VIJAYAWADA: The AP Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) has dismissed the petition filed by the power utilities seeking a review of the order passed by the commission in 2019, which determined the tariff of stage-I of Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station (SDSTPS) (2x800 MW).
While the petitioners claimed that there were “errors apparent” in the earlier order, the commission said there were no errors and that the petitions don’t satisfy the parameters for a review.
After the commission has passed an order in March, 2019, fixing the tariff after considering the capital costs, operation and maintenance costs and other expenses for the period between February, 2015, and March 31, 2019, the Discoms and APPDCL filed separate review petitions praying that some costs be allowed separately and certain others be disallowed.
The APPDCL requested that land development cost be considered separately and additionally as it is not a part of mandatory package, that the employment costs be considered a part of capital costs, and that the seawater intake for the plant be allowed over and above the mandatory package. The Discoms contested the APPDCL’s claims and said that the petition deserved to be rejected. The Discoms further sought that the start up fuel cost and guesthouse, ash pond garlanding costs be disallowed.
After holding public hearing and taking views of the stakeholders, the commission noted that though the Electricity Act, 2003, confers the power of review on the commission, no parameters were indicated for the exercise of the same.
Hence, the commission mentioned the legal precedents in various cases dealt by the Supreme Court, and noted that an order or a decision or a judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law.
“...a review cannot be claimed or asked merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. As no such errors have arisen, these petitions do not satisfy the parameters for review,” it added in the common order dated July 27.