of the Tariff Policy 2006.
(vii) It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
(hereinafter referred to as the “APTEL/TRIBUNAL”) has taken similar views in its
judgment dated 31.3.2010 in Appeal No. 106 and 107 of 2009 titled as BSES
Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. DERC &Ors, wherein the Tribunal has held that the
powers of the State Commission to consider the approval of the procurement of
power through negotiated agreements is not in any manner affected by the
Guidelines issued by MoP directing the Competitive Bidding Process for long
term power procurement. The Tribunal further held that clause 5.1 of the National
Tariff Policy which is a policy direction cannot be held to control or override
Section 62 of the Act. The relevant extract of the APTEL Judgment is extracted
as below: -
22. In the light of the above rationale laid down by the Supreme Court,
clause 5.1 of the NTP which is a subordinate legislation would not
restrict or whittle down the scope of the statutory powers conferred to a
State Commission under Section 62(1)(a) especially when it is noticed
that clause 5.1 of NTP would apply to Section 63 only and not to Section
62 which is a substantive provision. As stated above, Section 63 is an
exception to Section 62 and the same cannot be taken away by way of a
policy document like guidelines – clause 5.1 of NTP.
23. Secondly it has been held that clause 5.1 of the NTP which is a policy
direction cannot be held to control or override Section 62 of the Act and
when these two provisions cannot be reconciled, Section 62 alone must
prevail.
(viii) It is further submitted that the MPERC Procurement Process Regulation 2004
itself provides for saving clauses, which provides the nothing in the Regulation
can restrict the State Commission to adopt in conformity with the provisions of
the Act any procedure, which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of these
Regulations. The relevant Regulation is stated as under: -

58. Nothing in these Regulations shall bar the Commission from adopting in
conformity with the provisions of the Act a procedure, which is at
variance with any of the provisions of these Regulations, if the
Commission, in view of the special circumstances of a matter or class of
matters and for reasons to be recorded in writing, deems it necessary or
expedient for dealing with such a matter or class of matters.
In view of the above it is submitted that the power conferred on the State
Commission under Section 62(1)(a) and Section 62(1)(b) of the Act for
determination of tariff through negotiated route is a statutory power, which cannot
in any manner be restricted or taken away by way of Clause 26 of the MPERC
Procurement Process Regulation 2004.
Comment:
B. That the provision of mou and the implementation agreement executed between
the then bina power supply company and government of m.p has been violated
by substitution of the word “determined” in place of “approved” by the appropriate
commission.
(a) It is the contention of the Objector that according to Clause 12 of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Petitioner company has to supply
42% of its installed capacity of plant to the Government or its nominated agency
at the rate to be approved by the Appropriate Electricity Regulatory Commission
for which PPA has been executed by the then M.P Power Trading Company on
5th January 2011. Further, clause 3.1 (i) and 3.1 (iii) of the Implementation
Agreement also honours the said provision of the MOU. However, the PPA dated
5th January 2011, approved by the State Commission at clause 10.1.1 states that
the tariff for the contracted energy shall comprise only the variable charge/cost
as ‘determined’ by the State Commission. In view of the above submissions the
objector contended that the provisions of the MOU and the Implementation
Agreement has been violated by substituting the word ‘determined’ in place of
‘approval’ by the appropriate Commission.
reasons: -
(i) It is most respectfully submitted that the State Commission has the jurisdiction
under Section 86 (1) (b) of the Act to regulate electricity purchase and
procurement of the distribution licensees, including the price at which the
electricity is to be procured from the generating companies and also to give
approval to the PPA. It is further submitted that the State Commission has
discretionary powers either to choose Section 62, 62(1)(a) to give approval to the

PPA or to direct the distribution licensee to resort to the Competitive Bidding

Process as per Clause 5.1 of the National Tariff Policy read with Section 63 of
the Electricity Act. It is purely a decision of the State Commission to decide
whether to approve a negotiated tariff under Section 62 or to direct the licensee
to adopt the Competitive Bidding Process under Section 63 read with clause 5.1
of the National Tariff Policy. In the present case the State Commission has
chosen Section 62 for determination of tariff through negotiated route for which it
cannot be faulted.
(ii) It is submitted that that it is a settled position of law that all the previous
understandings and agreements between the parties seize to exist once they
enter into a mutually agreed concluded contract. In the present case the MOU is
merely an understanding between the parties expressing their willingness and
intention to establish/construct the project and procure power. MOU is strictly for
internal management purpose for each party, it is not legally enforceable and
does not create any legal obligation on part of either party.
(iii) It is most respectfully submitted that a PPA is a legal contract entered between
two parties, which defines all the commercial terms for sale of electricity between
the parties. It is further submitted that the PPA having been approved by the
State Commission has been elevated to a ‘Statutory Contract’ under Section 86
(1) (b) of the Act and has legal sanctity. It is further submitted that once the State
Commission approves the PPA it becomes a legally binding document with
respect to the rights and duties of the parties thereto. The contention of the
objector is to somehow wriggle out of the legally binding nature of the PPA. It is
pertinent to mention that in a Regulatory regime, the sanctity of the PPA and the
representation and warranties made by the parties in entering into such
agreements have to be given due consideration.
(iv) If the objector’s arguments were to be accepted, there would literally be no
difference between an approved PPA and an unapproved PPA, and the same
would defeat the purpose of giving any significance as to the approval accorded
to a PPA under the statutory provisions. Further it would also defeat the sanctity
of the approved PPA. Not only that, the parties who have signed the PPA would
also be pre-judicially affected.
(v) In view of the above submissions it is humbly submitted that a PPA is a mutually
agreed, legally binding, Statutory Contract and stands on a much higher pedestal
than a MOU and/or Implementation Agreement and hence the provisions of the
MOU and the Implementation Agreement has not been violated in any way by
substituting the word ‘determined’ in place of ‘approval’ under clause 10.1.1 of
the PPA.
(vi) It is also pertinent to mention that the issue raised by the objector with regard to
violation of the terms of the MOU and Implementation Agreement have no
bearing on the present Tariff Petition. It is humbly submitted that the subject

matter of these proceedings are the determination of Tariff for the Control Period
2016 -2019. The Objector has maliciously raised these issues with the sole intent
of sensationalizing the present proceedings and to misguide the Hon’ble
Commission. These issues have no bearing on the present proceedings and
hence should be rejected at the outset with exemplary costs.
Comment:
C. That the ppa dated 05.01.2011 executed at Jabalpur between the then Madhya
Pradesh Power Trading company and Bina Power Supply Company is patently
invalid rendering it not executable in the eyes of law.
(a) It is the contention of the objector that the PPA dated 05.01.2011 is invalid as
one of the confirming party’s, authority for MP Paschhim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran
Company, Indore, named Shri Gajra Mehta was not posted as chief engineer
(Commercial) on the date of execution of the Agreement. The objector also
submitted that the PPA was filed before the State Commission after the expiry of
more than one year on 13th January 2012, against the specified period of 3
months as stated under the PPA. It is the contention of the objector that these
irregularities confirm that the aforesaid Power Purchase Agreement were
executed on a different dates, which cause these agreement totally invalid.
reasons: -
(i) It is humbly submitted that the Objector in guise of his above-mentioned
contention is challenging the validity of the PPA approved by the State
Commission. It is most respectfully submitted that the State Commission
under the power conferred upon it by Section 86 (1)(b) of the Act has
approved the PPA dated 05.01.2011 vide its Order dated 07-09-2012.
(ii) The Objector without filing an Appeal is raising grounds, which could only
be raised by way of an appeal. Such actions, seeking to bypass the
statutory mandate are also against the accepted legal doctrine that a party
cannot do indirectly which it cannot do directly. In this regard the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh
Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., (1988) 1 SCC 174 has held as
follows:-
“21. In the instant case, the learned Judge has proceeded on the basis
that this was not an injunction sought against the bank but this was the
injunction sought against the appellant. But the net effect of the
injunction is to restrain the bank from performing the bank guarantee.
That cannot be done. One cannot do indirectly what one is not free

to do directly. But a maltreated man in such circumstances is not

remedy less. The respondent was not to suffer any injustice which was
irretrievable. The respondent can sue the appellant for damages. In
this case, there cannot be any basis for apprehension that irretrievable
damages would be caused if any. I am of the opinion that this is not a
case in which injunction should be granted. An irrevocable commitment
either in the form of confirmed bank guarantee or irrevocable letter of
credit cannot be interfered with except in case of fraud or in case of
question of apprehension of irretrievable injustice has been made out.
This is the well settled principle of the law in England. This is also a
well settled principle of law in India, as I shall presently notice from
some of the decisions of the High Court and decisions of this Court.”
(Emphasis Added)
(iii) It is further submitted that the State Commission has approved PPA vide
its Order dated 07-09-2012. It is a settled position of law that after passing
an order the Court becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the matter.
The Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity in Appeal No. 57 of 2015
titled as “Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Vs.
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission” has also taken
a similar view and held as under: -
“15. After passing the said orders, the State Commission has
become functus officio. It could not have reopened the matter.
The remedy of the Appellant lied elsewhere, which it did not choose to
adopt. Appeal No.57 of 2015 is, therefore, not
maintainable”.(Emphasis Added)
(iv) It is further submitted that even if the Objector was aggrieved by the
approval accorded to the PPA dated 05.01.2011 the only remedy available
with him would have been to file an Appeal under Section 111 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, which the said Objector has not done till date.
(v) It is reiterated that the present Petition is filed for the limited purpose of
determination of Tariff for the Control Period 2016 -2019 and hence the
issue of invalidity of the PPA being raised by the objector is completely
irrelevant, as it has no bearing on the present Tariff petition. Moreover, the
said averment of the Objector is vehemently denied as the said Objector
without bringing forward a shred of evidence is making sweeping
comments/averments and in fact casting doubts upon the judicial propriety
of the Hon’ble Commission. It is most respectfully prayed that the said wild
allegations of the Objector are liable to be rejected with exemplary costs.

Comment:
D. That due to non-adherence of competitive bidding route for procurement of
power, mis-interpretation of execution dates and invalid power purchase
agreement executed by madhya pradesh power trading company limited,
madhya pradesh power management company has been procuring expensive
power thereby burdening the general public of the state by way of enhanced
tariff.
(a) That the above contention of the Objector is specifically denied for the following
reasons: -
(i) At the outset it is most respectfully submitted that the above issue cannot
be raised at this stage as the present proceedings are limited to
determination of MYT Tariff for Control Period FY 2016-2019. Therefore,
the aforesaid issue cannot be raised in the present proceedings.
Notwithstanding the above the present PPA has been approved by the
Hon’ble Commission vide Order dated 07-09-2012. The Objector has not
challenged the said Order before the Appropriate Forum and therefore the
said issue has attained finality.
(ii) Therefore, in so far as the validity of the PPA is concerned the said issue
has attained finality and the Hon’ble Commission has become Functus
Officio to look into the said aspect and objection raised qua the same is
liable to be rejected.
(b) In view of the above submissions, the averments made by the Objector in its
undated Submission received by the Petitioner on 23.07.2016 are liable to be
rejected with exemplary costs. The said Objector, in the capacity of a consumer,
has gone much beyond the scope of the present proceedings and has raised a
variety of extraneous issues by making untrue and wild allegations with the sole
purpose to sensationalize the present proceedings and to misguide the Hon’ble
Commission.The said submissions of the Objector are ought to be summarily
rejected and it is prayed that the Commission may proceed to determine the
Tariff for the period commencing from 01.04.2016 for Unit 1 & Unit 2 upto
31.03.2019 for its 2 x 250 MW (Phase I) Coal Based Power Project at Bina, Dist.
Sagar, Madhya Pradesh.

Bina Tariff Order 080816-P-05-2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bina Tariff Order 080816-P-05-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BINA MYT Order FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19

MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Petition No. 05 of 2016

Dr. Dev Raj Birdi, Chairman

A.B. Bajpai, Member

Alok Gupta, Member

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Uttar Pradesh: PETITIONER

1. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd., Jabalpur

2. M. P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

3. M. P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Bhopal RESPONDENTS

4. M. P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., Indore

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 1

1. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as

2. M/s Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner” or

Table 1: Capacity and COD of Generating Units under Phase-1

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 2

Table 2: Element-Wise Annual Capacity (fixed) Charges filed: (` in Crores)

Table 3: Energy Charges Filed in the Petition (`/Unit)

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 3

11. The petitioner broadly prayed the following in its petition:

a. “Determine the Generation Tariff of the 2x250 MW (Coal Based Power

d. Petitioner respectfully seeks an opportunity to present their case prior to

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 4

Table 4: Opening GFA as on 1.04.2016 Filed by the Petitioner (` in Crores)

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 5

Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2015 provides that,

“15.1 Capital cost as determined by the Commission after prudence check in

15.2 Capital cost for a Project shall include

(a) the expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred up to the date of

Any gain or loss on account of foreign exchange risk variation pertaining

(c) Increase in cost in contract packages as approved by the Commission;

(d) Interest during construction and incidental expenditure during

(f) expenditure on account of additional capitalization and de-capitalisation

(b) additional capitalization and de-capitalization for the respective year of

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 6

(c) expenditure on account of renovation and modernization as admitted by

Additional Capitalization during FY 2015-16

Table 5: Additional Capitalization and Funding during FY 2015-16 (` in Crores)

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 7

28. The petitioner was also asked to file the following:

(i) Reply to issue (i), (ii) and (iii)

(a) Undisclosed liabilities

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 8

(ii) Reply to issue (iv)

* This includes Rs 23.46 Crs approved by Hon’ble Commission towards

(iii) Reply to issue (v)

(iv) Reply to issue (vi)

(v) Reply to issue (vii)

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 9

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 10

FY 2015-16 and opening balance of equity as on 1st April’ 2016, as filed by

Table 6: Opening Equity as on 1.04.2016 (` in Crores)

Table 7: Opening and Closing Balance of Loan Filed (` in Crores)

25.1 For a project declared under commercial operation on or after 1.4.2016,

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 11

Explanation.-The premium, if any, raised by the generating company while

25.3 In case of the generating station declared under commercial operation

25.4 In case of the generating station declared under commercial operation

25.5 Any expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred on or after 1.4.2016

Equity as on 1st April’ 2016

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 12

Loan balances as on 1st April’ 2016

M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission Page 13