tripura electricity regulatory commission - terc.nic.in · tripura electricity regulatory...

TRIPURA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Tariff Order:

True-up of FY 2012-13,

Review of ARR of 2013-14

&

Determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement

&

Retail Tariff for FY 2014-15

For

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited

Case No. 1 of 2014

November 22nd, 2014

Tariff Order for TSECL for FY 2014-15

Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page ii

November 2014


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page iii

November 2014

CONTENTS

1 Background and Brief History .................................................................. 20

1.1 Contents of this Order ................................................................................. 20

1.2 Background ................................................................................................. 20

1.3 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) ................................ 20

1.4 Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission ................................................. 21

1.4.1 Functions of the Commission ............................................................... 21

1.4.2 Regulations notified by the Commission ............................................... 22

1.5 Tariff Orders issued by the Commission earlier .......................................... 23

1.6 Admission of current Petition and Public Hearing Process ......................... 24

1.6.1 Admission hearing and admission of the current Petition ..................... 24

1.6.2 Public Hearing process ......................................................................... 25

1.7 Interaction with the Petitioner ...................................................................... 26

1.8 Approach of this Order ................................................................................ 28

1.8.1 Truing-up for FY 2012-13 ..................................................................... 28

1.8.2 Review for FY 2013-14 ......................................................................... 28

1.8.3 ARR and Tariff for FY 2014-15 ............................................................. 29

1.9 State Advisory Committee ........................................................................... 30

2 Summary of true up for FY 2012-13, Review for FY 2013-14 and ARR for

FY 2014-15 .................................................................................................... 31

2.1 True up for FY 2012-13 ............................................................................... 31

2.2 Review of ARR for FY 2013-14 ................................................................... 32

2.3 ARR for FY 2014-15 .................................................................................... 33

2.4 Prayers of TSECL ....................................................................................... 33

3 Objections raised by the objector, TSECL’s response and the

Commission’s views ...................................................................................... 35

4 Truing up for FY 2012-13 ......................................................................... 39


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page iv

November 2014

4.1 Energy Sales ............................................................................................... 39

4.2 Own Generation .......................................................................................... 41

4.3 Power Purchase .......................................................................................... 45

4.4 Transmission and Distribution Loss ............................................................ 47

4.5 Energy Balance ........................................................................................... 52

4.6 Fuel Purchase Cost ..................................................................................... 54

4.7 Power Purchase Cost ................................................................................. 56

4.8 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses ............................................ 59

4.8.1 Employee Expenses ............................................................................. 59

4.8.2 Repair and Maintenance (R&M) expenses ........................................... 60

4.8.3 Administrative and General (A&G) expenses ....................................... 60

4.9 Depreciation ................................................................................................ 62

4.10 Interest and Finance Charges .................................................................. 65

4.11 Interest on Working Capital ...................................................................... 69

4.12 Reasonable Return .................................................................................. 71

4.13 Prior Period Income/Expense .................................................................. 75

4.14 Non Tariff Income .................................................................................... 76

4.15 Truing up of ARR for FY 2012-13 ............................................................ 78

4.16 Revenue from sale of power .................................................................... 79

4.17 Revenue subsidy from Government of Tripura ........................................ 81

4.18 Receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system ................................ 82

4.19 Revenue for FY 2012-13 .......................................................................... 84

4.20 Revenue gap/surplus ............................................................................... 84

5 Review of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2013-14 ....... 86

5.1 Energy Sales ............................................................................................... 86

5.2 Own generation ........................................................................................... 88

5.3 Power Purchase .......................................................................................... 91

5.4 Transmission and Distribution Loss ............................................................ 93

5.5 Energy balance ........................................................................................... 94

5.6 Fuel purchase cost ...................................................................................... 96


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page v

November 2014

5.7 Power purchase cost ................................................................................... 98

5.8 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses .......................................... 101

5.8.1 Employee expenses ........................................................................... 101

5.8.2 Repair and Maintenance (R&M) expenses ......................................... 102

5.8.3 Administrative & General (A&G) expenses ......................................... 102

5.9 Depreciation .............................................................................................. 103

5.10 Interest and Finance Charges ................................................................ 105

5.11 Interest on Working Capital .................................................................... 107

5.12 Reasonable Return ................................................................................ 109

5.13 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................. 112

5.14 ARR for FY 2013-14 .............................................................................. 113

5.15 Revenue from sale of power .................................................................. 114

5.16 Revenue Subsidy from Government of Tripura ...................................... 116

5.17 Receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system .............................. 117

5.18 Revenue for FY 2013-14 ........................................................................ 119

5.19 Revenue gap/surplus ............................................................................. 119

6 Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2014-15 ...................... 121

6.1 Energy Sales ............................................................................................. 121

6.1.1 Petitioner’s approach .......................................................................... 121

6.1.2 Consumer Profile and Connected Load .............................................. 122

6.1.3 Commission’s approach ..................................................................... 123

6.1.4 Category-wise energy sales for previous years .................................. 123

6.2 Detailed analysis of category-wise energy sales ....................................... 124

6.2.1 Approved category-wise energy sales for FY 2014-15 ....................... 130

6.3 Own generation ......................................................................................... 131

6.4 Power Purchase ........................................................................................ 137

6.5 Transmission and Distribution Loss .......................................................... 138

6.6 Energy Balance ......................................................................................... 140

6.7 Fuel purchase cost .................................................................................... 142

6.8 Power purchase cost ................................................................................. 144


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page vi

November 2014

6.9 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses .......................................... 148

6.9.1 Employee expenses ........................................................................... 149

6.9.2 Repair & Maintenance (R&M) expenses............................................. 150

6.9.3 Administrative and General (A&G) expenses ..................................... 150

6.10 Depreciation ........................................................................................... 152

6.11 Interest and Finance Charges ................................................................ 154

6.12 Interest on Working Capital .................................................................... 157

6.13 Reasonable Return ................................................................................ 159

6.14 Non-Tariff Income .................................................................................. 161

6.15 ARR for FY 2014-15 .............................................................................. 162

6.16 Revenue from sale of power .................................................................. 162

6.17 Revenue Subsidy from Government of Tripura ...................................... 165

6.18 Revenue gap/surplus for FY 2014-15 .................................................... 165

6.19 Consolidated revenue gap/surplus......................................................... 166

7 Compliance to Directives of the Commission ......................................... 170

7.1 Adherence to the past directives ............................................................... 170

7.2 Fresh directives ......................................................................................... 178

8 Tariff Principles and design .................................................................... 181

8.1 Tariff principles .......................................................................................... 181

8.2 Proposal of TSECL for revised tariff .......................................................... 183

8.3 Tariff approved by the Commission ........................................................... 186

8.3.1 Existing Tariff Rates ........................................................................... 186

8.3.2 Approved Tariff Rates ......................................................................... 189

8.4 Approved miscellaneous and other charges ............................................. 199

Annexure I: Approved Tariff Schedule for FY 2014-15 ................................ 205

Annexure II: Tariff Schedule for FY 2014-15 after considering Government

Subsidy ........................................................................................................ 207

Appendix 1: Number of consumers from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15(P) ..... 210

Appendix 2: Connected load from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 (P) .............. 212

Appendix 3: Sales from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 (P) .............................. 214


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page vii

November 2014

TABLES

Table 1-1: List of consumers who filed objections/suggestions in writing on the ARR

and Tariff Petition of TSECL ..................................................................................... 25

Table 1-2: List of Correspondence between the Commission and TSECL............... 27

Table 2-1: ARR for FY 2012-13 approved in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013

and claimed by TSECL in truing up for FY 2012-13 ................................................. 31

Table 2-2: ARR for FY 2013-14 approved in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013

and claimed by TSECL in Review of FY 2013-14 .................................................... 32

Table 2-3: ARR for FY 2014-15 proposed by TSECL............................................... 33

Table 4-1: Category wise intra-State sales submitted by TSECL for FY 2012-13 .... 39

Table 4-2: Category wise intra-State sales submitted by TSECL for FY 2012-13

(revised submission) ................................................................................................ 40

Table 4-3: Approved category-wise intra-State energy sales for FY 2012-13 .......... 41

Table 4-4: Plant-wise own generation submitted by TSECL for truing up of FY 2012-

13 ............................................................................................................................. 42

Table 4-5: Approved generation from TSECL’s own generating stations for FY 2012-

13 ............................................................................................................................. 44

Table 4-6: Allocation of power from CGS to TSECL ................................................ 45

Table 4-7: Actual Power Purchase for FY 2012-13 .................................................. 46

Table 4-8: Approved Power Purchase for FY 2012-13 ............................................. 47

Table 4-9: T&D loss of TSECL in previous years ..................................................... 47

Table 4-10: LT:HT ratio vis-à-vis T&D loss of TSECL .............................................. 49

Table 4-11: Kutir Jyoti and Domestic category sales as % of total intra-State sales

vis-à-vis T&D loss of TSECL .................................................................................... 50

Table 4-12: Approved T&D loss for FY 2012-13 ...................................................... 52

Table 4-13: Energy Balance for FY 2012-13 submitted by TSECL .......................... 52

Table 4-14: Approved energy balance for FY 2012-13 ............................................ 53

Table 4-15: Fuel purchase cost submitted by TSECL for truing up of FY 2012-13 .. 54

Table 4-16: Approved fuel purchase cost for FY 2012-13 ........................................ 55

Table 4-17: Power Purchase Cost as submitted by TSECL for truing up for FY 2012-

13 ............................................................................................................................. 57


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page viii

November 2014

Table 4-18: Approved Power Purchase Cost for FY 2012-13 .................................. 58

Table 4-19: O&M expenses claimed in the truing-up for FY 2012-13 ....................... 59

Table 4-20: O&M expenses approved for FY 2012-13 ............................................. 61

Table 4-21: Depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13 ...... 62

Table 4-22: Net Depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13 63

Table 4-23: Source wise loan submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

................................................................................................................................. 67

Table 4-24: Interest on Loan submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

................................................................................................................................. 67

Table 4-25: Interest and Finance Charges submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of

FY 2012-13 .............................................................................................................. 68

Table 4-26: Interest and Finance Charges approved for truing up of FY 2012-13 ... 68

Table 4-27: Norms for Interest on Working Capital submitted by the Petitioner for

truing up of FY 2012-13 ............................................................................................ 69

Table 4-28: Percentage break up of Gross Fixed Assets for G, T and D as submitted

by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13 ............................................................ 70

Table 4-29: Interest on Working Capital as submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of

FY 2012-13 .............................................................................................................. 70

Table 4-30: Interest on working capital approved for FY 2012-13 ............................ 71

Table 4-31: Reasonable Return submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-

13 ............................................................................................................................. 72

Table 4-32: Reasonable Return approved by the Commission for truing up of FY

2012-13 .................................................................................................................... 74

Table 4-33: Prior Period Income for FY 2012-13 as submitted by the Petitioner ...... 75

Table 4-34: Prior period income/expenses approved for FY 2012-13 ...................... 76

Table 4-35: Non Tariff Income as submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY

2012-13 .................................................................................................................... 77

Table 4-36: Non-tariff income approved for FY 2012-13 .......................................... 78

Table 4-37: Approved ARR for FY 2012-13 ............................................................. 78

Table 4-38: Revenue from sale of power for FY 2012-13 as submitted by TSECL .. 79

Table 4-39: Approved revenue from sale of power for FY 2012-13 .......................... 81

Table 4-40: Approved revenue subsidy from Government of Tripura ....................... 81


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page ix

November 2014

Table 4-41: Energy not sold or lost in the system for FY 2012-13 ............................ 82

Table 4-42: Approved receivables for the energy not sold or lost in the system for FY

2012-13 .................................................................................................................... 83

Table 4-43: Approved total revenue for FY 2012-13 ................................................ 84

Table 4-44: Approved revenue gap/surplus for FY 2012-13 ..................................... 85

Table 5-1: Category wise intra-State energy sales for FY 2013-14 as submitted by

TSECL ...................................................................................................................... 86

Table 5-2: Approved category-wise intra-State energy sales for FY 2013-14 .......... 87

Table 5-3: Own generation for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner .............. 88

Table 5-4: Approved own generation for FY 2013-14 .............................................. 90

Table 5-5: Power Purchase for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner ............. 91

Table 5-6: Approved Power Purchase for FY 2013-14 ............................................. 92

Table 5-7: Approved T&D loss for FY 2013-14 ........................................................ 94

Table 5-8: Energy Balance for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL ....................... 94

Table 5-9: Approved energy balance for FY 2013-14 .............................................. 95

Table 5-10: Fuel cost submitted by TSECL for FY 2013-14 ..................................... 96

Table 5-11: Actual fuel cost for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL ...................... 97

Table 5-12: Fuel purchase cost approved for FY 2013-14 ....................................... 98

Table 5-13: Actual power purchase cost for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL ... 98

Table 5-14: Actual Transmission Charges and RLDC charges for FY 2013-14 as

submitted by TSECL ................................................................................................ 99

Table 5-15: Approved power purchase cost for FY 2013-14 .................................. 100

Table 5-16: O&M expenses for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner ........... 101

Table 5-17: O&M expenses approved for FY 2013-14 ........................................... 103

Table 5-18: Depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore) .... 104

Table 5-19: Revised computation of depreciation for FY 2013-14 as submitted by

TSECL .................................................................................................................... 104

Table 5-20: Depreciation approved for FY 2013-14 ............................................... 105

Table 5-21: Opening loans for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL ...................... 106

Table 5-22: Interest and finance charges for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL 106

Table 5-23: Interest and Finance Charges approved for FY 2013-14 .................... 107


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page x

November 2014

Table 5-24: Interest on Working Capital as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-

14 ........................................................................................................................... 108

Table 5-25: Interest on working capital approved for FY 2013-14 .......................... 109

Table 5-26: Reasonable Return submitted by the Petitioner for review of FY 2013-14

............................................................................................................................... 110

Table 5-27: Reasonable Return approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 ..... 111

Table 5-28: Non Tariff Income submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14............ 112

Table 5-29: Non Tariff Income submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-

13 ........................................................................................................................... 113

Table 5-30: Approved ARR for FY 2013-14 ........................................................... 113

Table: 5-31: Revenue from sale of power for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL 114

Table 5-32: Approved revenue from sale of power for FY 2013-14 ........................ 116

Table 5-33: Approved revenue subsidy from Government of Tripura ..................... 117

Table 5-34: Energy not sold or lost in the system for FY 2012-13 .......................... 117

Table 5-35: Approved receivable for the energy not sold or lost in the system for FY

2013-14 .................................................................................................................. 118

Table 5-36: Approved total revenue for FY 2013-14 .............................................. 119

Table 5-37: Approved revenue gap/surplus for FY 2013-14 ................................... 119

Table 6-1: Energy Sales projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15 (MU) ...................... 121

Table 6-2: Category-wise number of consumers as submitted by TSECL ............. 122

Table 6-3: Consumer category-wise connected load as submitted by TSECL ....... 123

Table 6-4: Actual category-wise sales for TSECL in previous years ...................... 124

Table 6-5: Consumer category wise approved energy sales for FY 2014-15 ......... 130

Table 6-6: Installed capacity, COD and current status of TSECL’s generating stations

as submitted by TSECL .......................................................................................... 132

Table 6-7: Own generation projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15 ........................... 133

Table 6-8: Gross generation approved for FY 2014-15 .......................................... 135

Table 6-9: Power purchase in FY 2014-15 as projected by TSECL ....................... 137

Table 6-10: Approved power purchase for FY 2014-15 ......................................... 138

Table 6-11: Approved T&D loss for FY 2014-15 .................................................... 139

Table 6-12: Energy Balance for FY 2014-15 as submitted by TSECL ................... 140


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page xi

November 2014

Table 6-13: Revised Energy Balance for FY 2014-15 as submitted by TSECL ...... 141

Table 6-14: Approved Energy Balance for FY 2014-15 .......................................... 142

Table 6-15: Fuel cost projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15 .................................... 143

Table 6-16: Approved fuel purchase cost for FY 2014-15 ...................................... 144

Table 6-17: Power purchase cost for FY 2014-15 as projected by TSECL ............ 145

Table 6-18: Transmission and RLDC charges for FY 2014-15 ............................... 146

Table 6-19: Approved power purchase cost for FY 2014-15 .................................. 147

Table 6-20: O&M expenses for FY 2014-15 projected by the Petitioner ................ 148

Table 6-21: Employee expenses approved for FY 2014-15 ................................... 149

Table 6-22: R&M expenses approved for FY 2014-15 ........................................... 150

Table 6-23: A&G expenses approved for FY 2014-15 ........................................... 151

Table 6-24: Approved O&M expenses for FY 2014-15 .......................................... 151

Table 6-25: Depreciation for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner in the

Petition ................................................................................................................... 152

Table 6-26: Revised computation of Depreciation for FY 2014-15 as submitted by

TSECL .................................................................................................................... 153

Table 6-27: Depreciation approved for FY 2014-15 ............................................... 154

Table 6-28: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the

Petitioner ................................................................................................................ 154

Table 6-29: Interest and Finance Charges approved for FY 2014-15 .................... 157

Table 6-30: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the

Petitioner ................................................................................................................ 158

Table 6-31: Interest on working capital approved for FY 2014-15 .......................... 159

Table 6-32: Reasonable Return as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 .... 159

Table 6-33: Reasonable Return approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 ..... 160

Table 6-34: Non Tariff Income as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 ....... 161

Table 6-35: Non Tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 ........ 161

Table 6-36: Approved ARR for FY 2014-15 ........................................................... 162

Table 6-37: Revenue from sale of power for FY 2014-15 based on submissions of

TSECL .................................................................................................................... 163

Table 6-38: Approved revenue from sale of power in FY 2014-15 at existing tariff 165


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page xii

November 2014

Table 6-39: Approved revenue gap/surplus for FY 2014-15 ................................... 165

Table 6-40: Consolidated revenue gap submitted by TSECL in Petition ................ 166

Tabe 6-41: Consolidated Gap/(Surplus) based on the submission of the Petitioner

............................................................................................................................... 167

Table 6-42: Approved consolidated revenue gap for FY 2014-15 .......................... 169

Table 8-1: Category wise tariffs proposed by TSECL............................................. 183

Table 8-2: Tariff proposed by TSECL for proposed new tariff category of Bulk

Domestic consumers .............................................................................................. 186

Table 8-3: Existing tariff rates ................................................................................. 186

Table 8-4: Approved miscellaneous and other charges for FY 2014-15 ................ 200


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page xiii

November 2014

ABBREVIATIONS

A&G Administrative and General

Act Electricity Act, 2003

AGBPP Assam Gas Based Power Plant

AGTPP Agartala Gas Turbine Power Plant

APTEL Appellate Tribunal for Electricity

ARR Aggregate Revenue Requirement

AT&C Aggregate Technical and Commercial

BGTPP Baramura Gas Thermal Power Plant

BPL Below Poverty Line

CAG Comptroller and Auditor General

CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate

Capex Capital Expenditure

CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

CGS Central Generating Stations

Ckt. Km Circuit Kilometre

CPI Consumer Price Index

Cr. Crore

CWIP Capital Works in Progress

DHEP Doyang Hydro-Electric Project

DPR Detailed Project Report

FPPCA Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment

FY Financial Year

GAIL Gas Authority of India Limited

GFA Gross Fixed Assets

GHEP Gumti Hydro-Electric Project

GoT Government of Tripura

HEP Hydro-Electric Project

HSD High Speed Diesel

HT High Tension

IEX Indian Energy Exchange


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page xiv

November 2014

kcal kilo calorie

kV kilo Volt

LT Low Tension

MMSCM Million Metric Standard Cubic Metre

MoP Ministry of Power

MU Million Units

MW Mega Watt

NEEPCO North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited

NEP National Electricity Policy

NER North Eastern Region

NHPC National Hydro Power Corporation Limited

NTI Non-tariff Income

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ONGC Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

OTPC ONGC Tripura Power Company

PFC Power Finance Corporation

PGCIL PowerGrid Corporation of India Limited

PLF Plant Load Factor

PLR Prime Lending Rate

POSOCO Power System Operation Corporation Limited

R&M Repair and Maintenance

R-APDRP Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme

REC Rural Electrification Corporation

RGGVY Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana

RGTPP Rokhia Gas Thermal Power Plant

RHEP Ranganadi Hydro-Electric Project

RLDC Regional Load Dispatch Centre

Rs. Rupees

SBI State Bank of India

SCM Standard Cubic Metre


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission Page xv

November 2014

SLM Straight Line Method

T&D Transmission and Distribution

TERC Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission

TP Tariff Policy

TPP Thermal Power Plant

TSECL Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited

WPI Wholesale Price Index

TRIPURA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT

AGARTALA

No. F. 24/TERC/382 Dated: November 22nd, 2014

Case No.: 1/2014

Before the Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission

Bidyut Bhawan, Banamalipur, Bhutoria,

Agartala – 799001 (Tripura)

In the matter of……………….

Determination of ARR (Aggregate Revenue Requirement) and Truing up of ARR

w.e.f FY 2012-13 and tariff determination for FY 2014-15 as admissible under

TERC Regulations No. F.17/TERC/04 dated 11.01.2005, read with Chapter IV

(Tariff) of TERC Regulations No. F.17/TERC/2004/34 dated 11.01.2005 for supply

of electricity in the State of Tripura by the Tripura State Electricity Corporation

Limited (TSECL)

by

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) …………………

Petitioner

Bidyut Bhawan, North Banamalipur,

Agartala, Tripura, 799001


Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission

November 2014

O R D E R

The Commission, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 62(1) (d) read

with Section 64(3) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and TERC Tariff Regulations,

2004, and all other powers conferred on the Tripura Electricity Regulatory

Commission after thorough examination of the Petition submitted by the Petitioner

(TSECL) and all documents and records as submitted and all oral and written

submissions made by the Petitioner during Public Hearing and all objections

submitted by the objectors, replies thereof from the Petitioner, and other

submissions made by the representatives presented and in consultation with the

State Advisory Committee or otherwise information received and after due

consideration of the consumers' interest and sustainability of the Licensee, the

Commission passes the Tariff Order and directives as detailed in the respective

Chapters and hereafter. The Tariff Order will be effective from November 1st, 2014

and remain valid until issuance of further Tariff Order.

1. TSECL shall submit the progress report within three months of issuance of this

Order showing present voltage-wise metering status of its network and

progress of TSECL in the direction of achieving metering of voltage-wise

distribution loss of its network.

2. TSECL shall submit the Petition for finalisation of tariff for sale to Manipur and

Mizoram before the Commission within two months of issuance of this Order.

3. TSECL shall submit complete Statement of Accounts duly audited by statutory

auditor (CAG) for all the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 within three

months of issuance of this Order.

4. TSECL shall submit function-wise (Generation, Transmission and Distribution)

fixed assets and depreciation registers including asset-wise classification duly

audited within three months of issuance of this Order before the Commission.

5. TSECL shall submit report on upgradation of its billing system within two

months of issuance of this Order, wherein, TSECL should include the time-line

for completion of the compete Management Information System.

6. Within one month of issuance of this Tariff Order, TSECL shall submit the

latest status of arrears pending to be collected.

7. Within three months of issuance of this Order, TSECL shall submit a detailed

action plan and roadmap for reducing the T&D loss of its network.



November 2014

8. TSECL shall prepare and submit its Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2015-16

within three months of issuance of this Order.

9. Within two months of issuance of this Order, TSECL shall submit the AT&C

loss figures for all the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 duly audited by

the Statutory Auditors.

10. By March 31st, 2015, TSECL shall submit a report on its roadmap for

unbundling of the Corporation.

11. Within four months of issuance of this Order, TSECL shall submit the Petition

for final truing up for all the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2012-13 based on

the annual accounts of these years duly audited by Statutory Auditors (CAG).

12. TSECL is directed to submit within two months of issuance of this Order, a

report on status of metering of consumers and roadmap for achieveing 100%

consumer metering in the State of Tripura.

13. TSECL shall conduct an internal audit of its offices at different places and

submit the report of the same to the Commission by June 30th, 2015.

14. TSECL shall conduct an internal commercial audit of its generation,

transmission and distribution fuctions and submit the report of the same to the

Commission by June 30th, 2015.

15. The Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2014-15 for Tripura State

Electricity Corporation Limited is approved as Rs. 754.26 crore. Approved

ARR for FY 2012-13 after provisional truing up is Rs. 461.55 crore and

approved ARR in review of FY 2013-14 is Rs. 558.34 crore. The approved

revenue gap for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 are Rs. 75.29 crore and Rs.

19.49 crore, respectively. The revenue surplus for FY 2014-15 is Rs. 15.65

crore. Further, the Commission had approved the revenue gap of Rs. 53.08

crore for FY 2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order. In view of the above, the

approved consolidated revenue gap for FY 2014-15, after adjusting the

revenue gaps for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 is Rs. 26.05 crore. The

approved revenue from intra-State sales for FY 2014-15 at existing tariff of FY

2013-14 is Rs. 483.48 crore. Accordingly, the Commission approves 5.39%

increase in the retail supply tariffs for FY 2014-15. Further, the Government of

Tripura had provided subsidy in FY 2013-14, and hence, the subsidized tariff

rates approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order were applicable



November 2014

to the consumers of the State in FY 2013-14. The revenue at subsidized rates

of FY 2013-14 amounts to Rs. 443.48 crore. The non-subsidised tariffs

approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 amounts to average increase of

0.84 Rs./kWh (i.e. average approximate 15%) over the subsidized tariffs of FY

2013-14. In ‘Annexure II’ of this this Tariff Order, the Commission has

indicated category wise non-subsidized and subsidized tariff rates for FY 2014-

15. The subsidized tariffs of FY 2014-15 amounts to average increase of 0.33

Rs./kWh over subsidized tariff rates of FY 2013-14.

The Tariff Schedule for various consumer categories/slabs and terms and

conditions are elaborated in Chapter 8 of the Tariff Order. The tariff will be

effective from November 1st, 2014 and will remain valid until issuance of further

Tariff Order. The Tariff Schedule applicable for FY 2014-15 is enclosed as

“Annexure I” to this Tariff Order.

This disposes off Case no. 1 / 2014.

Sd/-

N. Chakraborty

(Chairman, TERC)



November 2014

1 Background and Brief History

1.1 Contents of this Order

This Tariff Order is divided into eight chapters, as under:

1) The First Chapter (this Chapter) provides a background of the Petitioner, the

Petition, public hearing process, and the approach adopted for this Order.

2) The Second Chapter contains a summary of TSECL’s Petition for Truing-up

of FY 2012-13, Review of FY 2013-14, and determination of ARR and Tariff for

FY 2014-15.

3) The Third Chapter provides a brief account of the public hearing process,

including the objections raised by the stakeholder, TSECL’s response, and the

Commission’s views on the same.

4) The Fourth Chapter deals with the Truing up of ARR of FY 2012-13.

5) The Fifth Chapter deals with the Review of ARR of FY 2013-14.

6) The Sixth Chapter deals with determination of ARR for FY 2014-15.

7) The Seventh Chapter deals with the directives issued by the Commission in

previous Tariff Order and their compliance by the Petitioner.

8) The Eighth Chapter details the Tariff Philosophy and Tariff approved by the

Commission with analysis and annotations.

1.2 Background

The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as

‘TSECL’ or the ‘Petitioner’ or the ‘Utility’) filed its Petition on July 23rd, 2014, as per

Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the Tripura Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Tariff Regulations, 2004), Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Tariff Procedure) Regulations, 2004 and Tripura Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004, for the truing up of FY

2012-13 based on the provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13, Review of

Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2013-14 based on the provisional

annual accounts for FY 2013-14, and ARR and determination of Tariff for FY

2014-15. The Petitioner submitted its revised data for the Petition on August 12th,

2014.

1.3 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL)

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) has been incorporated and

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on June 9th, 2004 in compliance with



November 2014

the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the Ministry of Power,

Government of India and Government of Tripura on August 28th, 2003. TSECL

has started its operations from January 1st, 2005 with the operational control of all

the assets related to Generation, Transmission, Distribution functions and its allied

activities in the State of Tripura.

1.4 Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission

The Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TERC”

or “Commission”) was created under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred

to as “Act”) vide the Government Notification No.F.1(17)/ Commr/Power/2003(P-1)

dated April 24th, 2004. The notification came in the Government of Tripura’s

Gazette (Extra–ordinary) on May 26th, 2004. Accordingly, the Tripura Electricity

Regulatory Commission was established on May 31st, 2004 as a statutory body

and as a one-person Commission under the Act. The Commission, a quasi-judicial

body, started functioning from the month of May, 2004 as the State Electricity

Regulatory Commission in Tripura with the responsibilities to discharge

multifarious functions defined in the Electricity Act, 2003.

1.4.1 Functions of the Commission

As per Section 86 of the Act, the main functions of the Commission are as follows:

1. Determination of tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of

electricity, wholesale ,bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State;

2. Regulate electricity purchase and procurement process of distribution

licensees including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the

generation companies or licensees or from other sources through power

purchase agreements for supply of power within the State;

3. Facilitate intra–State transmission and wheeling of electricity;

4. Issuance of licenses to persons seeking to act as transmission licensees,

distribution licensees and electricity traders with respect their operations within

the State;

5. Promote co-generation and generation of electricity from renewable source of

energy by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of

electricity to any person, and also specify, for purchase of electricity from such

sources, a percentage of the total consumption of electricity in the area of a

distribution licensee;

6. Adjudication upon the disputes between the licensees and generating

companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration;

7. Levying fees for the purposes of the Electricity Act, 2003;

8. Determination of specification of State Grid Code;



November 2014

9. Enforcement of standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of

service by Licensees;

10. Fixation of the trading margin in the intra-State trading of Electricity, if

considered necessary;

11. Discharge of other functions as may be assigned to it under the Act;

12. Advice the State Government on all or any of the following matters, such as:

Promotion of competition, efficiency and economy in activities of the

electricity industry in the State;

Promotion of investment in the electricity industry;

Re-organization and restructuring of the electricity industry in the State;

Matters concerning generation, transmission, distribution and trading of

electricity or any other matter referred to the State Commission by the

State Government;

Maintaining transparency and being guided by the National Electricity

Policy (NEP), National Electricity Plan and Tariff Policy (TP).

1.4.2 Regulations notified by the Commission

To discharge its functions as given in Section 86 of the Act, the Commission has

notified the following Regulations:

1. Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2011

2. Miscellaneous provisions relating to Petitions Fees Regulations, 2011

3. Fuel and Power Purchase Price Adjustment Formula Regulations, 2011

4. State Electricity Grid Code Regulations, 2010

5. Terms and Condition of Open Access Regulations, 2010

6. Renewable Purchase Obligation and its compliance Regulations, 2009

7. Demand Side Management Regulations, 2010

8. Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources Regulations, 2010

9. Compliance Audit Regulations, 2010

10. Conduct of Business Regulations, 2004

11. Standard of Performance Regulations, 2004

12. Regulations for Tariff Procedure, 2004

13. Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2004

14. Tariff Procedure Regulations, 2004

15. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Appointment of Ombudsman

Regulations, 2005

16. Grant of Licensing and Terms and Conditions of Licence Regulations, 2005

17. Terms and Conditions of Consultants Regulations, 2005

18. Miscellaneous Provisions relating to Petitions Fees Regulations, 2005

19. Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations, 2005



November 2014

20. Regulation on Co-Generation and Generation of Electricity from Renewable

Source of Energy, Regulations, 2009

1.5 Tariff Orders issued by the Commission earlier

The chronology of the filing of the Tariff Petitions and issuance of the Tariff Orders

from FY 2005- 06, are listed below:

1. TSECL filed its first Tariff Petition for FY 2005-06 in accordance with the Tariff

Regulations, 2004. The Commission, in exercise of the powers vested under

Sections 61, 62 and 64 of the Act carried out a detailed review of the Petition

and issued its first Tariff Order on June 24th, 2005.

2. TSECL filed its second Tariff Petition for FY 2006-07 on August 4th, 2006 in

accordance with Section 62 of the Act and Tariff Regulations, 2004. The

Commission, in exercise of the powers vested under Sections 61, 62 and 64 of

the Act issued its second Tariff Order on September 14th, 2006.

3. In FY 2010-11, TSECL submitted a Petition for Fuel & Power Purchase Cost

Adjustment (FPPCA) for approval of adjustment of cost against increase of fuel

(gas) cost for its own generating stations, namely, Rokhia Gas Thermal Power

Plant (RGTPP) and Baramura Gas Thermal Power Plant (BGTPP), and cost

incurred for procurement of power from the Central Generating Stations

(CGS). The Commission, after due examination of the Petition and considering

all the aspects of this matter, issued the FPPCA Order on September 13th,

2010. The Commission subsequently issued the amendment to the Order on

September 22nd, 2010 after allowing subsidy to some categories of

consumers, wherein the Commission allowed Rs. 1.40/unit as FPPCA charge.

4. TSECL did not file any ARR and Tariff Petition from FY 2007-08 to FY 2011-12

despite several reminders from time to time by the Commission. Non-

finalization of the Annual Accounts from FY 2007-08 to FY 2011-12 was the

main reason for non-submission of the Tariff Petitions. Therefore, the actual

financial health of the Petitioner could not be judged prior to FY 2011-12.

5. Subsequently, after a hiatus of 6 years from the issuance of the second Tariff

Order of the Commission, the Petitioner filed its third ARR and Tariff Petition

on January 20th, 2012 (Case No. 01 of 2012) for approval of ARR and tariff for

FY 2012-13 along with the Truing-up of ARR for the period from FY 2007-08 to

FY 2010-11. As highlighted above, in absence of the audited Annual Accounts

for FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07, the truing-up exercise could not be completed

previously. The Commission, according to Clause 3 of the Tariff Regulations,



November 2014

2004 and Regulation 25(1) of the TERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations,

2004, also undertook the suo-motu proceedings for truing-up of FY 2005-06

and FY 2006-07 and included the same in the tariff proceedings for FY 2012-

13. On March 28th, 2012, the Commission issued the third Tariff Order for

TSECL, approving the ARR and tariff for FY 2012-13 along with truing up for

the period from FY 2005-06 to FY 2010-11.

6. The Petitioner filed its fourth ARR and tariff Petition on March 15th, 2013, for

approval of ARR and tariff for FY 2013-14 along with the truing-up of the ARR

of FY 2011-12 and Review of ARR for FY 2012-13. The Commission, in

exercise of the powers vested under Sections 61, 62 and 64 of the Act and all

other powers enabling it in this regard and after taking into consideration the

submissions made by TSECL, the objections by various stakeholders,

response of TSECL, issues raised during the Public Hearing and all other

relevant material, issued the fourth Tariff Order for TSECL on June 25th, 2013.

1.6 Admission of current Petition and Public Hearing Process

1.6.1 Admission hearing and admission of the current Petition

TSECL submitted the Petition for Truing up for FY 2012-13, Review of ARR of FY

2013-14 and determination of the ARR and Tariff for FY 2014-15 on July 23rd,

2014. On preliminary scrutiny of the Petition, the Commission observed several

discrepancies and gaps in the Petition filed by TSECL. The Commission observed

that as per the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004 and TERC Tariff Procedure

Regulations, 2004, significant data and information that is important to process the

Tariff Petition was not submitted by the Petitioner. Hence, the Commission sent

preliminary data gaps to TSECL on July 31st, 2014, citing several discrepancies

and gaps in the Petition and supporting information. The Commission directed the

Petitioner to revise its data in the Petition in accordance with the TERC Tariff

Regulations, 2004. Meanwhile a preliminary Admission Hearing was held on

August 8th, 2014, wherein the Commission did not admit the Petition of TSECL in

view of several discrepancies and gaps in the Petition and absence of important

information supporting the Petition as mentioned above. Subsequently, the

Petitioner submitted revised data for Petition on August 12th, 2014 along with

revised revenue gap and the retail Tariff Proposal for FY 2014-15.

On verification of the revised data, the Commission found that there still remained

some gaps. Further, the Petitioner was also unable to produce all the supporting

documents along with the Petition as required by the Commission. In view of the

same, the Commission sent additional data gaps vide letter dated August 23rd,

2014, wherein the Commission mentioned the incompleteness in the Petition and



November 2014

absence of necessary supporting documents. The Commission directed the

Petitioner to remove such incompleteness and discrepancies and submit all

supporting documents. However, the Petitioner was unable to submit the

complete information sought by the Commission in the additional data gaps.

Meanwhile, the Commission felt that there was already a delay of several months

in the procedure of determination of Tariff for FY 2014-15, and any further delay in

the tariff determination should not be permitted. In view of the same, the

Commission scheduled the Admission Hearing on September 5th, 2014, wherein

the Commission provisionally admitted the ARR and Tariff Petition of TSECL as

Case No. 1 of 2014, subject to the condition that if the Petitioner does not submit

all the information already sought within two weeks, then this provisional

admission of the Petition will be treated as final admission and the information as

required will be considered on lower side on the basis of data of previous years.

1.6.2 Public Hearing process

After admission of the ARR and Tariff Petition, the Commission, in accordance

with Section 64 of the Act and Clause 10 of the TERC (Tariff Procedure)

Regulations, 2004, directed TSECL to publish its Tariff Petition in abridged form in

the newspapers and on their website. Accordingly, the abridged form of the

Petition was published on September 9th, 2014 and September 10th, 2014 in the

leading newspapers in Tripura. The Petitioner also posted the public notice and

the Petition for truing up for FY 2012-13, review of FY 2013-14 and determination

of ARR and Tariff for FY 2014-15 on their website (www.tsecl.com). The

publication invited the attention of all interested parties, stakeholders including

members of the public for their objections/suggestions on the said Petition of

TSECL on or before October 5th, 2014.

The following stakeholder filed his objections on the Petition of TSECL:

Table 1-1: List of consumers who filed objections/suggestions in writing on the ARR and Tariff Petition of TSECL

Sl. No. Name and Address

1. Professor Mihir Kanti Deb, North UCO Bank, TRTC Branch, Thakur Pally Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala.

The Commission examined the objections received from the objector and fixed the

date for public hearing as October 20th, 2014. The Commission invited the

objector to take part in the Public Hearing process and present his views in person



November 2014

before the Commission. The Commission, subsequently published the Notice for

Public Hearing in the following newspapers on October 14th, 2014:

Dainik Sambad (Bengali)

Dainik Desher Katha (Bengali)

Tripura Darpan (Bengali)

Syandan Patrika Syandan (Bengali)

Triputa Times (English)

The public hearing was conducted at the Commission’s office in Agartala at the

following address on October 20th, 2014:

Bidyut Bhawan,

North Banamalipur,

Agartala, Tripura - 799001

In the Public Hearing, no objector appeared to submit his objections/suggestions

in person. The objections and suggestions received from the sole objector on the

ARR and Tariff Petition of TSECL have been dealt separately in Chapter 3.

1.7 Interaction with the Petitioner

As mentioned earlier, the Petitioner submitted its Petition on July 23rd, 2014, and

submitted the revised data for the Petition on August 12th, 2014. The Commission

conducted detailed scrutiny of the Petition and observed several deficiencies in

the same.

Accordingly, letters were issued to the Petitioner from time to time detailing the

deficiencies and gaps in the Petition and directing TSECL to remove the

deficiencies and submit additional information/clarifications. The Petitioner

submitted its replies to the queries of the Commission from time to time. The

Commission interacted regularly with the Petitioner to seek clarifications and

justifications on various issues essential for the analysis of the Petition. The

Commission also conducted technical validation sessions with the Petitioner

during which various issues related to the Tariff Petition were discussed.

Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted replies to the issues raised in these

sessions.

The communication between the Commission and TSECL is summarised in the

following Table:



November 2014

Table 1-2: List of Correspondence between the Commission and TSECL

Sl. No.

Date Issuer Letter No. Subject

1. July 23rd, 2014

TSECL F.AGM/C&SO/TC/101/1820-23

Submission of Petition for truing up for FY 2012-13, review of FY 2013-14 and ARR and Tariff for FY 2014-15. Along with the Petition, TSECL submitted some supporting information including provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13

2. July 26th, 2014

TERC F.24/TERC/09/156-57

The Commission directed TSECL to submit the additional information on the Petition.

3. July 31st, 2014

TERC No.F.24/TERC/09/168-69

The Commission issued preliminary data gaps on the Petition of TSECL dated July 23rd, 2014

4. August 1st, 2013


The Commission directed TSECL to attend the preliminary Admission Hearing to be held on August 8th, 2014

5. August 1st, 2013


The Commission sent reminder to TSECL for submission of replies to additional information and preliminary data gaps sent by the Commission as mentioned earlier.

6. August 12th, 2013

TSECL AGM/C&SO/TC/101/2183-84

TSECL submitted revised data for the Petition, and along with the same, it submitted replies to the additional information asked for by the Commission and preliminary data gaps sent by the Commission as mentioned above. However, the Commission still found deficiencies and incompleteness in the submissions of the Petitioner.

7. August 14th, 2013

TERC F.24/TERC/09/187-90

TERC sent reminder to TSECL for submission of complete additional data.

8. August 23rd, 2013

TERC F.24/TERC/101/228-31

TERC sent additional data gaps on the revised data submitted by TSECL and additional information submitted by



November 2014

Sl. No.

Date Issuer Letter No. Subject

TSECL along with the same.

9. September 2nd, 2013

TERC F.24/TERC/09/241-44

TERC directed TSECL to attend admission hearing to be held on September 5th, 2014.

10. September 3rd, 2013

TSECL e-mail TSECL submitted detailed workings of the computation of ARR and Tariff in MS Excel format. Along with the same, TSECL submitted some of the additional information sought by the Commission as mentioned above.

11. September 18th, 2013

TSECL F.13/70/TSECL/FIN/2014/20133-35

TSECL submitted provisional Annual accounts for FY 2013-14. Along with the same, TSECL also submitted the revised provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13.

1.8 Approach of this Order

1.8.1 Truing-up for FY 2012-13

The Petitioner has submitted the Truing-up Petition for FY 2012-13 based on

provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13. The Petitioner informed the

Commission that the statutory audit of the accounts for FY 2012-13 was under

process and the same would take time to finalize. The Commission observed that

the tariff determination process for FY 2014-15 had already been delayed by

several months and waiting for finalization of the statutory audited accounts for FY

2012-13 would delay the tariff determination process further. In view of the same,

the Commission decided to undertake the Truing-up exercise for FY 2012-13

based on the provisional annual accounts of FY 2012-13 submitted by the

Petitioner and may re-visit the approvals in the Truing-up, when the statutory

audited accounts for FY 2012-13 are available.

1.8.2 Review for FY 2013-14

The Commission started the review of ARR for FY 2013-14 based on the

information furnished by TSECL and prudence check of the same. However,

subsequently, TSECL made available the provisional annual accounts for FY



November 2014

2013-14. Therefore, the review exercise for FY 2013-14 has been conducted

based on the provisional annual accounts of FY 2013-14.

1.8.3 ARR and Tariff for FY 2014-15

Determination of ARR for FY 2014-15 has been based on provisions of the Tariff

Regulations, 2004.

1. Own generation of TSECL has been approved based on the analysis of plant-

wise actual generation in previous years and considering other factors such as

age of the Units of the plants as well as plant specific issues submitted by the

Petitioner.

2. Fuel purchase cost has been approved based on the approved generation and

actual per unit fuel cost of incurred by TSECL in FY 2013-14 and considering

the gas price increase approved by the Government of India from November,

2014.

3. Power purchase cost has been approved based on the power purchase

quantum approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 and the actual power

purchase rate in FY 2013-14. For power purchase from new generating

station, OTPC Palatana, the Commission has approved the power purchase

cost based on the Order of CERC on approval of provisional tariff for the plant.

Further, for the power purchase from gas based thermal power stations,

namely, Assam Gas Based Power Project (AGBPP), Agartala Gas Turbine

Power Plant (AGTPP) and OTPC Palatana, the Commission has computed

energy charges based on the gas price increase approved by the Government

of India from November, 2014. The Transmission and RLDC charges have

been approved considering the point of connection data submitted by the

Petitioner and considering the power purchase quantum approved by the

Commission.

4. Intra-State and inter-State energy sales have been approved based on the

category-wise actual trends of energy sales observed in the previous years.

5. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses have been approved based on

the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) and Consumer Price Index (CPI).

6. In the absence of Fixed Asset and Depreciation Register, Depreciation has

been provisionally approved by the Commission based on the submission of

the Petitioner regarding Gross Fixed Assets and Depreciation.

7. Interest and finance charges have been approved considering the actual

repayment obligation of the Petitioner.

8. Non-tariff income has been approved based on the actual non-tariff income for

FY 2013-14.

9. Other expenses such as reasonable return, interest on working capital have

been approved as per the norms.



November 2014

1.9 State Advisory Committee

The tariff proposal of TSECL was placed before the State Advisory Committee

(SAC) in its meeting held on September 27th, 2014 at the Commission’s Office.

The Committee members were briefed on the Truing-up Petition for FY 2012-13,

Review of FY 2013-14 and ARR and Tariff Proposal for FY 2014-15. The SAC

members also pointed out a few anomalies in the Tariff Schedule and desired that

the Commission should verify all the elements of the ARR before issuing the Tariff

Order for FY 2014-15. All the members raised their apprehensions on enormous

tariff increase required based on the submissions of the Petitioner and requested

the Commission to look into the reasonableness of the same. Thus, the

Commission has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that the due process, as

contemplated under the Act and Regulations framed by the Commission are

followed and adequate opportunity given to all stakeholders in presenting their

views on the Tariff Petition submitted by TSECL.



November 2014

2 Summary of true up for FY 2012-13, Review for FY

2013-14 and ARR for FY 2014-15

2.1 True up for FY 2012-13

The summary of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) approved in the

previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013 and now claimed by TSECL in the

Truing-up for FY 2012-13 is shown in the table below:

Table 2-1: ARR for FY 2012-13 approved in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013 and claimed by TSECL in truing up for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Review Order

for FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission for

truing up of FY

2012-13

Fuel cost 184.61 181.82

Power purchase cost 168.02 173.93

O&M expense 127.59 126.35

Depreciation 24.31 19.85

Interest on working capital 0.00 11.91

Interest and finance charges 0.34 3.21

Reasonable Return 16.52 67.81

Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) 521.39 584.87

Less: non-tariff income 42.01 40.26

Less: prior period income 0.00 0.90

Net Aggregate Revenue Requirement 479.39 543.71

Less: Revenue from sale of power 386.31 316.80

Less: Revenue subsidy from GoT 40.00 40.00

Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 53.08 186.92



November 2014

2.2 Review of ARR for FY 2013-14

The summary of ARR approved for FY 2013-14 in the previous Tariff Order and

now claimed by the Petitioner in Review of ARR for FY 2013-14, is shown in the

table below:

Table 2-2: ARR for FY 2013-14 approved in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013 and claimed by TSECL in Review of FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved in Order

dated 25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission for

review of FY

2013-14

Fuel cost 187.98 176.65


O&M expense 135.25 138.41





Aggregate Revenue Requirement

(ARR) 589.05 594.85


Net Aggregate Revenue

Requirement 547.04 553.65

Revenue from sale of Power 561.03 424.62

Revenue subsidy from GoT - 40.00

Revenue Gap/(Surplus) (13.99) 89.03



November 2014

2.3 ARR for FY 2014-15

The summary of ARR proposed for FY 2014-15 by TSECL is shown in the table

given below:

Table 2-3: ARR for FY 2014-15 proposed by TSECL

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission for

FY 2014-15

Fuel cost 212.20

Power purchase cost 339.80

O&M expense 163.90

Depreciation 22.06

Interest on working capital 12.99

Interest and finance charges 16.02

Reasonable Return 31.14

Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) 798.09

Less: non-tariff income 41.20

Net Aggregate Revenue Requirement 756.89

Revenue from sale of power 707.63

Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 49.26

2.4 Prayers of TSECL

TSECL has prayed to the Commission to:

a) Admit the Petition;

b) Examine the proposal submitted by the Petitioner for a favourable dispensation

as detailed in the Petition;

c) Consider the submissions of the Petitioner and allow the True-up for FY 2012-

13, revised estimate for FY 2013-14 and approve the tariff for FY 2014-15 as

proposed in the Petition;



November 2014

d) Pass suitable Orders for implementation of the tariff proposals for FY 2014-15

for making it applicable from FY 2014-15 onwards;

e) Approve the terms and conditions of tariff and various other matters as

proposed in the Petition and the proposed changes therein;

f) Condone any inadvertent omissions/ errors/ shortcomings and permit TSECL

to add/ change/modify/alter its filing and make further submissions as may be

required at a future date;

g) Pass such Orders as the Commission may deem fit and proper, keeping in

view the facts and circumstances of the case.



November 2014

3 Objections raised by the objector, TSECL’s response

and the Commission’s views

In response to the public notice of TSECL inviting objections/suggestions of the

stakeholders on the Petition, Professor Mihir Kanti Deb filed his objections and

suggestions in writing. The objections /suggestions of the objector, the responses

and submissions of TSECL thereof along with the views of the Commission are

given below. Submissions and responses, pertaining to specific and detailed

aspects of tariff, have been taken into account in the formulation of equitable tariff,

balancing the interests of stakeholders.

Objection 1: Projected Sales

Professor Mihir Deb submitted that TSECL has exaggerated the projected sales

for some categories of consumers such as Domestic category. Based on the data

of number of consumers submitted by TSECL in its Petition, Professor Deb

submitted that despite the number of consumers of TSECL increasing at the rate

of less than 10% annually in last few years, TSECL has assumed growth rate of

25% in sales to Domestic category. Professor Deb further submitted that in view

of the above, the actual sales for FY 2014-15 shall be lesser than the sales

estimation of 855.14 MU submitted by the Petitioner and as a result, the ARR of

TSECL shall be lower than that projected by the Petitioner on account of

requirement of lesser power purchase and own generation.

Response of the Petitioner:

In reply to the aforementioned objection, TSECL submitted that the high growth of

consumers (as compared to the previous years) is due to the following reasons:

a. Rapid addition of consumers due to ongoing rural electrification process.

TSECL is undertaking rural electrification in the State. These capital projects

will cause addition of consumer in large numbers. Considering the combined

effect of normal consumer growth and rural electrification, the higher growth

rate is proposed.

b. Since, the number of consumers is lower, addition of about 20,000 consumers

shows that there is higher growth rate.

c. Sales growth is also in line with consumer growth and additionally it is

assumed that due to more availability of energy, TSECL will be able to supply

for longer duration and hence, the per capita consumption of domestic

consumers will increase.



November 2014

Commission’s view:

Considering the actual rate of growth in number of consumers and sales in

previous years, the Commission agrees with the objector that the energy sales of

855.14 MU projected by the Petitioner is on the higher side.

As regards the contention of the Petitioner that rapid addition of the consumers is

due to rapid ongoing rural electrification process, the Commission observes that

based on the data submitted by TSECL in its Petition, it has completed 92.89% of

rural electrification in the State by FY 2012-13 from 57.20% electrification in FY

2009-10. However, the sales to the domestic category has increased at CAGR of

10% in the last 5 years. Further, from the submission of the Petitioner that it has

already completed 92.89% rural electrification in the State, it implies that there is

limited scope for increase in rural electrification in the future.

Further, as against the Petitioner’s contention regarding the increase in number of

consumers by 20000, the Petitioner has submitted increase of more than 83000

consumers, including increase of more than 71000 Domestic consumers in FY

2014-15 as compared to actual number of consumers in FY 2013-14.

In view of the above, in the Tariff Order, the Commission has estimated sales for

various consumer categories for FY 2014-15 based on the category-wise actual

growth rate in energy sales in previous years. Accordingly, the Commission’s

estimation of energy sales in FY 2014-15 is significantly lower than the projection

of energy sales of FY 2014-15 submitted by TSECL. The impact of the same has

been reflected in the higher energy availability for sale through trading/exchanges.

Objection 2: GoT Subsidy

Professor Mihir Deb submitted that while showing the revenue gap in Table 70

(Page No. 67), TSECL has not shown the subsidy of Government of Tripura (GoT)

of Rs. 40.00 Crore, although the same has been shown in Table 69 (Page No.

67). Professor Deb submitted that inclusion of subsidy of GoT would reduce the

Gap for FY 2014-15 and may also result in surplus.


TSECL submitted that it has clarified the issue of consideration of subsidy as

follows in Para 6.2.1 of the Petition:

“The gap at proposed tariff is calculated by considering the revenue from tariffs

without subsidy. Hence, Govt subsidy for FY 2014-15 is not considered.”

The Petitioner submitted that such submission means that the revenue from

proposed tariff in Table 70 of the Petition includes the Govt. Subsidy if received

from the Govt.



November 2014

Commission’s View:

The Commission observes that for computing revenue gap in Table 69 of the

Petition and resultant increase in tariff, the Petitioner has considered revenue

subsidy of Rs. 40.00 crore from GoT and has accordingly, computed the revenue

for FY 2014-15 at existing tariff at existing subsidized rates. However, to remove

the discrepancies and bring more clarity in the process of tariff determination, the

Commission has determined the gap for FY 2014-15 by considering revenue for

FY 2014-15 at existing tariff by considering non-subsidized existing rates, and

accordingly has not considered subsidy from GoT. In Annexure-II of this Order,

the Commission has mentioned both, subsidised and non-subsidised tariff rates,

for all the consumer categories. Therefore, if revenue subsidy is provided by the

GoT to TSECL, as done in FY 2013-14, the subsidized tariffs shall be applicable

to the consumers.

Objection 3: Billing Cycle

Professor Mihir Kanti Deb submitted that in Para 6.4.1 of the Petition, TSECL has

proposed to spread the billing cycle in 3 quarters of the year. Professor Deb

submitted that if spreading of billing cycle in “3 quarters of the year” means that

bills will be raised once in four months, the consumers will be required to pay four

month’s electricity bills at a time, which will cause real hardship for the consumers.

Professor Deb requested the Commission not to agree to such proposal.


TSECL submitted that it has proposed longer billing cycle in order to complete the

meter reading, billing and distribution cycle of the consumers. This is mainly due

to sparsely populated areas of the State. Longer billing cycle is essential as

TSECL is constrained by resources. Allocating adequate time for billing will

ensure reduction in “average” or “flat” billing cases and consumers will be billed on

actual consumption. Further, it is in the best interest of the utility and the

consumers to have revenue certainty and billing based on actual meter reading.

However, any decision taken by the Commission is acceptable in this regard.

Commission’s view:

The Commission observed that spreading the billing cycle to more than one

month would reduce the effort of TSECL towards billing and collection. However,

such implementation requires digital meters capable of storing the data of month-

wise consumption of the consumers since, in some categories there are different

tariffs for different monthly consumption slabs. The Commission has recognized

that billing of the consumers in the State is still done by analog meters also.

Further, the spreading of the billing cycle to four months will adversely affect the



November 2014

cash flows of TSECL, and will also burden the consumers with combined bills for

four months, which may cause hardship. Hence, TSECL's proposal to spread the

billing cycle over four months is not approved by the Commission.



November 2014

4 Truing up for FY 2012-13

The Commission had approved the Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of

TSECL for FY 2012-13 in the Tariff Order dated March 28th, 2012. The

Commission had reviewed the same in its previous Tariff Order dated June 25th,

2013. The TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004 provide for truing up of all the

parameters of ARR at the end of each year based on the audited accounts and

prudence check by the Commission. Since, the Accounts of TSECL for FY 2012-

13, duly audited by the Statutory Auditors, have not yet been made ready by the

Petitioner, and considering the fact that the tariff proceedings for FY 2014-15 have

already been delayed by several months, the Commission has conducted the

truing up for ARR for FY 2012-13 based on the provisional annual accounts of

TSECL for FY 2012-13.

4.1 Energy Sales

Petitioner’s submissions

The Petitioner has submitted the category-wise actual energy sales for FY 2012-

13, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4-1: Category wise intra-State sales submitted by TSECL for FY 2012-13

(MU)

Consumer Category Energy Sales

Kutir Jyoti 17.62

Domestic 347.86

Commercial 67.18

Industries (LT & HT) 37.99

Bulk Supply 79.18

Tea, coffee & rubber garden 0.67

Public Utility (Water works, Irrigation & Lighting) 132.55

Special Public Utility 0.00

Total Sales (within State) 683.05



November 2014

Vide its submissions dated September 3rd, 2014, the Petitioner submitted more

detailed data of actual category-wise sales for FY 2012-13, as shown below:

Table 4-2: Category wise intra-State sales submitted by TSECL for FY 2012-13 (revised submission)

(MU)


Kutir Jyoti 17.62

Domestic 347.86

Commercial 67.18

Industries (LT & HT) 37.99

Bulk Supply 79.18


Public Water Works 62.41

Public Lighting 31.52

Irrigation and Water 36.40


Total (within State) 683.05

Commission’s analysis

The Commission had approved intra-State energy sales of 697.50 MU for TSECL

for FY 2012-13 in its Review Order dated June 25th, 2013. The actual intra-State

energy sales of TSECL are 683.05 MU, which is marginally lower than the intra-

State energy sales approved in the previous Tariff Order. The Commission

approves the actual intra-State energy sales of 683.05 MU in the truing up for FY

2012-13, as shown below:



November 2014

Table 4-3: Approved category-wise intra-State energy sales for FY 2012-13

(MU)

Category

Approved in

Review Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actual)

Approved in

the truing-up

for FY 2012-13

Kutir Jyoti 16.47 17.62 17.62

Domestic 356.73 347.86 347.86

Commercial 68.60 67.18 67.18

Industrial (LT & HT) 38.79 37.99 37.99

Bulk Supply 87.23 79.18 79.18

Tea, Coffee & rubber garden 0.56 0.67 0.67

Irrigation 37.18 36.40 36.40

Public Water Works 63.73 62.41 62.41

Public Lighting 26.37 31.52 31.52

Special Public Utility 1.84 2.22 2.22

Total intra-State sale 697.50 683.05 683.05

4.2 Own Generation

Petitioner’s submission

TSECL submitted that during FY 2012-13 the plants have performed better than

expectation and TSECL's own generation has been higher than the generation

quantum approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order.

The Petitioner submitted that the actual gross generation, auxiliary consumption

and net generation for FY 2012-13 have been 800.74 MU, 7.89 MU and 792.85

MU, respectively. The data of installed capacity, gross and net generation,

excluding the diesel generating station, submitted by TSECL is as shown in the

Table below:



November 2014

Table 4-4: Plant-wise own generation submitted by TSECL for truing up of FY 2012-13

Particulars Unit Petitioner’s

submission

RGTPP

Installed Capacity MW 74.00

De-rated Capacity MW 74.00

Plant Load Factor % 63.52%*

Gross Generation MU 411.76

Auxiliary Consumption % 1.00%

Auxiliary Consumption MU 4.12

Net Generation MU 407.64

BGTPP








GHEP










November 2014

Particulars Unit Petitioner’s

submission

Total Own Generation



Gross Generation MU 800.74*



Note: *The Petitioner has made some errors in computation of PLF and gross generation, which have been

corrected by the Commission


The Commission observes that the actual energy generation from the Petitioner’s

own generating stations has been higher than the own generation of 751.04 MU

approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013. The net

generation from Rokhia Gas Thermal Power Plant (RGTPP) and Baramura Gas

Thermal Power Plant (BGTPP) was 407.64 MU and 346.73 MU, respectively,

which are higher than the net generation of 378.65 MU and 326.70 MU,

respectively, approved by the Commission for the said plants in the previous Tariff

Order. However, the Generation from the Gumti Hydro Electric Power (GHEP) has

been 38.48 MU, which is lower than 44.39 MU approved by the Commission in the

review for FY 2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order.

Considering the fact that the overall generation of TSECL’s own generating

stations has been significantly higher than the own generation approved by the

Commission in the previous Tariff Order, the Commission approves the actual

generation achieved by TSECL FY 2012-13 for truing up.

The Commission approves the actual gross generation of 800.74 MU, auxiliary

consumption of 7.89 MU and net generation of 792.85 MU, as shown in the

following Table.



November 2014

Table 4-5: Approved generation from TSECL’s own generating stations for FY 2012-13

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actual)

Approved in

truing-up for

FY 2012-13

RGTPP

Installed Capacity MW 74.00 74.00 74.00

De-rated Capacity MW 74.00 74.00 74.00

Plant Load Factor % 59.00% 63.52% 63.52%

Gross Generation MU 382.48 411.76 411.76

Auxiliary Consumption % 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Auxiliary Consumption MU 3.82 4.12 4.12

Net Generation MU 378.65 407.64 407.64

BGTPP








GHEP









November 2014

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actual)

Approved in

truing-up for

FY 2012-13


Total own generation




Auxiliary

Consumption MU 7.44 7.89 7.89


4.3 Power Purchase


TSECL submitted that it had firm allocations of power from Central Generating

Stations of North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) and National

Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) in FY 2012-13. TSECL submitted its allocations

from the Central Generating Stations, as shown in the following Table:

Table 4-6: Allocation of power from CGS to TSECL

Sl.

No.

Name of

Generation Station Ownership

Installed

Capacity

(MW)

Share of

Tripura

(%)

Share of

Tripura

(MW)

1. Loktak Hydro-

Electric Power

Station

NHPC 105.00 11.52% 12.10

2. Khandong HEP NEEPCO 50.00 5.33% 2.67

3. Kopili plus Kopili

Extn HEP NEEPCO 200.00 5.67% 11.34

4. Kopili Stage II NEEPCO 25.00 9.00% 2.25



November 2014

Sl.

No.

Name of

Generation Station Ownership

Installed

Capacity

(MW)

Share of

Tripura

(%)

Share of

Tripura

(MW)

5. Doyang HEP NEEPCO 75.00 6.70% 5.03

6. Ranganadi HEP NEEPCO 405.00 7.16% 29.00

7. Agartala Gas

Turbine Power Plant

(AGTPP)

NEEPCO 84.00 17.00% 14.28

8. Assam Gas Based

Power Plant

(AGBPP)

NEEPCO 291.00 6.55% 19.06

Unallocated 5.30% 10.00

Total 1,235.00 105.41

The Petitioner has submitted the actual gross power purchase quantum of 429.69

MU for FY 2012-13, as shown in the table below:

Table 4-7: Actual Power Purchase for FY 2012-13

(MU)

Source of Power Purchase Power Purchase

in FY 2012-13

NEEPCO 364.29

NHPC 65.40

Total 429.69


In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, the Commission had approved

total power purchase of 423.56 MU from all sources for FY 2012-13. It is observed

that the actual power purchase of TSECL is marginally higher than the power

purchase approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order.



November 2014

The Commission, vide data gaps sent to the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner to

submit the month-wise and station-wise power purchase quantum and cost for FY

2012-13. In its reply to the data gaps sent by the Commission, the Petitioner

submitted the month-wise power purchase quantum for FY 2012-13. Based on the

data of actual power purchase submitted by the Petitioner, the Commission

approves the actual power purchase quantum of 429.69 MU for FY 2012-13, as

shown in the Table below:

Table 4-8: Approved Power Purchase for FY 2012-13

(MU)

Source of

Power Purchase

Approved in

Review Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

truing up for FY

2012-13

NEEPCO 364.29 364.29 364.29

NHPC 59.28 65.40 65.40

Total 423.56 429.69 429.69

The above approval of power purchase quantum is subject to the treatment of

excess Transmission & Distribution (T&D) loss, as elaborated in the next section.

4.4 Transmission and Distribution Loss


TSECL submitted the actual T&D loss for FY 2012-13 as 32.85% and proposed

the same for truing up for FY 2012-13. The Petitioner submitted the data of actual

T&D loss for previous years, as given below:

Table 4-9: T&D loss of TSECL in previous years

Year T&D Loss of TSECL

FY 2006-07 36.98%

FY 2007-08 35.46%

FY 2008-09 34.20%



November 2014

Year T&D Loss of TSECL

FY 2009-10 31.87%

FY 2010-11 29.26%

FY 2011-12 29.81%

FY 2012-13 32.85%

TSECL submitted that since FY 2006-07, it has been able to reduce the T&D

losses by 1.5% to 2% every year. TSECL submitted that the increase in the T&D

losses from FY 2010-11 to FY 2012-13 is due to the increase in the LT:HT ratio as

a result of extensive village electrification and new service connections in remote

areas over the years.

TSECL submitted that it is electrifying the un-electrified areas at a fast pace under

grants and loans provided by the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) under

the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY). Through the

implementation of the scheme, TSECL has provided electricity to the far flung

areas and villages of the State. As a result, due to increase in the LT network and

the sales to domestic and Kutir Jyoti consumers, losses of the utility are also

increasing at considerable pace.

TSECL submitted that it has achieved village electrification of 92.89% in FY 2012-

13, as compared to village electrification of 64.90% in FY 2010-11. Hence, the

increased T&D loss is a result of rapid progress of village electrification.


The Commission observes that the actual T&D loss of 32.85% submitted by the

Petitioner is much higher than the T&D loss of 25% approved by the Commission

in the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013.

The Petitioner’s justification for the increase in the T&D loss is increase in the

LT:HT ratio. The Commission has analysed the relationship between the actual

LT:HT ratio and the T&D loss of TSECL, based on the actual length of 33 kV, 11

kV and low voltage network of TSECL, as given in the Table below and depicted

pictorially in the Graph below:



November 2014

Table 4-10: LT:HT ratio vis-à-vis T&D loss of TSECL

Particular 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

33 kV Line (Ckt. km) 524 567 589 627 721 778 778

11 kV Line (Ckt. km) 7281 7971 8315 8539 8915 10027 10612

LT Line (Ckt. km) 9824 13451 15264 15692 16474 18474 19375

LT:HT Ratio 1.26 1.58 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71 1.70

T&D Loss 36.78% 35.46% 34.20% 31.87% 29.26% 29.81% 32.85%

Figure 1: LT:HT ratio vis-à-vis T&D loss of TSECL

The Commission observes that in the years before FY 2008-09, the LT:HT ratio of

TSECL’s network was increasing substantially. However, during that period,

TSECL was able to reduce the T&D loss consistently every year. TSECL had

been able to reduce the T&D losses at the rate of around 1.5% to 2% every year

until FY 2010-11. Since FY 2008-09, the LT:HT ratio of TSECL’s network has

remained constant at around 1.71. However, the T&D loss for TSECL has

increased significantly from 29.26% in FY 2010-11 to 33.30% in FY 2013-14.

Further, the above analysis clearly shows that there is no co-relation between the

LT:HT ratio and the T&D loss, in case of TSECL. Therefore, the Commission

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

20.00%

22.00%

24.00%

26.00%

28.00%

30.00%

32.00%

34.00%

36.00%

38.00%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

T&D Loss (Left Side Axis) LT:HT Ratio (Right side Axis)



November 2014

rejects the contention of the Petitioner that the T&D loss has increased as a result

of increased LT network.

The Petitioner has also contended that the increased sales to Kutir Jyoti category

and Domestic category consumers are also a reason for the increase in T&D loss

in the TSECL network. The Commission has analysed the historical energy sales

to the Kutir Jyoti and Domestic categories as a percentage of total intra-State

energy sales by TSECL. The Commission observes that the sales to Kutir Jyoti

and Domestic categories has remained almost constant at 53-55% of the total

intra-State sales of TSECL from FY 2007-08 onwards, and hence, there has not

been any significant change in the same as can be seen from the following Table

and Graph:

Table 4-11: Kutir Jyoti and Domestic category sales as % of total intra-State sales vis-à-vis T&D loss of TSECL

Particular 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

KJ sales (MU) 9.67 10.96 12.03 18.02 16.66 17.62

Domestic Sales (MU) 210.45 230.89 250.21 290.8 324.41 347.86

Total KJ and Domestic

Sales (MU) 220.12 241.85 262.24 308.82 341.07 365.48

Total intra-State sales (MU) 397.81 450.85 494.56 568.83 624.18 683.05

KJ Sales as % of total Intra-

State Sales 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 3.17% 2.67% 2.58%

Domestic Sales as % of total

Intra-State Sales 52.90% 51.21% 50.59% 51.12% 51.97% 50.93%

KJ+Domestic Sales as % of

total Intra-State Sales 55.33% 53.64% 53.02% 54.29% 54.64% 53.51%

T&D Loss 36.78% 35.46% 34.20% 31.87% 29.26% 29.81% 32.85%

Note: KJ = Kutir Jyoti



November 2014

Figure 2: Kutir Jyoti and Domestic category sales as % of total intra-State sales vis-à-vis T&D loss of TSECL

The above analysis shows that there is no co-relation between the sales to Kutir

Jyoti and Domestic category consumers and the T&D loss reported by TSECL.

The above analysis of energy sales to the Kutir Jyoti and Domestic category

consumers vis-à-vis T&D loss of the TSECL network clearly shows that, the

contention of the Petitioner that the T&D loss has increased as a result of increase

in the sales to Kutir Jyoti and Domestic consumer categories, is also incorrect.

In view of the above, the Commission has come to the conclusion that it cannot

allow the increased T&D loss of 32.85% as submitted by the Petitioner on the

basis of the contention that the same is the result of increase in LT:HT ratio as

well as increase in the sales to Kutir Jyoti and domestic category consumers.

For truing of FY 2012-13, the Commission has approved the same T&D loss of

25%, as approved by in the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, as shown

below:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

20.00%

22.00%

24.00%

26.00%

28.00%

30.00%

32.00%

34.00%

36.00%

38.00%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

T&D Loss (Left Side Axis) KJ+Domestic Sales as % of total Intra-State Sales (Right Side Axis)



November 2014

Table 4-12: Approved T&D loss for FY 2012-13

Particular

Approved in

Review Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

truing up for FY

2012-13

T&D loss 25.00% 32.85% 25.00%

4.5 Energy Balance


Based on the energy sales, own generation and power purchase, the Petitioner

has submitted the energy balance for FY 2012-13, as shown in the following

Table:

Table 4-13: Energy Balance for FY 2012-13 submitted by TSECL

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission for FY

2012-13

Energy Requirement

Energy Sales within State MU 683.05

Sale in bilateral trade/UI MU 205.33

T&D Losses MU 334.15

T&D Losses % 32.85%

Total Energy Requirement @ TSECL

Periphery MU 1017.20

Energy Availability

Own Generation MU 792.85

Total Power Purchase MU 440.10

Gross Power Availability MU 1232.95

NER Loss MU 10.41



November 2014

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission for FY

2012-13

Net Power Availability MU 1222.53


The Commission observes that the North Eastern Region (NER) loss of 10.41 MU

reported by the Petitioner for FY 2012-13 is significantly lower than the NER loss

of 29.86 MU approved in the review of FY 2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order

dated June 25th, 2005. The Commission approves the NER loss of 10.41 MU

submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2012-13.

It is observed that in the submission of energy balance, the Petitioner has

submitted total power purchase of 440.10 MU in FY 2012-13. However, as

mentioned earlier, for approval of power purchase, the Petitioner has submitted

429.69 MU for FY 2012-13 based on the actuals. The Commission has

considered power purchase of 429.69 MU in truing up for FY 2012-13 as

mentioned earlier.

Based on the approved energy sales, T&D loss, own generation and power

purchase, the Commission approves the energy balance for FY 2012-13, as

shown in the following Table:

Table 4-14: Approved energy balance for FY 2012-13

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review

Order for FY

2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

truing up for

FY 2012-13

Energy Requirement

Energy Sales within State MU 697.50 683.05 683.05

Sale in bilateral trade/UI MU 225.52 205.33 205.33

T&D Losses MU 232.50 334.15 227.68

T&D Losses % 25.00% 32.85% 25.00%

Total Energy

Requirement @ TSECL

Periphery

MU 930.00 1017.20 910.73

Energy Availability



November 2014

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review

Order for FY

2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

truing up for

FY 2012-13

Own Generation MU 751.04 792.85 792.85

Total Power Purchase MU 423.56 440.10 429.69

Gross Power Availability MU 1174.58 1232.95 1222.54

NER Loss MU 19.08 10.41 10.41

Net Power Availability MU 1155.52 1222.53 1212.13

4.6 Fuel Purchase Cost


The Petitioner has claimed Rs. 181.82 Crore as fuel purchase cost for FY 2012-13

including Rs. 181.78 Crore as the cost of gas and Rs. 0.04 Crore as the cost of

HSD. The Petitioner has claimed the cost of gas for RGTPP and BGTPP stations

as Rs. 103.96 Crore and Rs. 77.83 Crore, respectively. The Petitioner submitted

the break-up of fuel purchase cost of Rs. 181.82 Crore as shown in the following

Table:

Table 4-15: Fuel purchase cost submitted by TSECL for truing up of FY 2012-13

Particular Consumption of gas

(MMSCM)

Total fuel cost

(Rs. Crore)

RGTPP 185.7 103.96

BGTPP 141.9 77.83

Total Gas 327.6 181.78

HSD

0.04

Total Fuel

181.82



November 2014


The Commission observed that fuel purchase cost of Rs. 181.82 Crore proposed

by the Petitioner is lower than the cost of Rs. 184.61 Crore approved by the

Commission in the review of ARR of FY 2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order. The

Commission, vide data gaps sent to the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner to

submit the month-wise data of fuel price and quantum, along with the bills raised

by the fuel suppliers. In its reply to the data gaps sent by the Commission, the

Petitioner submitted the summary of the fortnightly fuel purchase data for FY

2012-13. However, the Petitioner did not submit the bills raised by the fuel

suppliers. The Commission observed that according to the fortnightly data

submitted by the Petitioner, the quantum of gas purchase is same as that

submitted by the Petitioner in the Petition. However, according to the data

submitted by the Petitioner, the cost of gas for FY 2012-13 is Rs. 184.61 Crore as

approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order, which is higher than the

fuel cost of Rs. 181.82 Crore proposed by the Petitioner for the truing up for ARR

of FY 2012-13. The Commission reviewed the total fuel cost incurred by the

Petitioner for FY 2012-13 from the provisional annual accounts of the Petitioner.

The fuel purchase cost shown in “Note no. 18” of the annual accounts for FY

2012-13 is Rs. 181.82 Crore, which is the same as that proposed by the Petitioner

for truing up for FY 2012-13.

In view of the above, the Commission approves Rs. 184.61 Crore as the cost of

gas for truing up for FY 2012-13, based on the fortnightly break-up of gas

purchase submitted by the Petitioner. Additionally, the Commission approves the

cost of HSD for gas based thermal power projects as Rs. 0.04 Crore, as proposed

by TSECL.

The Commission approves Rs. 184.65 Crore as the fuel purchase cost for FY

2012-13, as shown in the following Table:

Table 4-16: Approved fuel purchase cost for FY 2012-13

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY 2012-

13

Approved in

Truing up for

FY 2012-13

RGTPP

Quantity

of Gas MMSCM 185.70 185.70 185.70

Amount Rs. Crore 103.57 103.96 103.57



November 2014

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY 2012-

13

Approved in

Truing up for

FY 2012-13

Average

Price Rs./SCM 5.58 5.60 5.58

BGTPP

Quantity

of Gas MMSCM 141.91 141.90 141.91

Amount Rs. Crore 81.04 77.83 81.04

Average

Price Rs./SCM 5.71 5.48 5.71

Total Gas

Quantity

of Gas MMSCM 327.61 327.60 327.61

Amount Rs. Crore 184.61 181.78 181.78 184.61

Average

Price Rs./SCM 5.64 5.55 5.64

HSD Amount Rs. Crore - 0.04 0.04 0.04

Total Fuel Amount Rs. Crore 184.61 181.82 181.82 184.65

4.7 Power Purchase Cost


As mentioned earlier, the Petitioner has submitted its allocations from the Central

Generating Stations of NHPC and NEEPCO. The Petitioner submitted the power

purchase cost of Rs. 173.93 Crore for FY 2012-13, as shown in the following

Table:



November 2014

Table 4-17: Power Purchase Cost as submitted by TSECL for truing up for FY 2012-13

Particulars

Power

purchase

(MU)

Average Rate

(Rs./kWh)

Power Purchase

Cost

(Rs. Crore)

NEEPCO 364.29 3.06 130.25

NHPC 65.40 2.24 16.58

PGCIL Charges 22.44

RLDC Charges +

Other Charges 4.66

Total 429.69 4.05 173.93

The Petitioner submitted that the actual average power purchase rate for FY

2012-13 was Rs. 4.05 per unit against Rs. 3.97 per unit approved by the

Commission during review of ARR for FY 2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order.

The reason for the difference in the power purchase rate is due to drop in power

procurement from Kopili station of NEEPCO.


The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved the power cost for FY

2012-13 at Rs. 168.02 Crore for 423.56 MU, at the average power purchase rate

of 3.97 Rs./kWh. As against that, the Petitioner has submitted the actual power

purchase cost of Rs. 173.93 Crore for the purchase of 429.69 MU at the average

rate of power purchase of 4.05 Rs./kWh.

The Commission, vide the data gaps sent to the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner

to submit the month-wise and station-wise power purchase cost along with all the

bills received from the generators. In its reply to the data gaps sent by the

Commission, the Petitioner submitted the summary of the month-wise actual

power purchase quantum for FY 2012-13 from NEEPCO and NHPC. However,

the Petitioner did not submit the month-wise and station-wise power purchase

cost and the bills raised by the generators supporting the same.

It is observed that the power purchase cost of Rs. 173.93 Crore submitted by the

Petitioner is based on the provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13 submitted

by the Petitioner along with the Petition. However, the Petitioner submitted revised



November 2014

provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13 along with the provisional annual

accounts of FY 2013-14. As per the revised provisional annual accounts of FY

2012-13 submitted by the Petitioner, the power purchase cost is Rs. 150.59 Crore

for FY 2012-13. In the revised provisional annual accounts of the Petitioner,

additional amount of Rs. 5.77 Crore is also mentioned as power purchase cost

pertaining to prior period.

It is observed that the power purchase cost of Rs. 173.93 Crore proposed by the

Petitioner for truing up for FY 2012-13 is significantly higher than the cost of Rs.

150.59 Crore mentioned in the revised provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-

13. Further, the Petitioner has neither submitted the plant-wise power purchase

cost nor the bills raised by the generators for sale of power, in support of its

submission. Hence, the Commission approves power purchase cost for truing up

for FY 2012-13 as Rs. 150.69 Crore, based on the revised provisional annual

accounts of TSECL. Further, the amount of Rs. 5.77 Crore mentioned in the

revised provisional annual accounts as power purchase cost pertaining to prior

period, is not approved by the Commission at this stage, since, it is not known as

to which year the power purchase cost pertains to, and also since, the final truing

up for all the years since FY 2009-10 has not been done yet due to non-

submission of the annual accounts duly audited by the Statutory Auditor for these

years.

In view of the above, the Commission approves Rs. 150.59 Crore towards power

purchase cost in the truing-up for FY 2012-13, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4-18: Approved Power Purchase Cost for FY 2012-13

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

annual

accounts for

FY 2012-13

Approved in

truing up for

FY 2012-13

Power

purchase MU 423.56 429.69 429.69

Power

Purchase

Cost

Rs.

Crore 168.02 173.93 150.59 150.59

Average

Power

Purchase

Cost

Rs./kWh 3.97 4.05 3.50



November 2014

4.8 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses


The Petitioner has claimed O&M expenses of Rs. 126.35 Crore in the truing-up for

FY 2012-13 against Rs. 127.59 Crore approved by the Commission in the

previous Tariff Order, as summarized in the Table below:

Table 4-19: O&M expenses claimed in the truing-up for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Petitioner’s

submission

Employee Expenses 91.21

Repair and Maintenance Expenses 21.36

Administrative and General Expenses 13.78

Total 126.35

The component-wise O&M expenses are elaborated in the subsequent

paragraphs.

4.8.1 Employee Expenses


The Petitioner submitted that employee expenses comprise of salaries, dearness

allowance, bonus, terminal benefits in the form of pension and gratuity, leave

encashment and staff welfare expenses. The Petitioner submitted that the

employee expenses as per the provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13 was

Rs. 91.21 Crore, and requested the Commission to allow the employee cost of Rs

91.21 Crore for FY 2012-13.


The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved employee expenses

of Rs. 97.08 Crore for FY 2012-13. The Petitioner has submitted employee

expenses for FY 2012-13 as Rs. 91.21 Crore, based on the provisional annual

accounts for FY 2012-13, which is lower than the approved expenses.



November 2014

Hence, the Commission approves employee expenses of Rs. 91.21 Crore in the

truing up for FY 2012-13, based on the provisional annual accounts of TSECL.

4.8.2 Repair and Maintenance (R&M) expenses


The Petitioner submitted that R&M expenses are required for day-to-day up-keep

of its generation, transmission and distribution functions and therefore form an

integral part of its efforts to provide reliable and quality power supply to its

consumers and reduce the losses in its system. The Petitioner further submitted

that as per “Note No. 21” of the provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13, R&M

expense was Rs. 21.36 Crore. The Petitioner requested the Commission to allow

R&M expense of Rs 21.36 Crore as per the provisional accounts for FY 2012-13.

The Petitioner submitted that the actual R&M expenses were higher than that

approved by the Commission due to the increase in R&M costs of the generating

stations, especially for Rokhia GTPP. The Petitioner added that in FY 2012-13,

there was a fire incident, due to which the R&M cost had increased.


The Commission had approved R&M expenses of Rs. 14.93 Crore for FY 2012-13

in the previous Tariff Order. The Petitioner has submitted that the R&M expenses

for FY 2012-13 is Rs. 21.36 Crore as per the provisional annual accounts for FY

2012-13. The Commission observed that “Note No. 21” of the revised provisional

annual accounts for FY 2012-13 submitted by the Petitioner along with the

provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14, shows R&M expenses for FY 2012-

13 as Rs. 23.71 Crore.

The Commission accepts TSECL's justification for the increase in the R&M

expenses vis-a-vis the approved R&M expenses. Hence, based on the revised

provisional annual accounts of FY 2012-13 submitted by the Petitioner, the

Commission approves the R&M expenses at Rs. 23.71 Crore in the truing-up for

FY 2012-13.

4.8.3 Administrative and General (A&G) expenses


The Petitioner submitted that the Administrative and General (A&G) expenses

mainly comprise of rents, telephone and other communication expenses,



November 2014

professional charges, conveyance and travelling allowances, other debits, etc.

The Petitioner requested the Commission to allow the A&G expenses of Rs. 13.78

Crore for FY 2012-13 as per “Note No. 21” of provisional annual accounts of FY

2012-13.


The Commission had approved A&G expenses of Rs. 15.58 Crore for FY 2012-13

in the previous Tariff Order. The Petitioner has submitted that the A&G expense

for FY 2012-13 is Rs. 13.78 Crore as per the provisional annual accounts for FY

2012-13. The Commission observed that “Note No. 21” of the revised provisional

annual accounts for FY 2012-13 submitted by the Petitioner along with the

provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14, shows A&G expenses for FY 2012-

13 as Rs. 13.58 Crore.

The actual A&G expenses are lower than the approved A&G expenses. Hence,

based on the revised provisional annual accounts submitted by the Petitioner, the

Commission approves the A&G expenses at Rs. 13.58 Crore in the truing-up for

FY 2012-13.

Based on the approved employee expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expenses

for FY 2012-13 as mentioned above, the Commission approves O&M expenses of

Rs. 129.06 Crore for TSECL in the truing up for FY 2012-13, as shown in the

following Table:

Table 4-20: O&M expenses approved for FY 2012-13

Particulars

Approved in

Review

Order for FY

2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

As per the

provisional

annual

accounts

Approved in

truing up of

FY 2012-13

Employee Expense 97.08 91.21 91.21 91.21

Repair and

Maintenance

Expense

14.93 21.36 23.71 23.71

Administrative and

General Expenses 15.58 13.78 13.58 13.58

Total 127.59 126.35 128.51 128.51



November 2014

4.9 Depreciation


The Petitioner has claimed gross depreciation of Rs. 48.09 Crore in the truing-up

for FY 2012-13. The Petitioner submitted that it has considered the depreciation

rate as per the Companies Act, 1956 and has computed the gross depreciation on

the average of opening and closing GFA for FY 2012-13, as detailed in the Table

below:

Table 4-21: Depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Asset

Particulars

Depreciation

Rate

Total Gross

Block as on

31.03.2012

Total Gross

Block as on

31.03.2013

Gross

Depreciation

Amount for

FY 2012-13

Land 0.00% 59.62 59.67 0.00

Building 2.49% 30.95 31.13 0.77

Plant and

Machinery 5.28% 876.40 885.34 46.51

Computer 16.21% 0.44 0.69 0.09

Computer and

Office Equipment 16.21% 3.44 3.44 0.55

Office Equipment 16.21% 0.11 0.18 0.02

Furniture 6.33% 1.30 1.39 0.09

Vehicles 9.50% 0.57 0.57 0.05

Grand Total 972.83 982.41 48.09

Weighted Average Rate of

Depreciation (%) 4.92%

The Petitioner also submitted the details of grants taken from the Department of

Power, Government of Tripura, for creation of assets during FY 2012-13 and other

deposits (REC, MPLAD, BEE Deposit works, etc.) and accordingly computed the



November 2014

net depreciation after considering the percentage of grant as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4-22: Net Depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Asset Particulars Units FY 2012-13

Grants for creation of assets Rs. Crore 576.89

GFA Rs. Crore 982.41

% of Grant / GFA % 58.72%

Gross Depreciation Rs. Crore 48.09

Net Depreciation Rs. Crore 19.85

The Petitioner submitted that it is working on preparing the Fixed Assets Register

as directed by the Commission; however, till then it requested the Commission to

allow the net depreciation amount of Rs. 19.85 Crore for FY 2012-13.


Regulation 5 II (viii) of TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004 specifies as follows:

“5 II (viii) Depreciation on the assets capitalized based on the investment

programme approved by the Commission and actually in use. The rates of

depreciation shall be as applicable on straight line method under the

Companies Act as amended from time to time”

The above Regulations clearly provide for allowance of depreciation on assets

capitalized based on the investment approved by the Commission and actually in

use. The Petitioner has never come before the Commission with an investment

plan for the Commission’s approval despite the Commission’s following directive

given in the Tariff Order dated March 28th, 2012:

“The Commission directs the TSECL to prepare and maintain asset wise

depreciation registers in complete order and get them audited and

submitted to the Commission by 30th June, 2012 . The Commission further



November 2014

directs the petitioner to submit their scheme-wise Capital Expenditure Plan

along with , details of funding sources, cost benefit analysis of the project,

completion date of project, single line diagram of the major capital works,

Detailed Project Report (DPR), reason for spillover of project and reason

for escalation of cost of the project in every quarter of the year.”

Also, the Petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence regarding the

capitalized assets that have been actually put to use.

Further, the Commission in the previous Tariff Order had ruled as follows:

“The depreciation computed by the Petitioner for FY 2012-13 was not

based on the Fixed Assets Register audited by a Statutory Auditor.

Therefore, the Commission approves the depreciation for FY 2012-13 as

approved in the previous Tariff Order i.e. Rs. 24.31 Crore”

Further it is observed that despite several directions from the Commission in this

regard, the Petitioner has not complied with the Commission’s directive regarding

submission of Fixed Assets Register and annual capital expenditure plan. In the

previous Order also, the Commission has pointed out that it is very difficult to

ascertain the following from the Accounting Notes/Schedule:

Assets are in service

Assets are not in use

Assets exist but lying as dead stock

Assets considered as scrap

Sources of the funds utilized in the capital expenditure

As detailed in previous Orders, due to the absence of the audited Fixed Assets

and Depreciation register, it is difficult for the Commission to ascertain the GFA

value of the Petitioner. Based on this philosophy, the Commission has been

allowing the depreciation of Rs. 24.31 Crore approved for FY 2010-11 in its Tariff

Order dated March 28th, 2012, for the subsequent years also. It may also be noted

that the Commission had provisionally approved the above depreciation for FY

2010-11.

The Petitioner has submitted that it is working on preparing the Fixed Assets

Register as directed by the Commission, and has already prepared the asset



November 2014

register pertaining to certain assets of Generation and Transmission function. The

Petitioner has also submitted that preparation of asset register is a time

consuming activity, and it is contemplating to take up this proposal with State

Government for technical and financial guidance regarding the same. The

Commission expects that the Petitioner should expedite in the matter and submit

the same during the next tariff determination exercise. Until then, the Commission

has accepted the Petitioner’s submission with regard to GFA and computation of

depreciation based on the same by applying the depreciation rates as per the

Companies Act 1956 in accordance with the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004.

However, it is to be noted that the depreciation allowed by the Commission during

the truing up of FY 2012-13 is provisional.

In view of the above, the Commission has provisionally allowed depreciation of

Rs. 19.85 Crore as submitted by the Petitioner. However, the Commission directs

the Petitioner to submit the Fixed Assets and Depreciation Register before

the Commission for its review and consideration of the depreciation amount

claimed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Commission will revisit the

allowable depreciation, after preparation and submission of the Fixed

Assets Register, duly audited by the Statutory Auditor, in the next year’s

Tariff Order. The Commission further directs the Petitioner to submit the

scheme-wise Capital Expenditure Plan along with details of funding

sources, cost benefit analysis of the project, completion date of project,

single line diagram of the major capital works, Detailed Project Report

(DPR), reason for spillover of project and reason for escalation of cost of the

project in every quarter of the year.

4.10 Interest and Finance Charges


While preparing the true-up for FY 2012-13, the Petitioner has considered the

following heads for computing the total Interest and Finance charges:

1) Interest on Loan

2) Guarantee Fee

3) Bank Commission for letter of credit

4) Interest on consumer security deposit

The Petitioner submitted that it has taken loans from the PFC / REC / Govt. of

Tripura, as detailed below:



November 2014

a) Loan from PFC:

The Petitioner submitted that the funds are released by PFC under R-

APDRP scheme and 100% of the approved cost is provided as loan from

the Government of India through Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). The

Petitioner submitted that the loan along with interest thereon shall be

converted into grant once the establishment of the required system is

achieved and verified by an independent agency appointment by Ministry of

Power (MoP). The Petitioner added that no conversion to grant will be

made, in case projects are not completed within 3 years from date of

sanction of the project and in such case, TSECL will have to bear full loan

and interest repayment. The Petitioner further submitted that since no

interest payment and repayment schedule is mentioned for PFC loan for

the computation of interest and finance charges, it has not considered any

repayment of loan from PFC in the present Petition.

b) Loan from REC:

The Petitioner submitted that the funds are released by REC under

RGGVY scheme and 90% of the approved cost is provided as grant and

remaining 10% as loan. The Petitioner explained that this fund is not given

directly to TSECL but is disbursed through Government of Tripura, and

TSECL is paying interest on this loan on behalf of GoT in four quarterly

instalments. The Petitioner submitted that in the accounts, this loan is

treated under head ‘GoT loan’ and the moratorium period of 5 years is

provided on repayment of this loan. The Petitioner added that since this is

not the loan given to it and funds are received on behalf of the GoT, the

amount received by TSECL has been considered within Deposit Work

under Other Long Term Liabilities, in the provisional accounts of FY 2012-

13.

c) Loan from Govt. of Tripura (GoT):

The Petitioner submitted that Government of Tripura loan is disbursed as

interest free loans from the State Government under budgetary Non-Plan

consideration and is to be repaid to the GoT under 30 equal instalments

within a period of 15 years as provided in Memorandum of the Government

of Tripura dated July 17th, 2009. The Petitioner submitted that it is

persuading the Government of Tripura to convert this interest free loan into

equity, however, till the time it is converted into equity, the amount has

been treated as loan.



November 2014

The Table below shows the source-wise opening balance of loan, closing balance

of loan, and addition of loan during FY 2012-13, as submitted by the Petitioner:

Table 4-23: Source wise loan submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Source of Loan

Opening

balance for

FY 2012-13

Addition during

FY 2012-13

Closing

balance for

FY 2012-13

Govt. of Tripura 141.25 0.00 141.25

PFC 53.38 6.71 60.09

REC 0.42 0.00 0.42

Others 41.53 0.00 41.53

Total 236.58 6.71 243.29

The Petitioner submitted that since the interest is being paid only on REC loans,

hence, the same has been taken into consideration while computing interest and

finance charges for FY 2012-13, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4-24: Interest on Loan submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars FY 2012-13

Gross Normative loan – Opening 195.05

Increase/Decrease due to ACE during the Year 6.71

Repayments of Normative Loan during the year 0.00

Net Normative loan – Closing 201.76

Average Normative Loan 198.41

Interest on loan (Only REC Component) 2.05

The Petitioner submitted the total financing cost, which includes Interest on capital

loans, guarantee fees, bank commission for Letter of Credit, and Interest on

consumer security deposit, as shown in the Table below:



November 2014

Table 4-25: Interest and Finance Charges submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)


1) Interest on capital loans 2.05

2) Other Finance charges (=a+b) 0.75

a) Guarantee Fee 0.75

b) Bank Commission for letter of credit* 0.00

3) Interest on consumer security deposit 0.40

4) Net Interest and Finance charges (= 1+2+3) 3.21

The Petitioner requested the Commission to approve the interest & finance

charges of Rs. 3.21 Crore for FY 2012-13.


The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved Rs. 0.34 Crore as

interest and finance charges. “Note No. 20” of the provisional annual accounts for

FY 2012-13 shows that in FY 2012-13, the Petitioner has not incurred any

expense towards interest and finance charges.

Since, the Petitioner has not incurred any actual expense towards interest and

finance charges in FY 2012-13, the Commission approves the Interest and

Finance charges as nil in the truing up for FY 2012-13, as shown in the Table

below:

Table 4-26: Interest and Finance Charges approved for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Review Order

for FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2012-13

Approved in

truing up of

FY 2012-13

Net Interest and

Finance charges 0.34 3.21 0.00 0.00



November 2014

4.11 Interest on Working Capital


The Petitioner submitted that owing to the deteriorating financial health of the

Corporation, it may incur working capital crunch and hence, it has claimed interest

on working capital on normative basis, as specified in the Tariff Regulations, 2004.

The Petitioner submitted that it is pertinent to note that it has cash at its disposal,

which is depleting continuously due to working capital requirement, and TSECL

may not be able to use the cash for other capital works in the future. The

Petitioner further submitted that forgone opportunity by not claiming working

capital interest and using the cash reserve results in depletion of cash reserves.

The Petitioner added that there is an opportunity cost involved in using cash for

working capital, as the utility could have invested this cash in securities or bank

deposits, hence, it has claimed Interest on Working capital.

The Petitioner submitted that the working capital requirement has been estimated

for calculating the normative interest charges to be allowed for financing the

working capital requirement. The Petitioner added that as per TERC Tariff

Regulations 2004, the working capital norms have been defined separately for

generation, transmission and distribution functions.

The considerations for calculation of working capital and interest thereon, as

submitted by the Petitioner, are summarized in the Table below:

Table 4-27: Norms for Interest on Working Capital submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

Particulars Generation Transmission Distribution

Norms for calculation

One and Half

Months of

sales for

generation

(45 days)

One and Half

Months of

sales for

transmission

(45 days)

Two months

of sales for

distribution

business (60

days)

The function wise percentage break up of gross fixed assets for Generation,

Transmission and Distribution as on April 1st, 2013 considered by the Petitioner

for calculating the Working capital requirement during FY 2012-13, is shown in the

Table below:



November 2014

Table 4-28: Percentage break up of Gross Fixed Assets for G, T and D as submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Generation Transmission Distribution Total

Assets

Gross Block as on

01.04.2013 309.10 71.24 602.08 982.41

Function wise %

age break up 31.46% 7.25% 61.29%

Accordingly, the Petitioner has claimed Rs. 11.91 Crore towards Interest on

Working capital for FY 2012-13, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4-29: Interest on Working Capital as submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

% of break-

up of

Assets

Norms for

Working Capital

requirement (in

days)

FY

2012-13

Generation 31.46% 45 21.09

Transmission 7.25% 45 4.86

Distribution 61.29% 60 54.77

Total Working Capital

Requirement 80.72

Interest Rate (@ SBI PLR on

April 1st, 2012) 14.75%

Interest on Working Capital 11.91


The Commission has examined the computation of interest on working capital

submitted by the Petitioner. However, Regulation 5(II)(Vii)(c) of the TERC (Tariff)

Regulations, 2004, specifies as follows:



November 2014

“5 (II) (Vii)(c) interest on working capital facilities limited to actual or

equivalent to two months sales whichever is less…”

Thus, from the above, it is clear that the Regulations allow the interest on working

capital limited to actual. Further, from the provisional annual accounts for FY

2012-13, the Commission has observed that the Petitioner has not paid any

interest cost towards working capital loan borrowed from the Banks/Financial

Institutions. The Commission has further observed that the Petitioner in the past

years has not borrowed from the Banks/Financial Institutions to meet its working

capital requirement.

The Commission, accordingly, approves the interest on working capital as Nil in

the truing up for FY 2012-13.

Table 4-30: Interest on working capital approved for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved

in Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2012-13

Approved

in truing

up of FY

2012-13

Interest on working

capital 0.00 11.91 0.00 0.00

4.12 Reasonable Return


The Petitioner submitted that as per TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004, reasonable

return is to be calculated at 5% above the ruling RBI rate or 3% over PLR rate of

SBI or average of any three nationalized banks, whichever is higher. The

Petitioner submitted that it has been observed that the SBI PLR rate as on

01.04.2012 was 14.75%, hence, for calculation of reasonable return, the rate of

return for overall paid-up equity capital has been assumed to be 17.75%, i.e., 3%

over SBI PLR.

The Petitioner submitted that as per Note No 1 of the provisional annual accounts

for FY 2012-13, the paid-up equity capital was Rs 109.29 Crore as on April 1st,



November 2014

2012 and has increased to Rs. 654.75 Crore on March 31st, 2013. The reasonable

return has been calculated over the average of this paid up equity capital.

The computation of reasonable return as submitted by the Petitioner is

summarized in the Table below:

Table 4-31: Reasonable Return submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission for truing

up of FY 2012-13

Equity Capital as on April 1st, 2012 109.29

Equity Capital as on March 31st, 2013 654.75

Average Equity Capital during FY 2012-13 382.02

Rate of Reasonable return 17.75%

Reasonable return during the year 67.81

Thus, the Petitioner has claimed reasonable return of Rs. 67.81 Crore for FY

2012-13 as against Rs. 16.52 Crore approved by the Commission for FY 2012-13.


The Commission had approved Rs. 16.52 Crore as the reasonable return for FY

2012-13. The Commission has observed that the Petitioner has computed the

reasonable return by considering 17.75% interest rate on the total equity of

TSECL. As per the TERC Tariff Regulations 2004, the reasonable rate of return to

be calculated separately for the generation, transmission and distribution

business. While calculating the reasonable return for FY 2012-13, the Petitioner

has not segregated the average equity into generation, transmission and

distribution businesses.

Therefore, the computation of the reasonable return submitted by the Petitioner is

not as per TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004.

The Commission, in the previous Tariff Order, had computed the reasonable

return after segregating the average equity into generation, transmission and

distribution businesses. The Commission, in its Tariff Order dated March 28th,

2012, had ruled as follows:



November 2014

“Clause 2 (II) Schedule -1 of TERC Tariff Regulations 2004 states that:

“The Reasonable Return for the purpose shall be – 5% above the

ruling RBI rate or 3% above the PLR of State Bank of India or

average of any other three approved Nationalized Banks whichever

is higher and calculated on the subscribed and paid up equity capital

which shall also include Share Premium Balance for this purpose but

shall not include Bonus Share or Shares issued other than for cash.”

Since the additional equity of 545.46 Crore highlighted above has not

reflected in the audited accounts of the petitioner, the Commission will take

decision on this matter once it is reflected in the audited accounts.

Accordingly, for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13, the Commission has

considered the average paid-up capital of Rs. 109.30 Crore.

The Commission, accordingly approves reasonable return at Rs. 16.52

Crore for FY 2012-13 against the petitioner’s claim for Rs. 36.64 Crore.”

From the provisional annual accounts of the Petitioner, it is observed that the paid

up equity capital as on March 31st, 2013 is equal to Rs. 654.75 Crore, and the Net

Fixed Assets appearing in the provisional annual accounts as on March 31st, 2013

are Rs. 682.33 Crore. It is obvious that the equity capital cannot be equal to the

entire fixed assets of the Company. In the power industry in India, the debt:equity

ratio is considered as 70:30 after deducting the amount of assets that have been

funded through grants or consumer contribution. In other words, equity capital is

capped at 30% of the total assets of the utility, after deducting the amount of

assets that have been funded through grants or consumer contribution. Hence, if

the equity portion is more than 30% of the fixed assets added, Return on Equity is

provided considering the equity as 30% of the fixed assets added by the utility. In

case of TSECL, most of the assets are funded through grants or consumer

contribution. Moreover, the provisional annual accounts of TSECL for FY 2012-13

also show that the equity shares have been issued to the Governor of Tripura for

amount equivalent to Rs. 554.96 Crore, without receipt of any payment in cash,

and have been issued pursuant to the State Government's notification regarding

transfer of assets. Hence, the amount of paid up equity capital reflected in the

provisional annual accounts of TSECL may not qualify for being considered as

'paid up equity capital' in accordance with the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004,

since, the same have not been paid for.

In view of all the above, the Commission has considered the equity capital as on

March 31st, 2013 by limiting the same to 30% of the Net Fixed Assets appearing in



November 2014

the provisional annual accounts as on March 31st, 2013. Since, the Net Fixed

Assets for TSECL is Rs. 682.33 Crore as on March 31st, 2013 as per the

provisional annual accounts, the Commission has capped the equity of TSECL as

on March 31st, 2013 as Rs. 204.30 Crore, i.e., 30% of Rs. 682.33 Crore.

As per TERC Tariff Regulations 2004, the Commission in its previous Tariff Order

had considered interest rates at 15.23%, 14.23% and 15.23% respectively for

generation, transmission and distribution businesses. Since, the Petitioner has not

provided the break-up of the equity in generation, transmission and distribution, it

is difficult for the Commission to arrive at the normative reasonable return of the

Petitioner as per the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004. Thus, for truing up of FY

2012-13, the Commission has considered the break-up of equity in generation,

transmission and distribution in the same proportion as the break-up of GFA of FY

2012-13, as submitted by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Commission has

computed the average equity for FY 2012-13 of TSECL in the generation,

transmission and distribution assets. Further, the Commission has considered the

same interest rates as considered in the previous Order for the purpose of truing-

up of FY 2012-13.

Accordingly, the reasonable return approved by the Commission for FY 2012-13 is


Table 4-32: Reasonable Return approved by the Commission for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Average

Equity

Interest

Rate

Reasonable

Return

Generation 49.87 15.23% 7.59

Transmission 11.48 14.23% 1.63

Distribution 95.65 15.23% 14.57

Total 152.86 23.80



November 2014

4.13 Prior Period Income/Expense


The Petitioner submitted that any expense/income incurred/accrued and not

accounted for in the respective year but discovered in a subsequent year, are

treated as prior period charges/credits, and should be adjusted while calculating

the ARR. Based on the same, the Petitioner has submitted prior period income of

Rs. 0.904 Crore for FY 2012-13 as shown below:

Table 4-33: Prior Period Income for FY 2012-13 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore)

Sr.

No. Particulars FY 2012-13

1. Prior period expense (0.031)

2. Prior period income 0.945

Net prior period income 0.904


The Petitioner has submitted prior period expense and prior period income as Rs.

0.03 Crore and Rs. 0.94 Crore, respectively, based on the provisional annual

accounts of FY 2012-13. However, it is observed that based on the revised

provisional annual accounts submitted by the Petitioner along with the provisional

annual accounts of FY 2013-14, the prior period expense and prior period income

is Rs. 0.54 Crore and Rs. 2.61 Crore, respectively. Hence, the net prior period

income for FY 2012-13 is Rs. 2.07 Crore, based on the revised provisional annual

accounts for FY 2012-13.

Prior period expenses and incomes are the outcomes of omissions/errors in

recording the transactions in the accounting statements. The items booked under

the prior period expenses are essentially ARR items like power purchase

expenses, O&M expenses, interest and finance charges, etc. Each item of ARR

has a distinct methodology of treatment in the ARR and true-up determination. In

the absence of clarity and details of each item booked under prior period

expenses with respect to the various heads to which they pertain, the Commission

has not allowed any claims towards such items.



November 2014

Further, it is observed that the truing up for the years since FY 2009-10 has only

been done on the basis of the provisional accounts, and hence, the final truing up

of these years based on the accounts audited by the Statutory Auditors is yet to

be done. In such a scenario, where the final truing up for all the previous years

has not been done, there is still scope of consideration of omitted/erred

expenses/incomes in the final truing up of the corresponding years.

In view of the above, the Commission has not considered the prior period

expenses/credits claimed by the Petitioner at this stage. The Commission directs

that once the accounts, duly audited by the Statutory Auditor, are available for

any year, the issue of prior period expense/credit shall be considered for inclusion

in the ARR, based on merit.

Table 4-34: Prior period income/expenses approved for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)


submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2012-13

Approved in

truing up of

FY 2012-13

Prior Period Expense -0.03 -0.54 0.00

Prior Period Income 0.94 2.61 0.00

Net Prior Period

Income 0.90 2.07 0.00

4.14 Non Tariff Income


The Petitioner submitted that other income mainly includes the following:

a) Interest earned on fixed deposits made in various banks and as detailed

under the head of ‘Investments’,

b) Other Miscellaneous Income like sale of scrap, sale of tender, meter rent,

etc.

c) Service connection charges.

The Petitioner further submitted that the interest income on fixed deposits (FDs) in

banks is mainly due to grant disbursed to it under several Government of India

schemes. The Petitioner submitted that this interest income earned on FDs is to



November 2014

be reimbursed back to the Government, hence, this income is current liability and

based on the figures given in the provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13, only

10% of interest income has been considered as Non-Tariff income in this Petition.

The details of other income as submitted by the Petitioner, is shown in the Table

below:

Table 4-35: Non Tariff Income as submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Petitioner’s submission for

truing up of FY 2012-13

Interest Income 35.64

Other Income 1.43

Service Connection Charges 3.19

Total 40.26

Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve Non-Tariff

Income of Rs. 40.26 Crore as against Rs. 42.01 Crore approved by the

Commission in the Review Order dated 25th June, 2013.


The Commission had approved Non-Tariff Income of Rs. 42.01 Crore for FY

2012-13 in its previous Order. The Petitioner has submitted actual non-tariff

income as Rs. 40.26 Crore for FY 2012-13 based on the provisional annual

accounts of FY 2012-13. However, it is observed that based on the revised

provisional annual accounts submitted by the Petitioner along with the provisional

annual accounts of FY 2013-14, the non-tariff income for FY 2012-13 is Rs. 45.85

Crore.

Hence, the Commission approves the non-tariff income of Rs. 45.85 Crore for

truing up of FY 2012-13, based on the revised provisional annual accounts of

TSECL, as shown in the following Table:



November 2014

Table 4-36: Non-tariff income approved for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved

in Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2012-13

Approved

in truing

up of FY

2012-13

Interest Income 38.11 35.64 35.76 35.76

Other Income 1.56 1.43 6.90 6.90

Service Connection

Charges 2.34 3.19 3.19 3.19

Total 42.01 40.26 45.85 45.85

4.15 Truing up of ARR for FY 2012-13

Based on the truing up of various components of the ARR for FY 2012-13 as

elaborated above, the Commission approves the ARR of Rs. 484.71 Crore in the

truing up for FY 2012-13, as shown in the table below:

Table 4-37: Approved ARR for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved

in Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2012-13

Approved

in truing

up for FY

2012-13

Fuel cost 184.61 181.82 181.82 184.65

Power purchase cost 168.02 173.93 150.59 150.59

O&M expenses 127.59 126.35 128.51 128.51

Depreciation 24.31 19.85 47.48 19.85

Interest on working

capital 0.00 11.91 0.00 0.00

Interest and finance

charges 0.34 3.21 0.00 0.00



November 2014

Particulars

Approved

in Review

Order for

FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2012-13

Approved

in truing

up for FY

2012-13

Reasonable Return 16.52 67.81 0.00 23.80

Aggregate Revenue

Requirement (ARR) 521.40 584.87 508.39 507.40

Less: non-tariff income 42.01 40.26 45.85 45.85

Less: prior period

income 0.00 0.90 2.07 0.00

Net Aggregate

Revenue

Requirement

479.39 543.71 460.48 461.55

4.16 Revenue from sale of power


The Petitioner has shown the revenue of Rs. 316.80 Crore earned from sale of

power for FY 2012-13, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4-38: Revenue from sale of power for FY 2012-13 as submitted by TSECL

Particulars Sales

(MU)

Revenue

(Rs. Crore)

Intra-State sale of power 683.05 251.40

Inter-State sale of power 205.33 65.39

Total Sale of Power by TSECL 888.38 316.80

Accordingly, the Petitioner requested the Commission to approve the revenue

from sale of power for FY 2012-13 as Rs. 316.80 Crore.



November 2014


Revenue from intra-State sale of energy in FY 2012-13

The Petitioner has shown revenue of Rs. 251.40 Crore from intra-State sale of

683.05 MU. Hence, based on the submission of the Petitioner, the average billing

rate in FY 2012-13 for intra-State sale works out to Rs. 3.68 per unit. The

Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved intra-State sale of 697.50

MU and revenue of Rs. 288.23 Crore for FY 2012-13, at the average billing rate of

Rs. 4.13 per unit. The Petitioner submitted that the revenue from intra-State

energy sales submitted for FY 2012-13 is based on actuals and requested that the

same be considered in the truing-up for FY 2012-13.

Revenue from inter-State sale of energy in FY 2012-13

The Petitioner has shown revenue of Rs. 65.39 Crore against 205.33 MU sold

outside the Sate of Tripura. Hence, the average billing rate for the inter-State

sales in FY 2012-13 works out to Rs. 3.18 per unit. The Commission, in its

previous Tariff Order, had approved inter-State sales of 225.52 MU and revenue

of Rs. 98.07 Crore, at the average billing rate of Rs. 4.35 per unit for FY 2012-13.

The Commission observes that due to higher gross energy requirement for intra-

State sales on account of higher T&D loss in the network of TSECL, TSECL has

been able to sell lower amount of energy outside the State of Tripura, as

compared to the inter-State energy Sales approved by the Commission in the

Review for FY 2012-13. Further, the Commission observes that the rate of sale of

power for the inter-State sales submitted by the Petitioner is also significantly

lower than the average rate approved by the Commission in the Review for FY

2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order. As a result, the Petitioner has generated

revenue of only Rs. 65.39 Crore from the inter-State sale of power as against Rs.

98.07 Crore approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order. The

Petitioner submitted that the revenue from inter-State energy sales submitted for

FY 2012-13 is based on actuals and requested that the same be considered in the

truing-up for FY 2012-13.

The Commission verified the revenue from sale of power submitted by the

Petitioner from the provisional annual accounts of the Petitioner. The Commission

observes that the revenue of Rs. 316.80 Crore from sale of power submitted by

the Petitioner for FY 2012-13 is based on the provisional annual accounts for FY

2012-13, submitted by the Petitioner along with the Petition. However, in the

revised provisional annual accounts for FY 2012-13 submitted by the Petitioner



November 2014

along with the provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14, the revenue from sale

of power is mentioned as Rs. 316.35 Crore. Hence, the Commission approves the

revenue from sale of power as Rs. 316.35 Crore in the truing up for FY 2012-13

based on the revised provisional annual accounts of TSECL.

Table 4-39: Approved revenue from sale of power for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Review Order

for FY 2012-

13

Petitioner’s

submission

for truing up

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2012-13

Approved in

the truing

up for FY

2012-13

Revenue from

sale of Power 386.31 316.80 316.35 316.35

4.17 Revenue subsidy from Government of Tripura

The Petitioner submitted that the Government of Tripura (GoT) had paid subsidy

of Rs. 40.00 Crore for reduction in retail supply tariff and TSECL has taken the

same into consideration while calculating the revenue gap for FY 2012-13. TSECL

requested the Commission to approve the subsidy from GoT as Rs. 40.00 Crore

in the truing up for FY 2012-13. The Commission has verified the revenue subsidy

received from the GoT with the provisional annual accounts of TSECL, and

approves the revenue subsidy from GoT as Rs. 40.00 Crore in the truing up for FY

2012-13.

Table 4-40: Approved revenue subsidy from Government of Tripura

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Review

Order for FY

2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2013-14

Approved in

the truing

up for FY

2012-13

Revenue from

Subsidy from GoT 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00



November 2014

4.18 Receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system

Clause (5) (1)(i) of the Schedule – 1 of the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004

specifies that the income of the licensee shall also include receivable for energy

not sold or lost in the system. The relevant extract of Clause (5) (1)(i) of the

Schedule – 1 of the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004 is reproduced below:

“(5) (1) the income shall include all income from any source, but not

limited to-

(i) sale of energy-

(a)...

(b) receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system (to be fixed on

gross energy not sold minus permissible technical and commercial

losses and permissible self-consumption of energy. The rate to be

adopted shall be the average of the fuel cost and cost purchase plus

10% thereon to cover other costs).

...”

In view of the aforementioned provisions of the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004,

and based on the approved own generation, sales and energy balance for FY

2012-13, the Commission has computed the energy not sold or lost in the system

for FY 2012-13 as 96.07 MU, as shown in the following Table:

Table 4-41: Energy not sold or lost in the system for FY 2012-13

(MU)

Particulars Derivation FY 2012-13

Gross own generation A 800.74

Total Power Purchase B 429.69

Gross energy availability C=A+B 1230.43

Energy sales within State D 683.05

Energy sales outside the State E 205.33

Total energy sales F=D+E 888.38

Gross energy not sold G=C-F 342.05

Permissible self consumption (equal to the

auxiliary consumption of own generation) H 7.89

Permissible T&D loss I 227.68



November 2014


NER Loss J 10.41

Energy not sold or lost in the system G-H-I-J 96.07

Based on the provisions of the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004, the Commission

has determined the receivables for the energy not sold or lost in the system for

TSECL for FY 2012-13 as Rs. 29.92 Crore, as shown in the following Table, and

has included the same in computing the revenue gap for FY 2012-13:

Table 4-42: Approved receivables for the energy not sold or lost in the system for FY 2012-13

Particulars Unit Derivation

Approved

for FY 2012-

13

Fuel cost Rs. Crore A 184.65

Net energy generated (from fuel

based plants) MU B 754.37

Total Power Purchase cost Rs. Crore C 150.59

Total power purchase quantum MU D 429.69

Total fuel and power purchase cost Rs. Crore E=A+C 335.24

Total energy quantum (own

generation from fuel based plants +

power purchase)

MU F=B+D 1184.06

Average fuel and power purchase

cost Rs./kWh G=(Ex10)/F 2.83

10% margin on the average fuel and

power purchase cost, to cover other

costs

Rs./kWh H=10% of G 0.28

Per unit rate for energy not sold or

lost in the system Rs./kWh I=G+H 3.11

Energy not sold or lost in the

system MU J 96.07

Receivable for Energy not sold or Rs. Crore K = IxJ/10 29.92



November 2014

Particulars Unit Derivation

Approved

for FY 2012-

13

lost in the system

4.19 Revenue for FY 2012-13

Considering the approved amounts of revenue from sale of power, revenue

subsidy from GoT, and receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system, the

Commission approves total revenue of Rs. 386.27 Crore in the truing up for FY

2012-13, as shown in the Table below:

Table 4-43: Approved total revenue for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Review

Order for FY

2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2012-13

Approved in

truing up for

FY 2012-13

Revenue from sale

of Power 386.31 316.80 316.35 316.35

Revenue Subsidy

from GoT 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00

Receivable for

energy not sold or

lost in the system

- - - 29.92

Total Revenue 426.31 356.80 356.35 386.27

4.20 Revenue gap/surplus

Based on the approved Aggregate Revenue Requirement and total Revenue for

FY 2012-13, the Commission approves the revenue gap of Rs. 75.29 Crore for FY

2012-13, as shown below:



November 2014

Table 4-44: Approved revenue gap/surplus for FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Review Order

for FY 2012-13

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

truing up for

FY 2012-13

Net Aggregate

Revenue Requirement 479.38 543.71 461.55

Total revenue 426.30 356.80 386.27

Revenue gap 53.08 186.92 75.29

The Commission had approved the revenue gap for FY 2012-13 as Rs. 53.08

Crore in the Review of FY 2012-13 in the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th,

2013. In the truing up for FY 2012-13, the Commission approves the revenue

gap for FY 2012-13 as Rs. 75.29 Crore. The additional revenue gap of Rs. 22.21

crore has been added to the revenue requirement of FY 2014-15, as elaborated in

subsequent Chapters of this Order, since, the revenue gap of Rs. 53.08 crore has

already been allowed in the ARR and tariff of FY 2013-14, in the Tariff Order

dated June 25th, 2013.



November 2014

5 Review of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for

FY 2013-14

In this Chapter, the performance of TSECL in FY 2013-14 has been analysed by

the Commission and on the basis of the same, the ARR for TSECL for FY 2013-

14 approved in the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013 is revised. The

Commission has analysed all the elements of the ARR and revenue under review

for FY 2013-14 in this Chapter.

5.1 Energy Sales


The Petitioner submitted the actual intra-State energy sales of 712.12 MU for FY

2013-14, as shown in the following Table:

Table 5-1: Category wise intra-State energy sales for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

(MU)


Kutir Jyoti 18.00

Domestic 372.40

Commercial 64.66

LT Industries 15.07

HT Industries 22.00

Bulk Supply 87.40


Public Water Works 67.50

Public Lighting 32.70

Irrigation and Water 29.55


Total intra-State sales 712.27



November 2014


The Commission, vide its Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, had approved the

intra-State energy sales for FY 2013-14 as 808.58 MU. The actual sales in FY

2013-14 have been 712.27 MU, which is significantly lower than the sales

approved in the previous Tariff Order. However, the Petitioner has not submitted

any reason for such reduced energy sales as compared to sales approved in the

previous Tariff Order.

As regards the sales to Mobile Towers category, the Commission observes that it

had carved out a separate consumer category of Mobile Towers from the

Commercial category and had approved sales to that category a 22.00 MU. The

Petitioner has not submitted the actual sales to the Mobile Towers category

separately. The Commission approves 22.00 MU as sales to the Mobile Towers

category, same as that approved in the previous Tariff Order, and deducted the

same from the actual sales to Commercial category submitted by the Petitioner.

Further, as regards the sales to Special Public Utility category, it is observed that

the Petitioner has included the sales to the Public Lighting Category in the sales to

this category. However, in a separate submission, the Petitioner has mentioned

the sales to Special Public Utility category as 2.30 MU. Hence, the Commission

approves the sales to Special Public Utility Category as 2.30 MU and the same is

deducted from the actual sales of 35.00 MU to the Public Lighting category.

For all other Categories, the Commission approves the same energy sales as

submitted by the Petitioner based on actuals of FY 2013-14. Accordingly, the

Commission approves the intra-State sales for FY 2013-14 as 712.27 MU, as


Table 5-2: Approved category-wise intra-State energy sales for FY 2013-14

(MU)

Category

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actuals)

Approved in

Review for FY

2013-14

Kutir Jyoti 17.22 18.00 18.00

Domestic 399.60 372.40 372.40

Commercial 71.97 64.66 42.66

Mobile Tower 22.00 - 22.00

Industrial 50.56 37.07 37.07

Bulk Supply 100.31 87.40 87.40



November 2014

Category

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actuals)

Approved in

Review for FY

2013-14

Tea, Coffee & rubber garden 0.74 0.69 0.69

Irrigation 40.52 29.55 29.55

Public Water works 73.29 67.50 67.50

Public Lighting 30.33 32.70 32.70


Total intra-State sale 808.58 712.27 712.27

5.2 Own generation


The Petitioner has submitted the actual gross generation in FY 2013-14 as 763.70

MU. The actual auxiliary consumption and net generation have been submitted by

the Petitioner as 7.53 MU and 756.17 MU, respectively, for FY 2013-14. TSECL

submitted that in order to improve the demand-supply scenario, one Unit (Unit IX)

of 21 MW of the Rokhia GTPP was commissioned in August, 2013.

The plant-wise actual gross generation, auxiliary consumption and net generation

as submitted by the Petitioner is presented in the following Table:

Table 5-3: Own generation for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner

Particulars Unit Petitioner’s submission

for Review of FY 2013-14

RGTPP





BGTPP




November 2014


for Review of FY 2013-14




GHEP










In the previous Tariff Order, the Commission had approved net energy generation

of 823.50 MU from own generating plants of TSECL for FY 2013-14. Against that,

the Petitioner has submitted the actual net generation of 756.17 MU for FY 2013-

14, which is lower by 67.34 MU than the approved net generation by the

Commission in the previous Tariff Order for FY 2013-14.

In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, the Commission had approved

total gross generation of 382.46 MU from existing units of RGTPP. Further, the

Commission had approved gross generation of 49.10 MU from the new Unit of 21

MW by estimating the generation from the Unit for 6 months from October 2013

and approving PLF of 53.53% for FY 2013-14. Accordingly, the Commission had

approved gross generation from RGTPP as 431.56 MU. The Petitioner has

submitted that the new Unit of RGTPP of 21 MW was commissioned in August,

2013. The Commission observes that considering the generation from new unit of

RGTPP for seven months from September, 2013, and at the PLF approved by the

Commission in the previous Tariff Order for the new and existing Units, 439.66

MU could have been generated from RGTPP. However, according to the

submission of TSECL, 454.21 MU has been generated from RGTPP in FY 2013-

14. Since, the actual generation from RGTPP is higher than the possible gross



November 2014

generation from RGTPP at PLF approved by the Commission for existing and new

Units of RGTPP, the Commission approves the actual gross generation of 454.21

MU from RGTPP for FY 2013-14. Considering the auxiliary consumption of

1.00%, i.e., 4.54 MU, the Commission approves the net generation of 449.67 MU

from RGTPP.

The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order for FY 2013-14, had approved the

gross generation from the Baramura Gas Thermal Power Plant (BGTPP) at

350.00 MU. The Petitioner has submitted the actual gross generation of 274.99

MU in FY 2013-14. The Petitioner has submitted that as Unit 5 of 21 MW of the

plant was out of bus for 5 months, the generation from BGTPP has been lower.

The Commission approves the actual gross generation of 274.99 MU from

BGTPP for FY 2013-14. Considering the auxiliary consumption of 1.00%, net

generation from BGTPP is approved as 272.24 MU for FY 2013-14.

The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order for FY 2013-14, had approved the

gross generation from the Gumti Hydro Electric Plant (GHEP) as 50.10 MU. The

Petitioner has submitted the actual gross generation of 34.50 MU in FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner has not submitted any reason for the reduced generation from

GHEP in FY 2013-14. The Commission approves the actual gross generation of

34.50 MU from GHEP for FY 2013-14. Considering the auxiliary consumption of

0.70%, net generation from GHEP is approved as 34.26 MU for FY 2013-14 .

The approved power generation from the own generating plants of the Petitioner

for FY 2013-14, is given in the Table below.

Table 5-4: Approved own generation for FY 2013-14

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actuals)

Approved in

Review for FY

2013-14

RGTPP (Including the new unit)





BGTPP





November 2014

Particulars Unit

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

(actuals)

Approved in

Review for FY

2013-14



GHEP









5.3 Power Purchase


The Petitioner, in its Tariff Petition, has submitted the actual power purchase

quantum for FY 2013-14, as 598.45 MU. TSECL submitted that it has procured

power from NEEPCO and NHPC in FY 2013-14. Further, the Petitioner submitted

that Tripura has 80 MW of allocation from OTPC Palatana plant of 363 MW. One

Unit of the plant was operational from January, 2014, and hence, TSECL has

been procuring power from OTPC Palatana plant from January, 2014. The power

procurement in FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL, is as given in the Table

below:

Table 5-5: Power Purchase for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner

(MU)


in FY 2013-14

NEEPCO 366.93

NHPC 67.90



November 2014


in FY 2013-14

OTPC Palatana 163.62

Total 598.45


The Petitioner has submitted the actual power purchase quantum in FY 2013-14

as 598.45 MU. The Commission has verified the same with the actual month-wise

energy accounts submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14. The Commission

observed that the month-wise energy accounts submitted by the Petitioner for FY

2013-14 shows the total power purchase of 600.62 MU. The Commission, in the

Review for FY 2013-14 in the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, had

approved power purchase by TSECL as 693.07 MU for FY 2013-14. The

reduction in the actual power purchase as compared to the power purchase

approved by the Commission is on account of delay in generation from the OTPC

Palatana plant. Against the approved power purchase of 269.50 MU from OTPC

Palatana plant, the Petitioner could procure only 163.62 MU.

Further, in FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has procured 365.28 MU from NEEPCO,

which is marginally higher than the 364.29 MU approved by the Commission.

From NHPC, against the Commission’s approval for power purchase of 59.28 MU,

the Petitioner has procured higher quantum of 71.72 MU in FY 2013-14. Based on

the actual energy accounts submitted by the Petitioner, the Commission approves

the actual power purchase quantum of 600.62 MU for FY 2013-14, as shown in

the following Table:

Table 5-6: Approved Power Purchase for FY 2013-14

(MU)

Source of

Power Purchase

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

Review for FY

2013-14

NEEPCO 364.29 366.93 365.28

NHPC 59.28 67.90 71.72

OTPC Palatana 269.50 163.62 163.62

Total 693.07 598.45 600.62



November 2014



The Petitioner submitted that the T&D loss in FY 2013-14 was 33.30%. TSECL

submitted that the actual T&D loss for FY 2013-14 has been higher than the T&D

loss approved the Commission in the previous Tariff Order, as in the last few

years, the LT:HT ratio of the network in the State has increased as a result of

extensive village electrification and addition of large number of LT consumers.

TSECL submitted that on completion of R-APDRP projects, the technical and

commercial losses of TSECL are expected to come down rapidly in the future, but

till then TSECL has to manage higher T&D loss in the network.


The Commission observes that the T&D loss of 33.30% proposed by the

Petitioner for FY 2013-14 is substantially higher than the T&D loss of 22.00% for

FY 2013-14 approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order.

The Petitioner has contended that the increase in the T&D loss is a result of the

increased LT:HT ratio of its network on account of extensive village electrification

undertaken by the Petitioner. As elaborated by the Commission in Para 4.4 of this

Order, the analysis of actual length of the network of TSECL vis-a-vis T&D loss of

the previous years do not support such contention of the Petitioner. Despite the

increase in LT network, the LT:HT ratio of TSECL’s network has remained

constant at 1.71 since 2008-09 due to corresponding increase in the HT network

also. The Commission also observes that the total sales to Kutir Jyoti and

Domestic category consumers has increased significantly in the last few years,

which may be the result of the extensive village electrification undertaken by

TSECL. However, because of corresponding increase in the consumption of other

categories also, the total energy sales to Domestic and Kutir Jyoti category

consumers has remained constant at around 53-55% of the total energy sales of

TSECL.


allow the increased T&D loss for FY 2013-14 as proposed by TSECL. The

Commission approves the same T&D loss of 22% for FY 2013-14, as approved in

the previous Tariff Order.



November 2014


Particular

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

Review for FY

2013-14

T&D loss 22.00% 33.30% 22.00%

5.5 Energy balance


Based on the energy sales, own generation and power purchase, the Petitioner

has submitted the energy balance for FY 2013-14, as shown in the following

Table:

Table 5-8: Energy Balance for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

Particulars Units

Petitioner’s

submission for

review of FY 2013-14

Energy Requirement


Sales in bilateral trade/UI MU 285.06


T&D Losses % 33.30%

Total Energy Requirement @

TSECL Periphery MU 1067.91

Energy Availability




NER Loss MU 16.11




November 2014


The Commission observes that the NER loss of 16.11 MU reported by the

Petitioner is significantly lower than the NER loss of 30.19 MU approved by the

Commission for FY 2013-14 in the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013.

The Commission approves the NER loss of 16.11 MU submitted by the Petitioner

in the review of FY 2013-14.




Table 5-9: Approved energy balance for FY 2013-14

Particulars Unit

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

Review for

FY 2013-14

Energy Requirement

Energy Sales within State MU 808.58 712.27 712.27

Sales in bilateral trade/UI MU 449.74 285.06 285.05

T&D Losses MU 228.06 355.64 200.90

T&D Losses % 22.00% 33.30% 22.00%

Total Energy

Requirement @ TSECL

Periphery

MU 1036.64 1067.91 913.17

Energy Availability

Own Generation MU 823.50 756.17 756.17

Total Power Purchase MU 693.07 596.80 600.62

Gross Power Availability MU 1516.57 1352.97 1356.78

NER Loss MU 30.19 16.11 16.11

Net Power Availability MU 1486.38 1336.86 1340.67



November 2014

5.6 Fuel purchase cost


The Petitioner, in its Petition, submitted the fuel purchase cost for FY 2013-14 as

Rs. 176.65 Crore, considering the average gas price of Rs. 6.01/SCM and specific

fuel consumption as 0.307 kg/kWh, as shown in the following Table:

Table 5-10: Fuel cost submitted by TSECL for FY 2013-14

Particular Unit

Petitioner’s

submission for

review of FY 2013-14

Gas consumed Tonnes 223,573.98

Units Generated MU 729.20

Specific fuel consumption Kg/kWh 0.307

Gas price Rs./SCM 6.01

Cost of gas Rs. Crore 176.65


The Petitioner has submitted the fuel purchase cost for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 176.65

Crore, as against Rs. 187.98 Crore approved by the Commission in the previous

Tariff Order.

To verify the fuel purchase cost for FY 2013-14, the Commission directed the

Petitioner to submit month-wise and station-wise fuel cost along with the bills

raised by the suppliers. The Petitioner, in its reply to the data gaps, submitted the

fortnightly fuel purchase quantum and cost for FY 2013-14. However, the

Petitioner did not submit the bills raised by the fuel suppliers, namely, GAIL and

ONGC, to the Commission. The Commission observed that according to the

fortnightly data of fuel purchase quantum and cost submitted by the Petitioner, the

amount paid to the fuel suppliers is Rs. 178. 26 Crore, as shown in the following

Table:



November 2014

Table 5-11: Actual fuel cost for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

Plant Particulars Unit TOTAL

RGTPP

Quantity of Gas MMSCM 189.96

Amount Rs. Crore 113.64

Average Price Rs./SCM 5.98

BGTPP




Total Gas




Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted the provisional annual accounts for FY

2013-14. The Commission observed that as per “Note No. 18” of the provisional

annual accounts for FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner, the fuel purchase

cost incurred by TSECL in FY 2013-14 is Rs. 194.50 Crore, including the cost of

Rs. 0.10 Crore for purchase of HSD.

It is observed that the fuel purchase cost of Rs. 194.50 Crore, including Rs. 0.10

Crore pertaining to purchase of HSD, appearing in the provisional annual

accounts for FY 2013-14, is much higher than the actual cost of Rs. 176.65 Crore

submitted by the Petitioner for purchase of gas in FY 2013-14. Further, based on

the fortnightly break-up of gas purchase submitted by the Petitioner, the cost of

purchase of gas for FY 2013-14 works out to Rs. 178.16 Crore, which is

marginally higher than the gas purchase cost proposed by the Petitioner in the

Petition. In view of the same, the Commission approves the cost of purchase of



November 2014

gas for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 178.16 Crore, based on the break-up of actual fuel

purchase submitted by the Petitioner. In addition, the Commission approves the

cost of purchase of HSD in FY 2013-14 as Rs. 0.10 Crore, based on the

provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14.

Table 5-12: Fuel purchase cost approved for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particular

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2013-14

Approved in

Review of FY

2013-14

Fuel purchase cost 187.98 176.65 194.50 178.26

5.7 Power purchase cost


The Petitioner, in its Tariff Petition, has submitted the power purchase cost of Rs.

175.98 Crore for FY 2013-14. TSECL submitted that it had procured power from

NEEPCO and NHPC in FY 2013-14. Further, the Petitioner submitted that Tripura

has 80 MW of allocation from OTPC Palatana plant of 363 MW. One Unit of the

plant was operational from January, 2014 and TSECL has been procuring power

from OTPC Palatana plant from January, 2014. TSECL submitted the station-wise

actual power purchase cost for actual quantum of power purchased from stations

of NEEPCO and NHPC in FY 2013-14. Further, for power purchase from OTPC

Palatana plant, the Petitioner submitted its projection of power purchase cost

based on the Order of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) dated

December 20th, 2013, in the matter of approval of provisional tariff for OTPC

palatana. Accordingly, TSECL submitted the power purchase cost for FY 2013-14,

as shown in the following Table:

Table 5-13: Actual power purchase cost for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

Plant Power

Purchase

Fixed

Charges

Variable

Charges

Total Power

Purchase Cost

MU Rs. Crore Rs. Crore Rs. Crore

Khandong 9.80 1.47 1.09 2.56



November 2014

Plant Power

Purchase

Fixed

Charges

Variable

Charges

Total Power

Purchase Cost

Kopili 41.08 2.09 1.87 3.96

Kopili St – II 7.18 0.60 0.67 1.27

AGTPP (Agartala) 105.25 12.91 26.24 39.15

AGBPP (Assam) 112.82 16.58 22.27 38.85

DHEP 16.06 3.27 3.34 6.61

RHEP 73.10 14.57 8.91 23.48

Total NEEPCO 365.28 51.49 64.39 115.88

Loktak HEP (NHPC) 67.90 18.49

OTPC Palatana 163.62 20.60 19.86 41.61

Total 598.45 72.09 84.25 175.98

Further, in its Petition, TSECL submitted the actual Transmission charges and

RLDC charges, as shown below:

Table 5-14: Actual Transmission Charges and RLDC charges for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

(Rs. Crore)

Particular Actual for FY 2013-14

PGCIL charges 23.75

POSOCO charges 0.84

Total charges 24.58


In the previous Tariff Order, the Commission had approved the power purchase

cost excluding the transmission and RLDC charges as Rs. 199.35 Crore, for

purchase of 693.07 MU for FY 2013-14. Hence, the Commission had approved

the average rate for purchase of power by TSECL for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 2.88 per

kWh in the previous Tariff Order. TSECL has submitted the actual power

purchase cost as Rs. 175.98 Crore (including the transmission and RLDC

charges) for purchase of 598.45 MU, at the average rate of Rs. 2.94 per kWh. The



November 2014

Commission observed that in the energy accounts for FY 2013-14 submitted by

the Petitioner, the power purchase for FY 2013-14 was 600.62 MU as against

598.45 MU submitted by the Petitioner.

Further, the Commission had approved the Transmission charges and RLDC

charges of Rs. 28.91 Crore and Rs. 0.80 Crore, respectively, for FY 2013-14 in

the previous Tariff Order. In its Petition, TSECL has submitted the actual

transmission charges and RLDC charges as Rs. 23.75 Crore and Rs.0.84 Crore,

respectively, for FY 2013-14.

Vide the data gaps sent to the Petitioner, the Commission directed the Petitioner

to submit the month-wise and station-wise details of power purchase cost along

with the bills received by it for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner failed to submit the

month-wise and station-wise power purchase cost and bills raised by the

generating stations for sale of power to TSECL.

Subsequently, the Petitioner submitted the provisional annual accounts for FY

2013-14. As per the provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14, the power

purchase cost for FY 2013-14 is Rs. 218.19 Crore.

In the absence of the month-wise power purchase cost along with the bills raised

by the generators, the Commission is unable to verify the actual power purchase

cost of TSECL for FY 2013-14. In view of the same, the Commission approves the

power purchase cost for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 218.19 Crore, based on the

provisional annual accounts submitted by TSECL. The Commission observes that

the power purchase cost of Rs. 218.19 Crore as appearing in the provisional

annual accounts for FY 2013-14 is significantly higher than the amount of Rs.

200.57 Crore proposed by the Petitioner towards purchase of power in FY 2013-

14. It is directed that at the time of truing up of FY 2013-14, the Petitioner should

submit the monthly breakup of power purchase cost supported by the bills raised

by the Generators.

Accordingly, the Commission approves the power purchase cost for FY 2013-14

as Rs. 218.19 Crore, as shown in the following Table:

Table 5-15: Approved power purchase cost for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particular

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2013-14

Approved in

Review of FY

2013-14

Fuel purchase cost 224.65 200.57 218.19 218.19



November 2014



The Petitioner has submitted the O&M expenses for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 138.41

Crore , as shown in the Table below:

Table 5-16: O&M expenses for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore)


submission


Repair & Maintenance Expenses 23.29

Administrative & General Expenses 15.01

Total 138.41

The following section elaborates the component-wise analysis of the O&M

expenses:

5.8.1 Employee expenses


The Petitioner submitted that the employee expenses (including salaries, wages

and other benefits) for FY 2013-14 has been estimated by escalating the FY

2012-13 values at 9.76%, which is the average increase of the Consumer Price

Index (CPI) for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. The Petitioner added

that it has estimated the function-wise employee cost increase for FY 2013-14.


The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved the employee

expenses at Rs. 102.91 Crore for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner, in its Petition, has

claimed employee expenses for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 100.11 Crore as.

As per “Note No. 19” of the provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14 submitted

by the Petitioner, the Employee Expense is 101.78 Crore, which is marginally

lower than the employee expense of Rs. 102.91 Crore approved by the

Commission in the previous Tariff Order.



November 2014

Accordingly, the Commission approves the employee expenses for FY 2013-14 as

Rs. 101.78 Crore.

5.8.2 Repair and Maintenance (R&M) expenses


The Petitioner submitted that the R&M expenses for FY 2013-14 has been

estimated by escalating the FY 2012-13 values at 8.62%, which is the average

increase of the Wholesale Pice Index (WPI) for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY

2012-13. Based on the same, TSECL submitted the R&M Expenses for FY 2013-

14 as Rs. 23.29 Crore. The Petitioner has submitted the function-wise R&M

increase for FY 2013-14 and requested the Commission to approve the same.


The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved the R&M expenses at

Rs. 15.83 Crore for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner, in its Petition, has submitted the

R&M expenses for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 23.29 Crore.


by the Petitioner, the R&M Expense is Rs. 28.42 Crore.

Accordingly, the Commission approves R&M expenses of Rs. 28.42 Crore in the

review of FY 2013-14.

5.8.3 Administrative & General (A&G) expenses


The Petitioner submitted that the A&G expenses for FY 2013-14 have been

estimated by escalating the FY 2012-13 values at 8.62%, which is the average

increase of the WPI for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. Based on the

same, the Petitioner claimed the A&G expenses for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 15.01

Crore. The Petitioner submitted the function-wise A&G expense increase for FY

2013-14 and requested the Commission to approve the same.


The Commission, in its previous Tariff Order, had approved the A&G expenses for

FY 2013-14 at Rs. 16.51 Crore. The Petitioner, in its Petition, has submitted the

A&G expenses for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 15.01 Crore.



November 2014


by the Petitioner, the A&G Expense for FY 2013-14 is Rs. 14.51 Crore, which is

lower than the A&G expenses approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order for

FY 2013-14.

Accordingly, the Commission approves the A&G expenses of Rs. 14.51 Crore in

the review of FY 2013-14.

Based on the approval of employee expenses, R&M expenses and A&G

expenses for FY 2013-14 as mentioned above, the Commission approves the

O&M expenses for TSECL as Rs. 144.51 Crore in the review of FY 2013-14, as


Table 5-17: O&M expenses approved for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved

in review

of FY

2013-14

Employee Expense 102.91 100.11 101.78 101.78

Repair and

Maintenance

Expenses

15.83 23.29 28.42 28.42

Administrative and

General Expenses 16.51 15.01 14.51 14.51

Total 135.25 138.41 144.71 144.71

5.9 Depreciation


The Petitioner submitted that the Gross Fixed Assets have been taken from

provisional accounts for FY 2012-13. The Petitioner further added that function-

wise GFA has been used to estimate the GFA added in FY 2013-14. Based on the

same, the GFA and depreciation for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner is

given in the following Table:



November 2014

Table 5-18: Depreciation claimed by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 (Rs. Crore)

Asset Particulars GFA Depreciation

Rate Depreciation

Land 52.57 0.00% 0

Building 26.78 2.49% 0.67

Plant and Machinery 752.53 5.28% 39.73

Computer 0.52 16.21% 0.08

Computer and Office Equipment 2.52 16.21% 0.41

Office Equipment 0.14 16.21% 0.02

Furniture 1.13 6.33% 0.07

Vehicles 0.41 9.50% 0.04

Grand Total 836.61 41.03

Accordingly, the Petitioner, in its Petition, requested the Commission to approve

depreciation of Rs. 41.03 Crore as against Rs. 24.31 Crore approved by the

Commission in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013.

However, in its subsequent submission, the Petitioner submitted the depreciation

for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 21.55 Crore, as shown in the following Table:

Table 5-19: Revised computation of depreciation for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

(Rs. Crore)

Asset Particulars GFA for FY 2013-14 Depreciation

Rate

Depreciation for

FY 2013-14

Land 27.48 0.00% -

Building 14.04 2.49% 0.35

Plant & Machinery 396.24 5.28% 20.92

Computer 0.24 16.21% 0.04

Computer and Office

Equipment 1.10 16.21% 0.18


Furniture 0.59 6.33% 0.04



November 2014

Asset Particulars GFA for FY 2013-14 Depreciation

Rate

Depreciation for

FY 2013-14

Vehicles 0.17 9.50% 0.02

Total GFA Closing 439.92 21.55


The depreciation computed by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14 is not based on the

Fixed Assets Register audited by the Statutory Auditor, however, as discussed in

detail in the section on truing-up for FY 2012-13, the Commission has

provisionally considered the GFA and depreciation as per the Petitioner’s

submission based on the depreciation rates specified in the Companies Act and

Straight Line Method (SLM) in accordance with the Regulations. Further, it is to be

noted that although the Commission has provisionally considered the GFA for FY

2013-14, the same shall be reviewed based on the Petitioner’s submission of fixed

asset registers and depreciation registers.

In view of the above, the Commission allows depreciation of Rs. 21.55 Crore for

FY 2013-14, as claimed by the Petitioner, as shown in the Table below:

Table 5-20: Depreciation approved for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

As per

annual

accounts

Approved in

review for

FY 2013-14

Depreciation 24.31 21.55 48.75 21.55



The Petitioner submitted that the gross normative opening loan has been taken

from the provisional accounts for FY 2012-13. The following Table shows the

opening loan for FY 2013-14, as submitted by the Petitioner:



November 2014

Table 5-21: Opening loans for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

(Rs. Crore)


Secured Loan

PFC Loan 60.09

Unsecured Loan

Interest free Loan from Government of

Tripura 60.34

Loan from REC 42.45

Others 41.53

Total 204.41

Considering the opening loan from various sources, the interest and finance

charges for FY 2013-14 as submitted by the Petitioner, is shown in the following

Table:

Table 5-22: Interest and finance charges for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

(Rs. Crore)


Opening Loan 204.40

Addition of Assets 20.52

Depreciation 41.03

Closing Loan 183.89

Interest 16.62

Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve the interest

and finance charges of Rs. 16.62 Crore for FY 2013-14 as against Rs. 0.34 Crore

approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013 for FY

2013-14.



November 2014


The Commission had approved Rs. 0.34 Crore as interest and finance charges for

FY 2013-14 in the previous Tariff Order. The Commission observes that the

interest on capital loan amounting to Rs. 16.62 Crore as submitted by TSECL has

been arrived on normative basis. However, according to “Note No. 20” of the

provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has not paid any

amount as interest and finance charges in FY 2013-14.

Since, the provisional annual accounts of FY 2013-14 confirms that no payment of

interest and finance charges has been made by the Petitioner in FY 2013-14, the

Commission approves the interest and finance charges as nil, in the review of FY

2013-14.

The Commission accordingly, approves the Interest and Finance charges as nil

for FY 2013-14, as shown in the Table below:

Table 5-23: Interest and Finance Charges approved for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2013-14

Approved in

review for FY

2013-14

Interest and

Finance charges 0.34 16.62 0.00 0.00





on working capital on normative basis as given in Tariff Regulations, 2004. The

Petitioner submitted that it has cash at its disposal, which is depleting

continuously due to working capital requirement and TSECL may not be able to

use the cash for other capital works in the future. The Petitioner further submitted

that forgone opportunity by not claiming working capital interest and using the



November 2014

cash reserve results in depletion of cash reserves. The Petitioner added that there

is an opportunity cost involved in using cash for working capital as the Utility could

have invested this cash in securities or bank deposits, hence, it has proposed to

claim Interest on Working capital.






The Petitioner submitted that the Commission, in the previous Tariff Orders, had

disallowed interest on working capital requirement and requested the Commission

to allow working capital borrowings. The Petitioner submitted that currently it is not

able to meet the cash flow demand owing to working capital shortage and it has

resulted in late payments to the Central Generating Stations.

The considerations for calculation of working capital and interest thereon, along

with interest on working capital as submitted by the Petitioner, are summarized in

the Table below:

Table 5-24: Interest on Working Capital as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Share of GFA Norm (Days) FY 2013-14

Generation 31% 45 17.99

Transmission 7% 45 4.02

Distribution 61% 60 49.96

Total 71.97

Interest Rate 14.50%


Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve interest on

working capital of Rs. 10.36 Crore as against Nil approved by the Commission in

the Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013.



November 2014


The Commission has examined the computation of interest on working capital

submitted by the Petitioner.

However, as mentioned above, the Tariff Regulations allow for interest on working

capital limited to actual. Further, from the provisional annual accounts for FY

2013-14, the Commission has observed that the Petitioner has not paid any

interest cost towards working capital loan borrowed from the Banks/Financial

Institutions.

The Commission, accordingly, approves the interest on working capital as nil in

the review of FY 2013-14, as shown in the following Table:


Particulars

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2014

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2013-14

Approved

in review

of FY 2013-

14

Interest on working

capital 0.00 10.36 0.00 0.00



The Petitioner submitted that as per TERC Tariff Regulations 2004, reasonable




November 7th, 2013 was 14.75%, thus, for calculation of reasonable return, the

rate of return for overall paid-up equity capital has been assumed to be 17.75%,

i.e., 3% over SBI PLR.

The Petitioner submitted that as per Note No 1 of provisional annual accounts for

FY 2012-13, the paid up equity is Rs. 65475.39 Lakh and it has received Rs. 5.00

Crore as government equity in FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner submitted that for calculation of reasonable return, the rate of return

for overall paid-up equity capital has been assumed to be 17.75%. The

reasonable return computed on projected paid up capital as submitted by the

Petitioner, is summarized in the Table given below:



November 2014

Table 5-26: Reasonable Return submitted by the Petitioner for review of FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Revised Submission

for FY 2013-14



Average Equity capital during FY 2013-14 172.91



Thus, the Petitioner has claimed reasonable return of Rs. 30.69 Crore as against

Rs. 16.52 Crore approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated June 25th,

2013.


The Commission had approved the reasonable return for FY 2013-14 as Rs.

16.52 Crore. The Commission has observed that the Petitioner has computed the

reasonable return by considering 17.75% interest rate on the total equity of

TSECL. As per the TERC Tariff Regulations 2004, the reasonable rate of return is

to be calculated separately for the generation, transmission and distribution

business. While calculating the reasonable return for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner

has not segregated the average equity into generation, transmission and

distribution businesses.

Therefore, the computation of the reasonable return submitted by the Petitioner is

not as per TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004.

From the provisional Annual accounts of the Petitioner for FY 2013-14, it is

observed that the paid up equity as on March 31st, 2014 is equal to Rs. 654.75

Crore. The Petitioner has also claimed that it has received additional Rs. 5.00

Crore as government equity in FY 2013-14, however, the same is not confirmed

by the provisional annual accounts of the Petitioner, which do not show any

increase in the paid up equity capital in FY 2013-14.

Against the paid up equity capital of Rs. 654.75 Crore as on March 31st, 2014, the

Net Fixed Assets appearing in the provisional annual accounts as on March 31st,



November 2014

2013 are Rs. 640.49 Crore. As stated earlier, in the power industry in India, the

debt:equity ratio is considered as 70:30 after deducting the amount of assets that

have been funded through grants or consumer contribution. In other words, equity

capital is capped at 30% of the total assets of the utility, after deducting the

amount of assets that have been funded through grants or consumer contribution.

Hence, if the equity portion is more than 30% of the fixed assets added, Return on

Equity is provided considering the equity as 30% of the fixed assets added by the

utility. In case of TSECL, most of the assets are funded through grants or

consumer contribution. Moreover, the provisional annual accounts of TSECL for

FY 2012-13 also show that the equity shares have been issued to the

Government of Tripura for amount equivalent to Rs. 554.96 Crore, without receipt

of any payment in cash, and have been issued pursuant to the GoT notification

regarding transfer of assets. Hence, the amount of paid up equity capital reflected

in the provisional annual accounts of TSECL may not qualify for being considered

as 'paid up equity capital' in accordance with the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004,

since, the same have not been paid for.

Hence, the Commission has capped the equity of TSECL as on March 31st, 2014

as Rs. 204.30 Crore, i.e., same as that considered for FY 2012-13.

As per TERC Tariff Regulations 2004, the Commission in its previous Tariff Order

had considered interest rates at 15.23%, 14.23% and 15.23%, respectively, for

generation, transmission and distribution businesses. Since, the Petitioner has not

provided the break-up of the equity for generation, transmission and distribution

functions, it is difficult for the Commission to arrive at the normative reasonable

return of the Petitioner as per the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004. Thus, for review

of FY 2013-14, the Commission has considered the break-up of equity in

generation, transmission and distribution in the same proportion as the proportion

of GFA submitted by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Commission has computed

the average equity for FY 2013-14 of TSECL in the generation, transmission and

distribution assets. Further, the Commission has considered the same interest

rates as considered in the previous Order, for the purpose of review for FY 2013-

14.

Accordingly, the reasonable return approved by the Commission in the review of

FY 2013-14, is shown in the Table below:

Table 5-27: Reasonable Return approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Average Equity Interest Rate Reasonable

Return

Generation 64.40 15.23% 9.81



November 2014


Return


Distribution 125.45 15.23% 19.11

Total 204.70 31.03

5.13 Non-Tariff Income


The Petitioner has included the inter-State sale of energy in the non-tariff income

for FY 2013-14. The Commission has approved the revenue from inter-State sale

of energy separately and has excluded the same from the non-tariff income.

The details of non-tariff income as submitted by the Petitioner (excluding the

revenue from inter-State sales), is shown in the Table below:

Table 5-28: Non Tariff Income submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Revised submission for

FY 2013-14

Interest from Bank Deposits 38.01


Total 41.20

Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve Non-Tariff

Income of Rs. 41.20 crore in the review of FY 2013-14.


The Petitioner has submitted the non-tariff income of Rs. 41.20 Crore for FY 2013-

14 as against Rs. 42.01 Crore approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff

Order.



November 2014

As per the provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14, the non-tariff income for

TSECL for FY 2013-14 is Rs. 35.40 Crore.

The Commission accordingly approves the non-tariff income of Rs. 35.40 Crore in

the review of FY 2013-14, as shown in the Table below:

Table 5-29: Non Tariff Income submitted by the Petitioner for truing up of FY 2012-13

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

the Order

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts of

FY 2013-14

Approved in

review of FY

2013-14

Interest Income 38.11 38.01 25.29 25.29

Other charges 1.56 0.00 5.56 5.56

Service Connection

Charges 2.34 3.19 4.55 4.55

Total 42.01 41.20 35.40 35.40

5.14 ARR for FY 2013-14

Based on the review of the various components of the ARR for FY 2013-14 in the

previous paragraphs, the Commission approves the ARR as Rs. 511.36 Crore in

the review of FY 2013-14, as shown in the following Table:


(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

As per

provisional

Annual

Accounts

Approved

in review of

FY 2013-14

Fuel cost 187.98 176.65 194.50 178.26

Power purchase cost 224.65 200.57 218.19 218.19

O&M expenses 135.25 138.41 144.71 144.71

Depreciation 24.31 21.55 48.75 21.55



November 2014

Particulars

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

As per

provisional

Annual

Accounts

Approved

in review of

FY 2013-14

Interest on working

capital 0.00 10.36 0.00 0.00

Interest and finance

charges 0.34 16.62 0.00 0.00

Reasonable Return 16.52 30.69 0.00 31.03

Aggregate Revenue

Requirement (ARR) 589.05 594.85 606.15 593.74

Less: non-tariff income 42.01 41.20 35.40 35.40

Net Aggregate

Revenue

Requirement

547.04 553.65 570.75 558.34



The Petitioner has submitted the revenue earned from sale of power in FY 2013-

14 as Rs. 424.62 Crore, as shown in the following Table:

Table: 5-31: Revenue from sale of power for FY 2013-14 as submitted by TSECL

Particulars Sales

(MU)

Revenue

(Rs. Crore)

Intra-State sales of power 712.27 364.00

Sale to Manipur and Mizoram 128.58 19.00

Energy Trading and UI 156.47 41.62

Total Inter-State Sales 285.05 60.62

Total Sale of Power by TSECL 997.33 424.62



November 2014



In the Tariff Order for FY 2013-14, the Commission had approved the revenue of

Rs. 378.95 Crore from intra-State sales of 808.58 MU at the average rate of Rs.

4.69 per kWh. According to the Petitioner’s submissions, the actual intra-State

sale in FY 2013-14 was 712.27 MU as against 808.58 MU approved by the

Commission in the Tariff Order. The Petitioner, in its Petition, has submitted that it

has earned revenue of Rs. 364.00 Crore from such intra-State sale at an average

rate of Rs. 5.11 kWh. The Commission observes that the average rate submitted

by the Petitioner for intra-State sales in FY 2013-14 is significantly higher than the

average rate approved by the Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2013-14.


The Petitioner submitted the revenue from inter-State sales as Rs. 60.62 Crore for

sale of 285.05 MU. Hence, the average rate for inter-State sales in FY 2013-14

was only Rs. 2.13 per kWh based on the submission of the Petitioner. The

Commission, in its Tariff Order for FY 2013-14, had approved the average rate for

inter-State sale as Rs. 4.05 per kWh, and approved revenue of Rs. 182.08 Crore

against sales of 449.74 MU for FY 2013-14. The Commission observes that the

average billing rate of Rs. 2.13 per kWh from inter-State sales as submitted by

TSECL is too low compared to the average rate of Rs. 4.05 per kWh approved by

the Commission in the previous Tariff Order.

It is observed that the Petitioner has submitted revenue from sale of 128.58 MU to

Manipur and Mizoram as Rs. 19.00 Crore. Hence, according to the submission of

the Petitioner, average rate for sale to Manipur and Mizoram is only Rs. 1.43 per

kWh as against the average billing rate of Rs. 3.10 per kWh approved by the

Commission in the Tariff Order for FY 2013-14. However, in the detailed

submissions of the Petitioner in reply to the data gaps sent by the Commission,

the Petitioner has submitted the revenue from sale of power to Manipur and

Mizoram as Rs. 41.18 Crore. The Commission has verified the aforementioned

submission of the Petitioner with the actual monthly billing data submitted by the

Petitioner for energy sold to Manipur and Mizoram. The Commission observed

that according to the monthly billing data, the Petitioner has billed Rs. 41.18 Crore

to Manipur and Mizoram for sale of energy in FY 2013-14.

Further, as per the Petitioner’s submission, the average rate from energy traded

or sold as Unscheduled Interchange is Rs. 2.66 per kWh, as it has sold 156.47

MU for Rs. 41.62 Crore. The Commission observes that the average rate of Rs.



November 2014

2.66 per kWh from such sale is significantly lower than the average rate of Rs.

4.50 per kWh approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order.

The Commission has verified the revenue from sale of power for FY 2013-14 from

the provisional accounts of FY 2013-14. As per the provisional accounts for FY

2013-14, the Petitioner has earned Rs. 451.87 Crore from the intra-State and

inter-State sale of power in FY 2013-14. Accordingly, the Commission approves

the revenue from sale of power as Rs. 451.87 Crore in the review of FY 2013-14.

Further, the Commission observes that due to higher gross energy requirement

for intra-State sales on account of higher T&D loss in the network of TSECL,

TSECL has been able to sell lesser amount of energy outside the State of Tripura

as compared to the inter-State energy Sales approved by the Commission in the

previous Tariff Order. The Commission has dealt with revenue loss on account of

the same in the relevant paragaphs regarding “Receivable for energy not sold or

lost in the system", in accordance with the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004.

In view of the above, the Commission approves the revenue from sale of power in

FY 2013-14 as Rs. 451.87 Crore, as shown in the following Table.

Table 5-32: Approved revenue from sale of power for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts for

FY 2013-14

Approved in

Review of

FY 2013-14

Total Revenue from

sale of Power 561.03 424.62 451.87 451.87

5.16 Revenue Subsidy from Government of Tripura

In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, for determination of ARR and

tariff for FY 2013-14, the Commission had not approved any revenue subsidy from

GoT. In its Petition, TSECL submitted that it has received Rs. 40.00 Crore as

revenue subsidy from GoT, which is also confirmed by the provisional annual

accounts for FY 2013-14. The Commission approves the revenue subsidy from

GoT as Rs. 40.00 Crore in the review of FY 2013-14.



November 2014

Table 5-33: Approved revenue subsidy from Government of Tripura

Particulars

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2013-14

Approved in

Review of

FY 2013-14

Revenue from

Subsidy from GoT

(Rs. Crore)

- 40.00 40.00 40.00

5.17 Receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system

As elaborated in the Chapter 4 of this Order, Clause (5)(1)(i) of the TERC Tariff

Regulations, 2004 specifies that the income of the licensee shall also include

receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system.

In view of the aforementioned Regulations of the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004,

and based on the approved own generation, sales and energy balance for FY

2013-14, the Commission has determined the energy not sold or lost in the

system for FY 2013-14 as 142.45 MU, as shown in the following Table:

Table 5-34: Energy not sold or lost in the system for FY 2012-13

(MU)


Gross own generation A 763.70

Total Power Purchase B 600.62

Gross energy availability C=A+B 1364.32

Energy sales within State D 712.27

Energy sales outside the State E 285.05

Total energy sales F=D+E 997.32

Gross energy not sold G=C-F 367.00

Permissible self consumption (equal to the

auxiliary consumption of own generation) H 7.53

Permissible T&D loss I 200.90



November 2014


NER Loss J 16.11

Energy not sold or lost in the system G=H-I-J 142.45

Accordingly, based on the provisions of the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004, the

Commission has computed the receivable for the energy not sold or lost in the

system for FY 2013-14 as Rs. 46.97 Crore and has included the same while

determining the revenue gap/surplus for FY 2013-14:

Table 5-35: Approved receivable for the energy not sold or lost in the system for FY 2013-14

Particulars Unit Derivation Approved for

FY 2013-14

Fuel cost Rs. Crore A 178.26

Total energy generated (from fuel

based plants) MU B 721.91

Total Power Purchase cost Rs. Crore C 218.19

Total power purchase quantum MU D 600.62

Total fuel and power purchase cost Rs. Crore E=A+C 396.45

Total energy quantum (own

generation + power purchase) MU F = B+D 1322.52

Average fuel and power purchase

cost Rs./kWh G=(Ex10)/F 3.00

10% margin on the average fuel and

power purchase cost, to cover other

costs

Rs./kWh H=10% of G 0.30

Per unit rate for energy not sold or

lost in the system Rs./kWh I=G+H 3.30

Energy not sold or lost in the

system MU J 142.45

Receivable for Energy not sold or

lost in the system

Rs.

Crore K=IxJ/10 46.97



November 2014

5.18 Revenue for FY 2013-14

Considering the approved amounts of revenue from sale of power, revenue

subsidy from GoT and receivable for energy not sold or lost in the system, the

Commission approves the total revenue of Rs. 538.84 Crore in the review of FY


Table 5-36: Approved total revenue for FY 2013-14

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved

in Order

dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Provisional

accounts

for FY

2013-14

Approved in

Review of FY

2013-14

Revenue from sale of

Power 561.03 424.62 451.87 451.87

Revenue Subsidy

from GoT - 40.00 40.00 40.00

Receivable for

energy not sold or

lost in the system

- - - 46.97

Total Revenue 561.03 464.62 491.87 538.84

5.19 Revenue gap/surplus

Based on the approved Aggregate Revenue Requirement and total Revenue for

FY 2013-14, the Commission approves the revenue gap for FY 2013-14 as Rs.

19.49 Crore, as shown below:


(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

Review of FY

2013-14

Net Aggregate Revenue 547.04 553.65 558.34



November 2014

Particulars

Approved in

Order dated

25.06.2013

Petitioner’s

submission

Approved in

Review of FY

2013-14

Requirement

Total revenue 561.03 464.62 538.84

Revenue gap/(surplus) (13.99) 89.03 19.49

The revenue gap of Rs. 19.49 crore has been added to the revenue requirement

of FY 2014-15, as elaborated in subsequent Chapters of this Order.



November 2014

6 Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) for FY 2014-

15

This Chapter deals with determination of the Aggregate Revenue Requirement

(ARR) for FY 2014-15.

6.1 Energy Sales

6.1.1 Petitioner’s approach

The Petitioner has forecasted the category-wise energy sales by considering

growth in sales to the consumer categories over the actual sales of FY 2013-14

based on the historical category-wise growth in sales, as shown in the following

Table. Using these growth rates, the Petitioner has projected the total energy

sales of 855.14 MU for FY 2014-15, as shown in the Table below:

Table 6-1: Energy Sales projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15 (MU)

Consumer Category FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 Growth

Rate

Projection

for FY

2014-15

Kutir Jyoti 18.02 16.66 17.62 18.00 15.00% 20.70

Domestic 290.80 324.41 347.86 372.40 25.00% 465.49

Commercial 54.23 60.35 67.18 64.66 15.00% 74.35

LT Industrial 30.76 31.29 37.99 15.07 25.00% 18.83

HT Industrial

22.00 10.00% 24.00

Bulk Supply 60.74 88.65 79.18 87.40 30.00% 113.62

Tea, Coffee & Rubber

garden 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.69 20.00% 0.83

Irrigation 37.55 28.81 36.40 29.55 0.00% 29.55

Public Water works 48.09 47.70 62.41 67.50 0.00% 67.50

Public Lighting 28.10 25.60 33.74 35.00 15.00% 40.25

TOTAL 568.84 624.08 683.05 712.27 855.14



November 2014

6.1.2 Consumer Profile and Connected Load

The Petitioner has submitted the category-wise number of consumers for the

previous years since 2010-11. The Petitioner has assumed 9% growth rate across

all consumer categories, except public water works, domestic and industrial

categories for projection of number of consumers for FY 2014-15. For projection

of the number of consumers for public water works, domestic and industrial

categories, the growth rate of 10%, 15%, and 10%, respectively, has been

assumed by the Petitioner to estimate the number of consumers for FY 2014-15.

Actual number of consumers in the past years and projection of number of

consumers for FY 2014-15, as submitted by the Petitioner, is given below:

Table 6-2: Category-wise number of consumers as submitted by TSECL

Consumer Category FY 2010-

11

FY 2011-

12

FY 2012-

13

FY 2013-

14

FY 2014-15

(Projection)

Kutir Jyoti 54,704 61,028 65,354 67,844 73,950

Domestic 378,156 410,647 441,680 473,761 544,825

Commercial 41,958 44,042 46,586 50,623 55,179

LT Industrial 4,306 4,578 4,744 5,006 5,507

HT Industrial

5 5

Bulk Supply 625 818 947 718 783

Tea, Coffee & Rubber

garden 30 29 29 37 40

Irrigation 4,201 4,321 4,674 4,713 5,137

Public Water works 2,646 3,232 3,748 4,533 4,986

Public Lighting 1,081 1,122 1,288 1,206 1,315

TOTAL 487,707 529,817 569,050 608,446 691,727

Vide its submission in reply to the data gaps sent by the Commission, the

Petitioner submitted the data of Connected Load from FY 2011-12 to FY 2013-14

and projection of Connected Load for FY 2014-15, as shown below:



November 2014

Table 6-3: Consumer category-wise connected load as submitted by TSECL

(MW)

Consumer Categories 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

(Projected)

Kutir Jyoti 8.39 10.00 12.00

Domestic 122.03 132.48 148.73 193.26

Commercial 26.03 27.67 29.83 31.43

Mobile Towers 17.82

Irrigation 16.51 19.51 23.06 23.19

Public water works 28.99 34.27 67.50 88.11

Industrial 60.66 61.96 68.31 84.42

Tea, coffee & rubber

garden 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.77

Bulk supply 27.46 29.47 87.40 85.70

Public lighting 5.63 6.32 7.01 7.74

Grand Total 296.26 322.23 432.40 532.43

6.1.3 Commission’s approach

The Commission has adopted a more consistent approach to determine the

projected energy sales for FY 2014-15. The Commission’s approach is based on

the trend analysis of energy sales in the past years, which is a reasonably

accurate and well-accepted method for estimating the energy sales. The

Commission has projected the energy sales based on the Compounded Annual

Growth Rate (CAGR) of sales during the past years. Wherever the CAGR has

seemed unsustainable, the growth rates have been adjusted to arrive at more

realistic projections.

6.1.4 Category-wise energy sales for previous years

The Commission has considered the category-wise sales for TSECL for the past

six years as shown in the Table below:



November 2014

Table 6-4: Actual category-wise sales for TSECL in previous years

Consumer Category FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14

Kutir Jyoti 10.96 12.03 18.02 16.66 17.62 18.00

Domestic 230.89 250.21 290.80 324.41 347.86 372.40

Commercial 41.02 46.65 54.23 60.35 67.18 64.66

Industrial (HT&LT) 31.80 30.21 30.76 31.29 37.99 37.07

Bulk Supply 44.81 46.44 60.74 88.65 79.18 87.40

Tea, Coffee & rubber garden 0.44 0.48 0.55 0.61 0.67 0.69

Irrigation

90.94

39.73 37.55 28.81 36.40 29.55

Public Water works 44.39 48.09 47.70 62.41 67.50

Public Lighting 22.66 26.06 23.74 33.74 35.00


TOTAL 450.86 494.57 568.84 624.08 683.05 712.27

6.2 Detailed analysis of category-wise energy sales

(A) Kutir Jyoti (BPL)


The Petitioner has submitted that at the end of FY 2012-13, it had 67,844 Kutir

Jyoti consumers. The Petitioner has projected an addition of 6,106 Kutir Jyoti

connections in FY 2014-15. Hence, the Petitioner would be supplying to 73,950

Kutir Jyoti connections in FY 2014-15 according to the submissions in the Petition.

The Petitioner has shown the energy sales in FY 2013-14 to the Kutir Jyoti

consumers at 18.00 MU. The Petitioner has considered 15.00% growth in energy

sales to the Kutir Jyoti category in FY 2014-15, and has projected the total energy

sales to this category at 20.70 MU.


The Commission understands that the energy consumption by the kutir jyoti

consumer category estimated by the Petitioner is on the higher side. Further the

maximum allowable consumption by a Kutir Jyoti consumer is capped, and if the



November 2014

consumption of a Kutir Jyoti consumer is beyond such limit, the consumer is to

charged at tariff applicable to Domestic category.

In view of the above, the Commission approves the energy sales to the Kutir

Jyoti category as 13.56 MU for FY 2014-15.

(B) Domestic


The Petitioner has shown the actual energy sales in FY 2013-14 to the Domestic

category as 372.40 MU. The Petitioner has considered 25% growth in energy

sales to the Domestic category for FY 2014-15, and has projected the total energy

sales to this category as 465.49 MU for FY 2014-15.


The sales to this category constituted about 52% of the total energy sales of

TSECL in FY 2013-14. The Petitioner expects a growth of 25% in sales to this

category in FY 2014-15. TSECL has not mentioned any reason for considering

such high growth rate for energy sales to the Domestic category. The Commission

has observed that the CAGR of energy sales to this category in the last 5 years

has been 10.03%. In view of the actual growth rate of 10.03% over the last 5

years, the growth of 25% in energy sales to Domestic category assumed by the

Petitioner seems to be on the higher side.

Based on the sales data of the previous years, the Commission approves

the energy sales to domestic category for FY 2014-15 as 415.10 MU.

(C) Commercial


The Petitioner has shown the actual energy sales in FY 2013-14 to the

Commercial category as 64.66 MU. The Petitioner has considered 15% growth in

energy sales to the Commercial category for FY 2014-15, and has projected the

total energy sales to this category as 74.35 MU for FY 2014-15.


The Petitioner expects a growth of 15% in sales to this category in FY 2014-15.

TSECL has not mentioned any reason for considering such high growth rate for

energy sales to the Commercial category. The Commission has observed that the



November 2014

CAGR of energy sales to this category in the last 5 years has been 9.43%. In view

of the actual growth rate of 9.43% for last 5 years, the growth of 15% in energy

sales to Commercial category assumed by the Petitioner seems to be on the

higher side. The Commission has applied the actual CAGR of 9.43% to the actual

energy sales of 64.66 MU in FY 2013-14, to arrive at the energy sales of 70.82

MU to the Commercial category in FY 2014-15. The Commission observes that it

had carved out a separate consumer category for 'Mobile Towers' from the

Commercial category. As mentioned in the following section, the Commission has

approved sales of 25 MU to the Mobile Towers category. Hence, the sale of 25

MU to the Mobile Towers category has been reduced from the projected sales of

70.82 MU to Commercial category for FY 2014-15.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to Commercial

category for FY 2014-15 as 45.82 MU.

(D) Mobile Tower

Until FY 2012-13, the Mobile Tower consumers were included in the Commercial

category. In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, the Commission

created a separate category for these consumers, and had approved sales to

Mobile Towers category for FY 2013-14 as 22 MU. In its Tariff Petition, TSECL

has not submitted the segregated actual sales to this category from the sales to

the Commercial category. The Petitioner, in its Petition, has proposed energy

sales of 25 MU sales to this category for FY 2014-15. Considering the sales of 22

MU in FY 2013-14, energy sales of 25 MU in FY 2014-15 would mean annual

growth of 13.63% in energy sales to Mobile Towers. The Commission finds the

projection of the Petitioner reasonable.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to the Mobile Towers

category for FY 2014-15 as 25 MU.

(E) Irrigation


The Petitioner has shown the actual energy sales in FY 2013-14 to the irrigation

category consumers as 29.55 MU. The Petitioner has considered no growth in

energy sales to the Irrigation category for FY 2014-15 and has projected that the

energy sales to this category in FY 2014-15 would remain at the same level as the

actual sales in FY 2013-14.



November 2014


The Commission observes that sales to the Irrigation category has been reducing

over the years since 2009-10, except in FY 2012-13 when the sale had increased

as compared to FY 2011-12. Further, from the analysis of actual sales since 2009-

10, it is observed that the energy sales to this category has been reducing

annually at 7.13%. Considering the negative growth rate, the Commission has not

considered any growth in the energy sales to Irrigation category for projection of

sales for FY 2014-15. The Commission finds the Petitioner’s assumption that the

sales to this category in FY 2014-15 would remain at the same level as the actual

sales in FY 2013-14, reasonable.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to Irrigation category

for FY 2014-15 as 29.55 MU.

(F) Industrial (LT&HT)


The Petitioner has shown the actual energy sales in FY 2013-14 to the LT

Industrial consumers as 15.07 MU. The Petitioner has considered 25% growth in

energy sales to the LT Industrial category for FY 2014-15, and has projected the

total energy sales of 18.83 MU to the LT Industrial category for FY 2014-15.

TSECL has not mentioned any reason for assuming such high annual growth in

the sales to LT Industrial Consumers.

As regards HT Industrial Category, TSECL has submitted the actual energy sales

to this category in FY 2013-14 as 22 MU. The Petitioner has considered 10%

growth in energy sales to the HT Industrial category for FY 2014-15, and has

projected the total energy sales of 24 MU to HT Industrial category for FY 2014-

15. TSECL has not mentioned any reason for assuming 10% annual growth in the

sales to HT Industrial Consumers.


In the previous Tariff Orders, the Commission has been approving combined

energy sales to the Industrial category including LT and HT consumers. The

separate energy sales data for LT and HT Industrial consumers is not available in

the data submitted by the Petitioner for the previous years until FY 2013-14.

Hence, for estimation of energy sales to LT and HT Industrial consumers, the

Commission has analysed the combined energy sales to LT and HT Industrial

consumers in the past years.



November 2014

The Commission observes that since FY 2009-10, the sales to Industrial category

has increased at a CAGR of 5.25%. Considering the actual growth of 5.25% in

sales to Industrial consumers, the growth rates of 25% and 10% considered by

TSECL for projection of energy sales to LT Industrial and HT Industrial categories,

respectively, are very high. For projection of sales to the Industrial category in FY

2014-15, the Commission has applied the growth rate of 5.25% on the actual

energy sales of 37.07 MU in FY 2013-14.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to Industrial category

for FY 2014-15 as 39.02 MU.

(G) Bulk Supply


The Petitioner has shown the actual energy sales in FY 2013-14 to the Bulk

Supply category as 87.40 MU. The Petitioner has considered 30% growth in

energy sales to the Bulk Supply category for FY 2014-15, and has projected the

total energy sales to the Bulk Supply category for FY 2014-15 as 113.62 MU.

TSECL has not mentioned any reason for assuming such high growth in the sales

to this consumer category.


Based on the actual sales to Bulk Supply category since FY 2009-10, it is

observed that the sales to this category have increased at the CAGR of 17.13%.

In view of the same, the growth rate of 30% assumed by the Petitioner for

projecting the energy sales to the Bulk Supply category for FY 2014-15 seems to

be on the higher side. The Commission has applied the growth rate of 17.13% for

projecting the sales to Bulk Supply category for FY 2014-15.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to Bulk Supply


(H) Tea, coffee and rubber garden


The actual energy sales to this category has been 0.69 MU in FY 2013-14. The

Petitioner has considered 20% growth in energy sales to this category and has

projected the total energy sales of 0.83 MU to this category for FY 2014-15.

TSECL has not mentioned any reason for assuming such high growth in the sales

to this consumer category.



November 2014


The Commission observes that since FY 2009-10, the sales to this category has

increased at a CAGR of 9.5%. Considering the actual growth of 9.5% in last 4

years, the growth rate of 20% considered by TSECL for projection of energy sales

to this category is on the higher side. For projecting the sales to this category for

FY 2014-15, the Commission has applied the growth rate of 9.5% to the actual

energy sales of 0.69 MU to this category in FY 2013-14.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to tea, coffee and

garden category for FY 2014-15 as 0.76 MU.

(I) Public water works


The actual energy sales to this category have been 67.50 MU in FY 2013-14

according to the submission of TSECL. The Petitioner has considered growth in

energy sales to this category as nil and has considered the same energy sales in

FY 2014-15. TSECL has not mentioned any reason for assuming zero growth in

sales to public water works category.


The Commission observes that since FY 2009-10, the sales to this category has

increased at a CAGR of 11.05%. Considering the actual growth of 11.05% in last

4 years, the sales of 67.5 MU considered by TSECL for FY 2014-15 based on the

assumption of zero growth seems to be on the lower side. For projection of sales

to this category in FY 2014-15, the Commission has applied the growth rate of

11.05% to the actual energy sales of 67.50 MU to this category in FY 2013-14.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to public water works


(J) Public Lighting


The actual energy sales to this category was 35 MU in FY 2013-14. The Petitioner

has considered 15% growth in energy sales to this category and has projected the

total energy sales to this category as 40.25 MU in FY 2014-15.



November 2014


The Commission observes that since FY 2009-10, the sales to public lighting

category have increased at a CAGR of 9.4%. Considering the actual growth of

9.4% in the last 4 years, the growth rate of 15% considered by TSECL for

projection of energy sales to this category seems to be on the higher side. For

projecting the sales to this category in FY 2014-15, the Commission has applied

the growth rate of 9.4% to the actual energy sales of 35 MU to this category in FY

2013-14. Accordingly, the sales to Public Lighting category is projected as 38.29

MU in FY 2014-15. However, it is observed that TSECL has included the energy

sales to the consumer category of 'Special Public Utilities' in the energy sales to

public lighting. The Commission has approved 2.52 MU as energy sales to

Special Public Utilities in FY 2014-15 as elaborated in the following section. The

Commission has reduced such sales to the Special Public Utilities from the

estimated sales of 38.29 MU to the public lighting category for FY 2014-15.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to the public lighting

category in FY 2014-15 as 35.78 MU.

(K) Special Public Utility

TSECL has included the energy sales to special public utilities in the energy sales

to public lighting category. According to the Petitioner’s submission, the sales to

this category was 2.30 MU in FY 2013-14. The Commission has applied the same

growth rate of 9.4% as applicable to the public lighting category, as mentioned

above.

Accordingly, the Commission approves energy sales to special public

utilities in FY 2014-15 as 2.52 MU.

6.2.1 Approved category-wise energy sales for FY 2014-15

The category-wise energy sales approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 are

given in the following Table:

Table 6-5: Consumer category wise approved energy sales for FY 2014-15

(MU)

Consumer Category Projection for

FY 2014-15

Approved for FY

2014-15

Kutir Jyoti 20.70 13.56

Domestic 465.49 415.10



November 2014

Consumer Category Projection for

FY 2014-15

Approved for FY

2014-15

Commercial 74.35* 45.82

Mobile Towers 25.00

Irrigation and Water 29.55 29.55

Industrial 42.83 39.02

Bulk Supply 113.62 96.14

Tea, coffee & rubber garden 0.83 0.76

Public Water Works 67.50 74.96

Public Lighting 40.25$ 35.78


Total intra-State sale 855.14 784.42

Note: * - includes Mobile Towers

$ - includes Special Public Utility

6.3 Own generation

TSECL owns and operates the following three generating stations:

Gumti Hydro-electric Project (GHEP)

Rokhia Gas Thermal Power Plant (RGTPP),

Baramura Gas Thermal Power Plant (BGTPP)

Apart from these major power generating stations, TSECL also owns one diesel

based generating unit.

The details of the existing stations along with their capacities and dates of

commissioning as submitted by TSECL, excluding the diesel generating station,

are given in the following Table:



November 2014

Table 6-6: Installed capacity, COD and current status of TSECL’s generating stations as submitted by TSECL

Name of Plant Unit

Unit

wise

Capacity

(MW)

Available

Installed

Capacity

(MW) for

FY 2014-

15

Year of

Commission

ing

Current Status

Rokhia Gas

Thermal Power

Plant (RGTPP)

1 8 0 1990 Retired

2 8 0 1990

3 8 8 1995

Out of bus 4 8 8 1995

5 8 8 1997

6 8 8 1997

7 21 21 2002

In Operation 8 21 21 2006

9 21 21 August

2013

sub-total 111 95

Baramura Gas

Thermal Power

Plant (BGTPP)

1 5 0 1986

Retired 2 5 0 1986

3 6.5 0 1990

4 21 21 2002 In Operation

5 21 21 2010

sub-total 58.5 42

Gumti Hydro-

electric Project

(GHEP)

1 5 5 1976 In Operation.

Only 2 units run

at a time keeping

other unit standby

alternatively.

2 5 5 1976

3 5 5 1984

sub-total 15 15



November 2014

Name of Plant Unit

Unit

wise

Capacity

(MW)

Available

Installed

Capacity

(MW) for

FY 2014-

15

Year of

Commission

ing

Current Status

Total 184.5 152


Vide its submission in reply to the data gaps sent by the Commission, the

Petitioner has projected gross generation for FY 2014-15 as 838.34 MU. The

auxiliary consumption and net generation projected by the Petitioner for FY 2014-

15 are 8.26 MU and 830.08 MU, respectively.

The plant-wise gross generation, auxiliary consumption and net generation

projected by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 are given in the following Table:

Table 6-7: Own generation projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15


(Projected)

RGTPP








BGTPP



Plant Load Factor % 86.30%





November 2014


(Projected)



GHEP



Plant Load Factor % 40.21%











Note: * The Petitioner has submitted 73.82%, which is a computational error

Thus, the Petitioner has projected gross and net generation from its own

generating stations at 838.34 MU and 830.08 MU, respectively, for FY 2014-15.


While approving the projected own generation from TSECL’s own generating

stations for FY 2014-15, the Commission observes as follows:

The Petitioner has submitted that Unit 3 to Unit 6 of 8 MW each of RGTPP

shall remain out of bus for FY 2014-15. Considering that the Units 1 and 2 of 8

MW each are already retired, the available capacity of RGTPP for FY 2014-15

would be only 63 MW. The Petitioner has projected gross generation of 478.55

MU from RGTPP at PLF of 86.71%, which is higher than the actual generation



November 2014

of 454.21 MU in FY 2013-14. The Commission observes that the actual PLF of

RGTPP was 95.67% in FY 2013-14 (for approved capacity of 63 MW).

However, in FY 2012-13, the PLF of RGTPP was only 63.52% (for approved

capacity of 74 MW). In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that

the PLF of 86.71% projected by TSECL for RGTPP for FY 2014-15 is

reasonable. The Commission approves the gross generation of 478.55 MU

from RGTPP for FY 2014-15, as projected by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has projected gross generation of 317.52 MU from BGTPP at

the PLF of 86.30%. The projected generation from BGTPP for FY 2014-15 is

significantly higher than the actual gross generation of 274.99 MU in FY 2013-

14 and the Commission approves the same for FY 2014-15.

TSECL has projected gross generation of 42.27 MU from GHEP in FY 2014-15

at the PLF of 40.21%. The projected generation from GHEP is higher than the

actual gross generation of 38.75 MU and 34.50 MU in FY 2012-13 and FY

2013-14, respectively. The Commission finds the gross generation from GHEP

as projected by TSECL reasonable and approves the same for FY 2014-15.

In view of the above, the Commission approves the generation from TSECL’s

generating stations excluding the diesel generating station, as shown in the

following Table:

Table 6-8: Gross generation approved for FY 2014-15

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission

(projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

RGTPP

Installed Capacity MW 95.00 95.00

Available Capacity MW 63.00 63.00

Plant Load Factor % 86.71% 86.71%

Gross Generation MU 478.55 478.55

Auxiliary Consumption % 1.00% 1.00%

Auxiliary Consumption MU 4.79 4.79

Net Generation MU 473.76 473.76

BGTPP




November 2014

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission

(projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15







GHEP














The Commission approves the gross and net generation for FY 2014-15 from

generating stations of TSECL as 838.34 MU and 830.08 MU, respectively.



November 2014

6.4 Power Purchase


TSECL has submitted that it procures power from NEEPCO and NHPC. It has

also been procuring power from OTPC Palatana from January, 2014. While

projecting the power procurement from NEEPCO and NHPC sources, TSECL has

assumed that in FY 2014-15, TSECL will receive the same amount of energy as

available in FY 2013-14 from each of the stations. The State of Tripura has 80

MW allocation from OTPC Palatana Plant, and TSECL has projected the power

purchase of 700.80 MU in FY 2014-15 from this plant. The procurement of power

projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15, is as shown in the following Table:

Table 6-9: Power purchase in FY 2014-15 as projected by TSECL

(MU)

Source of Power Purchase Petitioner’s submission

(projected)

NEEPCO 364.28

NHPC 67.90

OTPC Palatana 700.80

Total 1132.98


TSECL has submitted that while projecting the power procurement from NEEPCO

and NHPC sources, it has assumed that in FY 2014-15, TSECL will receive the

same amount of energy as available in FY 2013-14, from each of the stations.

However, from the energy accounts for FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner, it

is observed that the projected power procurement from NEEPCO and NHPC in

FY 2014-15, as submitted by TSECL is not the same as the actual power

procurement from these sources in FY 2013-14. However, the Commission

agrees with the Petitioner's stated basis for projecting the power procurement

from NEEPCO and NHPC. Hence, the Commission approves the power purchase

from NEEPCO and NHPC as 365.28 MU and 71.72 MU, respectively, which is the

same as that approved for FY 2013-14 based on actuals.



November 2014

As regards power purchase from OTPC Palatana, TSECL has projected power

purchase of 700.80 MU from the plant. Considering the actual power purchase

from OTPC Palatana since the operationalisation of the Plant, and considering the

probability of commencement of the second Unit of OTPC Palatana, the

Commission is of the view that the power purchase projected by the Petitioner is

reasonable, and the same is approved for FY 2014-15.

Accordingly, the Commission approves the total power purchase for FY 2014-15

as 1137.80 MU, as shown in the Table below:

Table 6-10: Approved power purchase for FY 2014-15

(MU)

Source of Power Purchase

Petitioner’s

submission

(projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

NEEPCO 364.28 365.28

NHPC 67.90 71.72

OTPC Palatana 700.80 700.80

Total 1132.98 1137.80



The Petitioner, in its Petition, projected the T&D loss for FY 2014-15 as 31.68%.

However, in its detailed submission, TSECL has projected the total energy

availability of 1325.74 MU at the State periphery and has projected total sales of

855.14 MU in the State. Thus, the Petitioner has projected total T&D loss in its

network at 35.50%. TSECL submitted that in the last few years, the LT:HT ratio of

the network in the State has increased as a result of extensive village

electrification and addition of large number of LT consumers, and therefore, the

loss of the network is expected to rise. However, on completion of R-APDRP

projects, the technical and commercial losses of TSECL are expected to come

down rapidly in the future, but till then, TSECL has to manage higher T&D loss in

the network.



November 2014


The Commission observes that the T&D loss of 35.50% proposed by the

Petitioner for approval for FY 2014-15 is significantly higher than the T&D loss of

22% for FY 2013-14 approved by the Commission.

The Petitioner has contended that the increase in the T&D loss is a result of the

increased LT:HT ratio of its network on account of extensive village electrification

undertaken by the Petitioner. As elaborated by the Commission in Para 4.4 of this

Order, the analysis of the actual length of the network vis-a-vis T&D loss of the

network of TSECL does not support such contention of the Petitioner. Despite the

increase in LT network, the LT:HT ratio of TSECL’s network has remained

constant at 1.71 since 2008-09 due to corresponding increase in the HT network

also. The Commission also observes that the total sales to Kutir Jyoti and

Domestic category consumers has increased significantly in the last few years,

which may be the result of the extensive village electrification undertaken by

TSECL. However, because of corresponding increase in the consumption of other

categories also, the total energy sales to Domestic and Kutir Jyoti category has

remained constant at around 53-55% of the total energy sales of TSECL.


allow the T&D loss for FY 2014-15 as proposed by TSECL. The Commission has

been reducing the target T&D loss for TSECL every year. However, from the

actual data for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 submitted by the Petitioner, the

Commission observes that the Petitioner has fallen far behind the target loss

reduction approved by the Commission. Therefore, for FY 2014-15, the

Commission has not further reduced the T&D loss target for TSECL and approves

T&D loss of 22.00% for FY 2014-15, which is the same as that approved for FY

2013-14.


Particular

Petitioner’s

submission

(projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

T&D loss 35.50% 22.00%



November 2014

6.6 Energy Balance


In its Tariff Petition, TSECL has submitted the energy balance for FY 2014-15, as


Table 6-12: Energy Balance for FY 2014-15 as submitted by TSECL

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission

(projected)

Energy Requirement




T&D Losses % 31.19%



Energy Availability




NER Loss MU 32.21


However, vide its detailed submission, TSECL submitted the revised energy

balance as shown in the following Table:



November 2014

Table 6-13: Revised Energy Balance for FY 2014-15 as submitted by TSECL

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission

(projection)

Energy Requirement




T&D Losses % 35.50%



Energy Availability




NER Loss MU 32.21



The Petitioner has submitted NER loss of 32.21 MU for FY 2014-15. The

Petitioner has submitted the computation of projected NER loss based on Point of

Connection data, which the Commission has found reasonable. The increase in

the quantum of NER loss for FY 2014-15 as compared to approved NER loss of

16.11 MU for FY 2013-14 is on account of significantly higher energy purchase

projected by the Petitioner.

The Commission has approved the total power purchase of 1137.80 MU as

against 1132.98 MU projected by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has projected the

NER loss of 32.21 MU for FY 2014-15 on the basis of the projected power

purchase of 1132.98 MU. Since, the Commission has approved power purchase

of 1137.80 MU for FY 2014-15, the Commission has increased NER loss

proportionately, and approves the NER loss of 32.35 MU for FY 2014-15.



November 2014




Table 6-14: Approved Energy Balance for FY 2014-15

Particulars Unit

Petitioner’s

submission

(projection)

Approved for

FY 2014-15

Energy Requirement

Energy Sales within State MU 855.12 784.42

Sale in bilateral trade/UI MU 606.11 929.87

T&D Losses MU 470.62 221.25

T&D Losses % 35.50% 22.00%

Total Energy Requirement @

TSECL Periphery MU 1325.74 1005.67

Energy Availability

Own Generation MU 830.08 830.08

Total Power Purchase MU 1133.98 1137.80

Gross Power Availability MU 1964.06 1967.88

NER Loss MU 32.21 32.35

Net Power Availability MU 1931.85 1935.53

6.7 Fuel purchase cost


TSECL, in its Tariff Petition, projected the fuel cost for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 216.28

Crore. TSECL has projected the fuel cost for FY 2014-15 based on the

assumption that the average fuel consumption will be same as that for FY 2013-

14 and gas price shall be higher by 10% over the average gas price of FY 2013-

14. Vide its submission in reply to the data gaps sent by the Commission, the

Petitioner has submitted that it has assumed such increase in the gas price based



November 2014

on the impeding gas price increase by the Government of India. Thus, the

Petitioner has computed the fuel cost of Rs. 216.28 Crore for FY 2014-15 based

on the average gas price of Rs. 6.61/SCM and specific fuel consumption of 0.307

kg/kWh, as shown in the following Table:

Table 6-15: Fuel cost projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15

Particular Unit

Petitioner’s

submission

(projection)

Gas consumed Tonnes 244076.16

Units Generated MU 796.07

Specific fuel consumption kg/kWh 0.307

Gas price Rs./SCM 6.61

Cost of gas Rs. Crore 216.28


The Petitioner has projected the fuel cost for own generation for FY 2014-15 as

Rs. 216.28 Crore. TSECL procures gas from GAIL and ONGC. The Petitioner has

projected the increased fuel purchase cost on the basis of impending gas price

hike approval by the Government of India.

For projecting the fuel purchase cost of TSECL for FY 2014-15, the Commission

has assumed the same per unit cost of gas as approved for FY 2013-14 for the

first 7 months of FY 2014-15, i.e., till October 2014. However, based on the latest

developments regarding the gas price hike by Government of India, the

Commission expects the gas price increase of 33.33% from November, 2014. In

view of the same, while projecting the fuel cost of TSECL for FY 2014-15, the

Commission has assumed increase of 33.33% over the per unit fuel purchase

cost for FY 2013-14, for the remaining 5 months of FY 2014-15, i.e., from

November 2014 to March 2015.

As mentioned in the previous Chapter, based on the data of actual gas

consumption and own generation submitted by the Petitioner, the Commission

has approved gas consumption of 296.73 MMSCM for gross generation of 729.20

MU in FY 2013-14, from the two gas based plants of TSECL namely, RGTPP and

BGTPP. For the projection of gas consumption for FY 2014-15, the Commission

has determined total gas consumption of 323.42 MMSCM for the approved

generation of 796.07 MU, assuming the same specific gas consumption of TSECL

as in FY 2013-14.



November 2014

In view of the above, the Commission approves the fuel purchase cost of Rs.

221.20 Crore for consumption of 323.42 MMSCM gas at average gas price of 6.84

Rs./SCM. Additionally, the Commission approves the cost of HSD for FY 2014-15

as Rs. 0.10 Crore for Gas based thermal generating stations, which is the same

as that approved for FY 2013-14.

Table 6-16: Approved fuel purchase cost for FY 2014-15

Generating Station Particulars Unit Approved for FY

2014-15

RGTPP




BGTPP




Total Gas




Cost of purchase of

HSD Amount Rs. Crore 0.10

Total Fuel purchase

cost Amount Rs. Crore 221.30

6.8 Power purchase cost


The Petitioner, in its Tariff Petition, has projected the power purchase quantum for

FY 2014-15 at 1132.99 MU. TSECL has submitted that it procures power from

NEEPCO and NHPC. It has been procuring power from OTPC Palatana since

January, 2014.

TSECL submitted the station-wise actual power purchase cost for actual quantum

of power purchased from stations of NEEPCO and NHPC for FY 2013-14,

although it failed to submit the bills raised by the generators for the sale of power.

As mentioned earlier, for power purchase from NEEPCO and NHPC, the



November 2014

Petitioner has proposed to procure the same amount of energy in FY 2014-15 as

procured in FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner has submitted that while projecting power procurement from the

plants of NEEPCO, it has assumed the fixed cost escalation at 6.64% as provided

in CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, for the period 2014-15 to

2018-19. Further, the energy cost of gas based power plants has been projected

to increase @10% over FY 2013-14 prices. NHPC Loktak plant’s fixed cost is

escalated annually @5% over FY 2013-14 prices. For power purchase from

OTPC Palatana, the Petitioner has projected the power purchase cost based on

the Order of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) dated December

20th, 2013, in the matter of approval of provisional tariff for OTPC Palatana.

Accordingly, TSECL has proposed the power purchase cost of Rs. 301.31 Crore,


Table 6-17: Power purchase cost for FY 2014-15 as projected by TSECL

Plant Fixed

Charges

Variable

Charges

Power

Purchase Total cost

Rs. Crore Rs. Crore MU Rs. Crore

Khandong 1.56 1.11 8.86 2.65

Kopili 2.23 0.45 38.02 4.10

Kopili St – II - 0.92 8.53 0.66

AGTPP (Agartala) 13.76 2.74 97.38 42.63

AGBPP (Assam) 17.78 2.17 108.50 42.17

DHEP 3.49 2.08 13.46 6.83

RHEP 15.54 1.22 89.53 24.45

Total NEEPCO 54.36 10.69 364.28 123.49

Loktak HEP (NHPC) - 1.53 67.90 10.36

OTPC Palatana 85.06 1.21 700.80 167.46

Total 139.32 24.12 1132.99 301.31

The Petitioner has submitted that for projection of transmission and RLDC

charges for FY 2014-15, average monthly charges incurred over the period from

January, 2014 to March, 2014 have been considered, based on the fact that in



November 2014

these months Palatana power was available and the transmission charges will be

similar in all the months of FY 2014-15.

In its Petition, TSECL projected the Transmission and RLDC charges for FY 2014-

15, as shown below:

Table 6-18: Transmission and RLDC charges for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particular Petitioner’s submission

PGCIL charge 1.14

POSOCO charge 37.35

Total charges 38.49


As mentioned earlier, the Commission has approved power purchase from

NEEPCO and NHPC as 365.28 MU and 71.72 MU, respectively, for FY 2014-15

based on the actual power purchase in FY 2013-14. As mentioned earlier, based

on the latest developments regarding gas price hike, the Commission expects

33.33% increase in the cost of gas from November, 2014.

In its detailed submission, the Petitioner submitted the plant-wise actual fixed cost

and per unit energy charges for the stations of NEEPCO and NHPC. For

projection of power purchase cost for FY 2014-15, the Commission has

considered the same actual fixed charges and per unit energy charges of FY

2013-14, as submitted by the Petitioner. However, for the two gas based stations

of NEEPCO, namely, AGTPP and AGBPP, the Commission has considered

increase of 33.33% in per unit energy charges of FY 2013-14, based on the gas

price hike recently approved by the Government of India.

For power purchase from OTPC Palatana, the Petitioner has projected the fixed

charges and per unit energy charges based on the Order of Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission (CERC) dated December 20th, 2013, in the matter of

approval of provisional tariff for OTPC Palatana. Accordingly, the Petitioner has

projected the fixed cost of OTPC Palatana for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 82.41 Crore,

based on the share of 80 MW to the State of Tripura. TSECL has considered the

energy charge to be paid to OTPC Palatana as Rs. 1.21 kWh. The Commission

finds the submission of TSECL in this regard reasonable. Accordingly, the

Commission has considered the same fixed cost and per unit energy charges as

submitted by the Petitioner for first seven months of FY 2014-15. Based on the



November 2014

impending gas price hike, the Commission has considered increase of 33.33% in

the per unit energy charges for power purchased from OTPC Palatana plant from

November, 2014.

Based on the above and in view of the approved power purchase quantum, the

Commission approves the total power purchase cost for FY 2014-15, excluding

the transmission and RLDC charges, as Rs. 320.38 Crore.

The Petitioner has submitted that for projection of transmission and RLDC

charges for FY 2014-15, it has considered average monthly charges incurred over

the period from January, 2014 to March, 2014, in view of the fact that in these

months, Palatana power was available and the transmission charges will be

similar in all the months of FY 2014-15. Accordingly, the Petitioner has projected

the transmission charges as Rs. 37.35 Crore, and the RLDC charges as Rs. 1.14

Crore for FY 2014-15. The Commission agrees with the rationale considered by

TSECL for projection of transmission and RLDC charges for FY 2014-15.

However, the Commission has approved total power purchase of 1137.80 MU as

against power purchase of 1132.98 MU projected by the Petitioner for FY 2014-

15. The Commission approves the transmission and RLDC charges as proposed

by the Petitioner but in proportion to the approved power purchase quantum.

Accordingly, the Commission approves the transmission charges and RLDC

charges as Rs. 37.51 Crore and Rs. 1.14 Crore, respectively, for FY 2014-15.

In view of the above, the Commission approves the total power purchase cost for

FY 2014-15 as Rs. 359.03 Crore, including the transmission and RLDC charges,


Table 6-19: Approved power purchase cost for FY 2014-15

Particulars Unit

Power

purchase

Quantum

(MU)

Power Purchase

cost

(Rs. Crore)

Per unit rate

(Rs./kWh)

NEEPCO Rs. cr. 365.28 122.62 3.36

NHPC Rs. cr. 71.72 18.49 2.58

OTPC Palatana Rs. cr. 700.80 179.28 2.56

Total Power

Purchase Cost Rs. cr.

1137.80 320.38 2.82

PGCIL Charges Rs. cr.

37.51

POSOCO Rs. cr.

1.14



November 2014

Particulars Unit

Power

purchase

Quantum

(MU)

Power Purchase

cost

(Rs. Crore)

Per unit rate

(Rs./kWh)

Charges

Total Power

Purchase Cost

including

Transmission

and RLDC

charges

Rs. cr. 1137.80 359.03 3.16



O&M expenses comprise of employee expenses, repair and maintenance

expenses, and administrative and general expenses. The O&M expenses

projected by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15 are shown in the Table below:

Table 6-20: O&M expenses for FY 2014-15 projected by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Petitioner’s submission

(projection)


Repair & Maintenance Expenses 25.46

Administrative & General Expenses 16.30

Total 163.90

The following sections elaborates the component-wise analysis of the O&M

expenses:



November 2014

6.9.1 Employee expenses


The Petitioner submitted that the employee expenses (including salaries, wages

and other benefits) for FY 2014-15 has been estimated by escalating FY 2013-14

values at 22% owing to massive new recruitment proposed in FY 2014-15. The

Petitioner added that it has estimated the function-wise employee cost increase

for FY 2014-15. The Petitioner requested the Commission to allow employee

expenses of Rs. 122.14 Crore for FY 2014-15.


As regards the Commission’s query regarding grade-wise, function-wise and

scale-wise actual and proposed employees along with the current status of

recruitment, the Petitioner submitted that the present salary structure and number

of employees is being prepared and will be submitted separately in a short period

of time, however, no such information has been provided by TSECL to the

Commission. Given the lack of desired information, it is difficult for the

Commission to assess whether the Petitioner’s proposal for increase of 22% in

the employee expenses is justifiable or not. Therefore, for the purpose of approval

of ARR of FY 2014-15, the Commission has considered an escalation factor of 8%

on the employee expense approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 in the

earlier Chapter of this Order, which seems to be justifiable seeing the escalation

of 7.40% and 9.50% in WPI and CPI indices, respectively, from FY 2010-11 to FY

2013-14. The approved employee expenses for FY 2014-15 is presented in the

Table below:

Table 6-21: Employee expenses approved for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

Employee Expenses 122.14 109.92

The Commission accordingly approves the employee expenses of Rs.

109.92 Crore for FY 2014-15.



November 2014

6.9.2 Repair & Maintenance (R&M) expenses


The Petitioner has projected the R&M expenses for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 25.46

Crore. The Petitioner submitted that the R&M expenses for FY 2014-15 have

been estimated by escalating the FY 2013-14 values at 8.62%, which is the

average increase of the WPI for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. The

Petitioner submitted that for Transmission, the R&M cost has been fixed at Rs.

3.70 Crore owing to major R&M expenses being carried out on lines and sub-

stations. The Petitioner added that it has estimated function-wise R&M increase

for FY 2014-15 and requested the Commission to approve the same.


The Commission has analysed the WPI and CPI indices from FY 2010-11 to FY

2013-14 and has observed that the WPI and CPI indices have escalated at the

average rate of 7.40% and 9.50%, respectively, in the last four years. In view of

the same, the Commission considers it reasonable to allow R&M expenses for FY

2014-15 by escalating the approved R&M expenses of FY 2013-14 by 8%.

Accordingly, the Commission approves the R&M expenses for FY 2014-15 as Rs.

30.70 Crore, as shown in the following Table:

Table 6-22: R&M expenses approved for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(Projected)

Approved by the

Commission

R&M Expenses 25.46 30.70

The Commission accordingly approves the R&M expenses as Rs. 30.70

Crore for FY 2014-15.

6.9.3 Administrative and General (A&G) expenses


The Petitioner submitted that the A&G expenses for FY 2014-15 have been

projected by escalating the FY 2013-14 values at 8.62%, which is the average



November 2014

increase of the WPI for FY 2010-11, FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. The Petitioner

added that it has estimated function-wise A&G increase for FY 2014-15 and

requested the Commission to approve the same.


The Commission has analysed the WPI and CPI indices from FY 2010-11 to FY

2013-14 and has observed that the WPI and CPI indices have escalated at the

average rate of 7.40% and 9.50%, respectively, in the last four years. In view of

the same, the Commission considers it reasonable to allow A&G expenses for FY

2014-15 by escalating the approved A&G expenses of FY 2013-14 by 8%.

Accordingly, the Commission approves A&G expenses for FY 2014-15 as Rs.


Table 6-23: A&G expenses approved for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(Projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

A&G Expense 16.30 15.67

The Commission, accordingly, approves A&G expenses of Rs. 15.67 Crore

for FY 2014-15.

In view of the employee expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expenses approved

by the Commission as mentioned above, total O&M expenses approved by the

Commission for FY 2014-15 is given below:

Table 6-24: Approved O&M expenses for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(Projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

Employee Expense 122.14 109.92

Repair and Maintenance Expense 25.46 30.70



November 2014

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(Projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15

Administrative and General Expenses 16.30 15.67

Total 163.90 156.29

6.10 Depreciation


The Petitioner submitted that the Gross Fixed Assets have been taken from

provisional annual accounts for FY 2013-14. The Petitioner further added that

function-wise GFA has been used to estimate the total GFA added in FY 2014-15.

Based on the same, the GFA and depreciation for FY 2014-15 as submitted by

the Petitioner, is given in the following Table:

Table 6-25: Depreciation for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner in the Petition

(Rs. Crore)

Asset Particulars GFA FY

2014-15

Depreciation

Rate

Depreciation FY

2014-15

Land 56.09 0.00% 0.00

Building 27.49 2.49% 0.68

Plant and Machinery 782.06 5.28% 41.29

Computer 0.54 16.21% 0.09

Computer and Office

Equipment 2.61 16.21% 0.42


Furniture 1.21 6.33% 0.08

Vehicles 0.42 9.50% 0.04

Grand Total 870.57 42.63



November 2014

Accordingly, the Petitioner, in its Petition, requested the Commission to approve

depreciation of Rs. 42.63 Crore for FY 2014-15.

However, in its detailed submission dated September 3rd, 2014, the Petitioner

revised its submission with regard to depreciation for FY 2014-15 and submitted

the depreciation for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 22.06 Crore, as shown in the following

Table:

Table 6-26: Revised computation of Depreciation for FY 2014-15 as submitted by TSECL

(Rs. Crore)

Asset Particulars GFA for FY 2014-

15

Depreciation

Rate

Depreciation for

FY 2014-15

Land 30.70 0.00% -

Building 14.28 2.49% 0.36

Plant & Machinery 405.48 5.28% 21.41

Computer 0.24 16.21% 0.04

Computer and Office

Equipment 1.14 16.21%

0.18


Furniture 0.61 6.33% 0.04

Vehicles 0.18 9.50% 0.02

Total Closing GFA 452.70 22.06


As discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Order, in the absence of the

fixed assets and depreciation register, the Commission has provisionally

considered the GFA and depreciation as per the Petitioner’s submission based on

the depreciation rates stipulated in the Companies Act and Straight Line Method

(SLM). Further, it is to be noted that although the Commission has provisionally

considered the GFA for FY 2014-15, the same shall be reviewed based on the

Petitioner’s submission of fixed asset and depreciation registers.

In view of the above, the Commission allows the depreciation of Rs. 22.06 Crore

for FY 2014-15, as claimed by the Petitioner, as shown in the Table below:



November 2014

Table 6-27: Depreciation approved for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(Projected)

Approved for FY

2014-15




The Petitioner submitted that the gross normative opening loan has been taken

from the provisional accounts for FY 2013-14. In its Petition submitted Interest and

Finance charges of Rs. 14.80 Crore. However, in its detailed submission in reply

to the data gaps sent by the Commission, considering the opening loan from

various sources, the interest and finance charges for FY 2014-15, as submitted by

the Petitioner is shown in the following Table:

Table 6-28: Interest and Finance Charges for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore)


Opening Loan 200.13

Addition of Assets 29.89

Depreciation 22.06

Closing Loan 207.96

Interest 16.02

Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve interest and

finance charges of Rs. 16.02 Crore for FY 2014-15.


It is observed that the Interest on loans amounting to Rs. 16.02 Crore for FY

2014-15 has been computed on normative basis. However, the provisional annual



November 2014

accounts of FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 show that the Petitioner has not been

paying any amount as actual interest and finance charges.

Further, by TSECL's own admission in the Petition and as per the provisional

annual accounts, there is no interest liability on any of the sources of long-term

loans, i.e., PFC, REC, and GoT, as elaborated below:

1. Loan from PFC:

a. The loan along with interest thereon shall be converted into grant once the

establishment of the required system is achieved and verified by an

independent agency appointed by Ministry of Power (MoP). No conversion

to grant will be made in case projects are not completed within 3 years from

date of sanction of the project and in such case, TSECL will have to bear

full loan and interest repayment.

b. As is clear from the above, the onus of timely completion of the projects is

on TSECL, so that the entire loan amount is converted to a grant, which

has neither any interest obligation nor is the amount required to be repaid.

In case TSECL fails to complete the projects on time, and the loans are not

converted to grants, the consumers cannot be asked to bear the burden of

the same, as they are not responsible for the delay in the completion of the

project and consequent conversion of the grant to loan.

c. Further, no interest payment and repayment schedule is mentioned for

PFC loan for the computation of interest and finance charges. Hence, there

is no basis for computing or allowing any interest expense on such grant

from PFC.

2. Loan from REC:

a. The fund is released by REC under RGGVY scheme and 90% of the

approved cost is provided as grant and remaining 10% as loan. However,

this fund is not given directly to TSECL but is disbursed through

Government of Tripura and TSECL is paying interest on this loan on behalf

of GoT in four quarterly instalments. In the accounts, this loan is treated

under head ‘GoT loan’ and the moratorium period of 5 years is provided on

repayment of this loan. Since, this is not a loan given to TSECL and are

funds received on behalf of GoT, the amount received by TSECL has been

considered within Deposit Work under Other Long Term Liabilities in the

accounts for FY 2012-13.

b. As is clear from the above, 90% of the approved cost is provided as grant,

i.e., there is no repayment obligation or interest cost on these funds.

However, TSECL has submitted that it is paying interest on behalf of GoT.

Firstly, the provisional annual accounts do not record any such payment of



November 2014

interest, as the interest and finance charges have been reported as Nil in

FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14. Secondly, even if TSECL is paying any

interest on behalf of GoT, the same cannot be recovered from the

consumers, and the same has to be recovered by TSECL from the GoT, as

the consumers cannot be asked to bear the interest and repayment

obligation for the funds, which have been received as grants. For the

balance 10% of the amount received from REC, there will be an interest

obligation as well as repayment obligation, however, the provisional

accounts do not show any such interest expense, and hence, have not

been considered by the Commission. If such interest expenses are actually

incurred, then the same will be allowed at the time of review/truing up.

3. Loan from Govt. of Tripura (GoT):

a. The Government of Tripura loan is disbursed as interest free loans from the

State Government under budgetary Non-Plan consideration and is to be

repaid to the GoT under 30 equal instalments within a period of 15 years as

provided in Memorandum of the Government of Tripura dated July 17th,

2009.

b. As is clear from the above, the GoT loan is an interest free loan, and

hence, there is no interest obligation on the same.

Further, from the provisional accounts of FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14, it is clear

that TSECL has not paid the interest on consumers' security deposit, even though

the same is a statutory obligation under the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the

Commission has not considered any interest expense on this account. However,

TSECL should pay interest to the consumers on the amount of security deposit

held by TSECL, at the Bank Rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India from time

to time, in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003. The actual interest paid by

TSECL on the consumers' security deposit, shall be allowed at the time of

review/truing up.

Hence, the Commission approves the interest and finance charges as nil for FY




November 2014

Table 6-29: Interest and Finance Charges approved for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission

(Projected)

Approved for

FY 2014-15

Interest and Finance charges 16.02 0.00





on working capital on normative basis as given in Tariff Regulations, 2004. The

Petitioner submitted that it is pertinent to note that it has cash at its disposal,

which is depleting continuously due to working capital requirement and TSECL

may not be able to use the cash for other capital works in the future. The

Petitioner further submitted that forgone opportunity by not claiming working

capital interest and using the cash reserve, results in depletion of cash reserves.

The Petitioner added that there is an opportunity cost involved in using cash for

working capital as the Utility could have invested this cash in securities or bank

deposits, hence, it has proposed to claim Interest on Working capital.






The Petitioner submitted that the Commission, in the previous Tariff Orders, had

disallowed interest on working capital requirement, and requested the

Commission to allow working capital borrowings. The Petitioner further submitted

that from FY 2014-15, it is planning to draw short-term loans from commercial

banks, which will enable it to make timely payments for fuel and power purchase.

The Petitioner submitted that currently it is not able to meet the cash flow demand

owing to working capital shortage and it has resulted in late payments to the

Central Generating Stations.

The considerations for calculation of working capital and interest thereon, as

submitted by the Petitioner, are summarized in the Table below:



November 2014

Table 6-30: Interest on Working Capital for FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Share of GFA Norm (Days) FY 2014-15

Generation 31% 45 22.03

Transmission 7% 45 4.93

Distribution 61% 60 61.17

Total 88.13

Interest Rate 14.75%


Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve interest on

working capital of Rs. 12.99 Crore for FY 2014-15.


As mentioned in detail in the previous Chapters on truing up for FY 2012-13 and

review of FY 2013-14, the Regulations allow for interest on working capital

facilities limited to actual. Further, from the provisional annual accounts of

previous years, the Commission has observed that the Petitioner has not been

paying any interest cost towards working capital loan borrowed from the

Banks/Financial Institutions. In view of the same, the Commission approves

interest on working capital as nil for FY 2014-15. If the Petitioner actually borrows

working capital loan and pays interest on the same, it will be considered by the

Commission based on the actual at the time of review/truing up of FY 2014-15 in

the next Tariff Order.

The Commission, accordingly, approves the interest on working capital as nil for

FY 2014-15, as shown in the following Table:



November 2014



submission

Approved in review

of FY 2014-15



Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner submitted that as per TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004, reasonable




November 7th, 2013 was 14.75%, thus, for calculation of reasonable return, the

rate of return for overall paid-up equity capital has been assumed to be 17.75%,

i.e., 3% over SBI PLR.

The Petitioner submitted that the paid up equity capital during FY 2014-15 will

remain at the closing level of FY 2013-14.

The Petitioner submitted that for calculation of reasonable return, the rate of return

for overall paid-up equity capital has been assumed to be 17.75%. The

reasonable return computed on projected paid up capital as submitted by the

Petitioner, is summarized in the Table given below:

Table 6-32: Reasonable Return as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars

Petitioner’s

submission (Projected)

for 2014-15



Average Equity capital during FY 2014-15 175.41





November 2014

Thus, the Petitioner has claimed reasonable return of Rs. 31.14 Crore for FY

2014-15.


As elaborated in the previous Chapter on review of FY 2013-14, the Commission

has capped the equity capital for computation of ARR for FY 2014-15 at the same

level as that in FY 2013-14. Accordingly, for approval of ARR for FY 2014-15, the

Commission has considered Rs. 204.70 Crore as equity for FY 2014-15.

Also, as per TERC Tariff Regulations 2004, the Commission in its previous Tariff

Order had considered interest rates at 15.23%, 14.23% and 15.23%, respectively

for generation, transmission and distribution functions. Since, the Petitioner has

not provided the break-up of the equity in generation, transmission and

distribution, it is difficult for the Commission to arrive at the normative reasonable

return of the Petitioner as per the TERC Tariff Regulations 2004. Thus, for the

purpose of approval of ARR of FY 2014-15, the Commission has considered the

break-up of equity in generation, transmission and distribution function in the

same proportion as the proportion of GFA as submitted by TSECL. Further, the

Commission has considered the same interest rates as considered for approval of

reasonable return in the truing up for FY 2012-13 and review for FY 2013-14 in

the earlier Chapters, for the purpose of approval of ARR of FY 2014-15.

Accordingly, the reasonable return approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 is


Table 6-33: Reasonable Return approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)


Return

Generation 61.95 15.23% 9.44


Distribution 123.99 15.23% 18.88

Total 204.70 30.99



November 2014

6.14 Non-Tariff Income


The Petitioner has included inter-State sale of energy in the non-tariff income for

FY 2014-15. The Commission has approved the revenue from inter-State sale of

Energy separately and has excluded the same from the non-tariff income

The details of non-tariff income submitted by the Petitioner is shown in the Table

below:

Table 6-34: Non Tariff Income as submitted by the Petitioner for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Petitioner’s submission

for 2014-15

Interest from Bank Deposits 38.01


Total 41.20

Accordingly, the Petitioner has requested the Commission to approve the Non-

Tariff Income projected by it for FY 2014-15.


The Commission has analyzed the Petitioner’s projections of Non-Tariff income.

The Commission has approved the same non-tariff income as approved for FY

2013-14 based on the provisional audited accounts of FY 2013-14. Accordingly,

the Commission approves Rs. 35.40 Crore as non-tariff income for FY 2014-15,


Table 6-35: Non Tariff Income approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)


submission

Approved for

FY 2014-15

Interest Income 38.01 25.29

Other Charges 0.00 5.56

Service Connection Charges 3.19 4.55



November 2014


submission

Approved for

FY 2014-15

Total 41.20 35.40

6.15 ARR for FY 2014-15

Based on the approval of various elements of ARR in this Chapter, the

Commission approves the ARR for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 754.26 Crore, as shown in

the following Table:


(Rs. Crore)


submission

Approved for

FY 2014-15

Fuel cost 212.20 221.30


O&M expenses 163.90 156.29





Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) 798.09 789.67





The Petitioner has projected revenue from intra-State sale of power in FY 2014-15

as Rs. 470.34 Crore, and has projected the revenue from inter-State sale as Rs.

198.37 Crore. In the detailed submission of the Petitioner, the Commission

observed that the Petitioner has projected the revenue from intra-State sales



November 2014

considering the category-wise tariffs approved by the Commission in previous

Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, after GoT subsidy, and has considered

subsidy of Rs. 40 Crore from GoT. However, for computation of revenue at

existing tariff for FY 2014-15, the Commission has not considered subsidy from

GoT. The Commission observed that the Petitioner has projected the revenue

from intra-State sale of power considering non-subsidized rates of FY 2013-14 as

Rs. 509.25 Crore.

The revenue from sale of power in FY 2014-15 as submitted by the Petitioner is


Table 6-37: Revenue from sale of power for FY 2014-15 based on submissions of TSECL

Particulars Sales

(MU)

Revenue

(Rs. Crore)

Per Unit

Rate

(Rs./kWh)

Intra-State sale of power 855.12 509.25 5.96

Sale to Manipur and Mizoram 150.40 61.66 4.10

Energy Trading and UI 455.71 136.71 3.00

Total Inter-State Sales 606.11 198.37 3.27

Total Sale of Power by TSECL 1461.23 707.63 4.84



The Petitioner has submitted revenue from the intra-State sale of 855.12 MU in

FY 2014-15 as Rs. 470.34 Crore, considering the subsidized rates of FY 2013-14.

As mentioned above, considering the non-subsidised tariff rates for FY 2013-14,

the revenue from intra-State sale of power submitted by the Petitioner is Rs.

509.25 Crore. As against the same, the Commission has projected Rs. 483.48

Crore as revenue from intra-State sales for FY 2014-15 by considering the sales

of 784.42 MU approved by the Commission in this Chapter and the category wise

tariffs approved by the Commission in the previous Tariff Order without the

revenue subsidy from GoT.



November 2014


The Petitioner submitted that the inter-State sales for FY 2014-15 have been

estimated using the energy balance. Based on the same, the Petitioner has

projected 606.11 MU to be available in FY 2014-15 for inter-State sales and has

projected revenue of Rs. 198.37 Crore from the same. Based on the Energy

Balance for FY 2014-15 approved by the Commission, the Commission approves

the inter-State sales for FY 2014-15 as 929.87 MU.

It is observed that the Petitioner has projected the revenue of Rs. 61.66 Crore

from sale of 150.40 MU to Manipur and Mizoram at an average rate of Rs. 4.10

per kWh. From the data of actual sales to Manipur and Mizoram in FY 2013-14,

the Commission observed that it has generated revenue of Rs. 41.18 Crore from

sale of 128.58 MU at an average rate of 3.20 Rs./kWh. In view of the same, the

average rate of Rs. 4.10 per kWh considered by the Petitioner for sale of power to

Manipur and Mizoram appear to be unrealistic. Hence, for FY 2014-15, the

Commission has considered the rate for sale of power to Manipur and Mizoram in

FY 2014-15 as Rs. 3.90 per kWh. The Commission approves the quantum of

150.40 MU considered by the Petitioner for sale to Manipur and Mizoram in FY

2014-15. Accordingly, the Commission approves the revenue from sale of power

to Manipur and Mizoram as Rs. 58.66 Crore, as against Rs. 61.66 Crore projected

by the Petitioner.

Based on the total projected intra-State sales of 606.11 MU, and considering the

sale of 150.40 MU to Manipur and Mizoram, the Petitioner has projected 455.71

MU to be available for trading/sale on exchanges. The Commission has approved

higher energy availability of 929.87 MU for intra-State sale considering the

approved intra-State sales, approved T&D loss, own generation, power purchase

and NER loss for FY 2014-15. Considering the energy sales of 150.40 MU to

Manipur and Mizoram, the Commission approves the remaining 779.47 MU as

energy available for trading/sale on exchanges. The Petitioner has projected the

average rate for trading/sale on exchanges as Rs. 3.00 per kWh. Taking into

consideration the actual price on energy on exchanges in recent months, the

Commission approves Rs. 2.92 per kWh as average rate of sale of power through

trading in FY 2014-15, as against Rs. 3.00 proposed by TSECL. Thus, the

Commission approves the revenue from trading of 779.47 MU in FY 2014-15 as

Rs. 227.78 Crore.

In view of the above, the Commission approves the revenue from sale of power in

FY 2014-15 as Rs. 769.92 Crore, as shown in the following Table.



November 2014

Table 6-38: Approved revenue from sale of power in FY 2014-15 at existing tariff

(Rs. crore)

Particulars Sales

(MU)

Revenue

(Rs. Crore)

Per Unit

Rate

(Rs./kWh)

Intra-State sale of power 784.42 483.48 6.16

Sale to Manipur and Mizoram 150.40 58.66 3.90

Energy Trading and UI 779.47 227.78 2.92

Total Inter-State Sales 929.87 286.44 3.08

Total Sale of Power by TSECL 1714.29 769.92 4.49

6.17 Revenue Subsidy from Government of Tripura

The Commission has not considered receipt of any revenue subsidy from GoT

while determining the ARR and revenue gap/surplus for FY 2014-15. However, in

case TSECL receives any subsidy from GoT for FY 2014-15, the same shall be

considered at the time of review/truing up for FY 2014-15.

6.18 Revenue gap/surplus for FY 2014-15

Based on the approved net Aggregate Revenue Requirement of Rs. 754.26 Crore

and approved revenue from sale of power of Rs. 769.92 Crore for FY 2014-15, the

Commission approves the revenue surplus for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 15.65 Crore, as

shown below:


(Rs. Crore)


submission

Approved for

FY 2014-15


Revenue from sale of power 707.63 769.92

Revenue gap/(surplus) 49.26 (15.65)



November 2014

6.19 Consolidated revenue gap/surplus


For calculating the revenue gap, TSECL has considered the gap of Rs. 79.53 Cr.

corresponding to True-up of FY 2011-12 as approved in the Tariff Order of FY

2013-14. TSECL has submitted that the gap for FY 2013-14 has been calculated

by TSECL considering the revised estimates of ARR and revenue from retail and

bulk sales. TSECL has assumed the carrying cost on the gap as 14.75%.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted the consolidated revenue gap as shown

in the following Table:

Table 6-40: Consolidated revenue gap submitted by TSECL in Petition

Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15

Net ARR 543.71 453.09 558.52

Revenue at existing tariff 316.80 364.00 470.34

Subsidy from GoT 40.00 40.00 0.00

Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for the

year 186.92 49.09 48.18

Opening Gap 79.53 291.96 387.74

Carrying Cost @ 14.75% 25.52 46.69 60.75

Closing Gap 291.96 387.74 496.66

As mentioned earlier, it is observed from the Petitioner's computation of revenue

gap for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has considered subsidized rates of FY 2013-14

and has considered subsidy of Rs. 40.00 Crore from GoT. Accordingly, the

Petitioner has considered revenue from existing tariff as Rs. 470.34 Crore.

However, based on the submission of the Petitioner, revenue from existing tariff

for FY 2014-15 at non-subsidized rates of FY 2013-14 is Rs. 509.25 Crore, which

has been considered by the Commission. Further, there are several errors in the

submission of the Petitioner as regards the consolidated revenue gap, as

elaborated below:

In the submission of ARR for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has already included the

subsidy of Rs. 40 Crore from GoT. However, the Petitioner has further reduced

such amount of subsidy for computation of revenue gap for FY 2013-14. Hence, in

computation of Gap for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has made an error of double

accounting of subsidy from GoT. Further, as mentioned earlier, in the computation

of ARR for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner has considered interest on Working Capital



November 2014

as Rs. 12.67 Crore, however, in its detailed submission as regards to interest on

working capital, the Petitioner has proposed the same as Rs. 10.36 Crore.

Further, as mentioned earlier, in computation of ARR for FY 2013-14, the

Petitioner has considered fuel cost of Rs. 176.71 Crore as a result of an error as

against its own submission of fuel cost of Rs. 176.65 Crore.

The Commission has removed the aforementioned discrepancies from the

Petitioner’s submissions. Accordingly, based on the Petitioner’s submissions and

computations, the consolidated gap projected by the Petitioner works out to Rs.


Tabe 6-41: Consolidated Gap/(Surplus) based on the submission of the Petitioner

Particulars FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15

Net ARR 543.71 553.65 756.89

Revenue at existing tariff (Intra-

State) 251.40 364.00 509.25

Revenue from inter-State Sales 65.39 60.62 198.38

Subsidy from GoT 40.00 40.00 0.00

Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for the

year 186.92 89.03 49.26

Opening Gap 79.53 291.96 387.74

Carrying Cost @ 14.75% 25.52 49.63 60.82

Closing Gap 291.96 430.62 497.83

Commission’s Analysis

It is observed that the Petitioner has considered revenue gap of Rs. 79.53 Crore

for FY 2011-12, that has been already approved by the Commission in the

previous Tariff Order, in the determination of consolidated revenue gap for FY

2014-15. Also, the Petitioner has added the total revenue gap for FY 2012-13

submitted by it for determination of consolidated revenue gap for FY 2014-15.

However, the Commission observes that in the previous Tariff Order, the

Commission has already allowed Rs. 79.53 Core for FY 2011-12 and Rs. 53.08

Crore for FY 2012-13, in determination of consolidated revenue gap for FY 2013-

14. In this regard, it is clarified that in the previous Tariff Order, the Commission

had approved Rs. 79.53 Crore as revenue gap for FY 2011-12, Rs. 53.08 Crore



November 2014

as revenue gap for FY 2012-13 and Rs. 13.99 Crore as Revenue surplus for FY

2013-14. Hence, the Commission had approved the consolidated revenue gap for

FY 2013-14 as Rs. 118.61 Crore, in the previous Tariff Order. Further, the

Commission had approved the tariff for FY 2013-14 in such a manner so as to

allow the Petitioner to recover such consolidated revenue gap of Rs. 118.61 Crore

through tariff in FY 2013-14. In this regard, the Commission has stated as follows

on Page No. 10 of the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013:

“That the Aggregate Revenue Requirement for FY 2013-14 for Tripura

State Electricity Corporation Limited having its area of supply for

intra-State consumers within the State of Tripura and other inter-State

buyers is approved for Rs. 547.04 Crore. The Revenue Gap of the

Licensee is approved at Rs. 118.61 Crore. Accordingly, the

Commission approved an average tariff increase of 31%”

Further, on Page No. 132 of the Tariff Order, the Commission has stated as

follows:

“The Commission has approved the ARR and revenue gap for FY

2013-14 after detailed scrutiny of the revenue requirement proposed

by TSECL. The Commission has arrived at the revised ARR of Rs

465.40 Crore, Rs 479.39 Crore and Rs 547.04 Crore for FY 2011-12, FY

2012-13 and FY 2013-14 respectively after prudence check (including

power purchase from Palatana) and in accordance with the TERC

Tariff Regulations 2004. The ARR and cumulative revenue gap

approved by the Commission for FY 2013-14 will be met through the

revenues at revised tariffs. It has been estimated that with the

prevailing tariff, TSECL would get Rs. 561.03 Crore during the FY

2013-14 leaving a cumulative deficit of Rs. 118.61 Crore, which can be

met by increasing the tariff of the retail consumers in Tripura. The

average increase in tariff in the State will be Rs. 1.46 per unit by

considering 808.58 MU and the average tariff will stand at Rs. 6.15 per

unit (i.e. Fixed and Energy charges) for the year.”

From the above reproduced extracts of the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th,

2013, it is clear that the Commission has already allowed the revenue gaps of Rs.

79.53 Crore and Rs. 53.08 Crore. Despite that, the Petitioner has again shown

such gaps in the determination of consolidated revenue gap for FY 2014-15. The

Commission emphasises here that the Petitioner should pay proper attention

while preparing the ARR and Tariff Petition to avoid making such glaring errors.

Further, it is observed that while determining the consolidated revenue gap for FY

2014-15, the Petitioner has considered carrying cost of 14.75% on the annual



November 2014

revenue gaps proposed by it for the corresponding years. It is clarified here that

the Commission has been allowing the recovery of revenue gap/surplus

determined by it in the approved tariffs of the same year in which the gap/surplus

has been determined, and therefore, there is no question of allowing carrying cost

on the revenue gap/surplus approved for TSECL, as there is no delay in allowing

the recovery of the approved gap/surplus through revision in tariffs. In view of the

same, the Commission has not allowed any carrying cost on the revenue gap/

surplus approved.

In view of the above, the Commission approves the consolidated revenue gap for

FY 2014-15, as shown in the following Table:

Table 6-42: Approved consolidated revenue gap for FY 2014-15

(Rs. Crore)

Particulars Approved by the

Commission

Approved revenue gap/(surplus) for FY 2012-13 75.29

Approved revenue gap/(surplus) for FY 2013-14 19.49

Approved revenue gap/(surplus) for FY 2014-15 (15.65)

Less: Revenue gap/(surplus) for FY 2012-13 already

allowed in the previous Tariff Order 53.08

Consolidated revenue gap/(surplus) approved for FY

2014-15 26.05



November 2014

7 Compliance to Directives of the Commission

7.1 Adherence to the past directives

The Commission had issued four new directives to the Petitioner in the previous

Tariff Order to be complied with apart from old directives issued by the

Commission to the Petitioner in the Tariff Order of FY 2012-13 dated March 28th,

2012. In response to the Commission’s directives, the Petitioner, in its Tariff

Petition has submitted its compliance with the directives. The point-wise status of

compliance by the Petitioner with the directives of the Commission and the

Commission’s views on the same are presented below:

Directive – 1: Voltage wise distribution loss: The Commission directed the

Petitioner to compute the voltage-wise distribution loss at 33 kV, 11 kV and 400

Volts. The Petitioner was directed to submit the voltage-wise distribution loss by

September 30th, 2013.

Compliance

TSECL submitted that it is in the process of metering all the distribution

transformers and implementing the R-APDRP projects and on completion of the

same, base line data will be available for analysis. TSECL submitted that as it is

undertaking metering of distribution transformers, once the projects are

completed, data will be available for the whole year and voltage-wise losses would

be available.

Commission’s Comments

The Petitioner has not completed the baseline work needed to compute the

voltage-wise distribution losses even after more than one year has passed since

the issuance of the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, wherein the

Commission had directed the Petitioner to submit the voltage wise loss for its

network. The Petitioner has also not committed any timeline for complying with

this directive. Further, in the Tariff Petition, the Petitioner has submitted T&D loss

of 32.85% and 33.30% for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14, respectively, as

compared to the T&D loss of 25% and 22%, respectively, approved by the

Commission. For FY 2014-15, the Petitioner has projected the T&D loss of

35.50%. The actual loss level for previous years and proposed loss level for FY

2014-15 submitted by the Petitioner is too high as compared to the loss level

approved by the Commission in previous Tariff Order. Further, the Petitioner has

also failed to submit any convincing rationale with supporting data before the



November 2014

Commission for such high T&D loss in its network. Since the analysis of actual

voltage wise loss has not been done because of unavailability of information

regarding voltage-wise loss data, it makes TSECL unable to identify the

areas/feeders containing high distribution loss and take actions accordingly to

reduce the losses. Hence, there is an urgent need to determine the voltage-wise

loss reduction of the network and take actions accordingly to reduce the T&D loss.

In view of the above, the Commission directs the Petitioner to submit progress

report within three months of issuance of this Order showing present voltage-wise

metering status of its network and progress of TSECL in the direction of achieving

metering of voltage-wise distribution loss of its network, and also commit a

timeline for submitting the voltage-wise distribution loss at 33 kV, 11 kV and 400

Volts.

Directive – 2: Capitalization of employee expenses, A&G expenses and

interest expenses: The Commission directed TSECL to capitalize the employee

expenses, A&G expenses and interest expenses incurred for construction of

capital-intensive projects. The Commission directed that the Petitioner should

submit the department-wise employee and A&G expenses to the Commission by

September 30th, 2013 to fix the capitalization rate for the ensuing year.

Compliance

As regards capitalisation of A&G expenses, TSECL submitted that the accounts

and finance department is taking necessary steps to segregate such expenses

and by next financial year (FY 2014-15), capitalisation of such expenses will be

available.

Commission’s comments

TSECL has restricted its reply to capitalisation of A&G Expenses only. TSECL has

not submitted the details of action taken for the capitalisation of employee

expenses and interest expenses. Also, the Commission is not satisfied with the

progress of capitalisation of the A&G expenses. The Commission again directs

that TSECL shall capitalize the employee, A&G and interest expenses incurred for

construction of capital-intensive projects and shall submit the department-wise

employee and A&G expenses before the Commission along with its next Tariff

Petition.



November 2014

Directive – 3: Filing Petition for approval of inter-State tariff for Manipur and

Mizoram to the Commission:

The Commission had observed that billing to Manipur and Mizoram has been

done on provisional basis. The average billing rate (excluding FPPCA) to Manipur

and Mizoram was Rs. 1.94 per unit at the time of issuance of previous Tariff Order

dated June 25th, 2013, which was much below the average generation cost. There

is a clause (clause no. 6.1) in the Power Purchase Agreement that TSECL can

approach the Commission for finalization of tariff for Manipur and Mizoram. In this

regard, the Commission directed TSECL to file Petition before the Commission at

the earliest.

Compliance

TSECL is in the process of reviewing the existing agreement with Manipur and

Mizoram and a Petition in this regard will be filed shortly.


The Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite the process of reviewing the

existing Power Purchase Agreement with Manipur and Meghalaya. The Petitioner

shall submit the Petition for finalisation of tariff for Manipur and Mizoram before

the Commission within two months of the issuance of this Order.

Directive – 4: Annual Performance Report (APR): The APR is an important

document for the Commission to judge the actual performance of the Petitioner.

The APR is needed to be submitted before the Commission for approval. TSECL

had lagged behind in this respect and it was directed that APR should be

prepared and got approved by the Commission every year. The Commission from

time to time has raised this issue but the Petitioner’s response on submission of

the APR has not been very encouraging in the past. Therefore, the Petitioner was

strictly directed to comply with this directive in the ensuing years.

Compliance

TSECL has submitted Annual Performance Report for FY 2013-14 along with the

Tariff Petition.


TSECL has submitted APR for FY 2013-14 along with its Tariff Petition. However,

the APR submitted by TSECL is not complete as many fields in the APR has been

left blank by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has only submitted the

information in figures and no relevant reasons in support of the data has been

given in the APR. The Commission directs that at the time of filing the Tariff



November 2014

Petition for FY 2015-16, the Petitioner should submit more detailed APR with

complete information and reasons supporting the actuals wherever necessary.

Compliance of old directives

In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013, the Commission had given its

comments regarding compliance by the Petitioner with the directives given by the

Commission in earlier Tariff Order dated March 28th, 2012. Here, the Commission

has reviewed the compliance to such directives by the Petitioner.

Directive – 5: Timely filing of ARR & Tariff Petition: The Commission had

directed the Petitioner to file its ARR and Tariff Petition for FY 2014-15 by

November 30th, 2013.

Compliance

Petitioner has submitted no reply in this regard.


Despite such clear cut directive to file the Petition on time in accordance with the

TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004, the Petitioner has again failed to file its Tariff

Petition on time. TSECL filed its Tariff Petition for approval of ARR & Tariff for FY

2014-15 on July 23rd, 2013, i.e., around 8 months later than the last day of filing of

Tariff Petition in accordance with TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004. Further, even

after such a delay in filing the Petition, the Petition and supporting information

submitted by TSECL had several discrepancies and gaps, and in view of the

same, the said Petition was not admitted by the Commission. TSECL submitted

the revised data on August 12th, 2014. Further, the revised data submitted by the

Petitioner and supporting additional information submitted along with it was also

not satisfactory as the same also contained several deficiencies. However, in

order to avoid any further delay in tariff determination for FY 2014-15, the

Commission admitted the incomplete and deficient Petition of TSECL. In addition,

despite several reminders by the Commission, the Petitioner was not able to

submit the complete information sought by the Commission.

In view of the above, the Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the Petition

for approval of ARR and Tariff for FY 2015-16 strictly in accordance with the Tariff

Regulations, 2004 and without deficiencies and sticking to the timelines. Further,

the Petitioner should be able to produce all the information sought by the

Commission in a timely manner.



November 2014

Directive – 6: Annual Statement of Accounts

TSECL was directed to prepare the ‘Statement of Accounts’ including balance

sheet, profit & loss account, report of the auditors, asset records and Registers,

etc., along with supporting statements/schedules and submit the same along with

its ARR and Tariff Petition.

Compliance

TSECL has submitted that it is in process of preparing the Statement of Accounts

and will submit the same along with the final CAG audited accounts.


Despite being repeatedly directed by the Commission, the Petitioner has failed to

submit the complete audited ‘Statement of Accounts’ as directed by the

Commission. Further, the Commission notes that, till date, the Petitioner has not

submitted the final audited accounts for all the previous years. Since, the

Petitioner has not submitted the Statement of Accounts duly audited by Statutory

Auditor, the Commission has not been able to conduct final truing up for the past

years. It is worth noticing that for all the years since FY 2009-10, only provisional

truing up has been done and final truing up for all the years since FY 2009-10 is

pending as on date, due to non-submission of the audited annual accounts by

TSECL.

The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit complete Statement of Accounts

duly audited by statutory auditor for all the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14

by within three months of issuance of this Order.

Directive – 7: Assets and Depreciation Register

TSECL was directed to prepare and submit the Fixed Assets and Depreciation

Register by November 30th, 2013.

Compliance

TSECL has submitted that it is in the process of preparing the Asset Register.

TSECL has submitted that as the updation of such register is a very diligent and

time consuming process, TSECL regrets that the same could not be submitted in

time.


In the absence of the fixed assets and depreciation register, the Commission has

been unable to verify the GFA and Depreciation of the Petitioner. In this Tariff

Order, the Commission has accepted the Petitioner’s submission of fixed assets

and depreciation and has approved the same in determination of ARR for FY



November 2014

2012-13, FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15. However, from the next tariff proceedings,

the Commission shall not accept the submission of the Petitioner in this regard in

absence of fixed assets and depreciation register.

The Commission strictly directs the Petitioner to expedite the process of preparing

the asset wise Fixed Assets and Depreciation Register duly audited and submit

the same by within three months of issuance of this Order. Further, the Petitioner

shall produce the same at the time of procedure of determination of ARR and tariff

for FY 2015-16.

Directive – 8: Management Information System (MIS)

The Commission had observed in the previous Tariff Order regarding scope of

improvement in the MIS report of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was directed to

make improvement and prepare the MIS report as per the regulatory

requirements.

Compliance

TSECL has submitted that it is in the process of upgrading all its billing systems

as a part of R-APDRP. A complete MIS system will be available upon completion

of these projects.


The Petitioner is directed to submit a report on upgradation of its billing system

within two months of issuance of this Order. In the said report, TSECL should

submit the time line for completion of a compete Management Information

System.

Directive – 9: Collection of past arrears

The Commission had observed that a large amount of arrears are pending from

the Government departments and private consumers. The Commission had

directed the Petitioner that it should pursue with various Government departments

to collect the remaining amount of arrears at the earliest and apprise the

Commission by September 30th, 2013.

Compliance

The Petitioner has failed to submit any reply to this directive of the Commission.


The Commission directs the Petitioner to submit the latest status of arrears

pending to be collected within one month of issuance of this Tariff Order.



November 2014

Directive – 10: Transmission and Distribution Loss

The Commission had directed TSECL to take every possible step to reduce the

T&D losses. TSECL was also directed to prepare an action plan for reduction of

the T&D losses and submit the same to the Commission.

Compliance

TSECL has submitted that it has carried out various loss reduction activities as

shown below:

1. Regular anti-theft raids are conducted by TSECL as a measure for theft

reduction. Dedicated special police force has been deputed with TSECL for

helping its technical teams in conducting raids. The police team visits one

division office every day and visits the same division only once in a month.

Hence, practically, the mass raids are conducted in a division only once in a

month.

2. Special courts have been constituted in Tripura for early disposal of cases.

However, unfortunately, not many police cases or FIRs are registered against

theft cases. Anti-theft measures are mainly from the view of restricting or

penalizing cases of direct theft and hooking only, and tampering with the

meters or cases of dishonest abstraction of energy are generally not checked

or registered.

3. TSECL mainly depends on R-APDRP funding for investing in measures

relating to reduction of losses. Other R&M work like conductor replacement,

shifting of distribution transformers at load centres and cable sizing is done as

per the fund availability. Faulty meters are also replaced in routine O&M work.


The Commission has taken note of the efforts of TSECL for reduction of T&D loss

in its network. However, the Commission observes that the Petitioner has not

submitted action plan for loss reduction as directed by the Commission. Further,

despite the efforts taken by the Petitioner, the T&D loss of TSECL’s network has

increased in recent years rather than reducing. In the Petition, TSECL has

submitted T&D loss of 32.85% and 33.30% for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 as

compared to the T&D loss of 25% and 22% approved by the Commission

respectively. For FY 2014-15, TSECL has projected T&D loss of 35.50%, which is

unacceptable.

In view of the same, the Commission directs the Petitioner to expedite its efforts

for reducing the T&D loss of its network. Further, in view of the increased T&D

loss, the Commission directs TSECL to submit within three months of issuance of



November 2014

this Order, its detailed action plan and roadmap for reducing the T&D loss of its

network.

Directive – 11: Capital Expenditure Plan

In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2014, the Commission had observed

that the Capital Expenditure Plan submitted by the Petitioner in Table 35 and 36 of

last year’s Tariff Petition was merely a reflection of proposal for capital

expenditure and cannot be considered as Capital Expenditure Plan. The

Commission had directed that the Petitioner should review the Capital

Expenditure Plan and Business Plan submitted by other utilities in the Country

and accordingly prepare and submit its Capital Expenditure Plan for FY 2013-14

within 90 days of issuance of last year’s Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013.

Compliance

The Petitioner has failed to submit any reply to this Directive of the Commission.


Despite being repeatedly directed by the Commission, the Petitioner has again

failed to submit its Capital Expenditure Plan. The Commission strictly directs that

TSECL should review the Capital Expenditure Plan and Business Plan submitted

by other utilities in the country and accordingly prepare and submit its Capital

Expenditure Plan for FY 2015-16 within three months of issuance of this Order.

TSECL shall produce the same during the procedure for determination of ARR

and tariff for FY 2015-16.

Directive – 12: AT&C Loss

The Commission in its Tariff Order for FY 2012-13 had directed the Petitioner to

submit the AT&C loss trajectory for FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. However, in the

Tariff Petition for FY 2013-14, the Petitioner had submitted T&D loss and not

AT&C loss, however, the Petitioner had submitted the AT&C losses for FY 2011-

12 and FY 2012-13 in the Annual Performance Report (APR) submitted during the

last year’s tariff proceedings. In the previous Tariff Order dated June 25th, 2013,

the Commission observed that the AT&C loss figures for FY 2011-12 and FY

2012-13 submitted in the APR are varying widely with the figures submitted in the

Tariff Petition. In view of the same, the Commission directed the Petitioner to get

the AT&C loss figures duly audited by the Statutory Auditor and submit the same

by November 30th, 2013. Further, the Commission had directed that the audited

AT&C losses figures should also reflect in their audited Annual Accounts.



November 2014

Compliance

The Petitioner has failed to submit any reply to this directive of the Commission.


In its Tariff Petition, the Petitioner has again submitted T&D loss and not AT&C

loss, however, the Petitioner has submitted the AT&C losses for the years from

FY 2010-11 to FY 2013-14 in the APR. In the past, the Commission has observed

that the AT&C loss figures submitted by TSECL need to be certified by the

Statutory Auditor, so that they can be relied upon.

The Commission again directs the Petitioner to get the AT&C losses figures for all

the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 audited by the Statutory Auditor and

submit the same before the Commission within two months of issuance of this

Order. TSECL shall also produce the same along during the procedure for

determination of ARR and tariff for FY 2015-16. Further, the audited AT&C losses

figures should also reflect in TSECL's audited Annual Accounts.

7.2 Fresh directives

Directive – 1:

Separate annual accounts for Generation, Transmission, Distribution and

SLDC:

TSECL is a bundled utility undertaking all three functions, viz., Generation

transmission and distribution of electricity. In most of the States of the Country,

the electricity utilities are unbundled in accordance with Section 131 of the

Electricity Act, 2003. Further, for stimulation of competition in the electricity market

through Open Access, which is an underlying spirit of Electricity Act, 2003,

unbundling of the state electricity utility is necessary. In view of the same, the

Commission views separation of accounts of generation, distribution, transmission

and load dispatch functions as a first step in the direction of unbundling of TSECL.

In view of the same, the Commission directs TSECL to submit separate accounts

for generation, distribution, transmission and SLDC functions along with the Tariff

Petitions in the future. Further, TSECL is directed to submit by March 31st, 2015, a

report on its roadmap for unbundling of the corporation.



November 2014

Directive – 2:

Submission of final truing up Petition for years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2012-

13:

As mentioned earlier, truing for years since FY 2009-10 has been done on

provisional basis only, based on the provisional annual accounts of TSECL. Final

truing-up based on annual accounts duly audited by Statutory Auditors has been

pending for years since FY 2009-10 because of TSECL’s inability to submit the

audited annual accounts for the previous years. During the regulatory proceedings

for this Tariff Order, TSECL has conveyed that the final annual accounts duly

audited by Statutory Auditors are available for years till FY 2011-12. Further, as

mentioned earlier, the Commission has directed TSECL to produce annual

accounts for all the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 duly audited by

Statutory Auditors along with the Tariff Petition for FY 2015-16.

It is directed that within four months of issuance of this Order, TSECL should

submit the Petition for final truing up for all the years from FY 2009-10 to FY 2012-

13 based on the annual accounts of these years duly audited by Statutory

Auditors.

Directive – 3:

Submission of Report regarding status of consumer metering and roadmap

for achieving 100% consumer metering:

TSECL is directed to submit within two months of issuance of this Order a report

on status of metering of consumers and roadmap for achieveing 100% consumer

metering in the State of Tripura. The report shall include the information regarding

number of unmetered consumers in the State and will also include the roadmap of

the Corporation to achieve 100% metering in the State. TSECL is directed to

submit the report within two months of issuance of this Order.

Directive – 4:

Submission of minutes of meeting of all distribution circles:

The commission understands that to bring better functional efficiency of the

distribution fuction of TSECL, there is a need for conducting regular meetings of

permanent and contractual employees of the Corporation at all of its distribution

circles. TSECL is directed to conduct meetings at all of its distribution circles every

month and submit the minutes of the meeting to the Commission every month

which shall include the following:

Circle wise actual loss levels



November 2014

Loss reduction efforts,

Efforts towards timely billing of consumers

Efforts towards timely revenue collection

Targets given to the officers of the Corporation and compliance of these

targets by the officers

Actions taken on the officers failing to achieve the given targets

Directive – 5:

Conducting internal audit of the Corporations assets/offices:

The Commission intends TSECL to keep track of its incomes and expenses as

well as its assets at various offices. Hence, the Commission directs TSECL to

conduct an internal audit of its offices at different places and submit the report of

the same to the Commission by June 30th, 2015 indicating procedural

discrepancies in following standard procedures as well as actions taken for its

rectification.

Directive – 6:

Conducting internal commercial audit of TSECL’s functions:

The Commission observes that TSECL has been making huge financial losses.

The Commission intends the corporation to be more efficient in its fuctions.

Hence, the Commission directs that TSECL shall conduct an internal commercial

audit of its generation, transmission and distribution fuctions and submit the report

of the same to the Commission by June 30th, 2015. However, action for normal

commercial audit of its business by CAG shall be conducted as per norms.

Directive – 7:

Tariff Petition for diesel generating station:

The revenue requirement related to diesel generating statition of TSECL has not

been considered as part of this Tariff Order. The Petitioner is directed to file a

separate tariff Petition with all the relevant data for its diesel generating station.



November 2014

8 Tariff Principles and design

8.1 Tariff principles

The Commission has been guided by the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003,

the National Electricity Policy (NEP), the Tariff Policy (NTP), the Regulations on

Terms and Conditions of Tariff issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory

Commission (CERC) and the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004 notified by the

Commission.

Section 61 of the Act lays down the broad principles and guidelines for

determination of retail supply tariff. The guiding principles as laid down in Section

61 of the Act are as follows:

1. The principles and methodologies specified by the Central Commission for

determination of the tariff applicable to generating companies and transmission

licensees;

2. The generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are

conducted on commercial principles;

3. The factors which would encourage competition, efficiency economical use of

the resources, good performance and optimum investments;

4. Safeguarding of consumers„ interest and at the same time, recovery of the

cost of electricity in a reasonable manner;

5. The principles rewarding efficiency in performance;

6. Multi-year tariff principles;

7. That the tariff progressively, reflects the cost of supply of electricity, and also

reduces and eliminates cross-subsidies within the period to be specified by the

Appropriate Commission;

8. The promotion of co-generation and generation of electricity from renewable

sources of energy;

9. The National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy.

The Tariff Policy mandates that the Multi-Year-Tariff (MYT) framework be adopted

for determination of tariff from April 1st, 2006. However, the Commission is not in a

position to introduce MYT Regime in the State mainly because of lack of requisite

and reliable data. Even the audited accounts have not been submitted by TSECL

from FY 2009-10 onwards, and the final truing up is pending from FY 2009-10

onwards. The present MIS and regulatory reporting system of TSECL are

inadequate for such an exercise. There has been no study to assess voltage-wise

losses in the absence of metering of all feeders, distribution transformers and



November 2014

consumers. Technical and commercial losses are yet to be segregated and

quantified voltage-wise. Even transmission losses and distribution losses have not

been segregated. The Commission has directed TSECL to chalk out a long-term

action plan for reduction of T&D losses. Under these conditions, it would not be

practicable to implement the MYT framework at this point in time.

Clause 8.3 of the Tariff Policy stipulates the following principles for tariff design:

"The State Governments can give subsidy to the extent they consider

appropriate as per the provisions of the Section 65 of the Act. Direct

subsidy is a better way to support the poorer categories of the consumers

than the mechanism of cross subsidizing the tariff across the board.

Subsidies should be targeted effectively and in transparent manner.

Accordingly, the following principles would be adopted:

1. In accordance with the National Electricity Policy, consumers below

poverty line who consume below a specified level, say 30 units per month,

may receive a special support through cross subsidy. Tariffs for such

designated group of consumers will be at least 50% of the average cost of

supply. This provision will be re-examined after five years.

2. For achieving the objective that the tariff progressively reflects the cost of

supply of electricity, the SERC would notify the roadmap, within six months

with a target that latest by the end of the year 2010-11 tariffs are within

±20% of the average cost of supply. The road map would have

intermediate milestones, based on the approach of a gradual reduction in

cross subsidy.

For example, if the average cost of service is Rs.3.00 per unit, at the end of

FY 2010-11, the tariff for the cross subsidized categories excluding those

referred to in para 1 above should not be lower than Rs.2.40 per unit and

that for any of the cross subsidizing categories should not go beyond

Rs.3.60 per unit.

3. While fixing tariff for agricultural use, the imperatives of the need of using

ground water resources in a sustainable manner would also need to be

kept in mind in addition to the average cost of supply. Tariff for agricultural

use may be set at different levels for different parts of the state depending

on the condition of the ground water table to prevent excessive depletion of

ground water...”



November 2014

The mandate of the Tariff Policy that the tariff should be within ±20% of the

average cost of supply by FY 2010-11 has been the guiding principle. In this Tariff

Order, the Commission has issued a directive to the Petitioner to submit progress

report showing present status of voltage-wise metering and progress of TSECL in

the direction of achieving metering of voltage-wise distribution loss of its network.

Hence, in working out the cost of supply, the Commission has adopted the basis

of average cost of supply.

8.2 Proposal of TSECL for revised tariff

TSECL submitted that the tariffs for a utility should reflect the cost and must be

based on cost of supply. TSECL submitted that while designing the tariff for the

State of Tripura, the tariffs have been rationalised such that they are in line with

the cross-subsidy targets set by the Tariff Policy.

TSECL submitted that the ommission telescopic tariff introduced by the

Commission vide its previous Tariff Order has been accepted positively by the

consumers of the State. In addition, introduction of special category for Mobile

Towers have helped TSECL in rationalising the tariffs in the State.

Based on the ARR and revenue gap projected by TSECL for FY 2014-15, TSECL

has proposed the following category-wise tariffs:

Table 8-1: Category wise tariffs proposed by TSECL

Category Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs/kWh)

A. Kutir Jyoti Rs. 87 per consumer per month -

B. DOMESTIC

single phase

Domestic (Rural): 0-30 unit Rs. 45 per consumer per month 4.35

Slab-1, upto 50 units Rs. 68 per consumer per month 5.10

Slab-2, next 100 units Rs. 83 per consumer per month 6.20

Slab-3, next 150 units Rs. 90 per consumer per month 6.40



November 2014


Energy

Charge

(Rs/kWh)

Slab-4, 300 units and

upwards Rs. 90 per consumer per month 7.50

Three phase (compulsory

above 3 kW) : All units Rs. 105 per kW per month 7.50

C. Commercial

Single phase

Small Commercial / Pan

shop: 0 -30 unit Rs. 48 per consumer per month 6.00

Slab 1 : 0 - 150 unit Rs.55 per consumer per month 6.70

Slab 2 : above 150 unit Rs. 85 per consumer per month 7.40

Semi-commercial: All units Rs. 85 per consumer per month 7.40

Three phase (Compulsory

above 3 kW): All units Rs. 85 per kW per month 7.45

Three phase Group

consumers: All units Rs. 85 per kW per month 7.48

D. Mobile Towers Rs. 120 per kW per month 6.98

E. Irrigation

Upto 5 H.P. : All units Rs. 30 per kW per month 4.60

Above 5 H.P. : All units Rs. 60 per kW per month 5.50

F. Water Works Rs. 48 per kW per month 6.85

G. Industrial

Upto 5 H.P.(E-R/5) : All

units Rs. 33 per kW per month 5.50



November 2014


Energy

Charge

(Rs/kWh)

Upto 5 H.P.(E-U/5) : All


Above 5 - 20 H.P. : All units Rs. 45 per kW per month 6.72

Above 20 - 100 H.P. : All


Above 100 H.P. : All units Rs. 75 per kW per month 6.99

H. Tea, Coffee and

Rubber Garden Rs. 85 per kW per month 6.95

I. Bulk Supply Rs. 85 per kW per month 6.98

J. Public Lighting

Panchayat : All units Rs. 80 per kW per month 5.85

Nagar Panchayat /

Municipal Area : All units Rs. 110 per kW per month 6.85

Total Public Lighting

J. Special Public Utility Rs. 95 per kW per month 5.85

Apart from the above, TSECL has proposed a new tariff category of Bulk

Domestic. TSECL has submitted that the real estate sector in Tripura is rapidly

expanding and many group housing complexes have come up in the urban areas.

TSECL has proposed to facilitate such housing complexes, colonies and introduce

special tariffs for these consumers. TSECL submitted that tariff for such

consumers must take into account that the connections are at 11 kV at the point of

supply and large number of consumers are added without the need for elaborate

distribution network. TSECL has proposed tariffs for such new tariff category as




November 2014

Table 8-2: Tariff proposed by TSECL for proposed new tariff category of Bulk Domestic consumers

Slab Fixed Charge (Rs/kW

of recorded demand)

Energy Charge

(Rs/kWh)

For consumption in a month not

exceeding 300 units per

flat/dwelling unit (DU)

70 5.20

For consumption in a month

between 301-600 units per flat/DU 70 5.90

For consumption in a month of

601 units or more per flat/DU 70 6.50

8.3 Tariff approved by the Commission

8.3.1 Existing Tariff Rates

The existing tariff rates are presented in the following Table:

Table 8-3: Existing tariff rates

Sl. No.

Consumer Category / Slabs

Tariff for FY 2013-14 Energy Charge after

considering Govt. Subsidy

Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

A.

Kutir Jyoti

Rs. 62.00 / Connection / month Rs. 8.00 /

Connection

/ month

Rs. 54.00 /

Connection /

month

B. Domestic

Domestic (rural): 0-30

unit

Rs. 15 /

Connection / month 3.75 0.65 3.10

Slab 1: upto 50 Units Rs. 25 /




November 2014

Sl. No.




Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Slab 2: 51 - 150 units Rs. 40 /


Slab 3: 151 - 300 units Rs. 50 /

Connection / month 5.80 - 5.80

Slab 4: 301 units

onwards

Rs. 50 /


Three phase

(Compulsory above 3

kW): All units

Rs. 50 / kW /

month 6.90 0.20 6.70

C. Commercial

Small Commercial /

Pan shop: 0-30 unit

Rs. 25 /


Slab 1: upto 150 units Rs. 45 /


Slab 2: 151 units

onwards

Rs. 60 /


Semi Commercial: All

units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 6.90 0.10 6.80

Three Phase

(Compulsory above 3

kW): All units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 6.95 0.10 6.85

Three Phase – Group

Consumer: All units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 6.98 0.18 6.80

D. Mobile Tower: All

units

Rs. 120 / kW /

month 6.98 - 6.98

E. Irrigation

Upto 5 H.P: All units

Rs. 30 / kW /

month 4.60 1.30 3.30



November 2014

Sl. No.




Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Above 5 H.P. : All

units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 5.50 1.30 4.30

F. Water works: All

units

Rs. 40 / kW /

month 6.15 1.30 4.85

G. Industrial

Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All

units

Rs. 25 / kW /

month 5.50 0.10 5.40

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All

units

Rs. 30 / kW /

month 5.90 0.10 5.80

Above 5 to 20 HP: All

units

Rs. 45 / kW /

month 6.72 0.12 6.60

Above 20 to 100 HP:

All units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 6.90 0.10 6.80

Above 100 HP: All

units

Rs. 75 / kW /

month 6.99 0.09 6.90

H. Tea, Coffee and

Rubber Gardens: All

units

Rs. 75 / kW /

Month 6.95 0.30 6.65

I. Bulk Supply: All

units

Rs. 75 / kW /

Month 6.98 - 6.98

J. Public Lighting

Public Lighting

(Panchayat)

Rs. 30 / kW /

Month 5.15 0.55 4.60

Public Utility (Nagar

Panchayat /

Municipality)

Rs. 60 / kW /

Month 6.15 0.55 5.60

K. Special Public Utility

Special Public Utility Rs. 30 / kW / 5.15 0.70 4.45



November 2014

Sl. No.




Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

(Crematorium) Month

Special Public Utility

(Emergency Water

Pumping, Drainage

Dewatering etc.)

Rs. 30 / kW /

Month 5.15 0.70 4.45

8.3.2 Approved Tariff Rates

In view of the positive response from the consumers as well as TSECL to the

telescopic tariff introduced in the previous Tariff Order, the Commission continues

the telescopic tariff for the domestic and non-domestic categories, which is

prevailing in most of the States in the country.

The Petitioner has proposed a new tariff category for Bulk Domestic consumers.

However, the Petitioner has not submitted important information such as number

of consumers, connected load, specific consumption, total sales, etc., for this

proposed consumer category, which is necessary to estimate the energy sales as

well as revenue from this consumer category. Further, the introduction of Bulk

Domestic category would result into reduction in number of consumers and total

sales to Domestic category. Such estimation requires reliable information from the

Petitioner such as total number of bulk supply consumers in the State, average

number of domestic connections pertaining to one Bulk Domestic connection, etc.

In view of the lack of such information, the Commission directs the Petitioner to

submit detailed analysis regarding proposed Bulk Domestic consumer category in

the Tariff Petition for FY 2015-16. In this Tariff Order, the Commission has not

introduced the new Bulk Domestic category, as proposed by TSECL.

The Commission made following changes in the tariff schedule:

(a) The maximum allowable consumption of the Kutir Jyoti category has been

changed from 16 kWh/month to 15 kWh/month.

(b) The maximum allowable consumption of the rural domestic category has

been changed from 30 kWh/month to 50 kWh/month.



November 2014

(c) The maximum allowable consumption of the Small Commercial / Pan Shop

category has been changed from 30 kWh/month to 50 kWh/month.

As elaborated in the earlier Chapters of this Order, the Commission has approved

the ARR after truing up for FY 2012-13, review of FY 2013-14 and projection of

ARR for FY 2014-15 and resultant consolidated revenue gap for FY 2014-15 after

detailed scrutiny of the revenue requirement proposed by TSECL. The

Commission has approved the ARR of Rs 461.55 Crore, Rs 558.34 Crore, and Rs

754.26 Crore for FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14, and FY 2014-15, respectively after

prudence check and in accordance with the TERC Tariff Regulations, 2004.

Further, the Commission has approved the revenue for FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-

14 as Rs. 386.27 Crore and Rs. 538.34 Crore, respectively. The Commission has

approved the total revenue for FY 2014-15 as Rs. 769.92 Crore based on

approval of revenue from intra-State sales at existing tariff as Rs. 483.48 Crore

and approval of revenue from inter-State sales as Rs. 286.44 Crore. Accordingly,

the Commission has approved Rs. 75.29 Crore as revenue gap for FY 2012-13,

Rs. 19.49 Crore as revenue gap FY 2013-14, and Rs. 15.65 Crore as revenue

surplus for FY 2014-15 at existing tariff. Further, in view of the fact that the

revenue gap of Rs. 53.08 Crore for FY 2012-13 has already been allowed by the

Commission in the previous Tariff Order, the Commission has approved the

consolidated revenue gap of Rs. 26.05 Crore for FY 2014-15 at existing tariff.

Thus, the total approved revenue requirement from intra-State sale for FY 2014-

15 is Rs. 509.52 Crore. The Commission has approved total intra-State energy

sales of 784.42 MU for FY 2014-15. For recovery of Rs. 509.52 crore from intra-

State sales in FY 2014-15, the average cost of supply as well as the average

billing rate for FY 2014-15 for intra-State sales approved by the Commission

works out to Rs. 6.50 per kWh, which implies an average tariff increase of Rs.

0.84 per kWh over subsidized tariff of FY 2013-14.

The category-wise tariffs approved by the Commission for FY 2014-15 are as

follows:

A: Kutir Jyoti

Applicability

Kutir-Jyoti connection is covered under scheme of the State Government or

Central Government. Maximum connected load of 120 Watt (60 watt x 2 points)

and maximum monthly consumption of 15 kWh is allowed for this category. If

consumption of a Kutuir Jyoti Consumer in a month increases beyond 15 kWh,



November 2014

then such consumer will be charged as per tariff rates applicable to normal

Domestic Category for that month.

Tariff:

Particulars Fixed Charge

For consumption upto 15 kWh/month Rs. 62 / connection / month

I. If, during any billing period, the consumption exceeds the stipulated 30

kWh/month, the consumers will be considered as if they are shifted to the

next appropriate Domestic category on telescopic tariff structure.

II. Rebate: A rebate of 2% on the total billing amount will be allowed to the

consumer for prompt payment made on or before the due date.

III. Surcharge for delayed payment: Surcharge @ 2% per month or part

thereof at simple interest shall be levied, if payment is made after the due

date.

IV. Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment (FPPCA) charges as applicable

will be charged extra.

V. The Tariff does not include any tax or duty levied by the Government,

which will be charged at actual as and when applicable.

B. Domestic

Applicability

Electric service connection related to consumption of electricity for lights, all types

of fans, heating devices, television, radio, refrigerator, air conditioner and all other

appliances for consumers' own domestic use but not for commercial purpose,

educational institutions owned or aided by State/Central Government and all

Government hospitals and all hospitals owned by charitable institutions (not

maintained for commercial purposes), as approved and notified by the State

Government.

Tariff

Sub-category / Slab Energy Charge Fixed Charge

Domestic (rural): 0-50 unit 4.03 Rs./kWh Rs. 15 / Connection /

month

Slab 1: upto 50 units 4.84 Rs./kWh Rs. 25 / Connection /



November 2014

month

Slab 2: 51 - 150 units 5.98 Rs./kWh Rs. 40 / Connection /

month

Slab 3: 151 - 300 units 6.16 Rs./kWh Rs. 50 / Connection /

month

Slab 4: 301 units onwards 7.20 Rs./kWh Rs. 50 / Connection /

month

Three phase (Compulsory above

3 kW): All units

7.20 Rs./kWh Rs. 50 / kW / month

Consumers in Domestic (Rural) and Slab 1 to Slab 4 will be billed as per

telescopic tariff structure, as explained below.

If an urban domestic consumer consumes 330 units in a month, his/her applicable

Fixed Charge would be Rs. 50 for the month and applicable energy charge will be


Units

Consumed

Energy Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Total amount

(Rs.)

Upto 50 units 50 4.84 242.00

Next 100 units 100 5.98 598.00

Next 150 units 150 6.16 924.00

301 units onwards 30 7.20 216.40

Total 330 1980.00

I. Rebate: A rebate of 2% on the total billing amount will be allowed to the


II. Surcharge for delayed payment: Surcharge @ 2% per month or part


date.

III. Fuel and Power Purchase cost Adjustment (FPPCA) charges as applicable




November 2014

IV. The Tariff does not include any tax or duty levied by the Government,


Note:

If a portion of the household is used for the conduct of any purpose other than

those specified above, the entire consumption shall be billed under the

Commercial/Industrial category as applicable.

C. Commercial

Applicability

Electric service connection related to consumption of electricity for lights, all types

of fans, heating devices, television, radio, refrigerator, air conditioner, lift motors,

pumps and all other appliances used for commercial purposes maintained for

private gain including other small power, supply of power to Cinema Hall,

Auditorium, Stadium, Nursing Home, Pathological & Clinical Laboratories,

Chamber of Medical Practitioners, Advocates/Consultant Engineers/Chartered

Accountants and similar others, Private Educational Institutions, Hospitals, etc.

Tariff

Sub-category / Slab Energy Charge Fixed Charge

Small Commercial / Pan shop:

0-50 unit*

Rs. 5.93 /kWh Rs. 25 / Connection /

month

Slab 1: upto 150 units Rs. 6.69 /kWh Rs. 45 / Connection /

month

Slab 2: 151 units onwards Rs. 7.25 /kWh Rs. 60 / Connection /

month

Semi Commercial: All units Rs. 7.25 / kWh Rs. 50 / kW / month

Three Phase (Compulsory

above 3 kW): All units

Rs. 7.45 / kWh Rs. 50 / kW / month

Three Phase – Group Consumer:

All units Rs. 7.53 / kWh Rs. 50 / kW / month

Note: * if consumption exceeds beyond 50 unit in any month, the consumer will be

treated as consumer of next slab for that month.



November 2014

Consumers in Slab 1 and Slab 2 will be charged as per telescopic tariff structure

as explained below.

If, a commercial consumer consumes 330 unit in a month, his/her applicable fixed

charge shall be Rs. 60 for the month and energy charge shall be as shown in the

following Table:

Units

Consumed

Energy Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Total amount

(Rs.)

Upto 150 units 150 6.69 1003.50

151 units onwards 180 7.25 1305.00

Total 330 2308.50





date.





D. Mobile Towers

Applicability

Electric service connection related to consumption of electricity in Mobile Tower

and metered on HT supply end or on L.T. supply plus 3% transformer loss.

Tariff

Category Energy Charge Fixed Charge

Mobile Tower: All units Rs. 7.34 / kWh Rs. 125 / kW / month





November 2014



date.





E. Irrigation

Applicability

Applicable for motive power for irrigation including the power consumed for light

and fans in pump house for irrigation.

Tariff

Sub-Category Energy Charge Fixed Charge

Upto 5 H.P: All units Rs. 4.95 / kWh Rs. 30 / kW / month

Above 5 H.P. : All units Rs. 5.95 / kWh Rs. 60 / kW / month





date.





F. Water works

Applicability

Applicable for motive power for Water Works including the power consumed for

light and fans in pump house for Water Works for all units consumed.

Tariff


Water Works: All units Rs. 6.65 / kWh Rs. 40 / kW / month



November 2014





date.





G. Industrial

Applicability

Electric service connection related to supply/consumption of electricity for

industrial purpose, each installation having motor and other industrial appliances,

Battery Charger, Welding Transformer, etc., including the power consumed for

light & fan in an industry.

Tariff


Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All units Rs. 5.93 / kWh Rs. 25 / kW / month

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All units Rs. 6.36 / kWh Rs. 30 / kW / month

Above 5 to 20 HP: All units Rs. 7.10 / kWh Rs. 45 / kW / month

Above 20 to 100 HP: All units Rs. 7.24 / kWh Rs. 60 / kW / month

Above 100 HP: All units Rs. 7.25 / kWh Rs. 75 / kW / month





date.







November 2014

H. Tea, Coffee and Rubber Gardens

Applicability

Electric service connection related to consumption of electricity for Tea, Coffee

and Rubber Plantation/Garden for utilisation of electric power for factory and

irrigation in the estate including the power consumed for lights and fans, in and

around the factory premises for all units.

Tariff


Tea, Coffee and Rubber

Gardens: All units Rs. 7.50 / kWh Rs. 75 / kW / Month





date.





I. Bulk Supply

Applicability

Electric service connection related to consumption of electricity to the

organizations and establishments having total connected load of 25 kVA or above,

such Institutions, School, College, University, Defence installations, Railways, All

India Radio, Office complex Departmental, Colony, Dairy with Chilling Plant,

Doordarshan, Cold storage, who are maintaining LT distribution system and

having mixed load but desirous to be bulk power supply consumers based on bulk

power supply contract agreement and metered on HT supply end or on L.T.

supply plus 3% transformer loss.

Tariff


Bulk Supply: All units Rs. 7.33 / kWh Rs. 75 / kW / Month



November 2014





date.





J. Public Lighting

Applicability

Electric service connection related to consumption of electricity for Public Lighting

for Panchayat and Nagar Panchayat /Municipal area.

Tariff


Public Lighting (Panchayat) Rs. 5.55 / kWh Rs. 30 / kW / Month

Public Utility (Nagar Panchayat /

Municipality) Rs. 6.63 / kWh Rs. 60 / kW / Month





date.






Applicability

Special public utility for crematorium, emergency water pumping, drainage,

dewatering, etc., for all units consumed.



November 2014

Tariff


Special Public Utility (Crematorium) Rs. 5.80 / kWh Rs. 45 / kW / Month

Special Public Utility (Emergency

Water Pumping, Drainage,

Dewatering, etc.)

Rs. 5.80 / kWh Rs. 45 / kW / Month




thereof at simple interest shall be levied, if payment is made in after the

due date.





TOD Tariff

Applicability

All consumers under Industrial, Tea/Coffee/Rubber Gardens, Bulk Supply, Water

Works and Irrigation categories would have the option of taking TOD tariff,

wherein the following rates would be applicable.

From To Period Energy Charge

5:00 A.M. 5:00 P.M. Normal Normal Rate

5:00 P.M. 11:00 P.M. Peak 140% of the normal rate

11:00 P.M. 5:00 A.M. Off-peak 60% of the normal rate

N.B: Any error or required corrections noticed may be pointed out to the

Commission within 15 days of issuance of the Tariff Order.

8.4 Approved miscellaneous and other charges

TSECL has proposed the miscellaneous and other charges for FY 2014-15 same

as that approved for FY 2013-14. In view of the increased cost of metering, the



November 2014

Commission has increased some of the meter rent and connction/disconnection

related charges. Accordingly, the Commission approves the miscellaneous and

other charges for FY 2014-15, as shown in the Table below:

Table 8-4: Approved miscellaneous and other charges for FY 2014-15

Sl.

No. Charge

Approved for FY 2014-

15

Category-I:- MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES

A The tariff for temporary supply for lights and

fans for festival, ceremonies, public meeting

shall be charged at the following rate, namely

:-

i. Net Rs. 6.00 / kWh

ii. Rebate Rs. 0.10 / kWh

iii. Gross Rs. 5.90 / kWh

N.B: The minimum charge for each

installation which shall be paid in advance

shall be

Rs. 60/- per day per kW

of contracted load or a

fraction thereof

B The tariff for temporary supply for lights &

fans to commercial establishment which shall

include temporary Cinema, Theater, Circus,

Exhibition, Fare shall be charged at the

following rate, namely:-

i. Net Rs. 7.00 / kWh

ii. Rebate Rs. 0.10 / kWh

iii. Gross Rs. 6.90 / kWh

N.B: The minimum charge for each

installation which shall be paid in advance

shall be

Rs.60/- per day per KW

of contracted load or a

fraction thereof

Category: Other Charges

1. The monthly meter rent for different phases



November 2014

Sl.

No. Charge


15

shall be at the following rate, namely:-

i. For single phase meter not exceeding 10

Amp -

Rs. 10.00

ii. For three phase meter - Rs. 20.00

iii. For three phase meter with C.T. Rs. 40.00

iv. For HT metering equipment i.e. kWh meter

with MDl & KVR supplied by the Deptt. -

Rs. 250.00

v. For Trivector meter- Rs. 400.00

vi. For TOD meter Rs. 400.00

2. The charges for testing of meter at the

request of consumer for different phase shall

be at the following rate, namely:-

i. For each single phase meter- Rs. 50.00

ii. For each three phase meter - Rs. 100.00

iii. For each HT meter - Rs. 250.00

Provided that after testing it is found that the

meter has no defect, and it is in order.

3. The charges for replacement of meter owing

to temporary increase of load which shall be

paid in advance shall be at the following

rates, namely:-

i. For single phase Rs. 100.00

ii. For three phase Rs. 250.00

4. The charge for replacement of fuse at

consumer premises.

Nil

5. The charges for installation of subtraction

meter & additional meter at consumer's meter

board shall be NOTE- Where two or more

Rs. 250.00



November 2014

Sl.

No. Charge


15

meters are installed against one connection

instead of one meter to suit the convenience

of the consumer, reading of the main meter

will be taken and billed for.

6. The monthly meter rent for an additional

meter shall be at the following rates, namely:-



7. There shall be no charge for test, inspection

and connection of a new installation. But for

any further test or inspection which may be

found necessary owing to any fault in the

installation or due to non- compliance withthe

condition of supply the charge for each

additional test shall be

Rs. 200.00

8. The charges for disconnection on consumers

request shall be at the following rate,

namely:-,



iii. For Bulk/HV/EHV Rs. 200.00

9. The charges for reconnection on consumers

request shall be at the following rates,

namely:-



iii. For Bulk/HV/EHV Rs. 250.00

10. The charges for temporary connection which

shall be non refundable for all categories of



November 2014

Sl.

No. Charge


15

load through a meter within permissible

distance from the electric supply main shall

be at the following rates, namely:-

i. For 220-230V(i.e. Single Phase connection) Rs. 300.00 per

installation

ii. For 380-400V(i.e. 3-phase, 4-wire

connection).

Rs. 500.00 per

installation

N.B: (i) The consumer shall supply all

materials required for service lines as may be

approved by licensee, from the nearest pole

of the supply point. There shall be no

disconnection charge and meter rent for

temporary connection.

N.B: (ii) For temporary. Connection the

consumer shall pay as security deposit of

Rs.750.00 for single phase or Rs.1500.00 for

three phase supply which is refundable after

disconnection of the temporary connection

and final payment of the energy bill by

consumer.

N.B: (iii) For the purpose of this clause,

temporary connection means a connection

for a continuous period not exceeding 15

days.

11. The charge for changing of meter by a larger

capacity at the request of consumer in

respect of permanent connection shall be at

the following rates, namely:-

i. For 220-230V(Single phase) Rs. 150.00

ii. For 380-400V(3-phase, 4-wire). Rs. 400.00

The charge for changing the position the



November 2014

Sl.

No. Charge


15

meter & the board within the same building at

the request of the consumer when no

addition in the service line is required shall be

at tile following rates, namely:-

i. For 220-230V(Single phase) Rs. 200.00

ii. For 380-400V(3-phase, 4-wire). Rs. 400.00

13. Charges for calibration of check meter upon

request of consumer.

Rs. 200.00

14. Charges for special meter reading on

consumer request

Rs. 150.00

If Government of Tripura decides to pay the subsidy for some categories of

consumers for FY 2014-15, the subsidy shall be paid in advance on monthly basis

to TSECL. The Commission directs TSECL to recover full tariff in case the

Government of Tripura does not pay subsidy in advance for two consecutive

months.

The approved retail supply tariff will be in accordance with the Tariff Schedule

given in this Order. The Order shall come into force from November 1st, 2014 and

shall remain valid till March 31st, 2014 or till further order/amendment by the

Commission.

Sd/-

Shri. N. Chakraborty

Chairman

Place : Agartala

Date : November 22nd, 2014



November 2014

Annexure I: Approved Tariff Schedule for FY 2014-15

Sl. No.

Consumer Category / Slabs Fixed Charge

Energy Charge

(Rs./kWh)

A. Kutir Jyoti Rs. 62.00/Connection/month

B. Domestic

Domestic (rural): 0-50 units Rs. 15/Connection/ month 4.03

Slab 1: upto 50 Units Rs. 25/Connection / month 4.84

Slab 2: 51 - 150 units Rs. 40/Connection / month 5.98

Slab 3: 151 - 300 units Rs. 50/Connection / month 6.16

Slab 4: 301 units onwards Rs. 50/Connection / month 7.20

Three phase (Compulsory above

3 kW): All units

Rs. 50 / kW / month 7.20

C. Commercial

Small Commercial / Pan shop:

0-50 unit

Rs. 25/Connection / month 5.93

Slab 1: upto 150 units Rs. 45/Connection/ month 6.69

Slab 2: 151 units onwards Rs. 60/Connection / month 7.25

Semi Commercial: All units Rs. 50/ kW / month 7.25

Three Phase (Compulsory

above 3 kW): All units

Rs. 50 / kW / month 7.45

Three Phase – Group Consumer:

All units

Rs. 50 / kW / month 7.53

D. Mobile Tower: All units Rs. 125 / kW / month 7.34

E. Irrigation

Upto 5 H.P: All units Rs. 30 / kW / month 4.95

Above 5 H.P. : All units Rs. 60 / kW / month 5.95



November 2014

Sl. No.

Consumer Category / Slabs Fixed Charge

Energy Charge

(Rs./kWh)

F. Water works: All units Rs. 40 / kW / month 6.65

G. Industrial

Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All units Rs. 25 / kW / month 5.93

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All units Rs. 30 / kW / month 6.36

Above 5 to 20 HP: All units Rs. 45 / kW / month 7.10

Above 20 to 100 HP: All units Rs. 60 / kW / month 7.24

Above 100 HP: All units Rs. 75 / kW / month 7.25

H. Tea, Coffee and Rubber

Gardens: All units

Rs. 75 / kW / Month 7.50

I. Bulk Supply: All units Rs. 75 / kW / Month 7.33

J. Public Lighting

Public Lighting (Panchayat) Rs. 30 / kW / Month 5.55

Public Utility (Nagar Panchayat /

Municipality) Rs. 60 / kW / Month 6.63



(Crematorium) Rs. 45 / kW / Month 5.80


(Emergency Water Pumping,

Drainage, Dewatering, etc.)

Rs. 45 / kW / Month 5.80



November 2014

Annexure II: Tariff Schedule for FY 2014-15 after

considering Government Subsidy

Sl. No.


Approved Tariff for FY 2014-

15

Energy Charge after


Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

A.

Kutir Jyoti

Rs. 62.00 / Connection / month Rs. 4.00 /

Connection

/ month

Rs. 58.00 /

Connection /

month

B. Domestic

Domestic (rural): 0-50

unit

Rs. 15/Connection/

Month 4.03 0.69 3.34

Slab 1: upto 50 Units Rs. 25 /


Slab 2: 51 - 150 units Rs. 40 /


Slab 3: 151 - 300 units Rs. 50 /


Slab 4: 301 units

onwards

Rs. 50 /


Three phase

(Compulsory above 3

kW): All units

Rs. 50 / kW /

month 7.20 0.15 7.05

C. Commercial

Small Commercial /

Pan shop: 0-50 unit

Rs. 25 /


Slab 1: upto 150 units Rs. 45 /


Slab 2: 151 units

onwards

Rs. 60 /




November 2014

Sl. No.



15

Energy Charge after


Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Semi Commercial: All

units

Rs. 50 / kW /

month 7.25 0.10 7.15

Three Phase

(Compulsory above 3

kW): All units

Rs. 50 / kW /

month 7.45 0.10 7.35

Three Phase – Group

Consumer: All units

Rs. 50 / kW /

month 7.53 0.15 7.38

D. Mobile Tower: All

units

Rs. 125 / kW /

month 7.34 - 7.34

E. Irrigation

Upto 5 H.P: All units

Rs. 30 / kW /

month 4.95 1.40 3.55

Above 5 H.P. : All

units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 5.95 1.40 4.55

F. Water works: All

units

Rs. 40 / kW /

month 6.65 1.40 5.25

G. Industrial

Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All

units

Rs. 25 / kW /

month 5.93 0.10 5.83

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All

units

Rs. 30 / kW /

month 6.36 0.10 6.26

Above 5 to 20 HP: All

units

Rs. 45 / kW /

month 7.10 - 7.10

Above 20 to 100 HP:

All units

Rs. 60 / kW /

month 7.24 - 7.24

Above 100 HP: All

units

Rs. 75 / kW /

month 7.25 - 7.25

H. Tea, Coffee and Rs. 75 / kW / 7.50 0.30 7.20



November 2014

Sl. No.



15

Energy Charge after


Fixed Charge

Energy

Charge

(Rs./kWh)

Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Energy Rate

after Govt.

Subsidy

(Rs./kWh)

Rubber Gardens: All

units

Month

I. Bulk Supply: All

units

Rs. 75 / kW /

Month 7.33 - 7.33

J. Public Lighting

Public Lighting

(Panchayat)

Rs. 30 / kW /

Month 5.55 0.57 4.98

Public Utility (Nagar

Panchayat /

Municipality)

Rs. 60 / kW /

Month 6.63 0.57 6.06



(Crematorium)

Rs. 45 / kW /

Month 5.80 1.10 4.70


(Emergency Water

Pumping, Drainage

Dewatering etc.)

Rs. 45 / kW /

Month 5.80 1.10 4.70



November 2014

Appendix 1: Number of consumers from FY 2012-13

to FY 2014-15(P)

Sl. No. Consumer Category / Slabs FY 2012-13

(A) FY 2013-14

(A) FY 2014-

15 (P)

A. Kutir Jyoti 65,354 67,844 72,891

B. Domestic

Domestic (rural): 0-50 units 153,870 166,668 158,647

Slab 1: upto 50 Units 166,405 206,112 203,207

Slab 2: 51 - 150 units 91,792 81,035 110,824

Slab 3: 151 - 300 units 21,749 14,098 25,405

Slab 4: 301 units onwards 5,227 3,545 6,132

Three phase (Compulsory above 3 kW): All units

2,637 2,303 6,511

Total Domestic 441,680 473,761 510,727

C. Commercial

Small Commercial / Pan shop: 0-50 unit 10,239 11,160 11,807

Slab 1: upto 150 units 29,858 32,389 32,253

Slab 2: 151 units onwards 4,255 4,944 5,035

Semi Commercial: All units 776 681 1,926

Three Phase (Compulsory above 3 kW): All units

463 289 284

Three Phase – Group Consumer: All units

245 226 316

Total Commercial 45,836 49,689 51,621

D. Mobile Tower: All units 750 934 1,136

E. Irrigation

Upto 5 H.P: All units 2,921 2,934 2,990



November 2014


(A) FY 2013-14

(A) FY 2014-

15 (P)

Above 5 H.P. : All units 1,753 1,779 1,907

Total Irrigation 4,674 4,713 4,897

F. Water works: All units 3,748 4,533 5,424

G. Industrial

Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All units 364 408 416

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All units 532 921 558

Above 5 to 20 HP: All units 3,472 3,392 3,873

Above 20 to 100 HP: All units 348 225 384

Above 100 HP: All units 28 65 33

Total Industrial 4,744 5,011 5,264

H. Tea, Coffee and Rubber Gardens: All units

29 37 40

I. Bulk Supply: All units 947 718 718

J. Public Lighting

Public Lighting (Panchayat) 362 245 307

Public Utility (Nagar Panchayat / Municipality)

847 881 944

Total Public Lighting 1,209 1,126 1,251

K. Special Public Utility 79 80 95

Total number of consumers 569,050 608,446 654,063

Note: The actuals of FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 are as provided by the Petitioner in the Petition/supporting data. In case of discrepancies/absence of information, the Commission has dervived the data based on its analysis.



November 2014

Appendix 2: Connected load from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-

15 (P)

(MW)


(A) FY 2013-14

(A) FY 2014-15

(P)

A. Kutir Jyoti 10.00 8.00 9.00

B. Domestic

Domestic (rural): 0-50 units 21.75 23.61 25.79

Slab 1: upto 50 Units 26.74 29.03 32.02

Slab 2: 51 - 150 units 30.57 33.18 36.19

Slab 3: 151 - 300 units 16.38 18.67 20.13

Slab 4: 301 units onwards 8.01 9.56 10.42


29.03 34.67 37.38

Total Domestic 132.48 148.73 161.92

C. Commercial

Small Commercial / Pan shop: 0-50 unit 2.23 2.37 2.46

Slab 1: upto 150 units 12.16 12.92 13.47


Semi Commercial: All units 3.40 3.61 3.77


4.93 5.24 1.09


1.03 1.09 1.14

Total Commercial 27.67* 29.83* 26.90

D. Mobile Tower: All units - - 17.03

E. Irrigation



November 2014


(A) FY 2013-14

(A) FY 2014-15

(P)

Upto 5 H.P: All units 6.52 7.71 9.07

Above 5 H.P. : All units 12.99 15.35 18.05

Total Irrigation 19.51 23.06 27.12

F. Water works: All units 34.27 67.50 104.07

G. Industrial

Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All units 0.87 0.88 0.93

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All units 1.40 1.58 1.70

Above 5 to 20 HP: All units 31.43 35.31 38.03


Above 100 HP: All units 4.58 5.14 5.54

Total Industrial 61.96 68.31 72.92


0.56 0.56 0.60

I. Bulk Supply: All units 29.47 87.40 96.14

J. Public Lighting

Public Lighting (Panchayat) 0.68 0.77 0.86


5.18 5.82 6.54

Total Public Lighting 5.86 6.58 7.40

K. Special Public Utility 0.41 0.43 0.44

Total connected load 322.18 440.40 523.54

Note: (1) *Including Mobile Towers Category

(2) The actuals of FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 are as provided by the Petitioner in the Petition/supporting data. In case of discrepancies/absence of information, the Commission has dervived the data based on its analysis.



November 2014

Appendix 3: Sales from FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 (P)

(MU)


(A) FY 2013-14

(A) FY 2014-15

(P)

A. Kutir Jyoti 17.62 18.00 13.56

B. Domestic

Domestic (rural): 0-50 units 57.11 61.14 68.15

Slab 1: upto 50 Units 70.22 75.17 83.79

Slab 2: 51 - 150 units 80.26 85.92 95.78

Slab 3: 151 - 300 units 43.01 46.05 51.33



76.23 81.61 90.97

Total Domestic 347.86 372.40 415.10

C. Commercial

Small Commercial / Pan shop: 0-50 unit 4.02 2.55 2.74

Slab 1: upto 150 units 26.83 17.04 18.30


Semi Commercial: All units 9.54 6.06 6.50


3.19 2.02 2.17


9.13 5.80 6.23

Total Commercial 67.18* 42.66 45.82

D. Mobile Tower: All units - 22.00 25.00

E. Irrigation

Upto 5 H.P: All units 11.74 9.53 9.53

Above 5 H.P. : All units 24.66 20.02 20.02



November 2014


(A) FY 2013-14

(A) FY 2014-15

(P)

Total Irrigation 36.40 29.55 29.55

F. Water works: All units 62.41 67.50 74.96

G. Industrial

Up to 5 HP (E-R/5): All units 0.53 0.52 0.54

Up to 5 HP (E-U/5): All units 0.86 0.84 0.88



Above 100 HP: All units 2.81 2.74 2.88

Total Industrial 37.99 37.07 39.02


0.67 0.69 0.76

I. Bulk Supply: All units 79.18 87.40 102.37

J. Public Lighting

Public Lighting (Panchayat) 3.67 3.80 4.14


27.86 28.90 31.46

Total Public Lighting 31.52 32.70 35.60

K. Special Public Utility 2.22 2.30 2.69

Total Sales 683.05 712.27 784.42

Note: (1) *Including Mobile Towers Category

(2) The actuals of FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14 are as provided by the Petitioner in the Petition/supporting data. In case of discrepancies/absence of information, the Commission has dervived the data based on its analysis.

tripura electricity regulatory commission - terc.nic.in · tripura electricity regulatory...

Documents