Power sector experts and political parties have contested the petitions filed by Andhra Pradesh’s Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (SPDCL) and Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited (EPDCL) before the regulator seeking to collect “true-up claims” of a whopping Rs. 7,209 crore from consumers, for five years ending 2013-14.
The break-up encompasses SPDCL’s claim for Rs. 866 crore for distribution business and Rs. 5185 crore for retail supply business and that of EPDCL Rs. 478 crore and Rs. 680 crore respectively under the two heads, in the petitions filed before the AP Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) recently. These petitions would be considered in the coming public hearing.
Experts on power sector like M. Venugopala Rao and leaders of CPI (M) and CPI P. Madhu and K. Ramakrishna have picked holes in the two distribution companies’ (discoms) arguments in their submissions to the APERC. For the retail supply business, for instance, the SPDCL has claimed that the actual power purchase was 89,262 MU against 96,322 MU approved by the APERC. Though the power purchase was lesser by 7060 MU, the SPDCL has claimed that actual power purchase cost has increased to Rs. 30,070 crore against the cost of Rs.27,176 crore approved by the APERC and put the additional cost at Rs. 2,894 crore.
Similarly the SPDCL has claimed a revenue loss of Rs. 2186 crore contending that the actual metered sale was 56,996 MU against 61,004 MU approved by the APERC leading to a difference of 4308 MU. It has also claimed a revenue loss of Rs. 1045 cr from change in sales mix of industrial, commercial and railway, leading to actual sales drop of 1.28 per cent when compared to what the APERC had approved. The EPDCL too made similar claims, additional cost of Rs.1818 cr from the difference in power purchase, revenue loss of Rs. 1945 cr from metered sales and Rs. 1676 crore from change in sales mix.
“It just reflects the functioning of the discoms. They come up with exaggerated claims in the hope that either they go uncontested or are glossed over by the regulator,” Mr. Venugopala Rao who had been taking up cudgels on behalf of the consumers before the APERC for several years now, said.
They have also challenged the two discoms’ claims that during the second control period of five years they could not avail Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (FSA) for 2009-10 and the first quarter of 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 408 cr and Rs. 302 crore by SPDCL and EPDCL respectively due to a court order. The discoms have not made it clear whether the court concerned disposed of the cases allowing them to collect FSA or not. If the court order is still in operation restraining them from collecting these amounts, will seeking their collection from consumers not amount to contempt of court ?, they ask.
They also point out for the first four of the five-year period, APERC held public hearing, considered the discoms’ views and rejected the discoms’ pleas. Now surprisingly the two companies were seeking the same FSA amounts, going against the orders of the APERC. The contention of the discoms that for computation of FSA, only the change in metered sales is considered and not change in agriculture sales and losses does not hold water, they asserted.
