for Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) · Petition No. 16/2018 ASSAM ELECTRICITY...
Transcript of for Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) · Petition No. 16/2018 ASSAM ELECTRICITY...
ASSAM ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(AERC)
TARIFF ORDER
March 01, 2019
True Up for FY 2017-18, APR for FY 2018-
19, ARR FOR FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22
AND TARIFF FOR FY 2019-20
for
Assam Power Distribution Company
Limited (APDCL)
Petition No. 16/2018
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagei
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1
1.1 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION ......................................................................................1
1.2 TARIFF RELATED FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION .....................................................................1
1.3 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................2
1.4 MULTI YEAR TARIFF REGULATIONS, 2015 ...............................................................................3
1.5 MULTI YEAR TARIFF REGULATIONS, 2018 ...............................................................................4
1.6 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................6
1.7 STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING..................................................................................7
2 SUMMARY OF APDCL’S PETITION ......................................................................................9
2.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................9
2.2 TRUE-UP FOR FY 2017-18 ...................................................................................................9
2.3 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (APR) FOR FY 2018-19 ........................................................ 10
2.4 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN FOR MYT CONTROL PERIOD .......................................................... 11
2.5 AGGREGATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR MYT CONTROL PERIOD .............................................. 12
2.6 PRAYERS OF APDCL ......................................................................................................... 13
3 BRIEF SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS RAISED, RESPONSE OF THE APDCL AND COMMISSION’S
COMMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 15
4 TRUING UP FOR FY 2017-18 ............................................................................................ 41
4.1 METHODOLOGY FOR TRUING UP ......................................................................................... 41
4.2 ENERGY SALES ................................................................................................................ 42
4.3 DISTRIBUTION LOSS .......................................................................................................... 46
4.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENT ..................................................................................................... 47
4.5 POWER PURCHASE ........................................................................................................... 49
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pageii
4.6 SHARING OF (GAINS)/ LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS POWER PURCHASE COST DUE TO HIGHER THAN
APPROVED DISTRIBUTION LOSSES ................................................................................................. 53
4.7 O&M EXPENSES ............................................................................................................. 53
4.8 CAPITAL INVESTMENT & CAPITALISATION .............................................................................. 61
4.9 DEPRECIATION ................................................................................................................ 62
4.10 INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES ...................................................................................... 67
4.11 INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL ....................................................................................... 70
4.12 INTEREST ON CONSUMER SECURITY DEPOSIT ........................................................................ 71
4.13 OTHER DEBITS .............................................................................................................. 72
4.14 NET PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES/(INCOME) ............................................................................. 72
4.15 RETURN ON EQUITY ........................................................................................................ 73
4.16 OTHER INCOME ............................................................................................................. 74
4.17 NON-TARIFF INCOME ...................................................................................................... 76
4.18 REVENUE FROM SALE OF POWER ....................................................................................... 76
4.19 REVENUE GRANT/SUBSIDY ............................................................................................... 80
4.20 ARR AND REVENUE GAP/(SURPLUS) AFTER TRUING UP OF FY 2017-18..................................... 80
5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (APR) FOR FY 2018-19 ................................................. 82
5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 82
5.2 ENERGY SALES ................................................................................................................ 83
5.3 DISTRIBUTION LOSS .......................................................................................................... 87
5.4 ENERGY BALANCE ............................................................................................................ 88
5.5 POWER PURCHASE ........................................................................................................... 90
5.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) EXPENSES................................................................. 95
5.7 CAPITAL INVESTMENT& FINANCING OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT..................................................... 99
5.8 DEPRECIATION .............................................................................................................. 102
5.9 INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES ...................................................................................... 107
5.10 INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL ..................................................................................... 109
5.11 INTEREST ON CONSUMERS’ SECURITY DEPOSIT .................................................................... 110
5.12 PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ...................................................................... 111
5.13 RETURN ON EQUITY ...................................................................................................... 111
5.14 NON-TARIFF INCOME .................................................................................................... 113
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pageiii
5.15 OTHER INCOME ........................................................................................................... 113
5.16 REVENUE FROM SALE OF ELECTRICITY AT EXISTING TARIFF ...................................................... 115
5.17 TARGETED SUBSIDY FROM GOA ...................................................................................... 115
5.18 AGGREGATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT (ARR) AND REVENUE GAP/(SURPLUS) ............................ 116
6 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN FOR THE MYT CONTROL PERIOD ........................................ 118
6.1 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN FOR FY 2019-20 TO FY 2021-22 PROPOSED BY APDCL .................... 118
6.2 ASSAM POWER SECTOR ENHANCEMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM (APSEIP) ................................ 118
6.3 STATE ANNUAL PLAN ...................................................................................................... 119
6.4 NEC PLAN ................................................................................................................... 120
6.5 RAJIV GANDHI GRAMEEN VIDYUTIKARAN YOJANA (RGGVY) ................................................... 120
6.6 DEENDAYAL UPADHYAY GRAM JYOTI YOJANA (DDUGJY) ....................................................... 121
6.7 DDG PROJECT .............................................................................................................. 121
6.8 INTEGRATED POWER DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (IPDS) ............................................................. 122
6.9 R-APDRP PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 122
6.10 UDAY SCHEME ........................................................................................................... 123
6.11 SAUBHAGYA SCHEME ................................................................................................ 124
6.12 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT AND LOSS REDUCTION PROJECT .................................... 124
6.13 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY APDCL ........................................... 125
6.14 CAPITALISATION OF THE SCHEMES .................................................................................... 126
6.15 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION FOR FY 2019-20 TO FY 2021-22 ..... 127
6.16 CAPITALISATION APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION FOR FY 2019-20 TO FY 2021-22.................... 129
7 ARR FOR MYT CONTROL PERIOD FROM FY 2019-20 TO FY 2021-22 ................................ 133
7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 133
7.2 ENERGY SALES .............................................................................................................. 133
7.3 CATEGORY-WISE PROJECTED ENERGY SALES ........................................................................ 133
7.4 DISTRIBUTION LOSS ........................................................................................................ 137
7.5 ENERGY BALANCE .......................................................................................................... 139
7.6 POWER PURCHASE ......................................................................................................... 140
7.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) EXPENSES............................................................... 152
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pageiv
7.8 DEPRECIATION .............................................................................................................. 156
7.9 INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES ...................................................................................... 159
7.10 INTEREST ON WORKING CAPITAL ..................................................................................... 161
7.11 INTEREST ON CONSUMERS’ SECURITY DEPOSIT .................................................................... 162
7.12 PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ...................................................................... 163
7.13 RETURN ON EQUITY ...................................................................................................... 163
7.14 NON-TARIFF INCOME .................................................................................................... 165
7.15 OTHER INCOME ........................................................................................................... 165
7.16 REVENUE FROM SALE OF ELECTRICITY ................................................................................ 166
7.17 AGGREGATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT (ARR) AND REVENUE GAP/(SURPLUS) ............................ 167
8 CUMULATIVE REVENUE GAP TILL FY 2017-18 & TARIFF FOR FY 2017-18 ......................... 169
8.1 CUMULATIVE REVENUE GAP/ (SURPLUS) ............................................................................. 169
8.2 TARIFF FOR FY 2019-20 ................................................................................................. 172
8.3 COST OF SUPPLY ............................................................................................................ 173
8.4 TARIFF PHILOSOPHY AND DESIGN ...................................................................................... 175
8.5 CATEGORY-WISE CROSS-SUBSIDY ....................................................................................... 181
8.6 FUEL PRICE AND POWER PURCHASE ADJUSTMENT CHARGES (FPPPA)........................................ 183
9 WHEELING CHARGES AND CROSS-SUBSIDY SURCHARGE ................................................ 184
9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 184
9.2 ALLOCATION MATRIX ..................................................................................................... 184
9.3 WHEELING CHARGES ...................................................................................................... 185
9.4 APPLICABLE WHEELING LOSSES ......................................................................................... 186
9.5 CROSS-SUBSIDY SURCHARGE (CSS) .................................................................................... 186
9.6 APPLICABILITY OF TARIFF ................................................................................................. 187
10 DIRECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 188
11 TARIFF SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................... 196
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagev
12 ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................... 210
24TH MEETING OF THE STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE..................................................................... 210
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagevi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:True Up for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ............................ 9
Table 2: APR for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ................................10
Table 3: Capital Investment Plan for MYT Control Period as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Cr)
......................................................................................................................................11
Table 4: ARR for FY 2019-20 to 2021-22 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ..............12
Table 5: Revenue Gap as projected by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ..........................................13
Table 6: Energy Sales for FY 2017-18as submitted by APDCL (MU) ............................42
Table 7: Energy Sales for FY 2017-18 approved by the Commission (MU) ...................45
Table 8: Actual Distribution Loss for FY 2017-18 computed by the Commission ...........47
Table 9: Energy Requirement approved by the Commission after True-Up for FY 2017-18
......................................................................................................................................48
Table 10: Power Purchase approved by the Commission after True-Up for FY 2017-18
(MU) ..............................................................................................................................51
Table 11: Sharing of Efficiency (Gain)/Loss approved by the Commission on account of
Distribution Losses after True-Up for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .......................................53
Table 12: O&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ............54
Table 13: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...........................57
Table 14: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...................................58
Table 15: Approved A&G Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...................................59
Table 16: Normative O&M Expenses approved by Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs.
Crore) ...........................................................................................................................60
Table 17: Sharing of losses/(gains) for O&M Expenses approved by the Commission
for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ...........................................................................................60
Table 18: Capital Expenditure and capitalisation approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)
......................................................................................................................................62
Table 19: Funding of Capitalised Works approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) .......62
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagevii
Table 20: Depreciation Calculation for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL (Rs.
Crore) ...........................................................................................................................64
Table 21: Depreciation Claimed by APDCL (Rs. Crore) .................................................65
Table 22: Depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ........................................67
Table 23: Interest and Finance Charges as submitted by APDCL for FY 2017-18 .........68
Table 24: Approved Interest & Financing Charges for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ..............70
Table 25: IoWC approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ....................71
Table 26: Interest on CSD claimed by APDCL for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ....................71
Table 27: Other Debits as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ..........................................72
Table 28: Prior Period Expenses/(Income) approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18
(Rs. Crore) ....................................................................................................................73
Table 29: RoE approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ......................74
Table 30: Other Income approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .......75
Table 31: Non-Tariff Income for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) .........................................76
Table 32: ARR & Revenue Gap/(Surplus) approved in the Truing up for FY 2017-18 (Rs.
Crore) ............................................................................................................................81
Table 33: Category-wise Energy Sales Projected by APDCL for the FY 2018-19 (MU) .84
Table 34: Growth rates considered by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (MU)................86
Table 35: Category-wise Energy Sales estimated by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (MU)
......................................................................................................................................87
Table 36: Distribution Losses approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 .................88
Table 37: Energy Balance for FY 2018-19as projected by APDCL (MU) .......................88
Table 38: Energy Balance for FY 2018-19 approved by the Commission (MU) .............89
Table 39: Power Purchase Quantum and Cost approved by the Commission for the FY
2018-19 .........................................................................................................................93
Table 40: O&M Expenses projected for FY 2018-19 by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ..................95
Table 41: Employee Expenses projected for FY 2018-19 by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ..........96
Table 42: R&M Expenses for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) .............96
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pageviii
Table 43: A&G Expenses for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) .............96
Table 44: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ...........................98
Table 45: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ...................................98
Table 46: Approved A&G Expenses for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ...................................99
Table 47: Capital expenditure and Capitalization as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore) 100
Table 48: Trend of Capital Expenditure and Capitalization (Rs. Crore) ........................ 101
Table 49: Capital Expenditure and capitalisation approved by the Commission in APR of
FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................................... 102
Table 50: Funding of Capitalised Works for FY 2018-19 considered by the Commission
(Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................................. 102
Table 51: Depreciation calculation for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
.................................................................................................................................... 104
Table 52: Depreciation claimed by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ....................... 105
Table 53: Depreciation approved for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ...................................... 106
Table 54: Interest and Finance Charges as submitted by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs.
Crore) .......................................................................................................................... 107
Table 55: Impact of UDAY Scheme for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) .............................. 108
Table 56: Approved Interest on Loan Capital for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) .............. 109
Table 57: IoWC approved by the Commission for the FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ............ 109
Table 58: Return on Equity projected by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) .............. 112
Table 59: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) 112
Table 60: Non-Tariff Income as submitted by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ....... 113
Table 61: Other Income as submitted by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ............. 114
Table 62: Revenue from sale of surplus power ............................................................ 114
Table 63: Revenue from Sale of Electricity for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore) ....................... 115
Table 64: ARR & Revenue Gap/(Surplus) considered by the Commission for FY
2018-19 (Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................... 116
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pageix
Table 63: Project details of APSEIP-T-4 Loan No. 3200-IND AND APSIP-T-2 Loan No.
3327-IND ..................................................................................................................... 118
Table 64: Capital Expenditure - APSEIP-T-4 3200-IND and APSIP-T-2 3327-IND (Rs
Crore) ......................................................................................................................... 119
Table 65: Capital Expenditure - State Annual Plan (Rs. Crore) .............................. 119
Table 66: Funding - State Annual Plan (Rs. Crore) ................................................. 120
Table 67: Capital Expenditure - NEC Plan (Rs. Crore) ............................................ 120
Table 68: Funding - NEC Plan (Rs. Crore) ................................................................ 120
Table 69: Capital Expenditure - RGGVY Plan (Rs. Crore) ....................................... 121
Table 70: Funding - RGGVY Plan (Rs. Crore) .......................................................... 121
Table 71: Capital Expenditure –DDUGJY and DDG Plan (Rs. Crore) ..................... 121
Table 72: Funding - DDUGJY and DDG Plan (Rs. Crore) ........................................ 122
Table 73: Capital Expenditure –RAPDRP Plan (Rs. Crore) ..................................... 123
Table 74: Funding - RAPDRP Plan (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 123
Table 75: Capital Expenditure –UDAY Scheme (Rs. Crore) .................................... 123
Table 76: Funding–UDAY Scheme (Rs. Crore) ........................................................ 123
Table 77: Capital Expenditure –Distribution System Enhancement and Loss
Reduction Project (Rs. Crore)................................................................................... 124
Table 78: Funding Pattern– Distribution System Enhancement and Loss Reduction
Project (Rs. Crore) ..................................................................................................... 124
Table 79: Capital Investment Plan proposed by APDCL from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-
22 (Rs Crore) .............................................................................................................. 125
Table 80: Funding Pattern for Capital Investment Plan (Rs Crore) ........................ 125
Table 81: Proposed capitalisation from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs Crore) ...... 126
Table 82: Funding pattern for proposed capitalisation (Rs Crore) ........................ 126
Table 83: Capital Investment Plan provisionally approved by the Commission for
APDCL for the Control Period (Rs Crore) ................................................................ 128
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagex
Table 84: Actual Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation achieved by APDCL from FY
2012-13 to FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................. 129
Table 85: Percentage of Capitalisation achieved by APDCL (Rs. Crore) ..................... 130
Table 86: Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission for FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................. 131
Table 87: Funding of Capitalised Works approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 to
FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................................... 132
Table 89: Category-wise Growth Rates considered by APDCLforSales Projection ...... 134
Table 90:Category-wise Energy Sales Projected by APDCL for the Control Period (MU)
.................................................................................................................................... 135
Table 91: Category-wise Energy Sales Projected by the Commission for the Control
Period (MU) ................................................................................................................. 136
Table 92: Distribution Losses Projected by APDCL for the Control Period ................... 138
Table 93: Distribution Losses approved by the Commission for the Control Period ..... 139
Table 94: Energy Balance for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as Projected by APDCL (MU)
.................................................................................................................................... 139
Table 95: Energy Balance for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 approved by the Commission
(MU) ............................................................................................................................ 140
Table 96: RPO Computation as submitted by APDCL ............................................ 142
Table 97: Power Purchase Quantum and Cost for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to
FY 2021-22 as submitted by APDCL ........................................................................... 144
Table 98: REC Purchase considered by the Commission for the Control Period from FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ................................................................................................ 148
Table 99: Power Purchase Quantum and Cost approved by the Commission for the
Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 ........................................................... 149
Table 100: Employee Expenses from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs Crores) ....... 152
Table 101: Approved Employee Expenses for the Control Period (Rs. Crore) ............. 154
Table 102: Approved R&M Expenses for Control Period (Rs. Crore) ........................... 155
Table 103: Approved A&G Expenses for the Control Period (Rs. Crore) ..................... 155
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexi
Table 104: Depreciation claimed by APDCL for the Control Period (Rs. Crore) ........... 156
Table 105: Depreciation approved for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore) .................................... 157
Table 106: Depreciation approved for FY 2020-21 (Rs. Crore) .................................... 158
Table 107: Depreciation approved for FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) .................................... 158
Table 108: Interest and Finance Charges as submitted by APDCL for Period from FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore) ............................................................................. 160
Table 109: Approved Interest on Loan Capital for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22(Rs. Crore)
.................................................................................................................................... 161
Table 110: IoWC from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as projected by APDCL (Rs Crore) 161
Table 111: IoWC approved by the Commission for the Control Period (Rs. Crore) ...... 162
Table 112: Interest on CSD for the Control Period as Projected by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
.................................................................................................................................... 162
Table 113: Interest on CSD for the Control Period approved by the Commission (Rs.
Crore) .......................................................................................................................... 163
Table 114: Return on Equity from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs Crore) as submitted by
APDCL ........................................................................................................................ 164
Table 115: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the Control Period (Rs.
Crore) .......................................................................................................................... 164
Table 116: Non-Tariff Income as submitted by APDCL for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
.................................................................................................................................... 165
Table 117: Miscellaneous Income approved by the Commission for the Control Period
(Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................................. 166
Table 118: Revenue from Sale of Electricity for the Control Period (Rs. Crore) ........... 167
Table 119: ARR & Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for APDCL for the Control Period
approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore) ............................................................... 168
Table 120: Revenue Gap/ (Surplus) to be considered for recovery as submitted by APDCL
(Rs. Crore) .................................................................................................................. 169
Table 121: Revenue Gap proposed for recovery in FY 2019-20 by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
.................................................................................................................................... 170
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexii
Table 122: Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2019-20 approved by the
Commission (Rs. Crore) .............................................................................................. 171
Table 123: ACOS approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 ................................. 174
Table 124: Contributors of ACOS for FY 2019-20 ........................................................ 174
Table 125: Full Cost Tariff approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 .................... 178
Table 126: Category-wise Cross-Subsidy approved for FY 2019-20 ............................ 181
Table 127: Allocation Matrix for Separation of ARR for Wires Business and Retail Supply
Business for FY 2019-20 ............................................................................................. 184
Table 128: Separation of ARR for Wires Business and Retail Supply Business for FY 2019-
20(Rs. crore) ............................................................................................................... 185
Table 129: Wheeling Charges approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 .............. 185
Table 130: Wheeling Losses approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 ................ 186
Table 131: Category-wise Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for FY 2019-20 (Rs/kWh) .......... 187
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexiii
List of Abbreviations
A&G Administrative & General
ABC Aerial Bunched Conductors
ABITA Assam Branch of Indian Tea Association
ABT Availability Based Tariff
ABP Average Basic Pay
ABR Average Billing Rate
ACoS Average Cost of Supply
ADB Asian Development Bank
AEGCL Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited
AERC Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission
APDCL Assam Power Distribution Company Limited
APDRP Accelerated Power Development Programme
APGCL Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited
APM Administered Pricing Mechanism
APR Annual Performance Review
ARR Aggregate Revenue Requirement
APSEIP Assam Power Sector Enhancement Investment Programme
APSIP Assam Power Sector Investment Programme
APTEL Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
ASEB Assam State Electricity Board
AT&C Aggregate Technical and Commercial
ATPA Assam Tea Planters Association
BPL Below Poverty Line
CAEDCL Central Assam Electricity Distribution Company Limited
CAGR Compound Aggregate Growth Rate
CAIDI Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
CAIFI Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index
CBDF Collection Based Distribution Franchisee
CEA Central Electricity Authority
CERC Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
CGRF Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
CGS Central Generating Station
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexiv
COD Date of Commercial Operation
CPC Central Pay Commission
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPSU Central Public Sector Utility
CSD Consumer Security Deposit
CSS Cross-subsidy Surcharge
CTU Central Transmission Utility
CWIP Capital Work In Progress
DA Dearness Allowance
D/C Double Circuit
DD Demand Draft
DDUGJY Deendayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojana
DELP Domestic Efficient Lighting Programme
DISCOM Distribution Company
DMS Distribution Management System
DPR Detailed Project Report
DSM Demand Side Management
DT/DTR Distribution Transformer
EA, 2003 The Electricity Act, 2003
ECBC Energy Conservation Building Code
EE Energy Efficiency
EHV Extra High Voltage
EPC Engineering Procurement & Construction
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
ERS Emergency Restoration System
FINER Federation of Industry & Commerce of North Eastern Region
FPPPA Fuel Price and Power Purchase Adjustment
FY Financial Year
GFA Gross Fixed Assets
GMRETCL GMR Energy Trading Company Limited
GoA Government of Assam
GoI Government of India
GPF General Provident Fund
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexv
HEP Hydro Electric Project
HH Household
HP Horse Power
HT High Tension
HV High Voltage
HVCMS High Value Consumer Management System
IOCL Indian Oil Corporation Limited
IPDS Integrated Power Development Scheme
ISTS Inter State Transmission System
IT Information Technology
IWC/IoWC Interest on Working Capital
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JNNSM Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
kV kilo Volt
kVA kilo Volt Ampere
kW kilo Watt
kWh kilo Watt Hour
LAEDCL Lower Assam Electricity Distribution Company Limited
LED Light Emitting Diode
LOA Letter of Award
LT Low Tension
LTC Leave Travel Concession
LV Low Voltage
MAT Minimum Alternate Tax
MIS Management Information System
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MoP Ministry of Power
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRI Meter Reading Instruments
MU Million Unit
MW Mega Watt
MYT Multi-Year Tariff
NEEPCO North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexvi
NEP National Electricity Policy
NERPSIP North Eastern Region Power System Improvement Project
NESSIA North Eastern Small Scale Industries Association
NFR North East Frontier Railway
NHPC NHPC Ltd.
NLCPR Non-lapsable Central Pool of Resources
NTPC NTPC Ltd.
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OA Open Access
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OPGW Optical Ground Wire
PFA Power for All
PFC Power Finance Corporation Limited
PGCIL Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
PLF Plant Load Factor
PTCIL PTC Indian Limited
R&M Repairs and Maintenance
RAPDRP Restructured Accelerated Power Development & Reforms
Programme
REC Renewable Energy Certificate
RGGVY Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana
ROE Return on Equity
ROW Right of Way
RPO Renewable Purchase Obligation
Rs. Rupees
SAC State Advisory Committee
SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index
SBI PLR State Bank of India Prime Lending Rate
S/C Single Circuit
SECI Solar Corporation of India Limited
SHEP Small Hydro Electric Project
SOP Standards of Performance
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexvii
STU State Transmission Utility
SLDC State Load Dispatch Centre
TBCB Tariff Based Competitive Bidding
TOD Time of Day
TVS Technical Validation Session
UAEDCL Upper Assam Electricity Distribution Company Limited
UI Unscheduled Interchange
UDAY Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana
VCoS Voltage-wise Cost of Supply
WB The World Bank
WPI Wholesale Price Index
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexviii
ASSAM ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Guwahati
Present
Shri Subhash C. Das, Chairperson
Shri Dipak Chakravarty, Member
Petition No. 16 & 17/2018
Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) - Petitioner
ORDER
(Passed on March 01, 2019)
(1) APDCL filed a Petition for approval of True Up for FY 2017-18, APR for FY 2018-19, ARR
for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and Tariff for FY 2019-20 on
November 30, 2018. The same was registered as Petition No 16/2018. However, APDCL
did not submit the Audited Statement of Accounts for FY 2017-18 and requested
condonation of delay vide separate petition (Petition No 17/2018) dated November 30,
2018.
(2) The Commission held an Admissibility Hearing on December 10, 2018 and admitted the
Petitions, with direction for submission of Statutory Auditor’s report within December 21,
2018 and to furnish the additional data and clarifications, as sought vide letter dated
December 10, 2018. Based on preliminary comments of the Commission, APDCL revised
the original petition and submitted the revised petition (Petition No. 16/2018) on December
15, 2018.
(3) In accordance with Section 64 of the Electricity Act 2003, the Commission directed APDCL
to publish a summary of the ARR and Tariff filings in local dailies to ensure due public
participation. A copy of the Petition and other relevant documents were also made
available to the consumers and other interested Parties at the office of the Managing
Director of APDCL, and offices of the Deputy General Manager of each circle of APDCL.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexix
A copy of the Petition was also made available on the websites of the Commission and
APDCL.
(4) Accordingly, a Public Notice was issued by the APDCL inviting objections/suggestions
from respondents to be submitted on or before January 11, 2019. The notice was
published in six (6) leading newspapers of the State on December 18, 2018.
Date Name of Newspaper Language
18.12.2018
The Sentinel English
The Assam Tribune English
Amar Asom Assamese
Dainik Janambhumi Assamese
Purbanchal Prahari Hindi
Dainik Jugasankha Bengali
(5) In response to the Commission’s letter dated December 10, 2018, APDCL submitted their
replies on December 28, 2018.
(6) The Commission observed that there were several inconsistencies and discrepancies
even in the revised Petition and the replies to the first set of queries submitted by APDCL.
Accordingly, the Commission raised second set of queries on January 7, 2019 in order to
clarify the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and data gaps, and directed APDCL to submit
the consolidated revised documents in order to avoid confusion. APDCL submitted its
reply to the second set of queries on January 31, 2019. However, APDCL did not submit
the duly reconciled consolidated revised documents, and the replies to queries also
contained inconsistencies.
(7) As the regulatory process must be completed within the stipulated time, the Commission
has relied upon data considered to be more accurate/reliable within the multiple conflicting
data made available to the Commission and has made appropriate assumptions wherever
necessary. The Commission may be constrained to reject such Petitions in the future.
APDCL should conduct the necessary due diligence before submitting the Petitions and
replies in future.
(8) The Petitions were discussed in the meeting of the State Advisory Committee (SAC)
(constituted under Section 87 of the Electricity Act, 2003) held on February 5, 2019 at
Assam Administrative Staff College, Khanapara, Guwahati.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Pagexx
(9) The Commission received written suggestions and objections from seven (7) stakeholders
on the Petitions filed by APDCL. The stakeholders were notified about the place, date and
time of Hearing, to enable them to take part in the Hearing. A News Paper notice was also
published inviting participation from the General Public as well as the Respondents. The
Hearing was held at Assam Administrative Staff College, Guwahati on February 12, 2019
as scheduled. All stakeholders/respondents who participated in the Hearing were given
the opportunity to express their views on the Petitions. The details are discussed in the
relevant Chapters of this Tariff Order.
(10) The Commission, now in exercise of its powers vested under Sections, 61, 62, 86and
181of the Electricity Act, 2003 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf and taking
into consideration the submissions made by the Petitioner, objections and suggestions
received from respondents/stakeholders and all other relevant materials on record, has
carried out the True-up for FY 2017-18, APR for FY 2018-19, approval of ARR for the
Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22, and determination of distribution and retail
supply tariff for FY 2019-20, as detailed in subsequent Chapters of this Order.
(11) The Commission directs APDCL to publish a Public Notice intimating the revised
distribution and retail supply tariff before the implementation of this Order in English and
Vernacular newspapers and on the website of APDCL.
(12) The approved Retail Supply Tariffs, Wheeling Charges and Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for
FY 2019-20 shall be effective from April 1, 2019 and shall continue until replaced by
another Order by the Commission.
(13) Accordingly, the Petitions 16 &17 of 2018 stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. Chakravarty)
Member, AERC
(S. C. Das)
Chairperson, AERC
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Constitution of the Commission
1.1.1 The Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the AERC or
the Commission) was established under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act,
1998 (14 of 1998) on February 28, 2001. The first proviso of Section 82(1) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as the Act or the EA, 2003) has ensured
continuity of the Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003.
1.1.2 The Commission is mandated to exercise the powers and functions conferred under
Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) and to exercise the functions
conferred on it under Section 61, 62 and 86 of the Act from June 10, 2003.
1.2 Tariff related Functions of the Commission
1.2.1 Under Section 86 of the Act, the Commission has the following tariff related functions:
(a) To determine the tariff for electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be;
(b) To regulate power purchase and procurement process of the distribution utilities
including the price at which the power shall be procured from the generating
companies, generating stations or from other sources for transmission, sale,
distribution and supply in the State;
(c) To promote competition, efficiency and economy in the activities of the electricity
industry to achieve the objects and purposes of this Act;
1.2.2 Under Section 61 of the Act in the determination of tariffs, the Commission is to be
guided by the following:
(a) The principles and methodologies specified by the Central Commission for
determination of the tariff applicable to generating companies and transmission
licensees;
(b) That the electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply are conducted
on commercial principles;
(c) That factors which would encourage efficiency, economical use of the resources,
good performance, optimum investments, and other matters which the State
Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of this Act;
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page2
(d) The interests of the consumers are safeguarded and at the same time, the
consumers pay for the use of electricity in a reasonable manner based on their
customer category cost of supply;
(e) That the tariff progressively reflects the cost of supply of electricity at an adequate
and improving level of efficiency and gradually reduces cross subsidies;
(f) The National Electricity Plan formulated by the Central Government including the
National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy.
1.2.3 In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Commission shall not show undue
preference to any consumer of electricity in determining the tariff, but may differentiate
according to the consumers’ load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of
energy during any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or the
geographical position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the
supply is required (Section 62 of the Act).
1.2.4 If the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of
consumers in the tariff determined by the Commission, the State Government shall
pay the amount to compensate the person affected by the grant of subsidy in the
manner the Commission may direct as a condition for the licence or any other person
concerned to implement the subsidy provided for by the State Government (Section
65 of Act 2003).
1.3 Background
1.3.1 In pursuance of notifications Memo No. PEL151/2003/Pt./165dated December 10,
2004 of the Government of Assam, three Distribution Companies were formed as a
successor to the ASEB. Vide subsequent Notification No PEL.41/2006/199 dated May
13, 2009, all these three Distribution Companies were merged into one and in
accordance with the Assam State Reform (Transfer and merger of Distribution
Functions and undertakings) scheme, 2009 and Certificate of Incorporation dated
October 23, 2009, the present Distribution Company Assam Power Distribution
Company Limited (APDCL) got formed.
1.3.2 Accordingly, presently APDCL is undertaking all the functions empowered as a
Distribution Company within the State of Assam.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page3
1.4 Multi Year Tariff Regulations, 2015
1.4.1 The Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 61 read with
Section 181(2) (zd) of the Act, has notified the Assam Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Terms and Conditions for determination of Multi Year Tariff) Regulations,
2015 on June 2, 2015 and Amendments thereof (hereinafter referred as “MYT
Regulations, 2015”). These Regulations are applicable for determination of Tariff for
Generation, Transmission, SLDC, Wheeling and Retail Supply for the Control Period
of three financial years from April 1, 2016 onwards up to March 31, 2019. These
Regulations are applicable to all existing and future Generating Companies,
Transmission Licensees and Distribution Licensees within the State of Assam.
1.4.2 APDCL filed the MYT Petition for approval of ARR for the Control Period from FY 2016-
17 to FY 2018-19 and tariff for FY 2017-18 as per MYT Regulations, 2015,along with
True-up for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 as per AERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff)
Regulations, 2006 (herein after referred as “Tariff Regulations, 2006”).The
Commission issued the Order on the said MYT Petition on March31, 2017 and
approved the Tariff for FY 2017-18.
1.4.3 Further, the Commission notified the AERC (Terms and Conditions for determination
of Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2015, First Amendment, 2017 on November 8, 2017.
In the said Regulations, certain provisions regarding the scope of Annual Performance
Review, rate of interest for consumer security deposit, etc., were amended.
1.4.4 Regulation 10 of the MYT Regulations, 2015, as amended in November 2017,
specifies that the Commission shall undertake the APR and True-up for the respective
years of the Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, as reproduced below:
“10.3 The scope of the annual review and True up shall be a comparison of the actual
performance of the Generating Company or Transmission Licensee or SLDC or
Distribution Licensee with the approved forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement
and expected revenue from tariff and charges and shall comprise the following:
a) True Up: a comparison of the audited performance of the applicant for the
previous financial year with the approved forecast for the financial year and
truing up of expenses and revenue in line with Regulation 11including pass
through of impact of uncontrollable items;
Annual Review: a comparison of the revised performance targets of the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page4
applicant for the current financial year with the approved forecast in the Tariff
order corresponding to the Control period for the current financial year subject
to prudence check including adjusting trajectories of uncontrollable and
controllable items”.
1.5 Multi Year Tariff Regulations, 2018
1.5.1 The Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 61 read
withSection 181(2) (zd) of the Act, has notified the AERC (Terms and Conditions for
determination of Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2018 (herein after referred as “the MYT
Regulations, 2018”) on June 28, 2018. These Regulations are applicable for
determination of Tariff for Generation, Transmission, SLDC, Wheeling and Retail
Supply for the Control Period of three financial years from April 1, 2019 onwards up to
March 31, 2022. These Regulations are applicable to all existing and future Generating
Companies, Transmission Licensees and Distribution Licensees within the State of
Assam.
1.5.2 Regulation 4.2 of the MYT Regulations, 2018, specifies the MYT framework for the
Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22, as reproduced below:
“4.2 The Multi-Year Tariff framework shall be based on the following elements, for
calculation of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and expected revenue from tariff and
charges for Generating Companies, Transmission Licensee, SLDC, Distribution
Wheeling Business and Retail Supply Business:
(i) Before commencement of Control Period, a forecast of the Aggregate Revenue
Requirement and expected revenue from existing tariff and charges shall be submitted
by the applicant and approved by the Commission;
(ii) A detailed Capital Investment Plan for each year of the Control Period, shall be
submitted by the applicant for the Commission's approval;
(iii) The applicant shall submit operating norms and trajectories of performance
parameters for each year of the Control Period, for the Commission's approval;
(iv) The applicant shall submit the forecast of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and
expected revenue from existing tariff for each year of the Control Period, and the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page5
Commission shall approve the tariff for Generating Companies, SLDC, Transmission
Licensee, Distribution Wheeling Business and Retail Supply Business, for each year
of the Control Period;
(v) In its tariff petition, a generating company shall submit information to support the
determination of tariff for each generating station
(vi) Annual Performance review vis-à-vis the approved forecast and categorization of
variation in performance as those caused by factors beyond the control of the applicant
(uncontrollable items) shall be undertaken by the Commission;
(vii) True up of the past years based on audited annual accounts of the licensees and
the Generation companies.
(viii) The mechanism for pass-through of approved gains or losses on account of
uncontrollable items as specified by the Commission in these Regulations;
(ix) The mechanism for sharing of approved gains or losses arising out of controllable
items as specified by the Commission in these Regulations;
(x) Tariff determination for Generating Companies, SLDC, Transmission Licensee and
Distribution Wheeling Business and Retail Supply Business, for each financial year
within the Control period based on the approved forecast. The tariff shall be reviewed
at the time of the true-up and annual performance review.
(xi) There will be no true-up of the controllable items except on account of Force
Majeure events or on account of variations attributable to uncontrollable items. The
variations in the controllable items, as defined in regulation 10, over and above the
norms specified will be governed by incentive and penalty framework specified in these
regulations.
(xii) The tariff determined by the Commission and the directions given in the MYT order
shall be the quid pro quo and mutually inclusive. The tariff determined shall, within the
time period specified in the order, be subject to the compliance of the directions by the
generating company and the licensees to the satisfaction of the Commission. Non-
compliance of directions given in the tariff order may also lead to invocation of the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page6
provisions of section 142 of the Act.
(xiii) The tariff determined by the Commission shall continue to operate till it is modified
or revised by the Commission.”
1.6 Procedural History
1.6.1 As per Regulation 4.2 of the MYT Regulations, 2018, APDCL is required to file an
application for true-up for previous year, i.e., FY 2017-18, APR of current year, i.e., FY
2018-19, ARR for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and tariff for
ensuing year, i.e., FY 2019-20, not less than 120 days before the close of the current
year.
1.6.2 APDCL has filed its True-up Petition for FY 2017-18 and APR Petition for FY 2018-19
and MYT Petition for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Petition No.
16/2018) on November 30, 2018. However, APDCL did not submit the Audited
Statement of Accounts and requested condonation of delay vide separate Petition
(Petition No 17/2018). The Commission sought additional data and clarifications on the
MYT Petition vide letter dated December 10, 2018. Based on the preliminary
comments of the Commission, APDCL revised the original petition on December 15,
2018. Accordingly, the revised Petition is considered as Petition No. 16/2018. The
replies to first set of queries were submitted by APDCL on December 28, 2018.
1.6.3 The Commission observed that there were several inconsistencies and discrepancies
even in the revised Petition submitted by APDCL. In the interest of time, the
Commission admitted the Petition and raised second set of queries on January 7, 2019
in order to clarify the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and data gaps. APDCL submitted
its reply to the second set of queries on January 25, 2019. As the regulatory process
must be completed within the stipulated time, the Commission has relied upon data
considered to be more accurate/reliable within the multiple conflicting data available
with the Commission and has made appropriate assumptions wherever necessary.
1.6.4 The Commission held an Admissibility Hearing on December 10, 2018. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 64 of the Electricity Act 2003, the Commission directed
APDCL to publish a summary of the ARR and Tariff filings in local dailies to ensure
due public participation. A copy of the Petition and other relevant documents were also
made available to the consumers and other interested Parties at the office of the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page7
Managing Director of APDCL, and offices of the Deputy General Manager of each
circle of APDCL. A copy of the Petition was also made available on the websites of the
Commission (www.aerc.gov.in) and APDCL. (www.apdcl.org)
1.6.5 Accordingly, a Public Notice was issued by the APDCL inviting objections/suggestions
from respondents/stakeholders to be submitted on or before January 11, 2019, which
was published in the following newspapers on December 18, 2018:
Date Name of Newspaper Language
18.12.2018
The Sentinel English
The Assam Tribune English
Amar Asom Assamese
Dainik Janambhumi Assamese
Purbanchal Prahari Hindi
Dainik Jugasankha Bengali
1.6.6 The Commission received suggestions and objections from seven (7) stakeholders on
the Petitions filed by APDCL. The Commission considered the objections received and
sent communication to the stakeholders to take part in Hearing process by presenting
their views in person before the Commission. The stakeholders were notified about the
place, date and time of Hearing, to enable them to take part in the Hearing.The Hearing
was held at Assam Administrative Staff College, Guwahati on February 12, 2019 as
scheduled. All stakeholders/respondents who participated in the Hearing were given
the opportunity to express their views on the Petitions.
1.6.7 All the written representations submitted to the Commission and oral submissions
made before the Commission in the Hearing and the responses of APDCL have been
carefully considered while issuing this Tariff Order. The major issues raised by different
consumers and consumer groups along with the response of APDCL and views of the
Commission are elaborated in Chapter 3 of this Order.
1.7 State Advisory Committee Meeting
1.7.1 A meeting of the State Advisory Committee (SAC) (constituted under Section 87 of the
Act) was convened on February 5, 2019.During the SAC meeting, AEGCL, APGCL
and APDCL made presentations on their respective MYT Petitions filed for FY 2019-
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page8
20 to FY 2021-22.
1.7.2 The minutes of the SAC meeting are appended to this order as Annexure 1.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page9
2 Summary of APDCL’s Petition
2.1 Background
2.1.1 APDCL submitted the revised Petition on December 15, 2018 seeking approval for
True up for FY 2017-18, APR for FY 2018-19, ARR for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and
Tariff for FY 2019-20.
2.2 True-up for FY 2017-18
2.2.1 APDCL submitted True-up for FY 2017-18 based on the statement of accounts.
APDCL submitted the Statutory Auditor’s report on December 21, 2018.The summary
of Aggregate Revenue Requirement and Revenue Gap/(Surplus) claimed by APDCL
for FY 2017-18 is shown in the following Table:
Table 1:True Up for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Sr. No. Particulars FY 2017-18
1 Cost of Power Purchase 4506.31
2 Operation and Maintenance Expenses
2.1 Employee Cost 802.39
2.2 Repair and Maintenance 124.26
2.3 Administrative and General Expenses 44.72
3 Depreciation 52.45
4 Interest and Finance Charges 47.50
5 Interest on Working Capital 5.58
6 Interest on Consumer Security Deposit 14.43
7 Other debits incl. Provisioning for Bad debts 10.15
8 Net Prior Period Expenses (21.20)
9 Sharing of gains/(losses) due to excess
distribution losses (13.12)
10 Return on Equity 26.04
11 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2014-15 657.96
12 Carrying cost on Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY
2014-15 179.29
13 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2015-16 354.52
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page10
Sr. No. Particulars FY 2017-18
14 Carrying cost on Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY
2015-16 45.38
15 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2016-17 (686.74)
16 Total Expenses 6149.93
17 Less: Non-Tariff Income 233.20
18 Less: Other Income 341.87
19 Aggregate Revenue Requirement 5574.86
20 Revenue with approved Tariff 4369.35
21 State Government Targeted Subsidy 390.10
22 Total Revenue including Subsidy 4759.45
23 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 815.40
2.3 Annual Performance Review (APR) for FY 2018-19
2.3.1 APDCL submitted the APR for FY 2018-19, based on the first half (H1) year actuals of
FY 2018-19 and projections for the second half, of the year as shown in the table
below:
Table 2: APR for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Sr. No. Particulars FY 2018-19
1 Cost of Power Purchase 4805.48
2 Operation and Maintenance Expenses
2.1 Employee Cost 861.83
2.2 Repair and Maintenance 130.56
2.3 Administrative and General Expenses 47.87
3 Depreciation 57.09
4 Interest and Finance Charges 52.84
5 Interest on Working Capital 15.01
6 Interest on Consumer Security Deposit 57.77
7 Return on Equity 55.79
8 Other debits incl. Provisioning for Bad debts 12.35
9 Total Expenses 6096.58
10 Less: Non-Tariff Income 244.86
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page11
Sr. No. Particulars FY 2018-19
11 Less: Other Income 253.73
12 Aggregate Revenue Requirement 5597.99
13 Revenue with approved Tariff (including
FPPPA& Govt. Subsidy) 5572.53
14 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 25.47
15 Differential Revenue Gap after true-up for FY
2016-17 487.88
16 Net Carrying cost of FY 2016-17 in FY 2018-19 36.22
17 Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY
2018-19 549.57
2.4 Capital Investment Plan for MYT Control Period
2.4.1 APDCL has projected Capital Investment of Rs. 2782.04 Cr, Rs. 1165.86 Cr and Rs.
1091.83 Cr for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, respectively. The scheme-
wise break-up of Capital Investment Plan as submitted by APDCL is shown in the table
below:
Table 3: Capital Investment Plan for MYT Control Period as submitted by APDCL (Rs.
Cr)
Name of the Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
APSEIP-T-4 Loan No. 3200-IND 48.00 0.00 0.00
APSIP-T-2 Loan no 3327-IND 73.00 0.00 0.00
State Annual Plan 200.20 220.22 242.22
NEC Plan 2.61 0.00 0.00
RGGVY XIIth Plan 674.76 0.00 0.00
DDUGJY 930.38 0.00 0.00
DDG (DDUGJY) 147.70 0.00 0.00
IPDS 266.67 433.33 38.67
RAPDRP 320.90 0.00 0.00
UDAY 8.94 0.00 0.00
Saubhagya 0.00 0.00 0.00
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page12
Name of the Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Distribution System Enhancement and
loss reduction 229.88 512.31 811.16
Total 2782.04 1165.86 1091.83
2.5 Aggregate Revenue Requirement for MYT Control Period
2.5.1 APDCL has projected the ARR for the Control Period as detailed in the Table below:
Table 4: ARR for FY 2019-20 to 2021-22 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Sr.
No. Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
1 Power Purchase Expense 5381.81 5961.45 6536.12
2 Operation and Maintenance
Expenses
2.1 Employee Cost 940.68 1010.37 1085.22
2.2 Repair and Maintenance 201.71 337.59 459.31
2.3 Administrative and General
Expenses 51.03 54.20 57.38
3 Depreciation 53.20 31.41 0.00
4 Interest and Finance Charges 67.13 77.41 79.97
5 Interest on Working Capital 21.64 28.94 37.18
6 Interest on CSD 68.02 68.02 68.02
7 Return on Equity 85.53 85.53 85.53
8 Other Debits, incl. provisioning
for Bad Debts 12.35 12.35 12.35
9 Total Expenses 6883.11 7667.26 8421.09
10 Less: Non-Tariff Income 257.11 269.96 283.46
11 Less: Other Income 206.83 217.17 228.03
12 Aggregate Revenue
Requirement 6419.18 7180.14 7909.61
13 Revenue at Approved Tariff
(including FPPPA) 6037.28 6415.85 6853.25
14 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 381.89 764.29 1056.36
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page13
2.5.2 APDCL has thus estimated the total Revenue Gap as shown in the Table below:
Table 5: Revenue Gap as projected by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Sr.
No Particulars
Rate of
Interest
Revenue
Gap
1 Revenue Gap after Truing up of FY 2017-18 815.40
2 Carrying/(Holding) cost for FY 2017-18 (Half year) 12.60% 51.37
3 Carrying/(Holding) cost for FY 2018-19 (Full year) 12.20% 99.48
4 Carrying/(Holding) cost for FY 2019-20 (Half year) 12.45% 50.76
5 Total Revenue Gap for FY 2017-18 (including
carrying cost)
1017.01
6 Revenue Gap after APR of FY 2018-19 549.57
7 Carrying/(Holding) cost for FY 2018-19 (Half year) 12.20% 33.52
8 Carrying/(Holding) cost for FY 2019-20 (Half year) 12.45% 34.21
9 Total Revenue Gap for FY 2018-19 (including
carrying cost)
617.30
10 Revenue Gap for FY 2019-20 381.89
11 Cumulative Revenue Gap for FY 2019-20 2016.21
2.5.3 APDCL submitted that, they have not prayed for recovery of the total revenue deficit
of Rs. 2016.21 Crore in FY 2019-20. APDCL has proposed recovery of 50% of revenue
gap after true-up of FY 2017-18 and 50% of the revenue gap for FY 2019-20 amounting
to Rs 598.65 Cr through retailed tariff. APDCL has further proposed to request Govt
of Assam for funding the remaining amount of Rs. 1417.56 Cr.
2.5.4 For the proposed recovery, APDCL has proposed average tariff increase to the extent
of 9.9%.
2.6 Prayers of APDCL
2.6.1 APDCL, in its Petition, has prayed as reproduced below:
1. “To admit the petition for True-up of ARR for FY 2017-18, annual performance
review of FY 2018-19 and ARR for MYT Control period from FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22.and Tariff for FY 2019-20
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page14
2. To admit petition for approval of the capital investment plan for the control period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22
3. To approve amount of revenue gap for True-up of ARR for FY 2017-18
4. To approve the amount of revenue gap as mentioned in APR for FY 2018-19
5. To approve the ARR for the control period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 and
tariff for FY 2019-20 as submitted by the Petitioner
6. To approve the Capital Investment Plan for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as
submitted by the Petitioner
7. To condone any inadvertent omissions/ errors/ shortcomings and permit the
petitioner to add/ change/ modify/ alter this filing and make further submissions as
may be required at a future date
8. To allow further submissions, addition and alteration to this Petition as may be
necessitated from time to time
9. To treat the filing as complete in view of substantial compliance as also the specific
requests for waivers with justification placed on record
10. To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Commission may consider appropriate.
11. Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate
under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice”.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page15
3 Brief Summary of Objections Raised, Response of
the APDCL and Commission’s Comments
3.1.1 The Commission received objections/suggestions from the following seven (7)
stakeholders on the Petition filed by APDCL.
Sl.
No. Name of objector
1 Assam Branch of India Tea Association (ABITA)
2. Assam Tea Planters’ Association (ATPA)
3. Bidyut Grahak Mancha (BGM)
4. Federation of Industries and Commerce of North
Eastern Region (FINER)
5. Ms. Mallika Sharma Bezbaruah (Ms. M.S. Bezbaruah)
6. North East Frontier Railway (NFR)
7. North Eastern Small Scale Industries Association
(NESSIA)
3.1.2 APDCL submitted its responses to the objections/suggestions received from the above
stakeholders.
3.1.3 The Commission considered the objections / suggestions received and notified the
Respondents to take part in the Hearing process by presenting their views in person
before the Commission, if they so desired.
3.1.4 The Commission held Hearing at the Assam Administrative Staff College, Guwahati
on February 12, 2019.
3.1.5 The objectors attended the Hearing and submitted their views/ suggestions. All the
written representations submitted to the Commission and the oral submission made
before the Commission in the Hearing and the responses of APDCL have been
carefully considered while issuing this Tariff Order.
3.1.6 The objections/ suggestions made by the stakeholders and responses of the Petitioner
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page16
are briefly dealt with in this Chapter. The major issues raised by the objectors are
discussed below along with the response of the Petitioner (APDCL) and views of the
Commission.
3.1.7 While all the objections /suggestions have been given due consideration by the
Commission, only major responses/ objections received on the Petitions and also
those raised during the course of Hearing have been grouped and addressed issue-
wise, in order to avoid repetition.
Issue 1: Energy Sale & projection
Objections
ABITA, FINER, BGM & Ms. M.S Bezbaruah submitted that energy sale for FY 2017-18
has been less than approved for both LT and HT consumers. APDCL has failed to give
any explanation for such a decline.
ABITA submitted that the sale in Jeevan Dhara category continues to remain higher and
the average monthly consumption of Jeevan Dhara consumers in FY 2017-18 is
approximately 64 units, which is more than double the limit prescribed for this category.
ABITA requested the Commission to examine the matter.
BGM submitted that due to the peculiar consumer mix, more power supply to the consumer
results in more losses. An optimum solution needs to be evolved by the Commission with
the State Government playing a crucial role to achieve a financial turnaround of the
Discom, as is necessary.
ABITA and ATPA submitted that APDCL have not provided any relevant basis for the
growth rates considered for sales projections for each of the categories, during FY 2018-
19 and FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. APDCL has also not provided past data of sales to
understand if the proposed increase in sales is in line with the past trends. ABITA
requested the Commission to direct APDCL to submit actual category-wise revenue and
see if the average tariff recorded in the accounts are in line with the approved tariffs.
ABITA further submitted that the Petitioner had not considered any reduction/ savings
accrued on account of demand side measures such as distribution of LED appliances, etc.
in the State.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page17
Response of APDCL
Most of the Jeevan Dhara (JV) consumers often consumes more than 30 units per month
and such consumers are billed to the next higher category (Dom A) however only those
JV consumers who consume more than 30 units per month in two consecutive months,
are converted to Domestic A and are billed under Domestic A category thereafter.
Regarding decline of energy sales vis-à-vis approved in MYT order, APDCL submitted that
the actual energy sales for FY 2017-18 is more than that for FY 2016-17, both for the LT
and HT category. It was submitted that the energy sales projected in the MYT order were
based on certain growth assumptions on past trend; however, the sales as shown in the
true-up of ARR for FY 2017-18 are actual sales and APDCL requested that this should be
allowed.
APDCL submitted that the contention of the respondent that the growth rate of category-
wise consumers and connected load is unrealistic is not correct. The detailed rationale for
projecting the category-wise energy sales has already been mentioned in the petitions. As
on 25th January, 2019 APDCL has achieved 100% household electrification under the
SAUBHAGYA scheme, which will increase the household consumption, particularly in the
rural areas, from FY 2018-19.
Commission’s View
The category-wise sales approved by the Commission are detailed in relevant Chapters
of this Order.
Issue 2: Distribution loss
Objections
ABITA and FINER submitted that APDCL has estimated T&D loss of 18.34% against
approved T&D target of 16.85% for FY 2018-19, despite the fact that, the Discom has
already achieved T&D loss reduction of 17.64% in FY 2017-18.
The respondents submitted that APDCL’s rationale for non-achievement of distribution
loss in the past and not being able to reduce the loss further in the Control Period is based
on a premise that there is a deterioration in the HT:LT sales mix over the period which is
going to worsen on account of Saubhagya scheme is not correct; as during the period FY
2015-16 and FY 2016-17, despite 26% and 10% growth in overall LT sales and worsened
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page18
HT:LT sales mix, APDCL was able to bring down its distribution losses by approx. 3% each
year.
The respondents highlighted that APDCL has committed to AT & C loss target of 15% by
end of FY 2018-19 as part of UDAY scheme and the entire restructuring of loans as well
as other benefits would only accrue to the State if the milestones are achieved. Therefore,
the respondents requested the Commission to maintain the loss target for FY 2018-19 and
approve further reduction in distribution loss during the next Control Period.
ATPA submitted that although the distribution loss has reduced over the last decade, it is
still high when compared with all India Utilities and requested the Commission to direct
APDCL to reduce its losses further to All India level.
Ms. M. S. Bezbaruah submitted that under R-APDRP, APDCL was to reduce AT&C losses
to 15% in 72 tons. APDCL did not submit any Report regarding various ongoing and
completed projects under the Scheme.
BGM appreciated that APDCL was able to achieve actual distribution loss of 17.64%
against the target of 17.10% in FY 2017-18, despite various constraints like adverse HT:LT
Ratio, incremental sale to LT consumers, old infrastructure etc.
Response from APDCL
During FY 2016-17 under UDAY, APDCL received Rs 50 Cr for system strengthening
which is insufficient for reduction of AT&C losses to 14.5%.
APDCL has taken various measures to reduce the loss level and loss level has come down
considerably from 37% in the last 10 years. However, due to implementation of RGGVY
(now known as DDUGJY) and Saubhagya schemes the network has increased manifold
in the rural areas.
APDCL is trying its best to achieve the targets of loss reduction by implementation of some
ongoing projects under R-APDRP and other initiatives. APDCL has been able to reduce
the distribution loss in the urban area in Assam below 15% but because of the huge
expansion of rural network the loss level as a whole is on the higher side. At present, HT:
LT ratio of consumption in APDCL is 33:67 which also hampers the reduction of loss level.
The slow growth of industrialization in Assam is also one of the reasons for the skewed
HT: LT ratio.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page19
APDCL submitted that social disturbances in some parts of the State have also contributed
to high losses in those areas. Advantage of IT has been taken in meter reading, collection
through MDAS for high value consumers, DTR meters of public DTR (schemes taken in
UDAY) and also meter reading and billing in rural consumers by implementing e-subidha.
APDCL requested the Commission to approve actual distribution loss of 17.64% for FY
18.
Commission’s Views:
Distribution Losses are a controllable parameter. The Commission has considered the
approved Distribution Loss level, and disallowed the excess power purchase cost in the
true-up of FY 2017-18, by restricting the power purchase quantum to that corresponding
to the approved Distribution Loss level. The Distribution Loss trajectory for the Control
Period is elaborated in Chapter 7 of this Order.
Issue 3: Power Purchase
Objections
Ms. M. S. Bezbaruah submited that the power purchase cost of APDCL for FY 2017-18 is
higher than the approved cost and APDCL did not provide adequate explanation for this.
The Respondent submitted that despite more generation in RHEP, unit cost is high, while
generation in DHEP was less but unit cost was high.
FINER requested the Commission to allow the power purchase cost claimed by APDCL,
only after prudence check, as per the Regulations. FINER further submitted that APDCL
considered Rs. 6.39/kWh for BgTPS-III (NTPC) Plant on assumption basis for FY 2018 -
19 without any justification.
BGM submitted that APDCL had to buy power through trading and power exchange over
and above the quantum approved by the Commission at a higher price due to less supply
of power from APGCL. Further, BgTPS of NTPC was supposed to supply 1567.7 MU to
APDCL at a price of Rs 5.71/unit. Finally, NTPC supplied only 1007.75 MU at a price of
Rs.6.40/unit.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page20
ABITA observed that as per the practice adopted by the Commission in previous true-up
Orders, the amount of Rs. 27.07 Cr. relating to delayed payment of power purchase bills
should not be allowed. Large amount paid through short-term procurement i.e. IEX and
DSM needs to be analysed. ABITA requested the Commission to direct the petitioner for
planning its power procurement in advance, and undertake procurement through DEEP
portal to ensure that short-term power is procured at competitive rates.
ABITA submitted that the amount of Rs 13.12 Cr pertaining to the non-achievement of
distribution loss should be disallowed in line with the provisions of the Tariff Regulations.
Further, ABITA proposed that the rebate on power purchase payment may be adjusted
from the total power purchase amount.
Response of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the cost of purchase of power from APGCL and NTPC (BgTPS)
has been claimed on actual basis for FY 2017-18. The increase in power purchase cost is
due to increase in tariff of APGCL and BgTPS which is beyond the control of the Petitioner
and should be allowed on actual basis for pass through in the true-up of ARR for FY 2017-
18. APDCL submitted that the rate of RHEP is found to be on the higher side during FY
2017-18 due to supplementary bills raised to APDC on account of recovery of energy
shortfall. Regarding DHEP, the generator had exceeded the design energy and recovered
incentive bill against the excess energy supplied to APDCL.
APDCL contended that the unit cost of BgTPS is higher than the approved cost because
of less quantum supplied.
Regarding minimization of short-term power purchase, APDCL had floated e-bidding
tender for 50 MW Medium term power at deep portal. However, there was no participation.
APDCL is procuring some of its requirements via banking and is also planning to float e-
bidding tender for 100 MW small hydro power.
Commission’s Views.
The Commission has trued up the power purchase cost based on the Audited Accounts
and prudence check. The Commission has restricted the power purchase quantum to that
corresponding to the approved Distribution Loss level, in the true-up of FY 2017-18, as
Distribution Losses are a controllable parameter.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page21
The detailed analysis of power purchase expenses for FY 2017-18 is elaborated in Chapter
4 of this Order. The detailed analysis of power purchase cost for the Control Period is
elaborated in the relevant Chapters of this Order.
Issue 4: Energy Balance
Objections
ABITA submitted that as APDCL has not been able to achieve the distribution losses, the
Energy requirement as submitted by APDCL for FY 18 is based on the higher Distribution
loss for the year. APDCL should be allowed the energy requirement as per the approved
distribution loss only.
Response from APDCL
The energy balance has been drawn by the Petitioner on the basis of actual sales and
power purchase and requested the Commission to kindly consider the same on the basis
of actuals. The sharing of (gain)/loss on account of non-achievement in distribution losses
has been claimed by the Petitioner in accordance with the Regulations.
Commission’s Views.
The Commission has allowed the power purchase cost in the true-up of FY 2017-18 by
invoking the Regulations regarding sharing of gains/ losses in case of controllable
parameters including distribution loss.
Issue 5: Power from Bongaigaon Thermal Power Plant
Objections
FINER submitted that APDCL has assumed a price of Rs. 6.39/KWh for BgTPS-III (NTPC)
Plant for FY 2018 -19 without any justification. APDCL proposed to purchase 353.87 MU
thermal power from APGCL with an average cost of Rs. 4.13/kWh in FY 19-20, whereas
it proposed to purchase 2096.45 MU thermal power from NTPC with an average cost of
Rs. 6.37/kWh, which is 54% higher. FINER submitted that APDCL should re-negotiate the
PPA with NTPC to reduce the additional cost.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page22
FINER, BGM and Ms. M.S. Bezbaruah requested the Commission to instruct APDCL to
play an active role in fixation of tariff for NTPC-BTPS in the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission, by submitting response petitions against the claims of NTPC.
Response from APDCL
APDCL submitted that the proposed tariff of Rs. 6.39/kWh for BgTPS-III (NTPC) in FY
2018-19 is based on the average power purchase cost from BgTPS plant for H1 of FY
2018-19. APDCL has also considered the Partial Requisition imposed to the high cost
power stations from time to time for disposal of the surplus power. Since the tariff of
BgTPS-III has not been determined by the CERC, the same has been pegged at the
average power purchase rate of BgTPS for H1 of FY 2018-19.
Regarding purchase of costly power from NTPC (BgTPS), the same has been claimed on
actual basis for FY 2017-18.
Commission’s Views
The views of respondents and APDCL are noted. APDCL is procuring power from other
sources after purchasing in full, the generation of APGCL.
APDCL should play a more active role during tariff fixation of Central Sector Generating
Units by CERC. Large Consumer groups may also consider filing objections/ suggestions
before CERC in this regard.
Issue 6: O& M Expenses
Objections
FINER submitted that in view of the 3.08% growth rate achieved in FY 17- 18, the growth
rate projected @ 4.28% for FY 19-20, appears unrealistic. FINER further submitted that
APDCL has not provided any justification and details such as nature of work, the salary
structure, etc., regarding additional recruitment of 3000 employees for FY 19-20.
ATPA submitted that the employee expenses submitted by APDCL is very high and needs
to be examined.
BGM submitted APDCL should make a proper manpower plan following the norms
prescribed by relevant guidelines of CEA, for carrying out its substation operations and
maintenance smoothly. Parallel training arrangement for the existing outsourced man
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page23
power needs to be made by APDCL in its existing lineman training institutes so that
outsourced employees could be engaged in the newly created manned substations
instead of being dependent on contractors for such O&M works. BGM requested the
Commission to direct APDCL to submit the breakup of the expenses incurred in involving
external agencies and payment to outsourced manpower.
ABITA re-determined the O&M projections for FY19 and subsequent Control Period and
requested the Commission to accept the O& M projections proposed by them after
necessary prudence check.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL requested the Commission to allow expenditure of Rs. 15 Cr on account of new
recruitment of 3000 employees as a separate one-time provision, as the same is not
captured in the normal growth trend of employees.
The Petitioner requested that the R&M expenses should be allowed on actual basis in FY
2017-18. The ageing infrastructure of the utility necessitates higher R&M expenditure for
maintaining system operations.
Commission’s View
The Commission has allowed O&M expenses after prudence check, as elaborated in the
relevant chapters of this Order.
Issue 7: Capital Expenditure and Capitalization
Objections
ABITA and FINER submitted that APDCL has not provided any progress report for
scheme-wise details of the capital expenditure incurred during FY 2018-19. Instead, it has
proposed capital expenditure of Rs. 3,572 Cr. and capitalisation of Rs. 3355 Cr. for FY
2018-19, which is unrealistic, considering the past performance.
ABITA submitted that the proposed claims for capital expenditure and capitalization of Rs.
5300 Cr. and capitalisation of Rs. 8609 Cr. including the capitalisation of Opening CWIP
for FY 2018-19, in the control period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22, are not only
overstated but also, the operational efficiency of implementing such large CAPEX has
never been demonstrated by APDCL in any of the past years. ABITA requested the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page24
Commission to direct APDCL for prioritizing its various ongoing schemes, which may yield
the desired benefits.
BGM requested the Commission to direct APDCL to develop a proper project management
system and submit the same for AERC’s approval with a firm commitment to adhere to it.
ATPA requested the Commission not to permit further capital expenditure until, physical
verification report of fixed assets done by competent and reliable authority is available.
Response of APDCL
APDCL submitted that it has provided all the details before the Commission and requested
the Commission to consider the same while approving capital expenditure plan for the
ensuing control period.
Commission’s View
The Commission noted the views of both the petitioner and respondents. The details
regarding approved capital expenditure and capitalization is discussed in the relevant
Chapters of this Order.
Issue 8: Depreciation
Objections
ABITA proposed revised depreciation based on the closing GFA for FY 2017-18 and the
projected capitalization during FY 2018-19 and each year of the Control Period FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22, based on their revised estimates of capital expenditure and
capitalisation.
Further, ABITA requested the Commission to direct APDCL for conversion of loans to
grants as part of UDAY scheme.
BGM submitted that a delay in capitalisation due to non-completion of the projects on time
is adversely affecting depreciation and the financial health of the Company.
Response of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the impact of conversion of loans into grant and equity as per the
UDAY scheme has been considered in FY 2018-19 and for upcoming control period of FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page25
Commission’s View
Depreciation allowed by the Commission is discussed in the relevant Chapters of this
Order.
Issue 9: Interest and Finance Charges
Objections
FINER submitted that the assumed interest rate of 9.40% as per UDAY scheme guideline,
and interest rate on the loan for R-APDRP scheme of 11.50%, by APDCL, appears to be
high. FINER requested the Commission to consider the actual interest rate or the minimum
interest rate available for long term loan while determining ARR and tariff.
BGM submitted that financial restructuring of APDCL is not backed by any loan repayment
plan.
Reply of APDCL
The rate of interest on R-APDRP loan of 11.50% has been considered as per the loan
agreement of R-APDRP and the same is reflected in the audited annual accounts for FY
2017-18. The detailed calculation and basis of the interest & finance charges has been
elaborated in the MYT petition
Commission’s View
The Commission’s analysis and decisions regarding interest and finance charges is
elaborated in the relevant chapters of this Order.
Issue 10: Interest on Working Capital
Objection
FINER submitted that the interest rate of Working Capital claimed @ 11.50% is high and
requested the Commission to grant IWC as per the Regulations.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the interest on working capital has been calculated on normative
basis in line with the formula given in Regulation 36.4 of the MYT Regulations, 2018, as
under:
‘’Rate of interest shall be at interest rate equivalent to the normative interest rate of three
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page26
hundred (300) basis points above the average State Bank of India MCLR (One Year Tenor)
prevalent during the last available six months for the determination of tariff.’’
The SBI MCLR (one-year tenor) effective from 1st October 2018 of 8.50% has been
considered. Accordingly, the rate of interest on working capital has been considered as
(8.50% + 3.00%) = 11.50%.
Commission’s View
The Commission has computed IWC in accordance with the MYT Regulations and the
same is elaborated in the relevant Chapters of this Order.
Issue 11: Return on Equity
Objections
ABITA requested the Commission that no return on equity should be allowed on the
transferred equity balance of ASEB to APDCL as it has not resulted in any creation of
distribution assets.
ABITA also submitted that the conversion of loans to equity in the books of accounts does
not entitle APDCL to claim return on equity on such amount, as the same has already been
allowed to be recovered as interest on normative loans, as per the provisions of the Tariff
Regulations.
FINER submitted that APDCL’s claim of ROE on the State Government loans of Rs.
283.13 Cr which was converted to equity in accordance with the UDAY scheme is not
logical, as the equity is a kind of grant by the State Government, for development of the
power sector.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that anticipating the notification by Govt. of Assam on the share
application money pending allotment amounting to Rs. 88.04 Cr transferred from erstwhile
ASEB on transfer of trading function to APDCL w.e.f. 01-04-2009 and Rs. 0.63 Cr
transferred on dissolution of ASEB as on 31- 03-2013, equity capital of Rs. 88.68 Cr has
been considered as part of the equity capital base. Also, APDCL considered that the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page27
existing loans from GoA to the tune of Rs. 283.13 Cr shall be converted to equity in
accordance with the UDAY scheme. Accordingly, the same has been considered as part
of the equity capital base. The rate of return on equity has been taken as 16% as provided
in the MYT Regulations, 2018.
Commission’s View
The computation of Return on Equity is detailed in relevant Chapters of this Order.
Issue 12: ARR and Revenue Surplus/Gap
Objections
FINER submitted that substantial expenses have been projected by APDCL for General
Public Purpose, Public Lighting, Agriculture up to 25 kW and Small Industries Rural up to
25 kW. These are essential services provided by the licensee and have higher loss levels.
The respondent requested the Commission to consider directing subsidies for the above-
mentioned categories. FINER further requested the Commission to review the projected
revenue gap.
ATPA submitted that the expenses projected are based on data and statistics which are
unrealistic and requested the Commission to examine all heads of expenses in depth
before proceeding to determine MYT.
ABITA proposed revised ARR and revenue gap for FY 2018-19 and the MYT control
period. ABITA submitted a revised gap of Rs 198.46 Cr as against Rs 549.5 Cr proposed
by APDCL in FY 2018-19. ABITA proposed a surplus of Rs 142.2 Cr, Rs 450.5 Cr and Rs
354.5 Cr for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 respectively against huge gaps
submitted by APDCL.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL contended that detailed reasoning and rationale for projecting the expenses from
FY 2019-20 has been spelt out in the MYT tariff petition for the control period from FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22 along with supporting documents.
APDCL submitted that the ARR/revenue gap of the Petitioner has been claimed after
detailed explanation of the various heads of income/expense of the Petitioner and
requested the Commission that the same may be allowed, after due prudence check.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page28
Commission’s View
The ARR for the Control Period has been determined after necessary prudence check and
in accordance with the MYT Regulations, 2018.
Issue 13: High Tariff for tea Category
Objection
ABITA & ATPA submitted that the tariff applicable for Tea & Coffee Estates/ Plantations is
amongst the highest in the State. ABITA agreed that the tariff in any State is based on
multiple factors including consumer mix, power purchase mix, etc. However, it is the
responsibility of the utilities to identify and implement measures to ensure affordability,
especially, if the same is possible in neighbouring states faced with similar situations.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that there has been no revision in fixed charges during the last few
years for the Tea Category. The increase has mostly been in energy charge as the power
supply position was not very impressive and any increase in fixed charge would have put
a burden on a section of consumers without meeting their demand uniformly. In fact, the
energy charges for tea category were reduced in the last tariff order although, the power
supply position has improved considerably in recent times.
Commission’s View
Noted.
Issue 14: Increase in Fixed & Energy Charges
Objections
Some respondents submitted that APDCL has again proposed a revision in fixed and
energy charges across categories to cover the erroneous computation of revenue gap for
FY 2019-20.
NESSIA submitted that with the power interruptions, unscheduled load shedding and poor
quality of power existing in different areas of the State, increase of fixed charge is not
justified. NESSIA further submitted that for HT Small Industries upto 50 KW even the
existing fixed charge is on a higher side. NESSIA requested the Commission to reduce
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page29
fixed charges for the Domestic and Small Industry categories.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that uncontrollable costs like power purchase cost, fuel price, etc.,
should be recovered speedily to ensure that future consumers are not burdened with past
costs, hence, APDCL has proposed increase in the Energy Charges.
Further, APDCL has proposed to charge a higher fixed component of the tariff imposed
on various consumers. This would lead to recovery of large part of the revenue as a big
proportion of the expenditure for DISCOMs is of fixed nature without significantly affecting
the consumers as they are already getting higher quantum of power. Given the additional
supply of power, the average per unit charges paid by consumer on account of fixed
charges would remain the same, even after the proposed increase.
Commission’s view
The submissions of the petitioner and respondents are noted.
Issue 15: Determination of Tariff based on Voltage-wise Cost of Supply
Objections
ABITA & FINER submitted that the proposed tariff increases by APDCL are higher for the
already subsidizing consumers. This shall further create an imbalance in the various tariff
categories and shall be against the principles laid down in the Tariff Policy.
ABITA and other respondents had raised the issue for determination of voltage-wise cost
of supply during the processing of previous tariff orders and had highlighted to the
Commission regarding the non-compliance of the directive in this regard on a continuous
basis by APDCL.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that it has initiated the process of determination of VCoS. APDCL has
initiated the collection of the feeder-wise revenue data along with the feeder-wise energy
audit from the respective field offices. Steps have been taken to replace the stopped and
defective meters both at consumer end and at the strategic locations (feeders/DTRs) for
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page30
proper energy audit. After reconciliation of data, VCoS will be calculated accordingly.
A sample project on Energy Audit is being carried out by PPS Enterprise Limited for the
three circles of APDCL namely Jorhat, GEC-II and Cachar under guidance of the
Commission, the outcome of which will surely be helpful in this aspect.
APDCL therefore, submitted that it would not be appropriate to determine tariffs on the
basis of VCoS at this point in time.
Commission’ s view
The Cost of Supply to consumers and its treatment is detailed in the later part of this
Order.
Issue 16: Power Factor Rebate
Objection
FINER submitted that while levying the penalty for power factor lower than 80%, the
penalty is levied for every 1% fall in power factor. For consumers maintaining power factor
above 85%, a rebate of 1% and for power factor above 95%, a rebate of 2% on unit and
for power factor above, 97%, a rebate of 3% on unit consumption is proposed to be
applicable.
It may be observed from the details provided for other States that incentive is provided in
steps for every 1% increase in power factor beyond 95%and requested the Commission
to implement the same.
Reply of APDCL:
The Petitioner submits that the existing power factor rebate clause should continue.
Commission’s View
The Commission considers that the existing incentive scheme for Power Factor is
reasonable for the present.
Issue 17: Load factor Rebate
Objection
FINER submitted that many distribution companies in India, have started giving a load
factor rebate for maintaining an above average load by the unit. This helps the Discom in
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page31
planning the load requirement and optimum utilization of resources may happen, with
negligible shortages.
The industry on the other hand gets incentivized to maintain a high load factor, and
thereby increasing the efficiency and performance of the system.
Reply of APDCL
Two part tariff has an in-built incentive for higher load factor. The existing provisions may
continue. APDCL will analyze the suggestion given by the respondent for future course of
action.
Commission’s View
Noted. The fixed charges for the contracted load for HT consumers under APDCL is one
of the lowest compared to that of other Discoms in the country. APDCL may come up with
their views regarding introduction of load factor incentive in future.
Issue 18: Peak Load Shedding
Objection
FINER submitted that during Peak load, there is sometimes load shedding for 5-6 hours
for an industry in a day, however the fixed charge is being charged in full from the
consumer. The respondent requested the Commission that, the fixed charges per unit
may be pro-rated, as per availability during a day or a month.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the respondent needs to be specific as to when and where load
shedding of 5-6 hours have occurred during the peak hours of a day. All efforts are being
made to improve the reliability and quality of supply to the consumers of APDCL. APDCL
is now arranging power supply nearest to 24X7 basis subject to availability of the system
network. Notices are also published at least 24 hours in advance during maintenance
shutdown and planned load shedding in every Circle. However, due to uncertainty of grid
availability in certain conditions such as weather, storm etc. it is difficult to make a
scheduled load shedding plan.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page32
Commission’s View
Non-compliance of the Standards of Performance by APDCL as per the AERC
(Distribution Licensee’s Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2005 may be brought to
the notice of the Commission with full details by the consumers for taking necessary action
by the Commission.
Issue 19: Contract Demand
Objection
FINER submitted that the contract demand should be allowed to be changed at any given
time of the year before the start April of new financial year. APDCL is not allowing change
in contract demand after November 2018 for the FY 2019- 20. FINER requested the
Commission to remove the time constraint for change of contract demand.
Reply of APDCL:
APDCL submitted that change is not allowed in contract demand as the Company has to
compile half yearly data of the current financial year for calculation of performance review
and ARR for submission of tariff petitions every year by the month of November before
the Commission.
Commission’s View
Noted.
Issue 20: Timely payment & BG
Objection
FINER submitted that the consumers should be given a discount for timely payment of
dues so as to improve the cash flow of the Company.
FINER also submitted that Bank Guarantee be allowed to be given as security deposit for
any consumer.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL welcomed the proposal on cash discount for timely payment and submitted that
the proposal may be accepted in future after proper analysis.
APDCL further submitted that the requirement of giving security deposit in cash is as per
the AERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2017.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page33
Commission’s View
Noted.
Issue 21: Special Tariff at 132 kV
Objection
FINER submitted that many industrial and commercial consumers in the State of Assam
desire to take power at 132 KV level. However, as there is no separate tariff for this
category, consumers do not upgrade to 132 KV, which is undesirable.
Reply of APDCL:
APDCL submitted that it is not opposed to voltage-wise tariff structure as long as the total
revenue requirement is allowed to be recovered through suitable tariff structure.
APDCL has initiated the process of energy audit in one of its sub-division under the PAT
scheme initiative. The result of the audit is awaited and based on the output the utility will
implement the process of energy audit in rest of the sub-divisions. Steps have been taken
to replace the stopped and defective meters both at consumer end and at the strategic
locations (feeders/DTRs) for proper energy audit.
Commission’s View
Noted. The Commission has already allowed a rebate of 1.5% on energy charge for
consumers availing power at 33 KV and 3% on energy charge for consumers availing
power at 132 KV and above.
Issue 22: Cross subsidy
Objection
ABITA submitted that the current level of cross-subsidies in the State of Assam is very
high in comparison to other States where average realizations for historically cross-
subsidized categories have progressively moved towards cost of supply/ average cost of
supply thereby easing off the burden of high tariff on the historically cross-subsidizing
categories.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page34
ABITA requested the Commission is to reduce the high level of cross-subsidy for Tea
Estates as such large level of cross-subsidy is hampering the viability of this industry.
Commission’s View
The cross subsidy has been reduced over time. The Commission has determined tariffs
for FY 2019-20 such that the cross subsidy for most categories is within the band of +
20% of ACOS, as stipulated in the Tariff Policy, while at the same time ensuring the
revenue gap is met and that no category is subjected to tariff shock.
Issue 23: Time of Day Tariff for Tea, Coffee and Rubber Category
Objection
ABITA appreciated the Commission’s decision to increase night time concession which
has led to better management of the load. ABITA submitted that this decision has
benefitted APDCL as well considering that sale of surplus power during night hours is
significantly lower. ABITA requested the Commission to continue with the night time
rebate of Rs. 1.50 per unit.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that it has no objection on continuation of the night time rebate of Rs.
1.50/unit.
Commission’s View
Noted.
Issue 24: INTEREST ON CONSUMER SECURITY DEPOSIT
Objection
BGM observed that payment of interest on security deposit to the 45 lakh electricity
consumers at present, is a humongous and costly exercise. BGM suggested that the
Commission should define the necessity of security deposit explicitly with comment that
no interest would be paid to consumer on security deposit but would be considered as
advance for two months of electricity bill. Such collective waiver of interest by the
consumer would help them avail reduction of electricity tariff proportionately since interest
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page35
payment, to consumers in general, has never been made.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the claim on interest on consumer security deposit for the control
period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 has been made in accordance with Regulation
36.4 (c) of the MYT Regulations, 2018 which states that:
‘’Interest shall be allowed on the amount held as security deposit by the Distribution
Licensee from consumers, at the rate equal to SBI base rate as on 1st April of the financial
year plus one percent.’’
The latest available SBI base rate of 8.95% as on 01.07.2018 has been considered. The
interest on consumer security deposit for the control period is claimed at the rate of (8.95
+ 1.00) = 9.95% on the consumer security deposit amount held by the licensee.
Commission’s View
The Commission has been allowing payment as per actual against the interest on
consumer security deposit in the ARR.
Issue 25: Power Theft
Objection
NESSIA submitted that APDCL should take appropriate action to reduce power theft
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that it has taken various measures to reduce the distribution loss level
like disconnection, legal action by initiating money suit against the defaulting consumers,
and strengthening of the Vigilance Wing, and loss level has reduced significantly from
37% in last 11 years. The High Value consumer monitoring system cell of APDCL has
contributed significantly in detection of theft and other malpractices, prevention of wrong
billing and enhancement in revenue realization of APDCL through monitoring of HT
Consumers.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page36
Commission’s View
Noted.
Issue 26: Open Access
Objection
NESSIA suggested that all HT industries above 1 MW should be encouraged to take
power on open access with dedicated line.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that Open Access Regulation 2018 is in place and all consumers
having contracted demand of 1 MW and above with dedicated lines are eligible to apply.
Commission’s View
Noted
Issue 27: Realization of outstanding power tariff dues
Objection
NESSIA submitted that APDCL should try to recover its outstanding dues from
Government departments
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that it is making all efforts to recover the outstanding dues from Govt.
establishment, Capital Complex etc.
Commission’s View
Noted
Issue 28: Regular reporting and performance improvement plan
Objection
NESSIA requested the Commission to issue directions to APDCL to submit reports of
implementation of its directives and schemes on half yearly basis.
Reply of APDCL:
APDCL submitted that compliance report of the directives of the Commission is being
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page37
submitted at regular intervals. The Petitioner is making all efforts to adhere to the various
directives of the Commission in order to improve its performance.
Commission’s View
The suggestion of the respondent is noted. Apart from asking for reports, the Commission
reviews the compliance of the directives and implementation of its ongoing projects of the
three utilities on quarterly basis.
Issue 29: Affordable Power Purchase
Objection
NESSIA submitted that APDCL should purchase more power to overcome the present
and future demand since affordable power is easily available nowadays.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the affordable power is not easily available. APDCL has tried to
procure RE power through deep portal (competitive bidding) during FY 2017-18 for
fulfilling its RPO requirements but the power available was at the higher rates. Further,
APDCL has floated tender for procurement of 50 MW medium term power supply but
there was no participation. Moreover, the prices in IEX have increased significantly in
recent years.
APDCL submitted that the following steps have been taken to increase its power supply
position in the coming control period.
1. APDCL is planning to float e-bidding tender for 100 MW small hydro power
2. APDCL has tied-up with new sources of power purchase such as Wind Power (PTC), Wind
Power (SECI), PTC Nikachu having competitive tariff and lower power purchase cost than
purchase from IEX etc. These plants will commence operation from FY 2019-20. The
levelised tariff of these plants is as below.
Wind Power (PTC) – Rs. 3.53/kWh
Wind Power (SECI) – Rs. 2.72/kWh
PTC Nikachu – Rs. 4.152/kWh
3. SPV (100 MW) Assam will commence operation from December 2019 having tariff of Rs.
3.325/kWh. This is also likely to bring down the average power purchase cost
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page38
4. Additional capacity allocation from Bhutan expected is ~500 MW in FY 2021-22.
Commission’s View
The effort of the DISCOM is noted. APDCL should continuously endeavour to procure
power at reasonable rates.
Issue 30: New Railway Traction Tariff
Objection
North East Frontier Railway (NFR) requested the Commission for a new tariff category of
Railway Traction. NFR observed that HT Commercial Tariff proposed by APDCL as tariff
for Railway Traction is on a higher side, considering the tariff for Railway Traction in other
States.
Reply of APDCL
The tariff proposal for HT Railway Traction has been made on the basis of cost of supply
as ascertained by the Petitioner. The Commission may decide the cost of supply to be
passed on to the consumers and this can form the basis for determining the tariff for the
category.
The tariff proposal for this category is based on the assumption that railway traction
consumers will opt for open access and will not be direct beneficiaries of APDCL. The
tariff for HT Railway Traction has been proposed considering the cross-subsidy
surcharges which Railway Traction consumers will have to pay to APDCL. In case, the
railway traction consumers intend to take power directly from APDCL, the same should
be intimated to APDCL. Further, the tariff proposed for railway traction to be pegged at
HT Commercial is only for the first year.
Commission’s View
As proposed, the Commission has introduced two new tariff categories for HT Railway
Traction and Electric Vehicles.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page39
Issue 31: Statutory Audit Report
Objection
ATPA submitted that the proposed ARR and MYT petitions for 2019-20 to 2021-22 are
not supported by statutory audits nor vetted by CAG and therefore, should not be
considered.
Reply of APDCL
APDCL submitted that the certified audited accounts along with the certified Statutory
Audit Report have been submitted before the AERC on 21.12.2018. APDCL further
submitted that the copy of the C&AG Report for FY 2017-18 will be submitted after
completion of the AG Audit. Further the reply to the audit reports will also be submitted
after approval of Board.
Commission’s View
Noted.
Issue 32: Subsidy from State Government
Objection:
ATPA requested the Commission to take into account the subsidy component if received
from the State government while determining tariff.
Reply from APDCL
Regarding the receipt of subsidy for the next year i.e. FY 2019-20, APDCL submitted that
the same will be intimated to the Commission once it is received/notified.
Commission’s View
Noted
Issue 33: Digital meter reading
Objection
ATPA submitted that the consumers fitted with electronic meters must be trained to read
the meters which will help the consumers of electricity in conservation of energy.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page40
Response of APDCL
APDCL welcomed the suggestion.
Commission’s View
Noted.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page41
4 Truing up for FY 2017-18
4.1 Methodology for Truing Up
4.1.1 The Commission had approved the ARR for APDCL for FY 2017-18 in the MYT Order
dated March 31, 2017.
4.1.2 APDCL submitted the Truing-up Petition for FY 2017-18 on November 30, 2018 based
on annual accounts and provisions of MYT Regulations, 2015.APDCL had initially not
submitted the audited statement of accounts and statutory auditor report at the time of
filing of revised Petition. The audited annual accounts along with the Statutory
Auditor’s Report was submitted on December 21,2018.
4.1.3 The Commission approved the cost parameters through approval of the Annual
Revenue Requirement at the beginning of the year, keeping in view the data available
at that point of time. The cost approvals for each of the items were based on projection
of expenses and revenue before beginning of the year and the provisions of MYT
Regulations, 2015, wherever applicable. However, the projections might vary over the
course of the year.
4.1.4 The actual cost/values for certain elements/parameters may vary as against the
approved cost during the year due to various controllable and uncontrollable factors.
The Licensee may end up with higher or lower expenditure, as the case may be, at the
end of the year as against the approved cost.
4.1.5 The Commission analyses the actual expenditure for the previous year/years based
on the audited Annual Accounts of the Licensee and allows/disallows the recovery of
the actual expenditure through the ensuing year’s tariff, subject to prudence check.
4.1.6 The Commission has carried out the Truing up for FY 2017-18 based on the
submissions of APDCL, audited annual accounts for FY 2017-18 and provisions of
MYT Regulations, 2015.
4.1.7 The Commission has analysed all the elements of actual expenditure and revenue of
APDCL for FY 2017-18 and undertaken the truing-up of expenses and revenue in
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page42
accordance with Regulation 10.1 of the MYT Regulations, 2015. The Commission has
approved the sharing of gains and losses on account of controllable factors between
APDCL and the consumers, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the MYT Regulations,
2015.
4.2 Energy Sales
4.2.1 APDCL submitted the actual category-wise energy sales in its Truing Up Petition and
stated that the actual sales were 6814 MU for FY 2017-18, as against approved sales
of 7524 MU, as shown in the Table below:
Table 6: Energy Sales for FY 2017-18as submitted by APDCL (MU)
Consumer Category Approved in MYT Order dt. 31.03.17
Actual
Jeevan Dhara 565 669
Domestic A 3134 2727
Domestic-B 288 277
Commercial Load 693 627
General Load 136 99
Public Lighting 23 13
Agriculture 17 20
Small Industries Rural 61 66
Small Industries Urban 32 30
Temporary 6 7
LT TOTAL 4955 4534
HT Domestic 46 31
HT Commercial 395 352
Public Water Works 71 71
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst 94 76
Bulk Supply Others 414 383
HT Small Industries upto 50 kw 23 23
HT Industries-1 50kw to 150 kw 88 67
HT Industries-II above 150 kw (33 KV)
793 702
Tea Coffee& Rubber 442 484
Oil & Coal 182 76
HT Irrigation Load above 7.5 HP 22 15
HT Temporary -
HT Electric Crematorium -
HT TOTAL 2570 2280
TOTAL Energy Sales (excluding OA consumption)
7524 6814
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page43
4.2.2 APDCL submitted that sales to Jeevan Dhara Category had significantly increased on
account of the massive rural electrification undertaken through various ongoing
flagship programmes like RGGVY/DDUGJY/SAUBHAGYA of Govt. of India. Such
programmes have led to manifold increase in domestic consumers in a small span of
time. Further, the supply hours to rural areas have also increased in the last few years
owing to greater availability of power and the vision of moving towards24x7 Power for
All.
4.2.3 APDCL also submitted that there was significant decline in HT sales due to availing of
Open Access facility by eligible HT-II category consumers, who have consumed 353
MU under Open Access in FY 2017-18.
4.2.4 APDCL requested the Commission to approve the actual retail sale of 6814 MU
(excluding OA consumption) for true-up, since it is uncontrollable.
Commission’s Analysis
4.2.5 The Commission has analysed the category-wise and total sales submitted by APDCL
in the Petition and found several inconsistencies in APDCL’s submissions, as under:
a) In the initial submissions, for FY 2017-18, the opening number of consumers
for Jeevan Dhara category were shown as 14,63,256 and closing number of
consumers were shown as 8,63,949, which indicates a huge reduction in the
number of consumers;
b) The opening number of consumers for FY 2017-18 for Domestic A category
was different from the closing number of consumers for FY 2016-17 considered
in the true-up of FY 2016-17 based on APDCL’s submissions in this regard;
c) The sales shown to the Jeevan Dhara category amount to average monthly
consumption of 35 units per month for FY 2017-18, against the ceiling
consumption of 30 units per month, beyond which the Jeevan Dhara must be
categorised under the Domestic A category;
4.2.6 The Commission sought clarification from APDCL for the below inconsistencies/data
for Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A category consumers/sales from APDCL:
a) Separate addition of consumers on account of SAUBHAGYA Scheme in
Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A category;
b) Shift of consumers from Jeevan Dhara to Domestic A category during the year;
c) Clarification on ‘Other’ consumers mentioned in the Petition/Reply;
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page44
d) Number of hours of supply to rural areas for Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A
category.
4.2.7 In its reply, APDCL submitted as under:
a) The closing number of Jeevan Dhara consumers for FY 2017-18 is 15,79,385
with an addition of 1,16,129 during FY 2017-18, and requested the
Commission not to consider the earlier submission of closing number of
8,63,949;
b) Data on addition of consumers under SAUBHAGYA scheme separately under
Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A category is not available;
c) Data on number of hours of supply in rural areas is not available;
d) The opening balance of consumers of Domestic A category was revised to
21,71,625 which is different from the closing balance of consumers in FY 2016-
17 considered in the true-up of FY 2016-17 based on APDCL’s submissions
in this regard.
4.2.8 Thus, the Commission did not receive satisfactory replies to most of the queries raised
regarding number of consumers and consumption of Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A
Category for FY 2017-18.
4.2.9 Even after submitting the revised number of consumers for Jeevan Dhara Category,
the average consumption per month was still exceeding the ceiling of 30 units. Owing
to these inconsistencies, the Commission adopted the following approach based on
the data available for approving the category-wise sales in the true-up for FY 2017-18:
a) The actual closing number of consumers in Jeevan Dhara category has been
considered as 15,79,385 for FY 2017-18;
b) The sales to Jeevan Dhara category have been restricted to 30 units per month,
and the consumption in excess of 30 units per month has been included under
sales to Domestic A category;
The Commission has accepted the sales submitted by APDCL for all other
categories.
4.2.10 The category-wise sales approved by the Commission after true-up of FY 2017-18is
as shown in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page45
Table 7: Energy Sales for FY 2017-18 approved by the Commission (MU)
Consumer Category Approved after
true-up
Jeevan Dhara 548
Domestic A 2,848
Domestic-B 277
Commercial Load 627
General Load 99
Public Lighting 13
Agriculture 20
Small Industries Rural 66
Small Industries Urban 30
Temporary 7
LT Total 4,534
HT Domestic 31
HT commercial 352
Public Water Works 71
Bulk Supply Govt. Educational Inst. 76
Bulk Supply Others 383
HT Small Industries upto 50 kVA 23
HT Industries-I 50 kVA to 150 kW 67
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA 702
Tea Coffee & Rubber 484
Oil & Coal 76
HT Irrigation Load above 7.5 HP 15
HT Temporary -
HT Electric Crematorium -
HT Total 2,280
TOTAL 6,814
Accordingly, the Commission approves the total energy sales of 6,814 MU in the
Truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.2.11 As discussed in above paragraphs, APDCL has not been relying on its own data
submitted during last Petition/previous replies and has been constantly changing the
numbers without any justifications. Data on category-wise sales and revenue is the
basic commercial data that needs to be maintained in absolutely unambiguous manner
by any Distribution Licensee. Further, as all the consumers are metered and the
agricultural consumption in the State is also very less, APDCL is not faced with the
problems faced in some other States having large number of unmetered agricultural
connections. There is no reason why APDCL should not be able to submit proper
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page46
authenticated and consistent commercial data.
4.2.12 The Commission therefore directs APDCL to submit authenticated figures of
number of consumers, connected load, contract demand, billing demand, and
consumption for each consumer category while processing the next True-up
Petition.
4.3 Distribution Loss
4.3.1 APDCL, in its Petition, submitted that it has achieved distribution loss level of 17.64%
in FY 2017-18 as against the approved level of 17.10%. APDCL submitted that it has
been able to maintain the gradually decreasing trend in losses even with various
constraints, i.e., adverse HT:LT ratio, incremental sales to LT consumers, old
infrastructure, etc.
4.3.2 APDCL submitted that the HT:LT ratio of the sales is decreasing every year, as the LT
sales are increasing on account of extensive rural electrification and implementation
of several Central Government Schemes. However, the HT sales are not increasing at
the same rate. Moreover, the increase in OA consumption every year has worsened
the situation for APDCL. APDCL added that with the present trend of decreasing HT:LT
ratio, there is a need to restate the target Distribution Losses.
4.3.3 APDCL claimed that the it has been able to achieve the distribution loss targets in
predominantly urban areas as well as areas without any social disturbances. However,
in some areas where the situation is beyond reasonable control of the Licensee, the
losses have crossed the approved limit. Frequent bandhs as well as perennial natural
calamities in some part of the State affects the performance in these areas resulting in
higher losses.
4.3.4 APDCL also submitted a trend of distribution losses from FY 2005-06 to FY 2017-18
showing that it has reduced the losses gradually, but, the trend of HT:LT ratio in last
10 years is affecting the distribution losses. APDCL requested the Commission to
approve the actual distribution loss of 17.64% in the true-up for FY 2017-18.
Commission Analysis
4.3.5 The Commission analysed the information submitted by APDCL regarding Distribution
Losses. It is observed that APDCL’s contention that the worsening HT:LT ratio
increases Distribution Losses, though correct in theory, is not borne out by APDCL’s
own performance over the last 3-4 years. Though HT:LT ratio has worsened over the
past 3-4 years, APDCL has reported improvement in Distribution Losses from 21.14%
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page47
(FY 2014-15) to 17.64% (FY 2017-18).
4.3.6 The Commission has considered the approved Distribution Loss level for FY 2017-18
of 17.10%, for the purpose of truing up for FY 2017-18, as approved in the MYT Order
dated March 31, 2017.
4.3.7 The Commission has computed the actual distribution loss based on the actual sales,
actual power purchase and actual inter-State and intra-State Transmission Losses.
The actual Distribution Loss achieved by APDCL in FY 2017-18 works out to 17.41%,
as shown in the Table below:
Table 8: Actual Distribution Loss for FY 2017-18 computed by the Commission
Sl.
No. Particulars FY 2017-18
1 Power Purchased (MU) 9345
2 Less Sale of Surplus Power 670
3 Net Energy Requirement 8675
2 Inter-State Transmission Loss (%) 1.40%
3 Inter-State Transmission Loss (MU) 121
5 Energy Available at G<>T Periphery 8553
6 Intra-State Transmission Loss (%) 3.55%
7 Intra-State Transmission Loss (MU) 304
8 Energy Available at T<>D Periphery 8250
9 Direct Sale (MU) 6814
10 Distribution Loss (MU) 1436
11 Distribution Loss (%) 17.41%
However, Distribution Loss is a controllable parameter. Accordingly, the
Commission approves the Distribution Loss level at 17.10% in the truing up for
FY 2017-18. The efficiency loss on account of higher than approved Distribution
Losses, in terms of excess power purchase expenses, has been shared between
APDCL and the consumers, as discussed subsequently in this Chapter.
4.4 Energy Requirement
4.4.1 APDCL submitted that the total energy requirement for sale of 6814 MU to retail
consumers in FY 2017-18 was 8694 MU excluding open access consumption, against
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page48
the approved energy requirement of 9544MU.
Commission’s Analysis
4.4.2 In the truing up for FY 2017-18, the Commission has approved the energy requirement
on the basis of approved sales, approved Distribution Losses, actual Transmission
Loss of AEGCL, and PGCIL Losses on external power purchase for the respective
year.
4.4.3 The Commission has considered the actual transmission loss of AEGCL, as against
the approved transmission loss for FY 2017-18, while approving energy requirement
for APDCL. The Commission is of the view that APDCL should not be penalized for
non-achievement of approved Transmission Loss by AEGCL.
4.4.4 It may be noted that the quantum of Surplus Power sold outside the State has not been
considered while computing the Energy Balance, and the revenue from the same has
been considered under Other Income, as discussed subsequently in this Order.
4.4.5 The gross Energy Requirement for FY 2017-18 as approved by the Commission in the
MYT Order, as submitted by APDCL, and as approved in the truing up are shown in
the following Table:
Table 9: Energy Requirement approved by the Commission after True-Up for FY 2017-
18
Particulars Unit MYT
Order
APDCL
Petition
Approved
after True-Up
Energy Sales MU 7524 6814 6,814
Distribution Loss % 17.10% 17.64% 17.10%
Energy Requirement at Distribution
Periphery T<>D
MU 9,076 8,273 8,219
Intra-State (AEGCL) Transmission
Loss
% 3.49% 3.49% 3.55%
Energy Input to Transmission
System
MU 9,404 8,572 8,522
Inter-State (PGCIL) Pooled Loss % 1.47% 1.40% 1.40%
Total Energy Requirement MU 9,544 8,694 8,643
Therefore, the Commission approves Energy Requirement of 8643 MU for sale
of 6814 MU to retail consumers in the truing up for FY 2017-18.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page49
4.5 Power Purchase
4.5.1 APDCL submitted that it has incurred an amount of Rs.4506.31 Crore against the
approved power purchase cost of Rs.4376.30 Crore for FY 2017-18. APDCL submitted
that this increase in power purchase cost is on account of the following reasons:
a) Increase in the total quantum of power sourced from allocated sources with
compulsion as compared to the approved quantum at higher rate
b) Even with additional power from allocated sources, APDCL had to procure
power from other sources through bilateral trading, Power Exchange, etc.
4.5.2 APDCL submitted that the power purchase cost for FY 2017-18 comprises the basic
power purchase cost, transmission charges payable to AEGCL (inclusive of PGCIL
charge and Special Charge on BST), and submitted the comparison of approved and
actual source-wise power purchase quantum and cost.
Commission’s Analysis
4.5.3 The Commission queried APDCL on the increase in per unit rate from various sources
with respect to rates approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 in the MYT Order.
4.5.4 APDCL provided source-wise reasons for escalation of power purchase cost per unit
as compared to approved rates. APDCL has also tied up with renewable sources at
competitive tariff.
4.5.5 The Commission observed that the units sold by APGCL and revenue earned by
APGCL from APDCL is not matching with the units purchased by APDCL from APGCL
and cost paid to APGCL. The Commission queried APDCL and APGCL on the same,
and it is observed that though the Accounts of both APGCL and APDCL for FY 2017-
18 are audited, APGCL has considered higher revenue in FY 2017-18 based on bills
raised by APGCL, while APDCL has considered lower cost of purchase from APGCL,
because of non-consideration of certain bills against power purchase cost in FY 2017-
18. The Commission is of the view that reconciliation is necessary in this regard at the
time of truing-up.
4.5.6 Similar inconsistency, though on a smaller scale, was observed in revenue earned by
AEGCL and cost paid by APDCL to AEGCL. Based on replies submitted by APDCL
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page50
and AEGCL, it is observed that the difference is because of accounting treatment of
one bill, which has been adjusted by APDCL in the first half of FY 2018-19, while
AEGCL has considered the same in FY 2017-18.
4.5.7 As the true-up for AEGCL and APGCL has been done by considering the Revenue
reported in their Audited Accounts for FY 2017-18, the Commission has considered
the respective amounts shown as revenue by APGCL and AEGCL as the cost of power
purchase from APGCL by APDCL and the Transmission Charges paid/payable to
AEGCL by APDCL, respectively. Similarly, the quantum of net generation shown by
APGCL has been considered as the net purchase by APDCL from APGCL.
4.5.8 APDCL had claimed that there was no Delayed Payment Surcharge paid during FY
2017-18. However, as per Statement of Accounts, APDCL had paid a Delayed
Payment Surcharge of Rs. 27.07 Crore, which was included in the total power
purchase cost claimed by APDCL. The Commission has therefore, excluded the
amount of Rs. 27.07 Crore from the total power purchase cost claimed in the Petition
as the Delayed Payment Surcharge is a penal payment and cannot be passed on to
the consumers.
APDCL was asked to submit the status of Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO)
compliance for FY 2017-18. APDCL submitted that in FY 2017-18, it purchased Non-
Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) of Rs. 18.16 crore, over and above the
renewable power purchase. It is observed that APDCL has not achieved the RPO
target for the year, despite allowance of cost towards purchase of RECs in the Tariff
Order. The Commission will take up this matter of non-compliance of the RPO
separately in accordance with the AERC RPO Regulations.
4.5.9 The remaining source-wise purchases have been accepted by the Commission as
submitted by APDCL. The summary of power purchase quantum and cost as approved
in the Tariff Order for FY 2017-18, actual quantum and cost as submitted by APDCL
in its True-Up Petition, and the quantum and cost approved by the Commission after
true-up are summarized in the Tables below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page51
Table 10: Power Purchase approved by the Commission after True-Up for FY 2017-18 (MU)
Sl. Source
MYT Order dt. 31.03.17 APDCL Petition Approved after True-Up
Quantum Total
Charge Rate Quantum
Total Charge
Rate Quantum Total
Charge Rate
MU Rs.
Crore Rs. / kWh
MU Rs. Crore Rs. / kWh
MU Rs.
Crore Rs. / kWh
1 APGCL 2209.03 582.63 2.64 1423.25 415.07 2.92 1,403.92 453.89 3.23
2 NEEPCO
KOPILI I 350.00 39.55 1.13 550.89 57.71 1.05 550.89 57.71 1.05
KOPILI II 50.00 8.15 1.63 57.60 7.70 1.34 57.60 7.70 1.34
KHANDONG 95.00 16.72 1.76 141.73 22.60 1.59 141.73 22.60 1.59
RHEP 560.00 113.68 2.03 600.51 174.43 2.90 600.51 174.43 2.90
DHEP 70.00 30.59 4.37 113.64 54.72 4.82 113.64 54.72 4.82
Kameng HEP 28.00 9.80 3.50
Pare HEP 30.00 10.50 3.50
AGBPP 930.00 325.50 3.50 824.96 280.64 3.40 824.96 280.64 3.40
AGTPP+AGTPP2 345.00 106.73 3.09 267.53 98.62 3.69 267.53 98.62 3.69
3 OTPC 1100.00 314.60 2.86 1269.32 384.08 3.03 1,269.32 384.08 3.03
4 NTPC BTPS 1576.67 900.28 5.71 1007.75 645.45 6.40 1,007.75 645.45 6.40
5 NHPC 150.00 42.45 2.83 238.31 63.91 2.68 238.31 63.91 2.68
6 NTPC (Existing)
FARAKKA 250.00 83.25 3.33 222.62 79.26 3.56 222.62 79.26 3.56
KAHELGAON - I 130.00 46.28 3.56 115.02 42.28 3.68 115.02 42.28 3.68
KAHELGAON -II 540.00 211.14 3.91 550.90 194.92 3.54 550.90 194.92 3.54
TALCHER 140.00 37.52 2.68 141.73 39.01 2.75 141.73 39.01 2.75
8 HHPCPL (Champawati) 9.80 4.03 4.11 8.55 3.51 4.11 8.55 3.51 4.11
9 IOCL (AOD) 27.20 10.53 3.87 - - -
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page52
Sl. Source
MYT Order dt. 31.03.17 APDCL Petition Approved after True-Up
Quantum Total
Charge Rate Quantum
Total Charge
Rate Quantum Total
Charge Rate
MU Rs.
Crore Rs. / kWh
MU Rs. Crore Rs. / kWh
MU Rs.
Crore Rs. / kWh
10 MeECL 28.60 17.13 5.99 0.55 0.40 7.30 0.55 0.40 7.27
11 SECI Solar 31.00 18.68 6.03 39.17 24.41 6.23 39.17 24.41 6.23
12 JNNSM Solar Bundled 9.60 11.12 11.58 7.97 9.83 12.33 7.97 9.83 12.33
13 Suryatap Solar 0.56 0.54 9.72 6.15 5.45 8.86 6.15 5.45 8.86
14 Pohmura SHEP 0.47 0.14 2.91 - - -
15 JNNSM Coal Bundled 35.00 10.96 3.13 35.62 11.48 3.22 35.62 11.48 3.22
16 Trading Purchase 261.18 60.07 2.30 632.09 250.34 3.96 632.09 250.34 3.96
17 Power Exchanges 586.65 134.93 2.30 757.76 317.40 4.19 757.76 317.40 4.19
18 Additional Solar RECs 20.71 3.88 3.88
19 Additional Non-solar RECs 15.70 18.16 18.16
20 Deviation Settlement Mechanism
350.92 93.93 2.68 350.92 93.93 2.68
21 TOTAL PURCHASE 9543.77 3183.90 3.34 9364.54 3299.22 3.52 9,345.21 3,338.04 3.57
22 Transmission & SLDC Charges
1192.39 1207.09 1.29 1194.99
23 Less: Delayed Payment Surcharge
27.07
24 Total Power Purchase Cost 9543.77 4376.29 4.59 9364.54 4506.31 4.81 9,345.21 4,505.96 4.82
Therefore, the Commission approves Power Purchase Expenses of Rs. 4505.96 Cr after truing up for FY 2017-18.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page53
4.6 Sharing of (Gains)/ Losses on account of excess Power Purchase cost
due to higher than approved Distribution Losses
4.6.1 As the actual Distribution Losses are higher than the approved Distribution Losses for
FY 2017-18, the efficiency loss on account of higher than approved Distribution
Losses, in terms of excess power purchase expenses, have been shared between
APDCL and the consumers, as shown in the Table below:
Table 11: Sharing of Efficiency (Gain)/Loss approved by the Commission on account of
Distribution Losses after True-Up for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Unit FY 2017-18
Total Power Purchase MU 9,345
Trading Sale MU 670
Actual Energy Purchased for sale within State MU 8,675
Allowable Energy Purchase for sale within
State at approved Distribution Loss MU 8,643
Excess Energy Purchase MU 32
Average power purchase rate Rs/kWh 3.57
Excess Power Purchase Cost Rs. Crore 11.40
Share of loss/ (gain) to be borne by APDCL Rs. Crore 7.60
Share of loss/ (gain) to be borne by consumers Rs. Crore 3.80
Therefore, the Commission disallows two third of the excess power purchase
cost, i.e., Rs. 7.60 crore in the truing up for FY 2017-18, which will be borne by
APDCL, and one third of the excess power purchase cost, i.e., Rs. 3.80 crore is
passed on to the consumers as per the MYT Regulations, 2015.
4.7 O&M Expenses
4.7.1 APDCL submitted that it has incurred actual O&M expenses of Rs. 971.37 Crore
against the approved O&M expenses of Rs. 870.15 Crore for FY 2017-18, as shown
in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page54
Table 12: O&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Sl. No.
Particulars MYTOrder dt. 31.03.17
APDCL submission
1 Employee Expenses 728.12 802.39
2 Repair & Maintenance 103.21 124.26
3 Administrative & General Expenses 38.82 44.72
4 Total O&M expenses 870.15 971.37
Employee Expenses
4.7.2 APDCL submitted that Employee Expenses comprise salaries, dearness allowance,
bonus, terminal benefits in the form of contribution for pension and gratuity funding,
leave encashment, and staff welfare expenses.
4.7.3 APDCL referred to APR of FY 2017-18, passed vide Order dated March 19,2018 and
stated that the Commission had provisionally considered Rs. 28.88 Crore as impact
towards Revision of Pay (ROP). The ROP is applicable since April 2016, however,
implementation started from December 2017. Accordingly, salaries, etc., were paid at
the revised rates from December 2017onwards.The remaining pending arrears on
account of ROP will be paid along with the salaries for FY 2018-19.
4.7.4 APDCL submitted that the Employee Benefit Expenses’ in the books of accounts is
Rs. 742.06 Crore pertaining to FY 2017-18. The total arrears on account of ROP 17 to
be paid are Rs. 142.69 Crore, out of which Rs. 20.20 Crore have already been
released in FY 2017-18. The pending arrears on account of ROP are Rs. 122.67 Crore,
which will be released in FY 2018-19. Out of this, the pending arrears for FY 2016-17
and FY 2017-18 are Rs. 86.26 Crore and Rs. 36.23 Crore, respectively, which will be
released in FY 2018-19.
4.7.5 APDCL submitted that the pending arrears for FY 2017-18 is Rs. 36.23 Crore, which
should be included in the base expenses while projecting employee expenses for the
future based on norms (the entire increase in pay on account of ROP should be
considered in the base while projecting employee expenses for the future based on
norms). The provisioning done in the books of accounts for FY 2017-18 is Rs. 77.43
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page55
Crore (Schedule 2.09 of the Accounts).
4.7.6 APDCL has claimed normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18. The normative
Employee Cost works out to be Rs. 679.72 Cr after considering 3% escalation on
normative employee expenses over the previous year’s expenses. After addition of
ROP arrears amounting to Rs. 122.49 Crore, the total Employee Cost works out to be
Rs. 802.39 Cr.
Repair & Maintenance (R&M) Expenses
4.7.7 APDCL submitted thatR&M Expenses are incurred for daily upkeep of the distribution
network and forms an integral part of the Company's efforts towards reliable and
quality power supply.
4.7.8 APDCL submitted that most of its assets are old and not adequately maintained from
time to time, primarily due to restricted allowance in tariff for many previous years.
Regular maintenance of assets is a prerequisite to ensure uninterrupted operations.
APDCL has been trying its best to ensure uninterrupted operation of the system and
has accordingly been undertaking necessary expenditure for R&M activities.
Considering this fact, the expenditure incurred on R&M activities are uncontrollable in
nature.
4.7.9 APDCL has claimed actual expenditure of Rs. 124.26 Crore against the approved cost
of Rs. 103.21 Crore. The deviation in R&M Expenses from the approved level is mainly
due to:
• Restricted approval for R&M expenses based on MYT Regulations, irrespective of
the age and health of infrastructure for many previous years
• Outsourcing of O&M of many sub-stations due to severe human resource
constraints.
4.7.10 APDCL requested the Commission to approve the actual R & M expenses rather than
the normative R&M expenses linked to k-factor and WPI index.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page56
Administrative and General (A&G) Expenses
4.7.11 APDCL submitted that A&G Expenses comprise rents, taxes, various statutory
charges, telephone and other communication expenses, professional charges, legal
charges, conveyance & travelling allowance, etc.
4.7.12 APDCL has claimed the actual A&G Expenses of Rs. 44.72 Crore for FY 2017-18 as
per the Audited Annual Accounts, as against approved normative A&G expenses of
Rs. 38.82 Crore.
4.7.13 APDCL submitted that actual A&G expenses depends on the growth in the business
size requiring higher operational activity thereby resulting in higher expenses in addition
to the inflation factor. The increase is also due to the uncontrollable reasons like
increase in telephonic charges, water charges and increase in other statutory taxes,
etc., vis-à-vis lump sum amount approved as per the Regulations on normative basis.
4.7.14 APDCL requested the Commission to consider actual expenditure under the head of
A&G expenses, rather than normative A&G expenses linked to WPI as it does not
adequately cover the expenses.
Commission’s Analysis
4.7.15 In accordance with Regulation 38.3 of the MYT Regulations, 2015, the Commission in
MYT Order dated March 31, 2017 has allowed O&M Expenses on normative basis.
However, APDCL had adopted a dual approach in the Petition by claiming employee
expenses on normative basis and R&M and A&G expense on actual basis. For truing
up for FY 2017-18, the Commission has computed the O&M Expenses on normative
basis as per Regulation 38 of the MYT Regulations, 2015. Any variation between
normative O&M expenses and actual O&M Expenses has been considered under
sharing of gains and loss on account of controllable items as per Regulation 13 of MYT
Regulations, 2015.
4.7.16 The Commission observed that there has been no net addition in number of employees
during FY 2017-18, rather there has been net reduction in number of employees during
FY 2017-18 due to retirements. Therefore, growth rate is considered as NIL for
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page57
computing normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18.
4.7.17 For computation of normative employee expenses for FY 2017-18, the Commission
has adopted the following approach:
a) The employee expenses approved after True-up for FY 2016-17 have been
considered as base expenses.
b) CPI inflation has been computed as average increase of CPI index for the period
from FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17, which works out to 5.35%.
c) Considering that there has not been any net addition to the employee base in FY
2017-18, growth factor of 0% has been considered.
4.7.18 The normative employee expenses approved in the true-up for FY 2017-18 are shown
in the following Table:
Table 13: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT Order Approved
after true-up
Employee Expenses for Previous Year EMPn-1 659.40 640.20
Growth Factor Gn 3% 0%
CPI Inflation CPI 7.21% 5.35%
Employee Expenses 728.12 674.46
Therefore, the Commission approves Normative Employee Expenses of Rs.
674.46 crore for FY 2017-18.
4.7.19 Further, as regards arrears pertaining to ROP, APDCL submitted as follows:
“The total payment due on account of ROP for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 is
Rs. 142.69 Crores, out of which Rs. 20.20 Crores have already been released.
The remaining pending arrears of Rs. 122.49 Crores would be paid along with
the salaries for FY 2018-19. The payment of Rs. 20.20 Crores on account of
wage revision has been made along with the salaries for FY 2017-18”
4.7.20 From the above submission, APDCL has made actual payment of Rs. 20.20 Cr only
during FY 2017-18, against arrears for ROP. Accordingly, the Commission
approves Rs. 20.20 Cr against impact of ROP for FY 2017-18, over and above the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page58
normative employee expenses computed above.
4.7.21 For computation of R&M Expenses for FY 2017-18, the Commission has considered
the following approach:
a) The Commission has ignored the negative WPI Inflation rate of 3.65% for FY 2015-
16 and considered the average increase of WPI of FY 2014-15and FY 2016-17,
i.e.1.50%, for computation of R & M expenses.
b) K-factor governs the relationship between R&M expenses and Gross Fixed Assets.
The Commission has analysed the relationship between approved R&M expenses
and Gross Fixed Assets for the period from FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16 in the
previous MYT Order and had approved 3.50% for entire Control Period up to FY
2018-19. The Commission therefore continues to adopt the K-factor of 3.50% for
truing-up of FY 2017-18.
c) Since, K-factor has been considered on the basis of average GFA, for computation
of R&M expenses for FY 2017-18, average GFA for previous years has been
considered.
4.7.22 The normative R&M expenses approved for FY 2017-18 are shown in the following
Table:
Table 14: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT Order Approved
after true-up
Average GFA for previous year GFAn-1 2895.82 3,097.09
K Factor K 3.50% 3.50%
WPI Inflation WPI 1.83% 1.50%
R&M Expenses 103.21 110.02
Accordingly, the Commission approves R&M Expenses of Rs. 110.02 crore for
FY 2017-18.
4.7.23 For computation of A&G expenses for FY 2017-18, the Commission has adopted the
following approach:
a) The A&G expenses approved after True-up for FY 2016-17 have been considered
as base expenses.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page59
b) The Commission has ignored the negative WPI Inflation rate of 3.65% for FY 2015-
16 and considered the average increase of WPI of FY 2014-15 and FY 2016-17,
i.e.,1.50%, for computation of A&G expenses.
4.7.24 For FY 2017-18, the Commission had considered total provision of Rs. 3 Crore in the
MYT Order comprising Rs. 1 crore for consumer awareness initiatives, Rs. 1 crore for
special initiatives proposed by APDCL, and Rs. 1 crore for making the Consumer
Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) independent, in accordance with the AERC
(Redressal of Consumer Grievances) Regulations, 2016. In the MYT Order, the
Commission had specifically directed APDCL to maintain details of activities
undertaken under such special initiatives as well as maintain the expenses separately
and submit the same to the Commission at the time of true-up.
4.7.25 APDCL was queried on the same and was asked to provide details of the expenditure
done against these heads under A&G expenses. APDCL did not provide the required
details regarding how this additional provision of Rs. 3 Crore has been utilised. As the
necessary details and justification have not been submitted by APDCL, the same has
not been considered in the true-up for FY 2017-18.
4.7.26 The approved A&G expenses for FY 2017-18 is shown in the following Table:
Table 15: Approved A&G Expenses for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT Order
Approved
after true-up
A&G Expenses for Previous Year A&Gn-1 35.18 31.90
WPI Inflation WPI 1.83% 1.50%
Provision Provision 3.00 -
A&G Expenses 38.82 32.38
Therefore, the Commission approves A&G Expenses of Rs. 32.38 crore in the
true-up for FY 2017-18.
4.7.27 The normative O&M expenses approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 is shown
in the following Table:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page60
Table 16: Normative O&M Expenses approved by Commission for FY 2017-18
(Rs. Crore)
Sl
No Particulars
MYT
Order APDCL
Approved after
Truing up
1 Employee Expenses 728.12 802.39 674.46
2 R&M Expenses 103.21 124.26 110.02
3 A&G Expenses 38.82 44.72 32.38
Total 870.15 971.37 816.85
4.7.28 Further, Regulation 11.2 of MYT Regulations, 2015 specifies that O&M Expenses
(excluding terminal liabilities with regard to employees on account of changes in pay
scales or dearness allowance due to inflation) is a controllable factor. Hence, for
undertaking sharing of gains/losses, the Commission has excluded the terminal
liabilities from normative as well as actual employee expenses. Accordingly, terminal
liabilities are allowed on actual basis.
4.7.29 The sharing of losses/(gains)on account of O&M Expenses is shown in the following
Table:
Table 17: Sharing of losses/(gains) for O&M Expenses approved by the
Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Sl. Particulars Actual Normative
(Gains)/
Losses
1/3 of
(Gains)/
Losses
A b c = (b-a) d = c x 1/3
1 Employee Cost 742.06* 674.46
Less: ROP Arrears 20.20 0.00
Employee Cost excl. ROP 721.86 674.46 47.40 15.80 Less: Terminal Benefits 87.21 87.21 0.00 0.00
Employee Cost excl. Terminal
Benefits & ROP 634.65 587.25 47.40 15.80
2 Repair & Maintenance 124.26 110.02 14.24 4.75
3 Administrative& General Expenses 44.72 32.38 12.35 4.12
4 TOTAL 911.04 816.85 73.99 24.66
Note – * As per Statement of Accounts
No sharing of gains or losses has been considered for Terminal liabilities.
Since, actual O&M expenses are higher than the normative expenses, the net
loss of Rs. 24.66 Crore has been shared and passed on through ARR.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page61
4.8 Capital Investment & Capitalisation
4.8.1 APDCL submitted that actual Capital Expenditure of Rs. 735.32 Cr and Capitalization
of Rs. 211.46 Cr was achieved during FY 2017-18.
4.8.2 APDCL added that due to reasons such as delay in receipt of funds for various
schemes, deferred implementation of various schemes as per the last Business Plan,
delay in approval of schemes, etc. resulted in low capitalization during FY 2017-18.
Further, most of the schemes are being implemented in Packages (e.g. RGGVY/12th
plan package A/B/C, etc.). The capitalization is done only after completion of the entire
package.
Commission’s Analysis
4.8.3 APDCL was asked to submit the status of actual scheme-wise capital expenditure and
capitalisation achieved in FY 2017-18 as against the scheme-wise capital expenditure
and capitalisation approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 in the last Business
Plan/MYT Order.
4.8.4 APDCL was also asked to submit the actual scheme- wise funding of capitalized works
with break-up of Grants, Loans, Consumer Contribution, Equity, etc., cost-benefit
analysis of all the schemes undertaken, reasons for increase/(decrease) in cost of
projects as compared to approved cost, and reasons for delay in execution of the
projects.
4.8.5 APDCL submitted the details of capital expenditure and capitalization against the
schemes approved in Business Plan/MYT Order.
4.8.6 APDCL submitted that the actual capital expenditure in FY 2017-18 was Rs.735.32
crore and capitalisation achieved was Rs. 211.46 crore. APDCL added that the net
addition to Gross Fixed Assets (GFA) for computing depreciation was Rs. 20.18 crore,
while Rs. 186.25crore of asset addition was towards assets not belonging to APDCL,
and Rs. 5.03 crore was funded by Consumer Contribution.
4.8.7 Hence, for the purpose of ARR and tariff determination in this Order, the Commission
has considered the actual capitalisation of Rs. 211.46 crore as submitted by APDCL.
Accordingly, the Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page62
for FY 2017-18 is shown in the following Table:
Table 18: Capital Expenditure and capitalisation approved by the Commission (Rs.
Crore)
Particulars MYT Order Approved
after true-up
Opening CWIP 3,812.96 3,456.92
Capital Expenditure 1,000.00 735.32
Capitalisation 650.00 211.46
Closing CWIP 4,162.96 3,980.84
4.8.8 As regards the funding of capitalisation, the Commission has not considered any equity
funding based on APDCL’s submission. The grant and debt funding have been
considered as submitted by APDCL in its Petition, corresponding to the capitalisation
considered for tariff purposes in this Order. The funding of capitalized works, as
approved by the Commission is shown in the following Table:
Table 19: Funding of Capitalised Works approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT Order Approved
Grant 594.92 191.28
Equity - -
Debt 55.08 20.18
Total Capitalisation 650.00 211.46
Therefore, the Commission approves total Capitalisation of Rs. 211.46 crore in
the true-up for FY 2017-18.
4.9 Depreciation
4.9.1 APDCL submitted that the Opening GFA for FY 2017-18 as per Audited Accounts is
Rs. 3612.16 Crore. Depreciation has been calculated taking into consideration the
opening GFA as well as addition of assets during FY 2017-18 as per Audited Accounts.
4.9.2 APDCL submitted that out of the opening GFA, assets not belonging to the Company
is Rs. 1424.35 Crore and assets created out of Consumer Contribution is Rs.223.44
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page63
Crore.
4.9.3 APDCL submitted that while actual depreciation as per Companies Act is shown in
the Audited Accounts, the truing up claim has been made after re-calculating the
depreciation as per the MYT Regulations, 2015, as shown in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page64
Table 20: Depreciation Calculation for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Depreciation
Particulars As on
01.04.17
Net addition during
the year
Rate of Dep
Accumulated as on 01.04.17
Assets fully depreciated
On Opening Balance of GFA
On Addition of GFA
Total
Land & Rights
i) Land owned under full title 15.61 - - - - -
ii) Leasehold land 2.22 - 3.34% 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07
Subtotal: 17.83 - 0.07 - 0.07 0.00 0.07
Building 53.86 1.21 3.34% 20.49 - 1.80 0.02 1.82
Hydraulic - - -
Other Civil Works 54.39 0.25 3.34% 24.90 - 1.82 0.00 1.82
Plant & Machinery 589.64 7.41 5.28% 352.61 214.60 19.80 0.20 20.00
Lines & Cable Network 1194.58 9.07 5.28% 610.38 388.81 42.54 0.24 42.78
Vehicles 11.94 - 5.28% 10.55 11.23 0.04 - 0.04
Furniture & Fixtures 15.83 0.78 6.33% 10.53 9.20 0.42 0.02 0.44
Office Equipment 26.30 1.46 6.33% 19.41 16.80 0.60 0.05 0.65
SUB TOTAL 1,964.36 20.18 3.44% 1050.73 640.64 67.10 0.53 67.63
Add: Consumers contribution deducted
from service connection under O.H. lines
& cable network
223.44 5.03 5.28% 91.68 11.80 0.13 11.93
Add: Assets not belonging to the entity 1424.35 186.25 - - -
Total 3612.16 211.46 1,142.41 640.64 78.89 0.66 79.56
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page65
Table 21: Depreciation Claimed by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Grant for assets
not belonging
to entity
(RGGVY, MNRE
etc.)
Co
nsu
me
r
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n
Total
As on
01.04.2005
As on
01.04.2017Sub total
Grants Available - 1,911.09 1,911.09 3,211.21 223.44 5,345.73
GFA (excluding Consumer Contribution and assets
not belonging to company)1,095.63 868.73 1,964.36 1,424.35 223.44 3,612.16
CWIP - 2,897.86 2,897.86 106.21 3,004.07
Total 1,095.63 3,766.59 4,862.22 1,530.56 223.44 6,616.22
Cumulative grants apportioned in the ratio of GFA
and CWIP
GFA - 440.78 440.78 2,988.38 3,429.15
CWIP - 1,470.31 1,470.31 222.83 1,693.14
Total - 1,911.09 1,911.09 3,211.21 - 5,122.30
Depreciation calculated as per the Regulation on
the GFA 37.72 29.91 67.63 - 67.63
Weighted Average Rate of Depreciation (%) 3.44% 3.44% 3.44% -
Depreciation to be deducted on the assets built on
the grants component on 90% asset value - 15.17 15.17 - 15.17
Depreciation claimed 37.72 14.73 52.45 - - 52.45
State Govt. grant
As on 01.04.2017
Particulars
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page66
4.9.4 APDCL submitted that the depreciation of Rs.52.45 crore claimed by APDCL is based
on:
a) Rates of depreciation as notified in addendum to MYT Regulations 2015 are
considered;
b) As depreciation on assets created out of consumer contribution was not charged in
Profit and Loss account, the same has also not been considered for claim;
c) No funding from grant for Fixed Assets vis-à-vis CWIP transferred to APDCL
consequent to unbundling of erstwhile ASEB as on 1st April 2005. As such, total
depreciation on the opening balance of GFA as on Transfer Scheme dated 1stApril
2005 amounting to Rs. 37.72 Crore calculated at the weighted average rate of
3.44% is claimed in totality;
d) Depreciation on subsequent assets is claimed after apportionment of available
grant. Total amount of depreciation claimed on this account is Rs. 14.73Crore after
adjustment of funding from grant for Rs. 15.17 Crore.
e) As no depreciation has been claimed on assets created out of RGGVY, MNRE as
well as consumer contribution, grant received against such schemes are shown
separately with no claim of depreciation.
Commission’s Analysis
4.9.5 The Commission has considered the opening GFA for FY 2017-18 as per the closing
GFA value approved in True up of FY 2016-17, vide Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018.
The Commission has computed depreciation as per scheduled rates specified in the
MYT Regulations, 2015.
4.9.6 As per Regulation 33.2 of the MYT Regulations, 2015, the total depreciation during the
life of the asset shall not exceed 90% of the original cost of GFA. The Commission has
computed the depreciation separately for assets added under each asset head in each
year. The Commission has disallowed the depreciation on assets where depreciation
is in excess of 90% of the original cost of asset under different asset heads. The
Commission has not considered depreciation on assets funded through grants in
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page67
accordance with Regulations 31 and 33 of MYT Regulations, 2015, and in accordance
with the Commission’s own Orders and the Hon’ble APTEL Judgment in this regard.
4.9.7 Accordingly, the Commission has approved depreciation for FY 2017-18 as per MYT
Regulations, 2015, as given in the Table below:
Table 22: Depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Sl. Particulars Opening GFA
Addition
during the
year
Rate of
depreciation
Depreciation
as per MYT
Regulations,
2015
1 Land & Rights 15.61 1.04 -
2 Lease hold Land 2.22 - 3.34% 0.07
3 Building 53.86 1.21 3.34% 1.82
4 Plant & Machinery 589.64 7.41 5.28% 20.01
5 Vehicle 11.94 - 9.50% 0.03
6 Furniture & Fixtures 15.83 0.78 6.33% 0.45
7 Office Equipment 26.30 1.46 6.33% 1.51
8 Other Civil Work 54.39 0.25 3.34% 1.83
9 Lines & Cable Network 1,194.58 9.07 5.28% 41.91
10 Total 1,964.37 20.18 67.62
11 Asset excluding land 1,948.76 20.18
12
Less: Depreciation for
Grants/Consumer
Contribution
53.39
13 Net Depreciation Allowed 14.23
Therefore, the Commission approves Depreciation of Rs. 14.23 crore in the
truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.10 Interest and Finance Charges
4.10.1 APDCL submitted that the Commission had approved interest on loan capital for the
year on normative basis in its previous tariff orders. The normative closing loan of Rs.
432.80 Crores for FY 2016-17 as approved in the true-up of FY 2016-17 was
considered as the normative loan outstanding as on April 1, 2017 during APR of FY
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page68
2017-18.
4.10.2 APDCL added that the Commission considered the amount of loan converted under
UDAY to grant equivalent to the net normative loan outstanding as on April 1, 2016,
i.e., Rs. 343.06 Crores, as the net normative loan outstanding was lower than the
amount of loan converted to Grant by the GoA. APDCL further submitted that, at the
time of APR of FY 2017-18, the Commission did not consider any conversion of loan
to equity, as the entire net normative loan outstanding had been converted to grants.
4.10.3 Accordingly, the Commission had considered the net addition of loan during FY 2017-
18 as the sum of loan of Rs. 79.12 Crore taken for funding the capitalization during FY
2017-18 and the reduction of loan of Rs. 343.06 Crore due to conversion to grant.
Thus, the Commission had considered a net reduction of loan of Rs. 263.95Crore in
FY 2017-18. Further, the loan repayment was considered equivalent to depreciation
approved. The Commission had considered the interest rate of 9.40% for the balance
loan amount as proposed by APDCL in accordance with the UDAY MoU. Accordingly,
the Commission had approved interest charges of Rs. 27.41 Crore and finance
charges of Rs. 3.78 Crore, thereby allowing Rs. 31.19 Crore as interest and finance
charges during APR of FY 2017-18.
4.10.4 APDCL submitted that the UDAY MoU was executed on 4thJanuary 2017 and as
conversion of Government loan requires going through process up to the level of
Cabinet approval, the same did not materialize during FY 2017-18. As such, the benefit
of reduction in interest on Government Loan consequent to conversion as envisaged
could not be availed during FY 2017-18 and actual debt structure has prevailed till the
end of FY 2017-18.
4.10.5 APDCL further submitted that considering the previous Tariff Orders, APDCL has not
claimed interest on Govt. of Assam (GoA) loan, Interest on GPF and Interest on NPS.
4.10.6 The net interest expenses claimed by APDCL are shown in the Table below:
Table 23: Interest and Finance Charges as submitted by APDCL for FY 2017-18
(Rs. Crore)
Particulars Approved Actual APDCL Claim
Interest on GoA Loan 193.33 -
Interest on Bank Overdraft 7.30 -
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page69
Particulars Approved Actual APDCL Claim
Bank Charges 4.26 4.26
Interest on GPF 28.03 -
Interest on New Pension Fund 4.93 -
Interest on R-APDRP Loan 60.00 60.00
Less: Interest Capitalized 78.03 18.48
Total 31.19 219.82 45.78
Normative IWC claimed in the
petition 5.58
Actual IWC (Interest on Bank
overdraft) 7.30
Difference (1.72)
Net claim of Interest &Finance
Charges in this Petition 47.50
Commission’s Analysis
4.10.7 The Commission has approved Interest on loan capital for FY 2017-18 on normative
basis as per Regulation 35 of MYT Regulations, 2015. The closing net normative loan
of FY 2016-17 has been considered as the opening net normative loan of FY 2017-18.
Further, as the conversion of loans to grants as per UDAY MoU has not been
implemented in FY 2017-18, the Commission has not considered this impact, and has
allowed the interest on the outstanding loans. The Commission has considered the net
addition of loan during FY 2017-18 as Rs. 20.18 crore against funding of capitalization
submitted by APDCL. The loan repayment has been considered equivalent to
depreciation approved for FY 2017-18 in this Order. The Commission has considered
the interest rate of 10.62% based on the weighted average of actual loan portfolio at
the beginning of FY 2017-18, in accordance with the MYT Regulations, 2015.
4.10.8 As regards APDCL’s claim of the difference between actual and normative Interest on
Working Capital (IoWC) under Interest and Finance Charges, the Commission is of
the view that the same cannot be allowed, in accordance with the MYT Regulations,
2018. The Commission has allowed the normative IoWC as discussed subsequently
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page70
in this Chapter.
4.10.9 The interest and Financing Charges as approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18
is shown in the following Table:
Table 24: Approved Interest & Financing Charges for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2017-18
Net Normative Opening Loan 432.81
Addition of normative loan during the year 20.18
Normative Repayment during the year 14.23
Net Normative Closing Loan 438.75
Interest Rate 10.62%
Interest Expenses 46.28
Therefore, the Commission approves Interest on Loans of Rs. 46.28 crore in the
truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.11 Interest on Working Capital
4.11.1 APDCL submitted that IoWC has been calculated on normative basis in accordance
with the MYT Regulations, 2015, and claimed IoWC of Rs. 5.58 crore in the true-up for
FY 2017-18, considering the normative rate of interest of 12.60%.
Commission’s Analysis
4.11.2 The Commission has computed IoWC in accordance with Regulations 37.3 and 37.4
of the MYT Regulations, 2015. The amount of Consumer Security Deposit (CSD) has
been taken from the Audited Accounts. The rate of Interest has been considered equal
to State Bank of India Base Rate as on 1st April of FY 2017-18 plus 350 basis points,
i.e., 12.60%.
4.11.3 As stated earlier, APDCL has claimed interest on bank overdraft as well, over and
above the normative IWC. It may be noted that IWC is a normative parameter and
hence, only Normative IWC is allowed.
4.11.4 The IoWC approved by the Commission in the truing up for FY 2017-18 is shown in
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page71
the following Table:
Table 25: IoWC approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT
Order
True-up
Claimed
Approved
after true-
up
O&M Expenses-One month 72.51 80.95 68.07
2-month Receivables 839.05 793.24 874.88
Maintenance spares @ 15% of O&M
Expenses 130.52 145.71 122.53
Less: One-month Power Purchase Cost 364.69 375.53 375.50
Less: Consumer Security Deposit 579.25 600.04 683.63
Total Working Capital 98.14 44.32 6.35
Rate of Interest on WC 12.80% 12.60% 12.60%
Interest on WC 12.56 5.58 0.80
Therefore, the Commission considers IoWC of Rs. 0.80 Cr in the truing up for FY
2017-18.
4.12 Interest on Consumer Security Deposit
4.12.1 APDCL submitted that Rs. 47.57 Crore is the provision for Interest on Consumer
Security Deposit (CSD) and out of the same, Rs. 14.43 Crore has been actually
paid/adjusted during FY 2017-18. APDCL claimed the actual paid amount of Rs. 14.43
Crore against interest on CSD and requested the Commission to allow pass through
of the remaining amount as and when payment is made.
Commission’s Analysis
4.12.2 APDCL submitted the details of actual Opening and Closing balance of Consumer
Security Deposit (CSD) for FY 2017-18 and interest on CSD paid, as shown in the
Table below:
Table 26: Interest on CSD claimed by APDCL for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2017-18
Opening Balance of CSD 587.71
Additions during the Year 95.92
Closing Balance of CSD 683.63
Interest payable 48.44
Interest Actually Paid 14.43
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page72
The Commission approves the actual interest on CSD of Rs. 14.43 crore paid by
APDCL to the consumers, in the truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.13 Other Debits
4.13.1 APDCL submitted that the Commission has approved an amount of Rs. 12.42 Crore
as provision for bad and doubtful debts in the MYT Order dt. 31.03.2017. The actual
amount booked under various heads of “Other Debits” including Bad & Doubtful debts
written off is Rs.10.15Crore. The component-wise break up of expenses booked under
Other Debits is given in the Table below:
Table 27: Other Debits as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT Order APDCL
Compensation for injuries, deaths and damage of outsiders. - 1.34
Bad and doubtful Debt written off - 8.82
Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debts 12.42 -
Total: 12.42 10.15
Commission’s Analysis
4.13.2 The Commission has disallowed the Bad & Doubtful Debts Written off, in accordance
with past practice, as the actual write-off has to be done against the provision made
for the same in the Accounts. The Commission has also disallowed the amount paid
as compensation for injuries, deaths and damage to outsiders, as such expenses have
been incurred due to APDCL’s inefficient and unsafe practices and cannot be passed
on to the consumers through the ARR and tariff. The Commission has allowed
normative amount of 1% of receivables towards the provision for bad and doubtful
debts, in line with the MYT Regulations, 2015.
Therefore, under Other Debits, the Commission approves Provision for Bad
Debts of Rs. 12.35 crore in the truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.14 Net Prior Period Expenses/(income)
4.14.1 APDCL has claimed Net Prior Period Income of Rs. 21.20 Crore in the true-up for FY
2017-18 and submitted the details of each head of prior period expenses and prior
period income considered in the Audited Accounts of APDCL.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page73
Commission’s Analysis
4.14.2 The Commission has analysed the component-wise details and justification for Net
Prior period expenses/(income) for FY 2017-18 as submitted by APDCL. The
Commission has considered the treatment of prior period items based on the treatment
allowed to that item in the true-up of the year to which the expenses/(income) pertain.
4.14.3 The Commission has disallowed the prior period expenses/(income) towards
depreciation and interest and finance charges since, these expenses had not been
allowed by the Commission in the past Orders based on audited accounts and were
allowed on normative basis. Similarly, the Commission has not considered the Excess
Provision in Past Period as prior period income, as the Commission has not allowed
expenses against provisioning in the earlier Tariff Orders, and only prudent
actual/normative expenses have been allowed.
4.14.4 The Net prior period expenses/(income) submitted by APDCL and approved by the
Commission in the true up for FY 2017-18, are shown in the Table below:
Table 28: Prior Period Expenses/(Income) approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18
(Rs. Crore)
Sl.No. Particulars APDCL Approved
A Prior Period Expenses
1 Employee Cost related to Prior Period 0.00 -
2 Prior Period Depreciation Charges 0.02 -
3 Interest relating to Prior Period 9.61 -
4 Other charges relating to prior period 0.01 0.01
5 Sub-Total 9.64 0.01
B Prior Period Income
6 Interest Income for Prior Period 30.51 30.51
7 Excess Provision in Prior Period 0.32 -
8 Sub- Total 30.84 30.51
9 Net Prior Period Expenses/(Income) (21.20) (30.50)
Accordingly, the Commission approves the Net Prior Period Income of Rs. 30.50
Crore in the truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.15 Return on Equity
4.15.1 APDCL submitted that the Commission considered equity of Rs.162.77 Crore and
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page74
allowed return @16% on the equity base for FY 2017-18. APDCL submitted that
pending notification by GoA on Share Application Money amounting to Rs. 88.04 Crore
transferred from erstwhile ASEB to APDCL and Rs.0.63 Crore transferred on
dissolution of ASEB on 31-03-2013, it was restricting its claim to the amount allowed
by the Commission in the MYT Order. Accordingly, Rs 26.04 Cr is claimed as Return
on Equity.
Commission’s Analysis
4.15.2 As equity shares are yet to be issued against the Share Application Money Pending
Allotment, the Commission has not considered RoE on this amount, in line with the
practice followed in earlier Orders.
4.15.3 The RoE allowed by the Commission at 16% of the equity capital of APDCL is shown
in the following Table:
Table 29: RoE approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars MYT Order APDCL
Petition
Approved
after true up
Opening Equity 162.77 162.77 162.77
Net Addition during the Year 0.00 0.00 0.00
Closing Equity 162.77 162.77 162.77
Rate of Return on Equity 16.00% 16.00% 16.00%
Return on Equity 26.04 26.04 26.04
Therefore, the Commission approves RoE of Rs. 26.04 crore in the truing up for
FY 2017-18.
4.16 Other Income
4.16.1 The Commission had approved the Other Income at Rs. 172.96 Crore for FY 2017-18
in the MYT Order, whereas APDCL has submitted Other Income of Rs. 341.87 Crore
as per the Audited Accounts for FY 2017-18, with the head-wise details. APDCL
stated that the increase in Other Income was primarily due to income from sale
of surplus power, made possible due to export of seasonal power from allocated
sources on account of significant gap in demand during peak and off-peak
hours.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page75
Commission’s Analysis
4.16.2 On scrutiny of the Other Income claimed by APDCL, it is observed that APDCL
has not claimed Other Income pertaining to Revenue from sale of LED's, Tube
light, Fan, etc., of Rs 14.15 Crore. It is observed that for purchase of LED's,
Tube light, Fan, etc., APDCL has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 8.99 Crore and
thereafter, by selling the same, APDCL has earned revenue of Rs 14.15 Crore.
This has resulted in a Net Income of Rs. 5.16 Crore. Accordingly, the same is
considered as part of Other Income.
4.16.3 Further, APDCL has claimed Rebate on account of power purchase of Rs.
10.07 Crore as part of Other Income. However, the same is earned by APDCL
by timely payment of bills of power purchase. Therefore, the same is not
considered as part of Other Income.
4.16.4 As regards the remaining heads of Other Income, the Commission has considered the
actual Other Income as per the Audited Accounts in the true up for FY 2017-18.
The amount of Other Income considered in the MYT Order, amount claimed by
APDCL in the true up Petition and amount approved in the true up, is shown in
the Table below:
Table 30: Other Income approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Sl.No. Particulars MYT
Order APDCL Approved
1 Income from Investment, Fixed & Call Deposits
172.96
87.63 87.63
2 Income from Trading of Power 144.20 144.20
3 Net Revenue from sale of LED's, Tubelight Fan etc.
- 5.16
4 Rent from residential buildings 0.05 0.05
5 Receipt from Pension Trust 73.09 73.09
6 Rebate on account of power purchase 10.07 -
7 Miscellaneous receipts 26.83 26.83
8 Total 172.96 341.87 336.96
Therefore, the Commission approves Other Income of Rs. 336.96 crore in the
true up for FY 2017-18.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page76
4.17 Non-Tariff Income
4.17.1 APDCL submitted that it has earned Rs.233.20 Crore of Non-Tariff Income during FY
2017-18, as per the Audited Annual Accounts.
Commission’s Analysis
4.17.2 The Commission has considered the actual Non-Tariff Income as per the Audited
Accounts in the true up for FY 2017-18. The amount of Non-Tariff Income considered
in the MYT Order, amount claimed by APDCL in the true up Petition and amount
approved in the true up, is shown in the Table below:
Table 31: Non-Tariff Income for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Sl. Particulars MYT
Order Actual Approved
1 Rentals from Meters, Service Lines, Capacitors, etc.
166.28
21.29 21.29
2 Income from recoveries on account of theft of energy/ Malpractices
0.74 0.74
3 Delayed Payment Charges from Consumers 160.71 160.71
4 Miscellaneous Recoveries 21.63 21.63
5 Cross Subsidy Surcharge on Open Access Consumer
24.91 24.91
6 Wheeling Charges collected 3.92 3.92
Total 166.28 233.20 233.20
Therefore, the Commission approves Non-Tariff Income of Rs. 233.20 Crore based
on the Audited Accounts, in the truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.18 Revenue from Sale of Power
4.18.1 APDCL submitted that the revenue from sale of electricity in FY 2017-18 was Rs.
4369.35 Crore (excluding targeted subsidy) against the Commission approved
revenue of Rs. 5584.71 Crore in MYT Order dated March 31, 2017. APDCL added that
the lower recovery is primarily attributable to the negatively skewed sales mix as
compared to the approved sales mix. APDCL requested the Commission to consider
the net Revenue from sale of electricity of Rs. 4369.35 crore, excluding GoA targeted
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page77
subsidy of Rs. 390.10 crore, which has been considered separately, in the true up for
FY 2017-18.
Commission’s Analysis
4.18.2 APDCL, in its Petition, claimed Revenue from Sale of power as per the Statement of
Accounts, i.e., Rs. 4369.35 Crore (excluding targeted subsidy). Targeted subsidy
received from Govt. of Assam during FY 2017-18 was Rs. 390.10 crore, as recorded
in the Statement of Accounts. Thus, total revenue booked from sale of electricity is Rs.
4759.45 Crore.
4.18.3 APDCL had not submitted consumer category wise break-up of fixed charges, energy
charges and FPPPA for the revenue of Rs. 4759.45 Crore recorded in accounts of FY
2017-18. Considering the past trend of mismatch of Revenue, the Commission
directed APDCL for submission of category-wise, consumption slab-wise revenue from
fixed charges, demand charges, energy charges, revenue from FPPPA, State Govt.
subsidy and total revenue for FY 2017-18 during TVS.
4.18.4 In its reply, APDCL vide submission dated 27.12.2018, submitted that the total revenue
of Rs. 4759.45 Crore in FY 2017-18 includes revenue from Fixed Charge of Rs. 481.28
Crore, revenue from Energy Charge of Rs. 3888.07 Cr and Subsidy of Rs. 390.10 Cr.
On preliminary scrutiny of data, the Commission communicated the following
observations to APDCL and sought justification from APDCL:
a. Effective Energy charges per unit for all categories (computed by dividing the
revenue from energy charges in the category by the sales in that category/slab) is
not in line with the energy rate approved by the Commission in the MYT Order
dated March 31, 2017, for FY 2017-18 for the respective categories;
b. Average Billing Rate (ABR) reported by APDCL for FY 2017-18 is significantly
lower than the ABR calculated based on the category wise tariff approved by the
Commission in the MYT Order dated March 31, 2017.
4.18.5 APDCL submitted the following reply regarding under-recovery of ABR as compared
to that approved in the MYT Order dated March 31, 2017:
“The variation between approved and actual ABR is due to the less energy
requirements (8694 MU) as compared to the energy requirements (9544 MU)
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page78
approved in MYT order and correspondingly less energy sales (6814 MU) as
compared to the energy sales (7524 MU) approved in MYT order.”
4.18.6 The reply submitted by APDCL as reproduced above is incorrect and contradictory, as
reduction in category-wise sales would increase the category-wise ABR rather than
reduce the ABR, since the revenue from fixed charges, which is not linked to sales,
would get spread over lower quantum of sales.
4.18.7 APDCL was directed to clarify the difference in energy charge recovered and energy
charge approved. Thereafter, APDCL vide submission dated 29.01.2019, revised the
composition of the revenue and submitted that FY 2017-18 total revenue of Rs.
4759.45 Crore includes revenue from Fixed Charge of Rs. 309.02 Crore, revenue from
Energy Charge of Rs. 4060.33 Crore and Subsidy of Rs. 390.10 Crore.
4.18.8 It is pertinent to note that in addition to the above two submissions, APDCL also
submitted an MS-Excel document, where APDCL has shown a total revenue of
Rs.5244.64 Crore for FY 2017-18, with revenue from Fixed Charges of Rs. 776.92
Crore and Energy Charge of Rs. 4467.72 Crore.
4.18.9 The Commission is of the view that APDCL in its second reply dated 29.01.2019, has
matched the energy charge per unit approved in Tariff Order for FY 2017-18 by
reducing the recovery from fixed charges for FY 2017-18, by claiming that there were
linkage errors in the first reply submitted by them. APDCL also has not been able to
submit any satisfactory reply to the significantly lower ABR reported by APDCL as
compared to the ABR approved in the MYT Order dated March 31, 2017.
4.18.10 The revenue from fixed charges computed by the Commission based on the connected
load and contract/billed demand submitted by APDCL and tariff approved by the
Commission for FY 2017-18 works out to Rs. 755.12 Crore. APDCL had submitted
that the actual revenue from fixed charges was Rs. 481.28 Crore in its first reply. In its
second reply, in order to match the energy charge with the rates approved in the Tariff
Order, APDCL further reduced the revenue from fixed charge to Rs. 309.02 Crore,
which is less than half of the due revenue from fixed charge approved for that year.
4.18.11 It is evident that the quality of information being submitted to the Commission,
especially as regards commercial data related to sales and revenue is inconsistent
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page79
and contradictory and cannot be considered.
4.18.12 The Commission also had asked for the following additional information from APDCL:
a. Break-up of fixed and energy charges recovered under Option I and Option II of
HT-II Industries category;
b. ToD consumption data for FY 2017-18 and the ToD time-slot wise revenue from
each category.
4.18.13 APDCL did not submit both the above details, which would ideally form part of the
basic commercial data on sales and revenue.
4.18.14 The Commission for the purpose of approving revenue from sale of power for FY 2017-
18, has computed the revenue that APDCL should have earned at the approved Tariff
for FY 2017-18, by using the category-wise and slab-wise energy sales data and
connected load/contract load data submitted by APDCL.
4.18.15 It is observed that, APDCL should have earned a revenue of Rs. 4,494.14 Crore from
energy charge and Rs. 755.12 crore from fixed charge. The Commission believes that
based on the energy sales submitted by APDCL, there should have been complete
recovery of energy charges based on the rate approved in MYT Order dated March
31, 2017.As regards Fixed Charge recovery, there could be certain reasons why the
revenue from fixed charges is not exactly matching the revenue computed by the
Commission. However, the variation in revenue being sought by APDCL is extremely
high, at Rs. 274 crore. In absence of any reliable data regarding the revenue from fixed
charges, the Commission considers it reasonable to consider the average of the
revenue from fixed charge submitted by APDCL in its first reply (i.e., Rs. 481.28Crore)
and the revenue from fixed charge computed by the Commission (i.e. Rs. 755.12
Crore).. Accordingly, the Commission considers revenue from fixed charge at
Rs.618.06 Crore as against the computed revenue from fixed charge of Rs. 755.12
Crore. The Commission believes that the fixed charge recovery depends on factors
such as variation in billing demand which may vary frequently during the year and
therefore a conservative approach has been adopted while considering the computed
revenue from fixed charges for FY 2017-18.
4.18.16 Therefore, the Commission has considered a total Revenue from Sale of Power of Rs.
5112.14 Crore for FY 2017-18 as against APDCL claim of Rs. 4759.45 Crore
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page80
(including targeted subsidy).
Accordingly, the Commission approves the revenue of Rs. 5112 Crore in the
Truing up for FY 2017-18.
4.18.17 The mismatch between Revenue booked in the Accounts and the total Revenue
computed based on approved Tariff and Category wise sales and load, may be
because of under Billing or error in accounting of the category wise sales or a
combination of both. APDCL is directed to examine the matter on priority basis
and take necessary steps to avoid occurrence of such discrepancies in future.
4.19 Revenue Grant/Subsidy
4.19.1 APDCL submitted that it has received Targeted Subsidy of Rs.390.10 Crore for FY
2017-18. APDCL further submitted that it has also received Rs 330.30 Crore from
Government of Assam as Operational Fund Requirement (OFR) under UDAY
Scheme, however, the same is not to be utilised for meeting the Revenue Gap.
Accordingly, Rs 390.10 Cr is considered as targeted subsidy for FY 2017-18.
Commission’s Analysis
4.19.2 In the Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018, the Commission had observed that for
various reasons, APDCL was not able to meet its obligations to pay the power
purchase liabilities, and the GoA, as the owner of APDCL, has provided OFR cash
support under the terms of the UDAY MOU. Under these circumstances, the amount
of OFR support provided by GoA cannot be considered as Income for the purposes of
true up.
4.19.3 Further, as regards the Targeted Subsidy of Rs.390.10 Crore for FY 2017-18, the
Commission has considered Revenue at full tariff for the truing up of FY 2017-18,
additional amount of Targeted Subsidy is not considered as revenue.
4.20 ARR and Revenue Gap/(Surplus) after Truing Up of FY 2017-18
4.20.1 Considering the above heads of expense and revenue approved after truing up for FY
2017-18, the Net ARR and Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2017-18 is shown in the
following Table:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page81
Table 32: ARR & Revenue Gap/(Surplus) approved in the Truing up for FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
S.
No. Particulars
FY 2017-18
MYT
Order APDCL
Approved
in Trued
Up
1 Power Purchase Expenses 4,376.30 4,506.31 4,505.96
2 O&M Expenses 870.15 971.37 837.05
a) Employee Expenses 728.12 802.39 674.46
b) R&M Expenses 103.21 124.26 110.02
c) A&G Expenses 38.82 44.72 32.38
d Impact of ROP 20.20
3 Depreciation 21.93 52.46 14.23
4 Interest and Finance Charges 14.14 47.50 46.28
5 Interest on Working Capital 12.56 5.58 0.80
6 Interest on CSD 40.00 14.43 14.43
7 Return on Equity 26.04 26.04 26.04
8 Income Tax
9 Prior Period Expenses/(Income) - (21.20) (30.50)
10 Other Debits, incl Provisioning for Bad
Debts 12.42 10.15 12.35
11 Reduction in Power Purchase cost due
to excess losses (13.30) (7.60)
12 Sharing of gains/(losses) on account of
O&M expenses 24.66
12 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2014-15 657.96 657.96 657.96
13 Carrying Cost on Revenue
Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2014-15 179.29 179.29 179.29
14 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2015-16 354.52 354.52 354.52
15 Carrying Cost on Revenue
Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2015-16 45.38 45.38 45.38
16 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of FY 2016-17 (686.74) (686.74) (686.74)
19 Total Expenditure 5,923.95 6,149.75 5,994.11
20 Less: Non-Tariff Income 166.28 233.20 233.20
21 Less: Other Income 172.96 341.87 336.96
22 Aggregate Revenue Requirement 5,584.71 5,574.68 5,423.95
Revenue
23 Revenue at Approved Tariff 5,584.71 4,369.35 5,112.14
24 State Government Subsidy 390.10 -
26 Total Revenue including subsidy 5,584.71 4,759.46 5,112.14
27 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 815.22 311.81
The Commission approves Revenue Gap of Rs. 311.81 Crore in the truing up for
FY 2017-18 and the same is considered for adjustment during FY 2019-20.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page82
5 Annual Performance Review (APR) for FY 2018-19
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The Commission, vide its Order dated March 19, 2018approved the ARR and Tariff for
FY 2018-19. This Chapter deals with Annual Performance Review (APR) for FY 2018-
19 in accordance with the provisions of MYT Regulations, 2015.
5.1.2 Regulation 10.3 of the MYT Regulations, 2015, as amended in November 2017,
specifies that the Commission shall undertake the APR and True-up for the respective
years of the Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, as reproduced below:
“10.3 The scope of the annual review and True up shall be a comparison of
the actual performance of the Generating Company or Transmission Licensee
or SLDC or Distribution Licensee with the approved forecast of Aggregate
Revenue Requirement and expected revenue from tariff and charges and shall
comprise the following:
…
b) Annual Review: a comparison of the revised performance targets of
the applicant for the current financial year with the approved forecast in
the Tariff order corresponding to the Control period for the current
financial year subject to prudence check including adjusting trajectories
of uncontrollable and controllable items.” (emphasis added)
5.1.3 APDCL submitted the Annual Performance Review (APR) Petition for FY 2018-19,
supported by actual information available till September 2018 and estimated the next
six months values. APDCL has sought APR for FY 2018-19, with the estimated
Revenue Gap/(Surplus), to be recovered from the consumers.
5.1.4 However, from the above said Regulation, as amended in November 2017, it is clear
that the main objective of APR is to compare the actual performance for FY 2018-19
vis-à-vis approved forecast in the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19 dated March 19, 2018.
The Revenue Gap/(Surplus) arising out of APR for FY 2018-19 shall not be
passed onto the consumers, and the same shall be considered at the time of
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page83
Truing-up only.
5.1.5 In this Chapter, the Commission has analysed the revised submission of all the
components of ARR vis-à-vis approved values in Tariff Order for FY 2018-19. The
Commission has computed the Revenue Gap/(Surplus) as an indication of the
performance in FY 2018-19. No sharing of (gains)/ losses has been undertaken at
this stage and the same shall be considered at the time of Truing up for FY 2018-
19.
5.2 Energy Sales
5.2.1 The Commission vide Order dated March 19, 2018, had approved energy sales of
7784 MU. APDCL has submitted estimated energy sales for FY 2018-19, based on
the actual performance during first half (H1) of FY 2018-19, actual energy sales of FY
2017-18 and effect of implementation of SAUBHAGYA scheme.
5.2.2 The Petitioner submitted that as on November 2018, around 9,62,704 households
were pending for electrification in Assam. APDCL claimed in the Petition that the
pending households will be electrified by December 2018.
5.2.3 The Petitioner further submitted that, due to such electrification of households under
SAUBHAGYA Scheme, additional sales to Jeevan Dhara category would be 487 MU.
Therefore, APDCL has considered the additional sales over and above the 4-year
CAGR considered. The actual impact of the increase in sales due to SAUBHAGYA
implementation will be considered at the time of true-up of ARR for FY 2018-19.
5.2.4 For the rest of the categories, APDCL has considered 3-year,4-year, and 5-year
Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) along with year-on-year (y-o-y) growth, on
case to case basis for arriving at estimated sales figure for FY 2018-19. In cases where
the growth trend in recent years is negative, APDCL has considered 0% growth rate
for estimating sales for these consumer categories.
5.2.5 The following table shows the consumer category wise sales submitted by APDCL for
FY 2018-19.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page84
Table 33: Category-wise Energy Sales Projected by APDCL for the FY 2018-19 (MU)
Consumer Category Order dt.
19.03.2018
APDCL Submission
H1-FY 2018-19
(Actual)
FY 2018-19
(Estimated)
LT GROUP
JEEVAN DHARA 782 151 1207
DOMESTIC A 3163 1705 2890
Domestic-B 325 199 293
Commercial 754 416 669
General Purpose 125 74 99
Public Lighting 17 8 13
Agriculture 23 12 25
Small Industries Rural 80 42 72
Small Industries Urban 37 19 31
Temporary 9 3 8
LT TOTAL 5314 2628 5307
HT GROUP
HT Domestic 36 12 31
HT commercial 485 209 381
Public Water works 103 41 71
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst. 105 46 77
Bulk Supply Others 429 212 385
HT Small Industries 28 12 23
HT Industries 85 36 67
HT Industries-II 617 465 798
Tea, Coffee & Rubber 449 285 516
Oil & Coal 112 40 76
HT Irrigation Load 21 9 15
Electric Crematorium - 0.02 1
HT TOTAL 2470 1369 2442
GRAND TOTAL 7784 3998 7749
Commission’s Analysis
5.2.6 As elaborated in Chapter 4 of this Order, the Commission has considered the closing
number of Jeevan Dhara consumers for FY 2017-18 to be 15,79,385. APDCL has
claimed that there will be significant increase in Jeevan Dhara Consumers in H2 of FY
2018-19 due to implementation of SAUBHAGYA Scheme.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page85
5.2.7 The Commission asked APDCL to submit opening number of consumers, number of
additions and closing number of consumers for Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A
Category at the end of FY 2018-19. APDCL submitted that there will be 22,41,736
consumers at the end of FY 2018-19 for Jeevan Dhara Category.
5.2.8 APDCL in its reply to data gaps dated 31 January, 2019 submitted the status of
SAUBHAGYA scheme as on 25.01.2019, and stated that all the households within the
State of Assam have been electrified. Considering the same, the Commission accepts
the closing number of 22,41,736 consumers for Jeevan Dhara Category at the end of
FY 2018-19.
5.2.9 APDCL has submitted only 155 MU in H1 of FY 2018-19 for Jeevan Dhara Category
and projected 1207 MU for entire year of FY 2018-19 because of implementation of
SAUBHAGYA Scheme. In reply to the Commission’s query in this regard, APDCL
submitted that the lower consumption of 155 MU in H1 is due to higher consumption
in the summer months. The consumption for the Jeevan Dhara category normally
exceeds the normative consumption limit of 30 units/month and therefore sales for the
consumers under this category have been booked under Domestic A category. As per
APDCL the trend would not be same in H2.
5.2.10 The Commission asked APDCL to submit the break-up of sales in H1 and H2 in the
last three years for all consumer categories. The Commission observed that there is
no significant change in consumption pattern between H1 and H2 in the last three
years for Jeevan Dhara Category and the H2 sales have been almost in line with H1
sales. Therefore, there is no basis of APDCL’s contention that H1 sales is usually lower
than H2 sales for Jeevan Dhara Category, and that too to the extent projected by
APDCL.
5.2.11 However, considering the fact that a large number of households are stated to have
been electrified in H2 of FY 2018-19 and significant number of households fall in
Jeevan Dhara Category, the consumption is bound to increase in H2 as compared to
H1. The Commission has therefore adopted the same approach as that adopted in
true-up of FY 2017-18 for projecting the sales to Jeevan Dhara Category. The sales to
Jeevan Dhara consumers in FY 2018-19 have been projected based on the normative
monthly consumption of 30 units applied to the average number of opening and closing
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page86
number of Jeevan Dhara consumers during FY 2018-19.
5.2.12 For other consumer categories, the Commission has projected sales for FY 2018-19
based on growth rates applied on approved sales of FY 2017-18. In case the growth
trend in recent years is negative, the Commission has considered 0% growth rate for
such consumer categories. The growth rates considered for different consumer
categories for projecting sales of FY 2018-19 are as shown in the table below.
Table 34: Growth rates considered by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (MU)
Consumer Category Description Growth Rate
(%)
LT GROUP
DOMESTIC A 2-year CAGR 8.68%
Domestic-B above 5 kW to 20 kW 4-year CAGR 10.15%
Commercial Load above 0.5 to 20 kW 2-year CAGR 4.16%
General Purpose Load upto 20 kW Nil Growth 0.00%
Public Lighting Nil Growth 0.00%
Agriculture upto 7.5 HP YOY growth 14.54%
Small Industries Rural upto 20 kW 4-year CAGR 5.05%
Small Industries Urban Nil Growth 0.00%
Temporary 3-year CAGR 13.55%
HT GROUP
HT Domestic 20 kW and above Nil Growth 0.00%
HT commercial 20 kW & above 2-year CAGR 4.23%
Public Water works Nil Growth 0.00%
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst. Nil Growth 0.00%
Bulk Supply Others 4-year CAGR 1.02%
HT Small Industries up to 50 kW Nil Growth 0.00%
HT Industries-1 50kw to 150 kW Nil Growth 0.00%
HT Industries-II above 150 kW YOY growth 6.65%
Tea, Coffee & Rubber 3-year CAGR 6.57%
Oil & Coal Nil Growth 0.00%
HT Irrigation Load above 7.5 HP Nil Growth 0.00%
5.2.13 The category-wise sales estimated by the Commission for FY 2018-19 are given in the
Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page87
Table 35: Category-wise Energy Sales estimated by the Commission for FY 2018-19
(MU)
Consumer Category Order dt.
19.03.2018 APDCL Commission
LT GROUP
JEEVAN DHARA 782 1,207 688
DOMESTIC A 3163 2,890 3,095
Domestic-B above 5 kW to 25 kW 325 293 305
Commercial Load above 0.5 to 25 kW 754 669 653
General Purpose Load upto 25 kW 125 99 99
Public Lighting 17 13 13
Agriculture upto 7.5 HP 23 25 23
Small Industries Rural upto 25 kW 80 72 69
Small Industries Urban 37 31 30
Temporary 9 8 8
LT TOTAL 5314 5,307 4,983
HT GROUP
HT Domestic 25 kW and above 36 31 31
HT commercial 25 kW & above 485 381 367
Public Water works 103 71 71
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst. 105 77 76
Bulk Supply Others 429 385 387
HT Small Industries up to 50 kVA 28 23 23
HT Industries-1 50kw to 150 kVA 85 67 67
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA 617 798 748
Tea, Coffee & Rubber 449 516 516
Oil & Coal 112 76 76
HT Irrigation Load above 7.5 HP 21 15 15
HT Electric Crematorium - 1.0 0.5
HT TOTAL 2470 2,442 2,377
GRAND TOTAL 7784 7,749 7,360
Therefore, the Commission considers total sales of 7,360 MU for FY 2018-19.
5.3 Distribution Loss
5.3.1 APDCL submitted that, during the H1 of FY 2018-19, it has achieved loss level of
18.34%. Citing the electrifications under SAUBHAGYA Scheme, APDCL submitted
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page88
that it will not be possible to achieve the stipulated loss level of 16.85%. APDCL prayed
for considering the H1 loss of 18.34% for the entire year.
Commission’s Analysis
5.3.2 The Commission recognises the fact that the number of domestic category
connections shall increase significantly due to implementation of SAUBHAGYA
scheme, which may have an impact on the distribution loss.
5.3.3 APDCL has computed losses for H1 of FY 2018-19. However, the computation of
losses for only first half of FY 2018-19 does not give the correct picture of the
distribution losses in the system. Moreover, maximum connections to domestic
category under SAUBHAGYA scheme are stated to have been released in the second
half of FY 2018-19.
5.3.4 In view of the above, the Commission has considered the Distribution Loss for FY
2018-19 as approved in Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018, as shown in the Table
below:
Table 36: Distribution Losses approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19
Particulars
T.O. dt.
19.03.2018
APDCL
Projection Approved
Distribution Loss (%) 16.85% 18.34% 16.85%
5.4 Energy Balance
5.4.1 APDCL has submitted the Energy Balance for FY 2018-19 based on the distribution
loss of 18.34% calculated on the basis of actual energy sale and purchase during H1
of FY 2018-19. The Energy Balance for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL is shown
in the following Table:
Table 37: Energy Balance for FY 2018-19as projected by APDCL (MU)
Sl. Particulars T.O. dt.
19.03.2018 APDCL
1 Energy Sale (MU) 7784 7749
2 Distribution Loss (MU) 1577 1741
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page89
Sl. Particulars T.O. dt.
19.03.2018 APDCL
2.1 Distribution Loss (%) 16.85% 18.34%
3 Energy Requirements (MU) 9361 9490
4 Transmission Loss (MU) 334 338
4.1 Transmission Loss (%) 3.44% 3.44%
5
Total Energy for sale within the
State (MU) 9695 9828
6 Pooled Loss of PGCIL (MU) 144 146
6.1 Pooled Loss of PGCIL (%) 1.47% 1.47%
7 Total Energy Requirement (MU) 9839 9974
Commission’s Analysis
5.4.2 The Commission approves the Energy Balance for FY 2018-19 based on the
provisionally approved energy sales, approved Distribution Loss, approved
Transmission Loss trajectory for AEGCL, and proportionate PGCIL Losses on external
power purchase (based on actual PGCIL loss for FY 2017-18). The quantum of
Surplus Power sold outside the State has not been considered while computing the
Energy Balance, and the revenue from the same has been considered under Other
Income, as discussed subsequently in this Order. The Energy Balance approved by
the Commission in the APR for FY 2018-19 is shown in the Table below:
Table 38: Energy Balance for FY 2018-19 approved by the Commission (MU)
Sl. Particulars Tariff Order
dt. 19.03.18 APDCL Approved
1 Energy Sales 7784 7,749 7,360
2 Distribution Loss (%) 16.85% 18.34% 16.85%
3 Energy Requirement at
T<>D periphery 9,361 9,490 8,852
4 Intra State (AEGCL)
Transmission Loss (%) 3.44% 3.44% 3.44%
5 Energy input to
Transmission System 9,695 9,828 9,167
8 Inter-State (PGCIL) Pooled
Loss (%) 1.47% 1.47% 1.40%
9 Total Energy Requirement 9,839 9,974 9,297
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page90
Therefore, the Commission considers total Power Purchase Requirement of
9297 MU for FY 2018-19.
5.5 Power Purchase
5.5.1 APDCL submitted that it is largely dependent on APGCL and Central Generating
Stations to meet the Base Load, however, to meet the Peak demand of the State,
APDCL has tied up certain bilateral power and it also purchases power from Power
Exchanges from time to time to meet the deficit.
5.5.2 APDCL submitted that it has projected the source-wise power purchase for FY 2018-
19 based on the following assumptions:
➢ APGCL: APDCL has firm allocation from all the existing and upcoming power
plants of APGCL. For projecting the energy availability from these stations,
APDCL has considered the approved norms over the allocated capacity. The
fixed cost is considered as per the Tariff Order dated 19.03.2018 and the
variable charge is projected based on H1 data of FY 2018-19. Regarding
Myntriang SHEP, provisional tariff of Rs 2.18/kWh is considered (as approved
by the Commission).
➢ Central Generating Stations (NER & ER): The share allocation of the various
plants of CGS (NER) has been considered based on the latest REA, PLF is
considered based on the average of last 3-4 years actual generation and other
norms as per CERC is considered. The fixed cost is considered as per the
latest CERC Tariff Orders and the variable charge is projected based on H1
data of FY 2018-19. For Pare the provisional tariff of Rs. 5.00/kWh has been
considered.
➢ NTPC (BTPS): The third Unit of NTPC (BTPS) will commence operation is
second half of FY 2018-19. The tariff for H1 of FY 2018-19 is considered on
assumption basis for projecting cost, as the final tariff is yet to be passed by
the Commission.
➢ Other sources: The power availability and cost for other sources is considered
based on the existing contract and the rates of H1 of FY 2018-19. For HHPL
and SEIPL, the levelized tariff as approved by the Commission is considered.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page91
Generation from NVVNL Solar Bundled (JNNSM) and NVVNL Coal Bundled
(JNNSM) for H2 of FY 2018-19 has been considered equal to that of H1 in
FY2018-19. The Energy Charge Rate has been considered equal to the H1
average energy rate for the latest available six months. Trading purchase
quantum has been considered equal to that of H1. The balance quantum of
power purchase has been projected to be met from Power Exchanges, etc.
➢ Renewable sources: APDCL has projected to meet the RPO by mix of
purchase from renewable sources and REC purchase. The rates for Solar
RECs and Non-Solar RECs are considered at Rs. 1/kWh and Rs. 1.50/kWh,
respectively.
Commission’s Analysis
5.5.3 The Commission has estimated the source-wise quantum of purchase for FY 2018-19
based on the following:
a) APGCL Stations: The quantum has been considered same as that submitted
by APDCL in its Petition.
b) CGS: As regards Central Sector generating stations, the power purchase
quantum considered is same as the actual H1 purchase as submitted by
APDCL and H2 purchase is arrived by applying the average PLF and Auxiliary
Consumption as submitted by APDCL over the allocated capacity. Further, as
regards NTPC-BTPS, one-month generation is considered for the upcoming
third unit.
c) Other Sources: All other sources such as Renewables, IPP, bundled power
stations etc., the Commission has considered the quantum of power purchase,
same as projected by APDCL.
5.5.4 The Commission has considered the rate of purchase from various sources based on
the rate of power purchase provisionally approved for FY 2017-18, with the following
exceptions:
a) APGCL Stations: The cost has been considered same as that submitted by
APDCL in its Petition
b) CGS: As regards Central Sector generating stations, the power purchase cost
is considered same as the actual H1 cost as submitted by APDCL. H2 cost is
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page92
arrived by taking into consideration the latest Tariff Orders of these CGS
stations as issued by CERC till FY 2018-19. The energy charges are calculated
based on the Energy Charge Rate approved by CERC in respective Tariff
Order and applied the same on the quantum of purchase projected for H2. The
fixed charge however is calculated based on the allocated capacity of that plant
to APDCL.
d) For the other sources, the cost of power purchase is estimated to be same as
submitted by APDCL.
e) Transmission Charges have been considered as approved in the Tariff Order
for AEGCL dated March 19, 2018.
5.5.5 The Commission has considered the Solar RPO and Non-Solar RPO as 5% and 6%,
respectively, for FY 2018-19, in accordance with the RPO Regulations, and considered
purchase of Solar RECs and Non-Solar RECs at the rate of Rs. 1 /kWh, i.e. the present
floor price.
5.5.6 The source-wise power purchase quantum and costs provisionally approved by the
Commission in the APR for FY 2018-19, is shown in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page93
Table 39: Power Purchase Quantum and Cost approved by the Commission for the FY 2018-19
Source
Tariff Order 19.03.2018 APDCL Approved
Quantum (MU)
Cost (Rs. Cr.)
Average Rate (Rs. / kWh)
Quantum (MU)
Cost (Rs. Cr.)
Average Rate (Rs.
/ kWh)
Quantum (MU)
Total Cost (Rs.
Crore)
Average Rate (Rs. / kWh)
APGCL NET 1959.26 592.13 3.02 1525.55 517.22 3.39 1,526.24 503.83 3.30
CSGS NER
Kopili HEP 516.50 48.70 0.94 606.58 60.75 1.00 564.66 58.54 1.04
Kopili HEP - II 55.90 6.20 1.11 53.15 7.12 1.34 65.74 8.05 1.22
Khandong HEP 139.10 20.30 1.46 129.57 20.68 1.60 136.84 21.24 1.55
RHEP 580.90 146.20 2.52 510.49 106.08 2.08 617.34 117.40 1.90
DHEP 114.10 48.90 4.29 116.35 52.91 4.55 133.74 57.72 4.32
AGBPP 801.40 267.90 3.34 801.00 280.11 3.50 800.98 280.11 3.50
AGTPP 317.10 109.10 3.44 261.46 82.99 3.17 261.46 82.99 3.17
AGTPP2
NHPC 226.10 69.50 3.07 221.40 64.34 2.91 221.42 64.34 2.91
OTPC 1259.30 409.20 3.25 1370.68 436.09 3.18 1,371.11 436.16 3.18
NTPC, BTPS 912.70 485.41 5.32 1558.63 962.00 6.17 1,558.63 962.00 6.17
NTPC, BTPS Unit-III 141.47 90.39 6.39 47.16 30.13 6.39
Pare HEP 178.12 89.11 5.00 178.12 89.11 5.00
CSGS NER GROSS 4923.10 1611.33 3.27 5948.89 2252.58 3.79 5,957.2 2207.79 3.71
CSGS ER
Farakka 269.68 102.60 3.80 200.14 66.09 3.30 200.34 66.16 3.30
Kahalgaon I 141.74 49.12 3.47 191.44 64.31 3.36 191.35 64.28 3.36
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page94
Source
Tariff Order 19.03.2018 APDCL Approved
Quantum (MU)
Cost (Rs. Cr.)
Average Rate (Rs. / kWh)
Quantum (MU)
Cost (Rs. Cr.)
Average Rate (Rs.
/ kWh)
Quantum (MU)
Total Cost (Rs.
Crore)
Average Rate (Rs. / kWh)
Kahalgaon II 568.68 197.90 3.48 445.21 144.03 3.24 445.05 143.98 3.24
Talcher 144.15 36.65 2.54 145.37 41.85 2.88 145.53 35.60 2.45
CSGS ER GROSS 1124.25 386.27 3.44 982.16 316.28 3.22 982.27 310.02 12.35
OTHERS
HHPCPL (Champawati) 8.67 3.56 4.11 7.79 3.20 4.11 7.79 3.20 4.11
MeECL 0.68 0.54 7.94 0.38 0.26 6.80 0.38 0.26 6.80
SECI Solar 35.55 22.25 6.26 33.26 20.51 6.17 33.26 20.51 6.17
JNNSM Solar Bundled 7.83 9.63 12.30* 10.28 12.22 11.88 10.28 12.22 11.88
Suryatap Solar 6.51 5.08 7.80 6.31 5.54 8.78 6.31 5.54 8.78
JNNSM Coal Bundled 36.48 11.87 3.25* 34.96 9.30 2.66 34.96 9.30 2.66
TRADING PUR_NET 596.90 217.37 3.64 596.90 217.37 3.64
Power Exchanges 1736.89 521.07 3.00 771.00 360.46 4.68 771.00 360.46 4.68
DSM 56.44 17.89 3.17 56.44 17.89 3.17
Additional Solar RPO (RECs) 25.58 31.37 19.04
Additional Non-solar PO(RECs) 45.34 20.47 12.88
OTHERS 1832.61 644.92 3.52 1517.32 698.58 4.60 1517.32 678.66 4.47
TOTAL PURCHASE 9839.22 3234.65 3.29 9973.93 3784.67 3.79 9,983.01 3,700.30 3.71
Transmission & SLDC Charges 1160.64 1020.81 1160.64
Total Power Purchase Cost 9839.22 4395.29 4.47 9973.93 4805.48 4.82 9,983.01 4,860.94 4.87
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page95
Therefore, the Commission considers total Power Purchase Cost of Rs. 4860.94
crore for FY 2018-19.
5.6 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses
5.6.1 The O&M expenses include Employee Expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expenses.
APDCL submitted the O&M expenses calculated on normative basis, as shown in the
Table below:
Table 40: O&M Expenses projected for FY 2018-19 by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Tariff Order
dt. 19.03.18 APDCL
Employee expenses 869.33 861.83
A&G expenses 38.52 47.87
R&M Expenses 146.40 130.56
Total O&M Expenses 1054.25 1040.26
Employee Expenses
5.6.2 APDCL has adopted the following approach for estimating Employee Cost:
a) The employee expenses approved after true-up for FY 2017-18 have been
considered as base expenses for FY 2018-19
b) CPI inflation has been computed as average increase of CPI for the period from
FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18, which works out to 4.28%
c) Considering the growth in the number of employees in FY 2018-19, growth factor
of 3% has been considered
d) The ROP is applicable from April 2016; the implementation of ROP in APDCL has
taken place in December 2017, consequently, the impact of ROP is effected in the
salaries for the period from April’18 onwards. APDCL submitted that the impact of
ROP has been considered in the employee expenses for FY 2017-18 and
therefore, the same is not being considered separately in the revised employee
expenses in the APR for FY 2018-19.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page96
5.6.3 The Employee Cost as projected by APDCL for FY 2018-19 is shown in the table
below.
Table 41: Employee Expenses projected for FY 2018-19 by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars TO dt.
19.03.2018 APDCL
Employee Expenses of Previous year Emp n-1 694.69 802.39
Growth Factor Gn 3% 3%
CPI Inflation CPI 5.35% 4.28%
Subtotal 753.81 861.83
Provision against ROP 16 115.52 -
Total 869.33 861.83
5.6.4 APDCL has projected the Employee expenses of Rs.861.83 Crore, for FY 2018-19.
Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Expenses
5.6.5 APDCL has projected R&M expenses at Rs.130.56 Crore for FY 2018-19based on
Regulation 38 of the MYT Regulations, 2015. APDCL has proposed the value of ‘K’ as
3.50% and the WPI has been considered as 0.33%. The R&M expenses projected by
APDCL are shown in the Table below:
Table 42: R&M Expenses for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Tariff Order
dt. 19.03.18 APDCL
Average GFA of previous year 4,144.04 3717.89
K factor 3.50% 3.50%
WPI inflation 0.94% 0.33%
R&M Expenses 146.40 130.56
Administrative and General (A&G) Expenses
5.6.6 APDCL has projected A&G expenditure at Rs.47.87 Crore for FY 2018-19based on
Regulation 38 of the MYT Regulations, 2015. The Petitioner has considered WPI of
0.33% and a provision of Rs. 3 Crores in FY 2018-19. The A&G expenses projected
by APDCL are shown in the Table below:
Table 43: A&G Expenses for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Tariff Order dt.
19.03.18 APDCL
A&G Expenses for previous year 35.19 44.72
WPI inflation 0.94% 0.33%
Provision 3.00 3.00
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page97
Particulars Tariff Order dt.
19.03.18 APDCL
A&G Expense 38.52 47.87
Commission’s Analysis
5.6.7 The Commission has computed the normative O&M Expenses for FY 2018-19 as per
Regulation 38 of the MYT Regulations, 2015. Any variation between normative O&M
expenses and actual O&M Expenses shall be considered under sharing of gains and
losses on account of controllable items as per Regulation 13 of the MYT Regulations,
2015 at the time of truing up for FY 2018-19.
5.6.8 For computation of employee expenses for FY 2018-19, the Commission has adopted
the following approach:
a) The employee expenses approved after True-Up for FY 2017-18 have been
considered as base expenses for FY 2018-19.
b) CPI inflation has been computed as average increase of CPI index for the period
from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18, which works out to 4.28%.
c) Considering the actual number of employees in FY 2018-19, it is observed that
there is net reduction in the number of employees as retirements are higher than
new employees joined during the year. Hence, growth factor of 3% has not been
considered.
d) Further, ROP has been implemented and during FY 2018-19, APDCL has made
payment of salaries based on revised pay scale. Therefore, to arrive at Employee
Cost for FY 2018-19, as per the revised pay scale, the Commission has used the
following methodology:
▪ Step-1: Arrive at base figure for FY 2017-18 based on the revised pay scale:
Add the pending arrears of Rs. 36.23 Cr (to be paid in FY 2018-19)
pertaining to FY 2017-18 to the actual Employee cost of Rs. 742.06 Cr for
FY 2017-18 (as per Audited Statement of Accounts)
▪ Step-2: Apply the CPI inflation rate over the base figure of FY 2017-18
5.6.9 Accordingly, the normative employee expenses approved for FY 2018-19 are shown
in the following Table:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page98
Table 44: Approved Employee Expenses for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2018-19
Employee Expenses for Previous Year
as per revised pay scale EMPn-1 778.29
Growth Factor Gn 0%
CPI Inflation CPI 4.28%
Employee Expenses on revised pay
scale 811.62
5.6.10 APDCL has submitted that over and above the normative employee expense, the
pending ROP arrears pertaining to previous years are being paid during this year.
Accordingly, the pending arrears for previous years (FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18),
i.e., Rs. 122.67 Crore has been considered separately.
5.6.11 The Commission directs APDCL to submit the actual impact on account of ROP, along
with detailed justification and documentary evidences on the basis of Audited Accounts
of FY 2018-19 at time of Truing up.
Therefore, the Commission approves Employee Expenses of Rs. 811.62 Crore
for FY 2018-19 and arrears pertaining to ROP of Rs. 122.67 Crore, subject to
prudence check at the time of Truing up.
5.6.12 For computation of R&M Expenses for FY 2018-19, the Commission has considered
the following approach:
a) The Commission has ignored the negative WPI Inflation rate of 3.65% for FY 2015-
16 and considered the average increase of WPI of FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18,
i.e., 2.33% for computation of R & M expenses;
b) K-factor has been considered as 3.50% as approved in MYT Order. Since, K-factor
has been computed on the basis of average GFA, for working out R&M expenses
for FY 2018-19, average GFA for previous year has been considered.
5.6.13 The normative R&M expenses approved for FY 2018-19 are shown in the following
Table:
Table 45: Approved R&M Expenses for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2018-19
Average GFA for previous year GFAn-1 3729.09
K Factor K 3.50%
WPI Inflation WPI 2.33%
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page99
Particulars FY 2018-19
R&M Expenses 133.55
Therefore, the Commission approves R&M Expenses of Rs. 133.55 crore for FY
2018-19.
5.6.14 For computation of A&G expenses for FY 2018-19, the Commission has adopted the
following approach:
a) The A&G expenses approved after Truing up for FY 2017-18 have been
considered as base expenses for FY 2018-19.
b) Similar to R&M expenses, WPI inflation has been considered as 2.33%.
c) In Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018, the Commission had approved an additional
expense provision of Rs. 3 Crores for FY 2018-19. However, APDCL was not able
to provide sufficient details of expenditure for the amount that was approved
additionally. Therefore, for APR of FY 2018-19, no provision has been considered.
However, these will be considered at the time of truing up, if APDCL can
substantiate the same
5.6.15 The normative A&G expenses approved for FY 2018-19 are shown in the following
Table:
Table 46: Approved A&G Expenses for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2018-19
A&G Expenses for Previous Year A&Gn-1 32.38
WPI Inflation WPI 2.33%
Provision Provision 0
A&G Expenses 33.13
Therefore, the Commission approves A&G Expenses of Rs. 33.13 crore for FY
2018-19.
5.7 Capital Investment& Financing of Capital Investment
5.7.1 APDCL submitted that it has estimated the capital expenditure and capitalisation in the
APR for FY 2018-19 based on the estimates of the capital expenditure works carried
out till date.
5.7.2 APDCL submitted that a total Capital Expenditure of Rs. 3572.06 Crore will be made
during FY 2018-19. APDCL proposed to capitalise Rs. 3355.87 Crore during FY 2018-
19. APDCL submitted the following:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page100
Table 47: Capital expenditure and Capitalization as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Approved in
TO 19.03.18
APDCL
submission
Opening CWIP 4205.28 3421.72
Capital Expenditure 1433.86 3572.06
Capitalization 756.21 3355.87
Closing CWIP 4882.93 3,637.91
5.7.3 APDCL has assumed that 70% of the capital expenditure shall be capitalised in the
same year and 30% shall be capitalised in the next year. Capitalisation of the opening
CWIP has been considered at Rs.855.43 Crore.
5.7.4 APDCL also submitted the funding pattern of the capital expenditure/capitalization
through combination of loan and grant whereby around 10% would be loan and 90%
would be grant.
Commission’s Analysis
5.7.5 APDCL submitted the scheme-wise break-up of capital expenditure proposed to be
incurred during FY 2018-19. It is observed that out of the total capital expenditure of
Rs. 3572.06 Crore proposed by APDCL, Rs. 2271.24 Crore is to be spent in
implementation of SAUBHAGYA scheme.
5.7.6 The Commission sought break-up of lines and sub-stations along with their individual
cost falling under each scheme and also asked APDCL to map each of the schemes
with respect to the approval given by the Commission in the Business Plan Order for
the Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.The Commission also asked
APDCL to submit the cost-benefit analysis of each scheme, purpose of investment,
efficiency improvement sought from implementation of the scheme and delays in
execution of these projects.
5.7.7 The Commission did not receive satisfactory reply to the queries raised on capital
expenditure and capitalization proposed by APDCL.
5.7.8 The Commission had also directed APDCL to submit the details of the scheme-wise
Capital Expenditure made till date during FY 2018-19. APDCL, however, vide reply
dated 5 February, 2019, submitted the same figures as claimed in the Petition for
capital expenditure and capitalization for FY 2018-19,stating that the actual capital
expenditure is in line with that projected in the Petition for FY 2018-19.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page101
5.7.9 The Commission would like to highlight the inconsistencies that have been found in
the data submitted by APDCL. The Commission during the processing of APR of FY
2017-18 had asked APDCL to submit actual capitalization in H1 of FY 2017-18.
APDCL had replied that the actual capitalization during H1 of FY 2017-18 is
Rs.1,608.84 Crore, as reflected in Table No. 54 of the Tariff Order dated March 19,
2018.The Commission had therefore, approved higher capitalization in APR for FY
2017-18 based on the actual capitalisation in H1 of FY 2017-18, as submitted by
APDCL. However, the actual capitalization as per accounts for FY 2017-18 was only
Rs. 211.46 Crores. Therefore, the provisional data submitted by APDCL cannot be
relied upon. The Commission therefore, has not accepted the provisional capital
expenditure and capitalization numbers submitted by APDCL in the APR of FY 2018-
19.
5.7.10 The Commission has analysed the past trend of Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation
by APDCL, as shown in the table below:
Table 48: Trend of Capital Expenditure and Capitalization (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Capex during the year 780 758 550 1035 735
Capitalisation 54 64 649 1053 211
Closing GFA 1,841 1,905 2,554 3,607 3,817
5.7.11 It is observed from the above that APDCL has achieved maximum Capitalisation of
Rs. 1053 Crore during FY 2016-17 against a maximum Capital Expenditure of Rs.
1035 Crore during the same year. During the last 3 years, APDCL has achieved
average Capitalisation of Rs. 650 Crore.
5.7.12 Considering the above, the Commission deems it fit to consider Capital Expenditure
of Rs. 1000 Crore and Capitalisation of Rs. 650 Crore for APR of FY 2018-19.
However, APDCL has the liberty to incur Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation higher
than the amount approved in APR for FY 2018-19 based on its requirement. The
Commission shall approve the Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation at the time of
truing up based on prudence check.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page102
Table 49: Capital Expenditure and capitalisation approved by the Commission
in APR of FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Tariff Order
dt. 19.03.18
APDCL
Petition
Approved in
APR
Opening CWIP 4205.28 3421.72 3,980.84
Capital Expenditure 1433.86 3572.06 1,000.00
Capitalisation 756.21 3355.87 650.00
Closing CWIP 4882.93 3,637.91 4330.84
5.7.13 As regards the funding of capitalisation, the Commission has not considered any equity
funding. The grant and debt funding have been considered in the ratio of 90:10 in line
with APDCL’s submissions.
5.7.14 The funding of capitalized works, as approved by the Commission is shown in the
following Table:
Table 50: Funding of Capitalised Works for FY 2018-19 considered by the
Commission (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Tariff Order
dt. 19.03.18
Approved in
APR
Grant 716.77 585.00
Equity - -
Debt 39.44 65.00
Total Capitalisation 756.21 650.00
Therefore, the Commission provisionally approves Capitalisation of Rs. 650.00
crore for FY 2018-19.
5.8 Depreciation
5.8.1 APDCL submitted that Depreciation has been claimed in accordance with the MYT
Regulations, 2015, after apportionment of depreciation for assets created out of
consumer contribution. APDCL added that the assets which have been depreciated to
the extent of 90% of original cost are excluded from the asset base for the purpose of
calculating depreciation.
5.8.2 Depreciation on subsequent assets is claimed after apportionment of available grant.
As no depreciation has been charged on assets created out of RGGVY, MNRE as well
as consumer contribution, grant received against such schemes are shown separately
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page103
with no claim of depreciation. The depreciation projected by APDCL for FY 2018-19
is shown in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page104
Table 51: Depreciation calculation for FY 2018-19 as submitted by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
ParticularsAs on
01.04.18
Net addition
during the
year
Rate of DepAccumulated as
on 01.04.18
Assets fully
depreciatedOn OB
On
AdditionTotal
Land & Rights
i) Land owned under full title 15.61 - - - - -
ii) Leasehold land 2.22 - 3.34% 0.14 0.07 - 0.07
Sub total: 17.83 - 0.14 - 0.07 - 0.07
Building 55.07 19.28 3.34% 24.10 - 1.84 0.32 2.16
Hydraulic - - - - - -
Other Civil Works 54.64 4.01 3.34% 26.72 - 1.82 0.07 1.89
Plant & Machinery 597.05 117.58 5.28% 372.61 214.60 20.19 3.10 23.30
Lines & Cable Network 1,203.65 143.91 5.28% 653.16 388.81 43.02 3.80 46.82
Vehicles 11.94 - 5.28% 10.59 11.23 0.04 - 0.04
Furniture & Fixtures 16.61 12.32 6.33% 10.97 9.20 0.47 0.39 0.86
Office Equipment 27.76 23.20 6.33% 20.06 16.80 0.69 0.73 1.43
SUB TOTAL 1,984.55 320.30 3.86% 1,118.36 640.64 68.16 8.42 76.57 Ad d : Consumers contribution deducted from
service connection under O.H.lines & cable
network
228.47 79.85 5.28% 103.61 12.06 2.11 14.17
Ad d : Assets not belonging to the entity 1,610.60 2,955.72 - - -
3,823.62 3,355.87 1,221.97 640.64 80.22 10.52 90.74
(All amount in Rs. Crores) Depreciation
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page105
Table 52: Depreciation claimed by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Grant for assets
not belonging
to entity
(RGGVY, MNRE
etc.)
Co
nsu
me
r
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n
Total
As on
01.04.2005
As on
01.04.2018Sub total
Grants Available - 2,448.86 2,448.86 3,873.68 228.47 6,551.01
GFA (excluding Consumer Contribution and assets
not belonging to company)1,095.63 888.92 1,984.55 1,610.60 228.47 3,823.62
CWIP - 3,421.72 3,421.72 3,421.72
Total 1,095.63 4,310.63 5,406.26 1,610.60 228.47 7,245.33
Cumulative grants apportioned in the ratio of GFA
and CWIP
GFA - 504.99 504.99 3,873.68 4,378.67
CWIP - 1,943.87 1,943.87 - 1,943.87
Total - 2,448.86 2,448.86 3,873.68 - 6,322.54
Depreciation calculated as per the Regulation on
the GFA 42.27 34.30 76.57 - 76.57
Weighted Average Rate of Depreciation (%) 3.86% 3.86% 3.86% -
Depreciation to be deducted on the assets built on
the grants component on 90% asset value - 19.48 19.48 - 19.48
Depreciation claimed 42.27 14.81 57.09 - - 57.09
Particulars
State Govt. grant
As on 01.04.2018
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page106
Commission’s Analysis
5.8.3 For computation of depreciation, the Commission has considered the closing GFA for
FY 2017-18 as approved in this Order as the Opening GFA for FY 2018-19. The
Commission has approved capitalization of Rs. 650 Crore for FY 2018-19. The
Commission has considered the funding ratio as submitted by APDCL for FY 2017-18,
for computation of funding of capitalization of Rs. 650 Crore in FY 2018-19.
5.8.4 The Commission has considered the scheduled depreciation rates as specified in MYT
Regulations, 2015.As per Regulation 33.2 of the MYT Regulations, 2015, the total
depreciation during the life of the asset shall not exceed 90% of the original cost of
GFA. The Commission has computed the depreciation separately for assets added
under each asset head in each year. The Commission has disallowed the depreciation
on assets where depreciation is in excess of 90% of the original cost of asset under
different asset heads. The Commission has not considered depreciation on assets
funded through grants in accordance with Regulation 31 and 33 of MYT Regulations,
2015.
5.8.5 In view of the above, the Commission has approved depreciation for FY 2018-19 as
per MYT Regulations, 2015, as given in the Table below:
Table 53: Depreciation approved for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Sl. Particulars Opening
GFA
Addition
during
the year
Rate of
depreciation
Depreciation
as per MYT
Regulations,
2015
1 Land & Rights 15.61
2 Leasehold Land 2.22 3.34% 0.07
3 Building 55.07 38.97 3.34% 2.49
4 Plant & Machinery 597.05 238.68 5.28% 26.50
5 Vehicle 11.94 - 9.50% 0.03
6 Furniture & Fixtures 16.61 25.12 6.33% 1.27
7 Office Equipment 27.76 47.03 6.33% 3.04
8 Other Civil Work 54.64 8.05 3.34% 1.96
9 Lines & Cable Network 1,203.65 292.15 5.28% 49.86
10 Total 1984.55 650.00 85.24
11 Less: Depreciation for
Grants/Consumer Contribution 70.99
12 Net Depreciation Allowed 14.24
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page107
Accordingly, the Commission considers Depreciation of Rs. 14.24 crore for FY 2018-19.
5.9 Interest and Finance Charges
5.9.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected interest and finance charge based on the
existing source-wise loans outstanding, repayment schedule and prevailing interest
rates.
5.9.2 APDCL submitted that it has loans mainly from Government of Assam and from PFC
(which are mainly for R APDRP). APDCL submitted that UDAY scheme is expected to
materialize in FY 2018-19 as PIB of Assam has already given in-principle approval.
5.9.3 APDCL submitted that it has considered the impact of UDAY in FY 2018-19 and has
accordingly reduced the interest charges in FY 2018-19 for loan from GoA. However,
the R-APDRP loan is not covered under UDAY scheme and therefore interest on such
loan is claimed by APDCL.APDCL submitted interest and finance charges for FY 2018-
19 as shown in the Table below:
Table 54: Interest and Finance Charges as submitted by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs.
Crore)
SI. No.
Particulars
FY 2018-19
TO dt. 19.03.18
APDCL’s Claim
1 Interest on State Govt. Loan
19.10
4.81
2 Bank Charges 4.26
3 Interest on GPF -
4 Interest on New Pension Fund -
5 Interest on R-APDRP Loan 76.53
6 Less: Interest Capitalised 25.06
7 Other borrowing cost -
8 Total 19.10 60.55
Normative IWC claimed in this petition 15.01
Actual interest on WC 7.30
Difference 7.70
Net claim for Interest & Finance charges in this Petition
52.84
Commission’s Analysis
5.9.4 Interest on loan for FY 2018-19 is required to be allowed on normative basis as per
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page108
Regulation 35 of MYT Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the normative closing loan for
FY 2017-18 of Rs. 438.75 crore is considered as the normative loan outstanding as
on April 1, 2018.
5.9.5 The Commission accepts the submission of APDCL and has assumed that UDAY
scheme shall materialize in FY 2018-19. The Commission has computed the impact
of implementation of UDAY in FY 2018-19.
5.9.6 The following table shows the impact of UDAY scheme considered in APR of FY 2018-
19.
Table 55: Impact of UDAY Scheme for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2018-19
Total GoA loan outstanding during FY 2016-17 (at the time of
signing of MoU) 1,510.04
Total Loans to be taken over as per UDAY scheme (75% of
the outstanding loans) 1,132.53
Total Loan to be converted to Grant (75% of the total amount
of loan to be taken over by Govt. under UDAY) 849.40
Normative Outstanding loan at the beginning of FY 2018-19 438.75
Normative Loan to be converted to Grant 438.75
Addition of Loan during the year (10%of capitalization) 65.00
Net Additions to Equity on account of conversion from
loan to Equity Nil
5.9.7 The Commission has considered the normative addition of loan during FY 2018-19 as
Rs. (373.75) crore, after considering the impact of UDAY as shown in the table above.
Further, the loan repayment has been considered equivalent to depreciation approved
for the respective year approved in this Order.
5.9.8 APDCL has considered the interest rate of 9.40% for FY 2018-19, since it has
assumed that UDAY shall be implemented from FY 2018-19. However, it is observed
that the UDAY scheme had not materialized till December 2018 and is expected to get
implemented in last 2-3 months of FY 2018-19. Therefore, it would not be appropriate
to consider the interest rate of 9.40% for entire year of FY 2018-19.
5.9.9 The Commission therefore considered the weighted average interest rate of 10.95%
based on actual loan portfolio of APDCL. However, the Commission has considered
the Interest rate of 9.40%for the next Control Period, i.e., FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page109
As stated in the previous Chapter, there is no provision for allowing the difference
between normative IoWC and actual IoWC in the ARR, and hence, the same has not
been considered in the Interest and Finance Charges.
5.9.10 The interest on loan capital as considered by the Commission for FY 2018-19 is shown
in the following Table:
Table 56: Approved Interest on Loan Capital for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2018-19
Net Normative Opening Loan 438.75
Less: Loan converted to Grant 438.75
Addition of normative loan during the year 65.00
Normative Repayment during the year 11.67
Net Normative Closing Loan 53.33
Interest Rate 10.95%
Interest Expenses 26.81
Therefore, the Commission considers Interest on Loans of Rs. 26.81 crore for
FY 2018-19.
5.10 Interest on Working Capital
5.10.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected IoWC in accordance with the MYT Regulations
2015, as Rs. 15.01 crore for FY 2018-19, considering the interest rate of 12.20%.
Commission’s Analysis
5.10.2 The Commission has computed IoWC in accordance with Regulations 37.3 and 37.4
of the MYT Regulations, 2015. The rate of Interest has been considered equal to State
Bank of India Base Rate as on 1st April of 2018 plus 350 basis points i.e., 12.20%.
5.10.3 The IoWC approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 is shown in the following
Table:
Table 57: IoWC approved by the Commission for the FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars TO dt.
19.03.18
APDCL APR
FY 2018-19
One month of the amount of O&M
expenses 87.85 86.69 72.50
Two months’ equivalent of the expected
revenue from sale of electricity 953.44 928.75 913.28
Maintenance spares @15% of O&M 158.14 156.04 130.50
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page110
Particulars TO dt.
19.03.18
APDCL APR
FY 2018-19
expenses
Less: One-month Power Purchase Cost 366.27 400.46 405.08
Less: Amount held as CSD 647.96 648.00 717.81
Total Working Capital Requirement 185.19 123.02 (6.61)
Rate of Interest 12.60% 12.20% 12.20%
Interest on Working Capital 23.33 15.01 -
Therefore, the Commission considers ‘Nil’ IoWC for FY 2018-19 as the normative
Working Capital requirement works out to be negative.
5.11 Interest on Consumers’ Security Deposit
5.11.1 APDCL has considered the closing CSD amount as per the books of accounts for FY
2017-18, i.e., Rs. 683.63 Crore, as the opening CSD for FY 2018-19. APDCL has
claimed interest on CSD in accordance with the amendment to Regulation 35.9 of the
MYT Regulations, 2015.
5.11.2 APDCL has claimed the Interest on CSD of Rs. 57.77 Crore, as against Rs. 15.37
Crore approved in Tariff Order dated 19.03.2018.
Commission’s Analysis
5.11.3 The Commission has also considered the opening balance of FY 2018-19 same as
the closing balance of CSD approved in this Order. The Commission observed that
the interest on CSD actually paid is much lesser that the interest accrued based on
the security deposit with APDCL.
5.11.4 The Commission, therefore for the purpose of APR of FY 2018-19 has considered the
same amount as approved in Tariff Order dated 19.03.2018. The Commission shall
consider the actual amount of Interest on CSD at the time of truing-up of FY 2018-19.
Therefore, the Commission considers Interest on CSD of Rs. 15.77crore for FY
2018-19 as approved in previous Tariff Order.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page111
5.12 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts
5.12.1 APDCL submitted that as per Regulation 94.9 of MYT Regulations, 2015, the provision
for bad debts may be considered as 1% of the amount shown as receivables in the
audited accounts of that year.
5.12.2 The trade receivables appearing in audited accounts are Rs. 1235.47 Crore, therefore
APDCL has claimed 1% of Rs. 1235.47 Crores, i.e., Rs. 12.35 Crore as Provision for
Bad and Doubtful Debts in the APR of FY 2018-19.
Commission’s Analysis
5.12.3 The Commission accepts the contention of APDCL and provides the amount of 1% of
the receivables reflecting in the audited accounts of FY 2017-18 as provision for bad
and doubtful debts for FY 2018-19. The value shall be subject to change as and when
the actual audited receivables of FY 2018-19 are available.
Therefore, the Commission considers provision for bad and doubtful debts of
Rs. 12.35crore for FY 2018-19.
5.13 Return on Equity
5.13.1 APDCL submitted that existing base of Equity is Rs. 162.77 Crore. The share
application money pending allotment amounting to Rs. 88.04 Crore transferred from
erstwhile ASEB on transfer of trading function to APDCL w.e.f. 01-04-2009 and Rs.
0.63 Crore transferred on dissolution of ASEB on 31- 03-2013 was not considered by
the Commission in its Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018.
5.13.2 Anticipating the notification by Govt. of Assam on the share application money pending
allotment, equity capital of Rs. 88.68 Crore has been considered as part of the equity
capital base.
5.13.3 APDCL submitted that it has considered that the existing loans from GoA to the extent
of Rs.283.13 Crore shall be converted to equity, in accordance with UDAY scheme.
The rate of return has been considered as 16% as specified in the MYT Regulations,
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page112
2015. APDCL has not considered any other equity addition during FY 2018-19.
5.13.4 The RoE projected by APDCL for FY 2018-19 is shown in the Table below:
Table 58: Return on Equity projected by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Approved in TO
19.03.18
APR
submission
Opening Equity 162.77 162.77
Net Addition during the Year - 371.81
Closing Equity 162.77 534.58
Average Equity 162.77 348.68
Rate of Return on Equity 16.00% 16.00%
Return on Equity 26.04 55.79
Commission’s Analysis
5.13.5 The Commission has approved the Return on Equity in accordance with Regulation
34 of the MYT Regulations, 2015. The Commission has considered the closing equity
of FY 2017-18 as trued up in this Order, as the opening equity for FY 2018-19.
5.13.6 As far as the impact of UDAY is concerned, the Commission observed that since the
entire normative loan outstanding as at the beginning of FY 2018-19 shall be converted
to grant based on the explanation given in the previous Chapter of this Order. There
shall be no normative loan left to be converted to equity.
5.13.7 The Commission has therefore considered the addition of equity as Nil during for FY
2018-19, based on the funding of capitalisation approved in this Order and the impact
of UDAY derived in this Order. The Return on Equity for FY 2018-19 at 16% is shown
in the Table below:
Table 59: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Sr. No. Particulars Approved
1 Opening Equity Capital 162.77
2 Equity addition during the year -
3 Closing Equity 162.77
5 Rate of Return on equity 16.00%
6 Return on Equity 26.04
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page113
Therefore, the Commission considers RoE of Rs. 26.04 crore for FY 2018-19.
5.14 Non-Tariff Income
5.14.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected Non-Tariff Income considering escalation of 5%
p.a. over the actual Non-Tariff Income for FY 2017-18, as shown in the Table below:
Table 60: Non-Tariff Income as submitted by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Sl. Particulars TO dt.
19.03.2018 APDCL
1 Rentals from Meters, Service Lines, Capacitors etc. 23.14 22.35
2 Income from recoveries on account of theft of
energy/ Malpractices 0.31 0.78
3 Delayed payment charges from Consumers 155.20 168.75
4 Misc. Recoveries 26.14 22.71
5 Cross Subsidy surcharge on Open Access
Consumer 10.46 26.16
6 Wheeling charges collected 3.06 4.12
Total 218.32 244.86
Commission’s Analysis
5.14.2 The Commission has considered the Non-Tariff Income for FY 2018-19 as submitted
by APDCL in its Petition.
Therefore, the Commission considers Non-Tariff Income of Rs. 244.86 crore for
FY 2018-19.
5.15 Other Income
5.15.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected Other Income considering escalation of 5% p.a.
over the Other Income for FY 2017-18, except income on sale of surplus power.
5.15.2 In case of income from sale of surplus power, APDCL has considered amount of
Rs.56.75 Crore as per actual H1of FY 2018-19. APDCL has not projected any amount
for H2 of FY 2018-19. Accordingly, APDCL proposed Rs. 253.73 Cr as Other Income,
as shown in the table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page114
Table 61: Other Income as submitted by APDCL for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Approved in
TO 19.03.18 APDCL
Interest from banks and investment 92.01
Receipt from sale of LED bulb,
Tubelight, Fan etc. -
Rent from residential buildings 0.05
Miscellaneous receipts 28.17
Bad and doubtful debts provided for -
dues from consumers -
Receipt from Pension Trust 76.74
Income on seasonal export of surplus
power/Revenue from Sale of Power –
IEX
56.75
Total 159.63 253.73
Commission’s Analysis
5.15.3 The Commission has considered annual increase of 5% over the Other Income for FY
2017-18 approved in this Order, for all heads of Other Income, except Income on Sale
of Surplus Power.
5.15.4 The Commission has considered income from sale of surplus power based on the
difference between the approved power purchase quantum and energy required for
sale to consumers within the State. The following table shows the income from sale of
surplus power considered by the Commission.
Table 62: Revenue from sale of surplus power
Particulars Unit Approved
Total energy purchased during FY 2018-
19 as approved in power purchase MU 9983
Total Energy requirement for APDCL as
approved in Energy Balance MU 9297
Additional Energy available for sale to
outside State MU 686
Per unit rate for sale of surplus energy for
FY 2018-19 (derived after escalating
actual per unit rate of sale of surplus
power for FY 2017-18)
Rs/unit 2.26
Revenue from sale of Surplus power Rs. Crore 154.83
5.15.5 The surplus energy has been considered to be sold at the rate of Rs. 2.26 per unit,
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page115
which is derived after escalating the FY 2017-18 average rate for sale of surplus power
by 5%.
Accordingly, the Commission considers Other Income of Rs. 357.23 crore for FY
2018-19.
5.16 Revenue from sale of electricity at existing Tariff
5.16.1 APDCL has projected the Revenue at existing tariff by adding the actual revenue from
sale of power for H1 of FY 2018-19, with the estimated revenue from sale of power for
H2 of FY 2018-19.
5.16.2 APDCL has submitted that the revenue from sale of power for H2 of FY 2018-19 is
arrived at by applying the approved Tariff over the projected category-wise sales for
H2 of FY 2018-19. Accordingly, APDCL has projected a total of Rs. 5572.53 Crore as
revenue from sale of power for FY 2018-19.
Commission’s Analysis
5.16.3 The Commission has estimated the Revenue from sale of electricity at existing tariff
based on the projected sales and applicable tariff, as per the Tariff Order dated March
19, 2018 and the projected category-wise sales for FY 2018-19. The Commission has
considered the full-cost tariff, without considering any Targeted Subsidy, for the
purposes of estimating the revenue from sale of electricity at existing tariff. No FPPPA
has been considered as part of the existing tariff, as the FPPPA is zero at present.
5.16.4 The Revenue from Sale of Electricity from existing tariff as submitted by APDCL and
as computed by the Commission for FY 2018-19 is given in the Table below:
Table 63: Revenue from Sale of Electricity for FY 2018-19 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars APDCL Petition Approved
Revenue from Sale of Electricity 5572.53 5479.67
5.17 Targeted Subsidy from GoA
5.17.1 APDCL has not projected any amount pertaining to Targeted Subsidy separately for
FY 2018-19.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page116
Commission’s Analysis
5.17.2 As stated above, the Commission has considered the full-cost tariff, without
considering any Targeted Subsidy, for the purposes of estimating the revenue from
sale of electricity at existing tariff. Hence, the Commission has considered the revenue
from Targeted Subsidy as NIL for FY 2018-19.
5.18 Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Revenue Gap/(Surplus)
5.18.1 Considering the above heads of expense and revenue provisionally approved in the
APR for FY 2018-19, the summary of ARR as submitted by APDCL and as considered
by the Commission for FY 2018-19 is given in the Table below:
Table 64: ARR & Revenue Gap/(Surplus) considered by the Commission for FY 2018-19
(Rs. Crore)
Sl. Particulars TO dt.
19.03.18
APDCL
Petition
APR for FY
2018-19
1 Power Purchase Expenses 4395.29 4805.48 4,860.94
2 O&M Expenses 1054.26 1040.26 1,100.97
a) Employee Expenses 869.33 861.83 811.62
b) R&M Expenses 146.40 130.56 133.55
c) A&G Expenses 38.52 47.87 33.13 Impact of ROP 122.67
3 Depreciation 26.66 57.09 14.24
4 Interest and Finance Charges 19.10 52.84 26.81
5 Interest on Working Capital 23.33 15.01 -
6 Interest on CSD 15.37 57.77 15.37
7 Return on Equity 26.04 55.79 26.04
8 Other Debits, incl. Provisioning for
Bad Debts 14.42 12.35 12.35
9 Total Expenditure 5574.47 6096.58 6,056.73
10 Less: Non-Tariff Income 218.32 244.86 244.86
11 Less: Other Income 159.63 253.73 357.23
12 Aggregate Revenue Requirement 5196.52 5597.99 5,454.64
Revenue
13 Revenue at Approved Tariff 5830.18 5572.53 5,479.67
14 State Government Targeted Subsidy
15 Total Revenue 5830.18 5572.53 5,479.67
16 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) (633.66) 25.47 (25.03)
17 Differential Revenue Gap after true-up
for FY 2016-17 487.88 487.88 487.88
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page117
Sl. Particulars TO dt.
19.03.18
APDCL
Petition
APR for FY
2018-19
18 Net Carrying cost of FY 2016-17 in FY
2018-19 36.22 36.22 36.22
19 Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus)
for FY 2018-19 (109.56) 549.57 499.07
20 Adjustment in Tariff for FY 2018-19 109.56 -
21 Final Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY
2018-19 0.00 549.57 499.07
Accordingly, the Commission has arrived at a Revenue Gap of Rs. 499.07 Crore
after APR of FY 2018-19. The same will be adjusted after truing up of FY 2018-
19.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page118
6 Capital Investment Plan for the MYT Control Period
6.1 Capital Investment Plan for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 proposed by APDCL
6.1.1 APDCL has submitted the Capital Investment Plan for the MYT Control Period from
FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 under different schemes, for undertaking various works for
improvement of the distribution network. In anticipation of timely completion of various
projects, no escalation has been considered in the project cost over the Control Period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
6.2 Assam Power Sector Enhancement Investment Program (APSEIP)
6.2.1 The details of schemes envisaged under the Assam Power Sector Enhancement
Investment Program (APSEIP) and Assam Power Sector Investment Program (APSIP)
for the improvement of the distribution network are shown in the table below:
Table 65: Project details of APSEIP-T-4 Loan No. 3200-IND AND APSIP-T-2
Loan No. 3327-IND
Loan Projects Project Cost
(Rs Cr)
APSEIP-T-4
Loan No
3200-IND
20 no. substations, augmentation of 5 no. 33/11 kV
substations, R&M work in 12 no. substations,
construction of 477 km 33 kV line, 730 km of 11 kV
line, 31 km of 11 kV ABC line, supply of 18 no. mobile
T&C vehicles equipped with T&C equipment, and
installation of 8572 no. modems in high value
consumers for remote metering
428.62
APSIP-T-2
Loan no
3327-IND
Construction of 1 no. 33/11 kV substation, 141 km of
33 kV line, 11 km of 11 kV line, 20 nos. of 33 kV
terminal bays, re-conductoring and R&M work for 955
km of 33 kV line, 1000 km of 11 kV line, 1555 km of
LT line, replacement of oil filled DTRs with 204 nos.
dry DTRs, replacement of HT and LT overhead lines
by UG cables in 14 km, installation of 2 nos. Area
Load Dispatch Centres, and installation of 1 no. meter
testing laboratory in Assam Engineering College
314.66
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page119
6.2.2 The above projects are entirely funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB) and
Government of Assam (GoA) and both the project loans will close in FY 2019-20.
Therefore, APDCL has considered only the balance CAPEX during FY 2019-20 as
shown below:
Table 66: Capital Expenditure - APSEIP-T-4 3200-IND and APSIP-T-2 3327-IND (Rs
Crore)
Name of the Scheme FY 2019-20
CAPEX Loan Equity Grant
APSEIP-T-4 Loan No. 3200-IND 48.00 - - 48.00
APSIP-T-2 Loan no 3327-IND 73.00 - - 73.00
6.3 State Annual Plan
6.3.1 This is an on-going scheme. The works under the State Annual Plan primarily include
improvement of distribution system by construction of new substations and addition of
distribution lines, renovation of existing substations, replacement of damaged
transformer and installation of new transformer, bifurcation of 11 kV feeder, etc. The
works also include roof top interactive Solar PV station, individual home lighting system
through mini solar power plant, smart street lighting Solar project in identified urban
area, Grid Interactive/Stand-Alone Roof Top/Ground Mounted SPV power plant, etc.
The works to be undertaken also include replacement of existing bamboo/wooden
poles in HT/LT network of APDCL and upgradation of low-lying substations prone to
floods, construction of dedicated feeder for tea garden, etc.
6.3.2 The funds for the projects under the State Annual Plan are received from the
Government of Assam.
Table 67: Capital Expenditure - State Annual Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
State Annual Plan 200.20 220.22 242.00
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page120
Table 68: Funding - State Annual Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
State Annual Plan 20.02 - 180.18 22.02 - 198.20 24.20 - 217.80
6.4 NEC Plan
6.4.1 The works under the NEC Plan primarily include construction of 33/11kV, 2x5 MVA
sub-station along with associated 33kV, 11kV and LT Feeder at Bishnupur Panch Ali
under Dhemaji Elect. Division, Assam. The total project cost is Rs. 10.25 Crore.
6.4.2 The project started in 2017 and scheduled date of completion is November 2018.
APDCL proposed to spend the remaining Rs. 2.61 Cr during FY 2019-20. The funding
is in the form of grant from NEC.
Table 69: Capital Expenditure - NEC Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
NEC Plan 2.61 - -
Table 70: Funding - NEC Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
NEC Plan - - 2.61 - - - - - -
6.5 Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY)
6.5.1 It is the rural electrification scheme initiated by the Govt. of India. In Assam, RGGVY
is applicable in 16 districts in the State. Total sanctioned cost of funds under RGGVY
XIIth Plan is Rs. 1621.06 Crore. Of the total funds of Rs. 890.18 Crore released under
the scheme upto 31st March 2018, 90.24% funds have been utilised till 31st March
2018. In FY 2018-19, upto 31st August 2018, Rs. 946.30 Crore have been released,
out of which 96.64% funds have been utilised.
6.5.2 APDCL has proposed to utilise the remaining funds in FY 2019-20 itself, therefore no
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page121
further capital expenditure is proposed in future years.
Table 71: Capital Expenditure - RGGVY Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
RGGVY Plan 674.76 - -
Table 72: Funding - RGGVY Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
RGGVY Plan 67.48 - 607.28 - - - - - -
6.6 Deendayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY)
6.6.1 Total sanctioned cost of funds under DDUGJY Plan is Rs. 1267.74 Crore. Of the total
funds of Rs. 312.19 Crore released under the scheme upto 31st March 2018, 63.24%
funds have been utilized upto 31st March 2018. Upto 31st August 2018, Rs. 337.36
Crore has been released, out of which 70.30% funds have been utilized.
6.7 DDG Project
6.7.1 This project comprises the Micro Grid System (SPV) and the Standalone System. The
total sanctioned cost of DDG (DDUGJY) is Rs. 273.18 Crore. Under DDG (DDUGJY),
an amount of Rs. 120.20 Crore has been released upto 31.03.2018, of which 78.28%
funds have been utilized upto 31st March 2018. Upto 31st August 2018, an amount of
Rs. 126.10 Crore has been released, out of which 87.93% funds have been utilized.
Table 73: Capital Expenditure –DDUGJY and DDG Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
DDUGJY Plan 930.38 - -
DDG Project 147.70 - -
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page122
Table 74: Funding - DDUGJY and DDG Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
DDUGJY Plan 93.04 - 837.34 - - - - - -
DDG Project 14.77 - 132.93 - - - - - -
6.8 Integrated Power Development Scheme (IPDS)
6.8.1 The scheme launched by Government of India (GoI) aims mainly to strengthen the
sub-transmission and distribution system, including provisioning of solar panels,
metering of distribution transformers, feeders and consumers in the urban areas and
IT enablement of distribution sector for completion of targets given under R-APDRP
for XIIth and XIIIth Plans. IPDS focuses on 24x7 power supply for consumers, reduction
of AT&C losses and providing access to all urban households.
6.8.2 A grant of 85% will be provided by Government of India (GoI) and remaining15% will
be own funds under IPDS.
6.9 R-APDRP Project
6.9.1 The Government of India approved the R-APDRP during XIth Plan as a Central Sector
scheme. The key objective of this scheme is to expedite the reform process in the
distribution segment.
6.9.2 Funds for the projects under R-APDRP are provided as loan from the Government,
which is convertible to grants on fulfilling certain performance criteria. 100% of the
project cost in case of Part-A projects and 25% for the Part-B projects is provided as
normal loan from the Government on which interest is payable. Subsequently 100% of
the loan amount of Part A as well as the interest amount can be converted into grant
on completion of the project. Under R-APDRP Part B, 50% of project cost and interest
can be converted into grant on achieving the target of 15% AT&C losses on a
sustained basis for 5 years in the project area.
6.9.3 100% funding for R-APDRP Part A is provided by Government of India. Funding for
Part B is 90% Government of India and remaining 10% from own funds. APDCL has
submitted that the ongoing R-ADPRP project will get completed during FY 2019-20.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page123
Table 75: Capital Expenditure –RAPDRP Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
RAPDRP Plan 320.90 - -
Table 76: Funding - RAPDRP Plan (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
R-APDRP Plan 32.09 - 288.81 - - - - - -
6.10 UDAY Scheme
6.10.1 Under the UDAY scheme, financial support of Rs. 555.55 Crore from Govt. of Assam
is being provided for implementation of targeted activities. Of this amount, Rs. 286.27
Crore will be provided during FY 2016-17, Rs. 224.11 Crore during FY 2017-18, Rs.
36.23 Crore during FY 2018-19 and Rs. 8.94 Crore will be provided during FY 2019-
20.
6.10.2 Of the works to be undertaken during FY 2019-20, the primary works would include
installation of smart meters for all consumers other than agricultural consumers
consuming above 200 units/month. Remaining works under the UDAY scheme such
as 100% feeder metering, 100% DT metering, energy audit up to 11 kV level in rural
areas, physical feeder segregation, etc. are to be completed by FY 2018-19.
Table 77: Capital Expenditure –UDAY Scheme (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
UDAY Scheme 8.94 - -
Table 78: Funding–UDAY Scheme (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
UDAY Scheme - - 8.94 - - - - - -
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page124
6.11 SAUBHAGYA Scheme
6.11.1 The Ministry of Power, Govt. of India, on 11th October 2017 vide Office Memorandum
F. No. 44/2/2016-RE has launched ‘Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojna –
SAUBHAGYA’ to achieve universal household electrification in the country.
Government of India (GOI) has formulated this scheme to ensure last mile connectivity
and electricity connections to all remaining households in rural areas and poor
households in urban areas of the country by December 2018.
6.11.2 APDCL submitted that the SAUBHAGYA scheme is planned to be completed in FY
2018-19 itself, therefore, there is no capital expenditure proposed against this scheme
for the next Control Period.
6.12 Distribution System Enhancement and Loss Reduction Project
6.12.1 This project would be taken-up for implementation during the ensuing Control Period,
and would be funded jointly by ADB and the Government of Assam. Under this project,
new 33/11 kV substations and 33 kV terminal bays would be installed. HVDS system
units with 11/0.25 kV 5 kVA and 10 kVA DTRs and 6 km 11 kV insulated conductor,
augmentation of 33/11 kV sub-station would be done.
6.12.2 The total estimated cost of the scheme is Rs. 3302.9 Crore, out of which ADB fund is
Rs. 2337.02 Crore and GoA fund is Rs. 965.32 Crore. The details of year-wise
investment and corresponding funding pattern proposed are as follows:
Table 79: Capital Expenditure –Distribution System Enhancement and Loss Reduction
Project (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Distribution System Enhancement
and Loss Reduction Project 229.88 512.31 811.16
Table 80: Funding Pattern– Distribution System Enhancement and Loss Reduction
Project (Rs. Crore)
Name of Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
Distribution System
Enhancement and
Loss Reduction
Project
- - 229.88 - - 512.31 - - 811.16
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page125
6.13 Summary of Capital Investment Plan submitted by APDCL
6.13.1 The Capital Investment Plan proposed by APDCL for the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22 is summarized in the Table below.
Table 81: Capital Investment Plan proposed by APDCL from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22
(Rs Crore)
Name of the Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
APSEIP-T-4 Loan No. 3200-IND 48.00 - -
APSIP-T-2 Loan no 3327-IND 73.00 - -
State Annual Plan 200.20 220.22 242.00
NEC Plan 2.61 - -
RGGVY XIIth Plan 674.76 - -
DDUGJY 930.38 - -
DDG (DDUGJY) 147.70 - -
IPDS 266.67 433.33 38.67
RAPDRP 320.90 - -
UDAY 8.94 - -
SAUBHAGYA - - -
Distribution System Enhancement and Loss
Reduction 229.88 512.31 811.16
TOTAL 2782.04 1165.86 1091.83
6.13.2 The funding pattern for the proposed Capital Investment Plan for the Control Period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is summarised in the Table below:
Table 82: Funding Pattern for Capital Investment Plan (Rs Crore)
Name of the
Scheme
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
APSEIP-T-4 Loan
No. 3200-IND - - 48.00 - - - - - -
APSIP-T-2 Loan no
3327-IND - - 73.00 - - - - - -
State Annual Plan 20.02 - 180.18 22.02 0.00 198.20 24.20 0.00 217.80
NEC Plan 0.26 - 2.35 - - - - - -
RGGVY XIIth Plan 67.48 - 607.28 - - - - - -
DDUGJY 93.04 - 837.34 - - - - - -
DDG (DDUGJY) 14.77 - 132.93 - - - - - -
IPDS 40.00 - 226.67 65.00 - 368.33 5.80 - 32.87
RAPDRP 32.09 - 288.81 - - - - - -
UDAY - - 8.94 - - - - - -
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page126
Name of the
Scheme
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
SAUBHAGYA - - - - - - - -
Distribution System
Enhancement and
Loss Reduction
- - 229.88 - - 512.31 - - 811.16
TOTAL 267.66 - 2514.38 87.02 - 1078.84 30 - 1061.83
6.14 Capitalisation of the Schemes
6.14.1 APDCL submitted that for projecting the addition to GFA, it has assumed that 70% of
the Capital Investment undertaken in the year shall be capitalized in the same year
and 30% shall be capitalized in the next year. Further, it has been assumed that 1/4th
of the Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) of Rs. 3421.72 Crore shall be capitalized
during FY 2018-19 and for each year of the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22.
6.14.2 APDCL has assumed that 30% of the estimated capital expenditure for FY 2018-19,
i.e., Rs. 3572.06 Crore would be capitalised during FY 2019-20.
Table 83: Proposed capitalisation from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Schemes in the Control Period (70% of capex) 2129.13 816.10 764.28
Schemes in the Control Period (30% of last
year capex) 1071.62 912.49 349.76
Opening CWIP for FY 2018-19 855.43 855.43 855.43
TOTAL 4056.18 2584.02 1969.47
6.14.3 The proposed funding of the capitalised works by APDCL is given in the Table below.
APDCL submitted that the opening CWIP for FY 2018-19 has been assumed to be
funded in the ratio of 90:10 from grants and loans as considered for FY 2018-19 in the
Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018.
Table 84: Funding pattern for proposed capitalisation (Rs Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
Schemes in the
Control Period 197.06 - 1932.07 60.92 - 755.19 21.00 - 743.28
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page127
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant Loan Equity Grant
Schemes in the
Control Period
(prev. yr)
101.74 - 969.88 84.46 - 828.03 26.11 - 323.65
Opening CWIP for
FY 2018-19 85.54 - 769.89 85.54 - 769.89 85.54 - 769.89
TOTAL 384.34 - 3671.84 230.91 - 2353.10 132.65 - 1836.82
6.15 Capital Investment Plan approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22
6.15.1 The Commission while approving the capital expenditure and capitalization for FY
2017-18 and FY 2018-19 in the MYT Order dated March 31, 2017, had directed
APDCL to submit the scheme-wise capital expenditure and capitalisation, along with
funding details based on latest status of implementation of schemes, approvals
received, funds arranged, orders placed, work commencement, timelines committed
by contractor, etc., as compared to the schemes approved in the Business Plan for the
Control Period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. However, such detailed scheme-wise
information has not been submitted to the Commission.
6.15.2 The Commission has analysed the details of different Schemes proposed by APDCL
for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 201-22, and observes as under:
a) Most of the Schemes proposed by APDCL are ongoing Schemes;
b) Most of the Schemes are Central Government Schemes, viz., RGGVY,
DDUGJY, IPDS, R-APDRP, and UDAY, or State Government Schemes, viz.,
APSEIP, State Annual Plan, and NEC Plan;
c) All the above Schemes are intended to achieve greater rural and urban
electrification, strengthening of the distribution network, improvement of the
quality of supply, etc.;
d) The Distribution System Enhancement and Loss Reduction Project proposed
by APDCL is required, in order to ensure that the Distribution Losses are
maintained within the trajectory approved by the Commission;
e) The Schemes are either 100% Grant funded or 90% Grant funded, and the
funds have been tied-up for all the ongoing Schemes.
6.15.3 In view of the above, the Commission provisionally approves the Scheme-wise Capital
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page128
Investment Plan as proposed by APDCL, and summarised in the Table below:
Table 85: Capital Investment Plan provisionally approved by the Commission for
APDCL for the Control Period (Rs Crore)
Name of the Scheme FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
APSEIP-T-4 Loan No. 3200-IND 48.00 - -
APSIP-T-2 Loan no 3327-IND 73.00 - -
State Annual Plan 200.20 220.22 242.00
NEC Plan 2.61 - -
RGGVY XIIth Plan 674.76 - -
DDUGJY 930.38 - -
DDG (DDUGJY) 147.70 - -
IPDS 266.67 433.33 38.67
RAPDRP 320.90 - -
UDAY 8.94 - -
SAUBHAGYA - - -
Distribution System Enhancement and Loss
Reduction 229.88 512.31 811.16
TOTAL 2782.04 1165.86 1091.83
6.15.4 APDCL is directed to maintain database on the individual Projects under each
Scheme with the following details:
a) Details/Scope of Project including activities, area covered, etc.;
b) Start date of Project;
c) Scheduled completion date of Project;
d) Funding Plan;
e) Cost-Benefit-Analysis of the Project
f) Present Status of Project, indicating physical progress in percentage terms
and in monetary terms;
g) Status of Capitalisation as per Field Reports and as per Accounts;
h) Whether the intended benefits of the Project have been achieved, etc.
6.15.5 Maintenance of such project-wise database will help APDCL track the progress of the
Project during execution as well as ensure that the Capitalisation as per Accounts
tallies with the asset being physically put to use. APDCL should submit such Project-
wise data to the Commission at the time of true-up for each Year, for the Projects that
have been capitalised during that Year. APDCL should also justify the Projects
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page129
proposed to be capitalised in the ensuing Year based on the above database.
6.16 Capitalisation approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22
6.16.1 The Commission notes that in the past years, while the capital expenditure in each
year incurred by APDCL is in line with that approved in the MYT Order and respective
Tariff Orders, the annual capitalisation achieved by APDCL is significantly lower as
compared to the approved values in most of the years, which has been made up in FY
2015-16 and FY 2016-17, wherein, APDCL has achieved significantly higher
capitalisation as compared to the approved capitalisation. However, again in FY 2017-
18, APDCL achieved a minimal capitalization of Rs. 211.46 Crore, which is significantly
lower than its approved number.
6.16.2 It is noted that however, the actual capital expenditure and capitalisation are both
significantly lower than that originally proposed by APDCL in its respective Business
Plan/Tariff Petitions. This shows that APDCL has been generally projecting much
higher capital expenditure and capitalisation than that actually achieved/achievable,
which needs to be borne in mind, while approving the capital expenditure and
capitalisation for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
6.16.3 The comparison of proposed vs. approved vs. actual capital expenditure and
capitalisation over the period from FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18 is shown in the Table
below:
Table 86: Actual Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation achieved by APDCL
from FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18
Capital Expenditure
Proposed by APDCL in
Business Plan/ Tariff
Petition
933.96 822.09 553.74 83.59 3724.24 4300.96
Approved in respective
Order 489.62 844.97 545.78 134.11 1000.00 1000.00
Actual 431.38 779.95 758.06 550.24 1035.37 735.32
Capitalisation
Proposed by APDCL in
Business Plan/ Tariff
Petition
884.77 429.41 458.61 212.44 * *
Approved in respective
Order 190.33 144.86 73.24 179.33 650.00 650.00
Actual 48.69 54.28 64.41 649.30 1041.35 211.46
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page130
Note: * - APDCL had not projected Capitalisation in the MYT Business Plan Petition, but had
indicated Capitalisation equal to Capital Expenditure for some of the Schemes
6.16.4 The capitalisation in any year depends on the CWIP as well as the capital expenditure
in the concerned year. The Commission has summarised the capitalisation as a
percentage of the summation of the CWIP and capital expenditure over the period from
FY 2012-13 to FY 2017-18, as shown in the Table below:
Table 87: Percentage of Capitalisation achieved by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18
CWIP plus Capex
during the Year 2,191.39 2,922.65 3,626.43 4,112.26 4,498.33 4,192.30
Capitalisation during
the Year 48.69 54.28 64.41 649.30 1041.35 211.46
Capitalisation as
percentage of CWIP
plus Capex during the
Year
2% 2% 2% 16% 23% 5%
6.16.5 As can be seen from the above Table, the capitalisation has been in the range of Rs.
50 crore to Rs. 211 crore annually, except in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, when the
capitalisation of Rs. 649 crore and Rs. 1041 Cr has been achieved. The capitalisation
of Rs. 1041 crore is the highest ever achieved by APDCL. The maximum capital
expenditure achieved in these years has been Rs. 1035 crore.
6.16.6 In terms of percentage, the capitalisation as a percentage of the CWIP plus the capital
expenditure in the concerned years has been only 2%-5%, except in FY 2015-16 and
FY 2016-17, when the capitalisation achieved was 16% and 23% of the CWIP plus the
capital expenditure.
6.16.7 The Commission observes that there appears to be a disconnect in the Accounting of
the capital expenditure and capitalisation, as many times, the asset may be physically
completed and electrically charged, but due to some minor accounting related issues,
the asset is unable to be capitalised in the Accounts of APDCL. As a result, the tariff
recovery for such assets is delayed, even though the asset is functional and has been
put to use for the benefit of the consumers.
6.16.8 APDCL should seriously investigate this matter and initiate measures to complete the
capitalisation as per accounts at the earliest, for schemes that have commenced quite
some time ago. If this is done, the amount of CWIP is likely to reduce significantly and
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page131
the amount of GFA shall increase correspondingly.
6.16.9 Against the above background, the capital expenditure proposed by APDCL for each
year of the Control Period at Rs. 2782 crore, Rs. 1166 crore, and Rs. 1091 crore, and
proposed capitalisation of Rs. 4056 crore, Rs. 2584 crore, and Rs. 1969 crore appear
unrealistic. The annual capitalisation proposed by APDCL for FY 2019-20 in fact
exceeds the present GFA, i.e., APDCL is projecting to add more than the existing GFA
in FY 2019-20. Further, APDCL has not submitted any evidence that the necessary
funds have been tied up.
6.16.10 Hence, for the purpose of ARR and tariff determination in this Order, the
Commission has assumed that annual capital expenditure would be around Rs. 1000
crore while the annual capitalisation has been considered as Rs. 650 crore, which was
the same approach adopted in the earlier MYT Order for FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
6.16.11 Accordingly, the Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the
Commission for the purposes of ARR and Tariff for the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22 is shown in the following Table:
Table 88: Capital Expenditure and Capitalisation approved by the Commission
for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
APDCL Petition
Capital Expenditure 2782.04 1165.86 1091.83
Capitalisation 4056.18 2584.02 1969.47
Approved by the Commission
Capital Expenditure 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
Capitalisation 650.00 650.00 650.00
6.16.12 The Commission clarifies that the approach adopted by the Commission is only
restricted to tariff purposes and does not bar APDCL from implementing the schemes
as proposed by them, which are approved by the Commission in principle. In case the
total capital expenditure exceeds the approved amount of Rs. 1000 crore in each year,
APDCL may do so with prior intimation to the Commission. Similarly, if APDCL takes
up any scheme other than those mentioned in para 6.13.1 (Table 79), which has not
been included in its Proposal for the MYT Control Period, APDCL may move the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page132
Commission with all details, for approval of the Commission.
6.16.13 As regards to the funding of capitalisation, the Commission has not considered
any equity funding based on APDCL’s submission. The overall grant and debt funding
have been considered in the 90:10 ratio.
6.16.14 The funding of capitalized works approved by the Commission for the Control
Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is shown in the following Table:
Table 89: Funding of Capitalised Works approved by the Commission for FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Grant 585.00 585.00 585.00
Equity 0.00 0.00 0.00
Debt 65.00 65.00 65.00
Total Capitalisation 650.00 650.00 650.00
Therefore, the Commission approves Capitalisation of Rs. 650 crore for each
Year of the Control Period.
APDCL is directed to submit the necessary detail as identified in para 6.15.4
above for all ongoing projects at the time of true-up and Tariff for ensuing year.
Further, for all Projects that have not commenced by March 31, 2019, AEGCL
shall obtain the Commission’s prior approval based on the necessary detail as
identified in para 6.15.4, even if in-principle approval has been received.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page133
7 ARR for MYT Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 This Chapter deals with the determination of ARR for APDCL for the Control Period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 in accordance with the provisions of MYT Regulations,
2018.
7.2 Energy Sales
7.2.1 Appropriate estimation of category-wise energy sales for the Control Period is essential
to arrive at the quantum of power to be purchased and the likely revenue from sale of
energy.
7.2.2 The following section examines in detail the consumer category-wise energy sales
projected by APDCL in its MYT Petition for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22, and the category-wise sales approved by the Commission.
7.3 Category-Wise Projected Energy Sales
7.3.1 APDCL submitted that it has to complete the remaining household electrification by
December 2018 as per the provisions of the SAUBHAGYA scheme. This will increase
the household consumption, particularly in the rural areas from FY 2018-19.
7.3.2 All efforts are being made to achieve the stipulated timeline. 9,62,704 households are
pending electrification as on 29th November 2018 in Assam (as per figures on
SAUBHAGYA portal). APDCL, through its reply to data gaps dated 31 January, 2019
also submitted that all the pending households have been electrified as on January 25,
2019.
7.3.3 For projection of sales to Jeevan Dhara category in the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22, APDCL has considered the historical 4-year CAGR of sales. For
Domestic A category, APDCL has considered the average YoY growth seen during
last two years, to project the sales for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-
22.
7.3.4 APDCL submitted that for the remaining consumer categories, the energy sales have
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page134
been projected keeping historical growth rates in mind and projecting the 3-year, 4-
year, 5-year CAGR along with the YoY growth seen in the consumer categories.
Reasonable estimates about the growth rates of the various consumer categories have
been made to arrive at the energy sales forecast for the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22.
7.3.5 In case the growth trend is recent years was negative, APDCL has considered 0%
growth rate for those consumer categories. The growth rate as observed by the trend
of CAGR has been adjusted in line with the recent YoY growth rates observed for the
different consumer categories wherever required.
7.3.6 The growth rates considered by APDCL for projection of category-wise sales for the
Control Period are given in the Table below:
Table 90: Category-wise Growth Rates considered by APDCLforSales Projection
Consumer Category Growth
Rate
Growth
Rate (%)
LT Categories
JEEVAN DHARA* CAGR 4 yr 7.8%
DOMESTIC A below 5 kW Adjusted 6.0%
Domestic-B 5 kW and above upto 25 kW YoY 6.0%
Commercial Load above 0.5 kW and upto 25 kW CAGR 3 yr 6.6%
General Load upto 25 kW Adjusted 0%
Public Lighting Adjusted 0%
Agriculture upto 25 kW CAGR 3 yr 25.4%
Small Industries Rural upto 25 kW CAGR 3 yr 9.6%
Small Industries Urban upto 25 kW CAGR 3 yr 2.8%
Temporary YoY 4.6%
LT Categories
HT Domestic above 25 kW (30 kVA) Adjusted 0%
HT Commercial above 25 kW (30 kVA) CAGR 3 yr 8.3%
Public Water Works Adjusted 0%
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst above 25 kW (30 kVA) CAGR 3 yr 2.2%
Bulk Supply Others above 25 kW (30 kVA) CAGR 3 yr 0.6%
HT Small Industries above 25 kW (30 kVA) and upto 50 kVA CAGR 3 yr 0.5%
HT Industries-I 50 kVA to 150 kVA Adjusted 0%
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA YoY 13.7%
Tea Coffee& Rubber CAGR 3 yr 6.6%
Oil & Coal Adjusted 0%
HT Irrigation Load above 25 kW (30 kVA) Adjusted 0%
HT Temporary - -
HT Electric Crematorium - Increase of 1
MU each year
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page135
Note: *- For Jeevan Dhara category, sales estimated to grow at 4-year CAGR of 7.8% during FY 2018-
19 plus additional sales of 487 MU due to addition in households due to SAUBHAGYA scheme; for the
control period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2020-21 sales estimated to grow at 4-year CAGR of 7.8%
7.3.7 The category-wise sales projected by APDCL for the Control Period based on the
above growth rates are given in the Table below:
Table 91:Category-wise Energy Sales Projected by APDCL for the Control Period (MU)
Consumer Category FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
JEEVAN DHARA 1301 1402 1511
DOMESTIC A below 5 kW 3064 3248 3442
Domestic-B 5 kW and above upto 25
kW 311 330 350
Commercial Load above 0.5 kW and
upto 25 kW 713 761 811
General Load upto 25 kW 99 99 99
Public Lighting 13 13 13
Agriculture upto 25 kW 31 39 49
Small Industries Rural upto 25 kW 79 87 95
Small Industries Urban upto 25 kW 32 33 34
Temporary 8 8 9
LT TOTAL 5651 6018 6412
HT Domestic above 25 kW (30 kVA) 31 31 31
HT Commercial above 25 kW (30
kVA) 413 447 484
Public Water Works 71 71 71
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst above 25
kW (30 kVA) 79 81 83
Bulk Supply Others above 25 kW (30
kVA) 388 390 392
HT Small Industries above 25 kW
(30 kVA) and upto 50 kVA 24 24 24
HT Industries-I 50 kVA to 150 kVA 67 67 67
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA 908 1032 1174
Tea Coffee & Rubber 550 586 624
Oil & Coal 76 76 76
HT Irrigation Load above 25 kW (30
kVA) 15 15 15
HT Temporary
HT Electric Crematorium 2 3 4
HT TOTAL 2622 2822 3045
TOTAL 8273 8841 9457
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page136
Commission’s Analysis
7.3.8 The Commission has considered the submission of APDCL regarding addition of
Jeevan Dhara consumers from FY 2018-19 onwards for projecting the number of
Jeevan Dhara consumers for the Control Period. Accordingly, it is estimated that the
closing number of consumers under this category will be 23,08,989, 23,78,258 and
24,49,606respectively for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22 as submitted by
APDCL in its Petition. The Commission has accepted the submission made by APDCL
with respect to the addition in consumers due to electrification under SAUBHAGYA
Scheme.
7.3.9 The sales to Jeevan Dhara consumers for each year of the Control Period has been
projected based on the normative monthly consumption of 30 units applied to the
average number of Jeevan Dhara consumers during the respective year.
7.3.10 For the remaining consumer categories, the Commission has considered the category-
wise sales approved for FY 2017-18 as the base figure. Further, growth rate is arrived
at after analysing the 2-year, 3-year, 4-year, 5-year CAGR along with the Y-o-Y growth
seen in the consumer categories.
7.3.11 Reasonable estimates about the growth rates of the various consumer categories have
been made to arrive at the energy sales forecast for the Control Period. In case the
growth trend is recent years is negative, 0% growth rate has been considered for these
consumer categories.
7.3.12 The growth rate considered for projecting the sales to different categories and the
category-wise sales projected by the Commission for the Control Period are given in
the Table below:
Table 92: Category-wise Energy Sales Projected by the Commission for the Control
Period (MU)
Category Growth
Rate FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
JEEVAN DHARA ^ 819 844 869
DOMESTIC A 8.68% 3,364 3,656 3,974
Domestic-B above 5 kW to 25 kW 10.15% 336 370 407
Commercial Load above 0.5 to 25 kW 4.16% 680 709 738
General Load upto 25 kW 0% 99 99 99
Public Lighting 0% 13 13 13
Agriculture upto 7.5 HP 14.54% 26 30 34
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page137
Category Growth
Rate FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Small Industries Rural upto 25 kW 5.05% 73 76 80
Small Industries Urban 0% 30 30 30
Temporary 13.55% 9 11 12
LT TOTAL 5,449 5,837 6,256
HT Domestic 25 kW and above 0% 31 31 31
HT commercial 25 kW & above 4.23% 382 399 415
Public Water works 0% 71 71 71
Bulk Supply Govt. Edu Inst 0% 76 76 76
Bulk Supply Others 1.02% 391 395 399
HT Small Industries upto 50 kVA 0% 23 23 23
HT Industries-I 50 kVA to 150 kVA 0% 67 67 67
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA 6.65% 798 851 908
Tea Coff& Rub 6.57% 550 586 624
Oil & Coal 0% 76 76 76
HT Irrigation Load above 7.5 HP 0% 15 15 15
HT Temporary 0%
HT Electric Crematorium 0% 0.50 0.50 0.50
HT TOTAL 2,481 2,590 2,706
TOTAL ENERGY SALES 7,930 8,427 8,962
Note: ^ - projected by considering 30 units per month for average consumer base
Therefore, the Commission approves total sales of 7930 MU, 8427 MU, and 8962
MU for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22, respectively.
7.4 Distribution Loss
7.4.1 APDCL submitted that the HT: LT ratio has undergone major change over the years,
and Losses increase with increase in LT consumption, at the same performance levels.
7.4.2 APDCL submitted that considering the present scenario in the State, the Distribution
Loss trajectory stipulated in the UDAY Scheme will not be achieved. APDCL
mentioned that with implementation of the SAUBHAGYA scheme, the LT sales have
increased suddenly due to increased rural electrification, which has resulted in
increased distribution losses in H1 of FY 2018-19 vis-à-vis the actual distribution loss
in FY 2017-18.
7.4.3 APDCL requested the Commission to consider the H1 loss level of FY 2018-19 as
base and then reduce the same by 0.5% for projecting the distribution loss trajectory
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page138
for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22. APDCL has proposed the
following loss levels:
Table 93: Distribution Losses Projected by APDCL for the Control Period
Parameters FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Distribution Loss trajectory 17.84% 17.34% 16.84%
Commission’s Analysis
7.4.4 APDCL signed the UDAY MoU in FY 2016-17. The UDAY MoU is a tri-partite MoU
between Government of India (GoI), Government of Assam, and APDCL, and is
binding in nature on all the Parties to the MoU. The GoI is also regularly monitoring the
Distribution Loss and Aggregate Technical & Commercial (AT&C) Loss being achieved
with respect to the targets under the MoU. However, the Commission appreciates that
GoI Schemes for accelerated rural electrification like Power for All (PFA) and
SAUBHAGYA scheme have been implemented after signing of the UDAY MoU. Under
the SAUBHAGYA scheme, the number of consumers in Jeevan Dhara and Domestic
A category have increased steeply. This will lead to a change in the HT:LT sales mix.
At the same time, APDCL has also proposed high cost capital expenditure schemes
towards system strengthening and system improvement.
7.4.5 It is accepted that the large increase in number of consumers in Jeevan Dhara
category may increase the Distribution Loss as these consumers are served through
LT connections in remote rural areas. The State Government may consider
compensating APDCL for increase in Distribution Loss because of increase in quantum
of supply to the Jeevan Dhara category.
7.4.6 Moreover, the addition in sales due to SAUBHAGYA scheme are only in Jeevan Dhara
and Domestic A category.
7.4.7 Considering all the above, it may be difficult for APDCL to achieve the Distribution Loss
level prescribed in the UDAY MoU within the timelines prescribed in the UDAY MoU,
but the Commission also cannot accept the loss trajectory proposed by APDCL. After
observing the past trend of loss reduction of APDCL, the Commission feels that
APDCL will be able to reduce the loss level at a standard rate. Further, APDCL has
proposed capital investment of around Rs. 3300 crore including investment of around
Rs. 1340 crore in the MYT Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 towards the
Distribution System Enhancement and Loss Reduction Project, which would enable it
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page139
to reduce the Distribution Losses.
7.4.8 The Commission is of the view that considering the past performance of APDCL as
reported, and the capital investment proposed, APDCL should be able to maintain
Distribution Loss of 16% for FY 2019-20, as compared to the Distribution Loss of
14.57% as agreed under UDAY scheme, even after considering the increase in losses
on account of higher sales to Jeevan Dhara and Domestic A category consumers. In
view of the above, the Commission has decided to deviate slightly from the UDAY
targets and approves Distribution Loss of 16% for FY 2019-20 and annual loss
reduction of 0.5% for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, as shown in the following Table:
Table 94: Distribution Losses approved by the Commission for the Control Period
Parameters FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Distribution Loss trajectory approved
for APDCL 16.00% 15.50% 15.00%
7.5 Energy Balance
7.5.1 APDCL has submitted that for computing the energy requirements for the Control
Period, APDCL has considered the intra-State Transmission Loss (AEGCL) loss at
3.44%, i.e., the approved loss level of FY 2018-19. APDCL has considered the inter-
State Transmission Loss as 1.55%, i.e., the latest weighted average 52-week
transmission loss of NER and ER regions.
7.5.2 The Energy Balance as projected by APDCL is shown in the following Table:
Table 95: Energy Balance for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as Projected by APDCL (MU)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Energy Sales 8,273 8,841 9,457
Distribution Loss (%) 17.84% 17.34% 16.84%
Energy Requirement at Distribution
Periphery T-D 10,069 10,695 11,372
Intra-State Transmission Loss (%) 3.44% 3.44% 3.44%
Energy input to Transmission System 10428 11076 11777
Inter-State (PGCIL) Pooled Loss (%) 1.55% 1.55% 1.55%
Total Energy Requirement 10,592 11,250 11,962
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page140
Commission’s Analysis
7.5.3 The Commission approves the Energy Balance for the Control Period based on the
projected sales, approved Distribution Loss trajectory, approved Transmission Loss
trajectory for AEGCL, and estimated PGCIL Losses, as shown in the Table below:
Table 96: Energy Balance for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 approved by the Commission
(MU)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Energy Sales 7,930 8,427 8,962
Distribution Loss (%) 16.00% 15.50% 15.00%
Energy Requirement at Distribution
Periphery T-D 9,440 9,972
10,544
Intra-State Transmission Loss (%) 3.39% 3.34% 3.29%
Energy input to Transmission System 9,771 10,317 10,902
Inter-State (PGCIL) Pooled Loss (%) 1.40% 1.40% 1.40%
Total Energy Requirement 9,910 10,464 11,057
Total Energy purchased from tied
up sources 10,092 10,464 11,311
Energy Surplus available for sale
outside State 182.22 0.00 253.77
Therefore, the Commission approves total Power Purchase Requirement of 9910
MU, 10,464 MU, and 11,057 MU for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22,
respectively, for sale within the State. The revenue from the projected sale of
Surplus Power has been considered under Other Income.
7.6 Power Purchase
7.6.1 APDCL submitted that it is largely dependent on APGCL and Central Generating
Stations to meet the Base Load, however, to meet the Peak demand of the State,
APDCL sources power from short-term sources like Traders and Power Exchanges to
meet the deficit.
7.6.2 APDCL submitted that it has projected the source-wise power purchase for the Control
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page141
Period based on the following assumptions:
➢ APGCL: APDCL has firm allocation from all the existing and upcoming power
plants of APGCL. For projecting the energy availability from these stations,
APDCL has considered the approved norms over the allocated capacity.
Further, APDCL has considered new capacity additions by APGCL by way of
commissioning of NRPP (62.25 MW in FY 2019-20 and additional 36.15 MW
in FY 2020-21), Myntriang SHP (other stages) (9 MW in FY 2019-20), and
Namrup SPV (15 MW in FY 2020-21). The fixed cost is arrived by escalating
the figure approved in the Tariff Order dated 19 March, 2018 by 5%. The
variable charge is projected by escalating the H1 data of FY 2018-19 by 5%.
Regarding Myntriang SHEP, provisional tariff of Rs 2.18/kWh is considered (as
approved by the Commission). For NRPP, per unit cost of Rs. 4/kWh has been
considered by APDCL.
➢ Central Generating Stations (NER & ER): The share allocation of the various
plants of CGS (NER) has been considered based on the latest REA, PLF has
been considered based on the average of last 3-4 years actual generation, and
other norms as per CERC have been considered. The fixed cost is considered
as per the latest CERC Tariff Orders and the variable charge is projected based
on H1 data of FY 2018-19 and further escalating the same by 5%. For Pare,
provisional Tariff of Rs 5/kWh is considered. For Kameng HEP, provisional
Tariff of Rs. 4/kWh is considered by APDCL.
➢ NTPC (BTPS): As regards NTPC (BTPS), the third Unit will commence
operation in second half of FY 2018-19. For NTPC (BTPS), Tariff of Rs.
6.39/kWh is considered.
➢ Other sources: The power availability and cost from other sources is
considered based on the existing contract and the rates of H1 of FY 2018-19.
For HHPL and SEIPL, the levelized tariff as approved by the Commission is
considered.
➢ Renewable Sources: APDCL has projected to meet the RPO by mix of
purchase from renewable sources and REC purchase.
➢ New Capacity Addition: APDCL has proposed to start purchasing 100 MW of
Wind Power, as per the tie-up with PTC (50MW) and SECI (50MW) during FY
2019-20. APDCL also proposed to purchase 80 MW from Bhutan based
Nikachu HEP through PTC during FY 2019-20. SPV (100 MW) Assam will
commence operation from December 2019. Over and above these, APDCL will
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page142
purchase power from 3 more Bhutan based HEP, i.e., Punatsangchhu-I (204
MW), Punatsangchhu-II (174 MW) and Mangadechhu (122 MW) during FY
2021-22. Wind Power (PTC) tariff has been considered as Rs. 3.53/kWh based
on agreement signed by the Petitioner. Wind Power (SECI) tariff has been
considered as Rs. 2.72/kWh for the Control Period. SPV (100 MW) tariff of Rs.
3.325/kWh has been considered based on solar reverse bidding document
signed by the Petitioner. Levelized tariff of Rs. 4.152/kWh has been considered
for PTC (Nikachu) based on Power Sale Agreement (PSA) signed between
PTC India Ltd. and APDCL.
➢ Medium Term Power: In addition to above, APDCL has floated e-bidding
tender for 50MW medium-term power at DEEP portal and is planning to float
e-bidding tender for 100 MW small hydro power. The impact of the same has
not been considered for purposes of this Petition; however, the same would be
considered once the bidder for the same is allocated.
➢ Short Term Power: The balance energy requirement has been proposed to
be met from short-term sources of power, i.e., Power Exchanges, etc.
7.6.3 APDCL has computed the Solar and Non-Solar RPO requirement in accordance with
the applicable AERC RPO Regulations, on the energy sale duly reduced by the
quantum of purchase from hydro sources. In order to meet the shortfall in purchase of
Solar and Non-Solar RE, APDCL has proposed to procure RECs at the rate of Rs. 1
per unit and Rs. 1.5 per unit for Solar and Non-Solar RECs, respectively. The details
are shown in the Table below:
Table 97: RPO Computation as submitted by APDCL
SL. Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
1 Solar RPO 6.00% 7.00% 8.00%
2 Non-Solar RPO 7.00% 8.00% 9.00%
3 TOTAL 13.00% 15.00% 17.00%
ENERGY SALE EXC. HYDRO
(MU) 6074.96 6578.05 5753.06
1 Solar 364.50 460.46 460.24
2 Non-Solar 425.25 526.24 517.78
3 TOTAL 789.75 986.71 978.02
COMPLIANCE (MU)
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page143
SL. Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
1 Solar 88.64 213.16 213.16
2 Non-Solar 308.37 308.37 308.37
3 TOTAL 397.02 521.53 521.53
REC PURCHASE REQD.
(MU)
1 Solar 275.85 247.30 247.08
2 Non-Solar 116.88 217.87 209.40
3 TOTAL 392.73 465.17 456.49
REC Cost (Rs. Crore)
1 Solar 27.59 24.73 24.71
2 Non-Solar 17.53 32.68 31.41
3 TOTAL 45.12 57.41 56.12
7.6.4 APDCL submitted that it has to pay Transmission Charges to PGCIL for use of
transmission facilities enabling power drawal from the Eastern Region. The PGCIL
Charges payable have been calculated as per prevailing CERC Regulations for Point
of Connection (PoC) rates and are as per latest CERC Order dated 30thAugust 2018
and corrigendum dated 19thSeptember 2018. Escalation of 5% has been considered.
Further, intra-State Transmission Charges and SLDC Charges have been considered
by escalating the Charges approved by the Commission in AEGCL’s Tariff Order dated
March 19 2018 for FY 2018-19 by 5% for the Control Period.
7.6.5 The following table shows the power purchase quantum and cost submitted by APDCL
for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page144
Table 98: Power Purchase Quantum and Cost for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as submitted by APDCL
Sl.No. Source
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total
Charges
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total
Cost
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
I STATE GENERATING STATIONS
APGCL (THERMAL)
NTPS 145.56 62.96 4.33 145.56 94.94 6.52 145.56 99.69 6.85 NRPP 208.31 83.32 4.00 208.31 83.32 4.00 208.31 83.32 4.00 NRPP (Waste Heat) 151.21 60.48 4.00 151.21 60.48 4.00 LTPS 402.32 171.03 4.25 402.32 179.59 4.46 402.32 188.56 4.69 LRPP 384.63 115.85 3.01 384.63 121.65 3.16 384.63 127.73 3.32 APGCL (HYDRO)
MEHEP 10.64 2.32 2.18 10.64 2.32 2.18 10.64 2.32 2.18 MEHEP 21.28 4.64 2.18 21.28 4.64 2.18 21.28 4.64 2.18 KLHEP 323.23 103.55 3.20 387.87 119.09 3.07 387.87 125.04 3.22
II CGS (NER)
NEEPCO (HYDRO)
KOPILI – I 422.79 44.77 1.06 422.79 47.01 1.11 422.79 49.36 1.17 KOPILI – II 51.76 6.43 1.24 51.76 6.75 1.30 51.76 7.09 1.37 RANGANODI (RHEP) 548.20 88.72 1.62 548.20 93.16 1.70 548.20 97.82 1.78 KHANGDONG 111.29 17.59 1.58 111.29 18.47 1.66 111.29 19.39 1.74 DOYANG (DHEP) 97.97 45.53 4.65 97.97 47.80 4.88 97.97 50.19 5.12 PARE 154.58 77.29 5.00 154.58 77.29 5.00 154.58 77.29 5.00 KAMENG (KaHEP) 225.48 90.19 4.00 225.48 90.19 4.00 225.48 90.19 4.00 NEEPCO (THERMAL)
AGBPP 788.12 292.08 3.71 788.12 306.68 3.89 788.12 322.02 4.09 AGTPP 274.23 95.44 3.48 274.23 100.21 3.65 274.23 105.22 3.84
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page145
Sl.No. Source
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total
Charges
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total
Cost
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
NHPC (HYDRO)
LOKTAK 216.01 57.61 2.67 216.01 60.49 2.80 216.01 63.52 2.94 SUBANSIRI 901.93 360.77 4.00 OTPC PALATANA (THERMAL) 1,388.04 469.37 3.38 1,388.04 492.84 3.55 1,388.04 517.49 3.73 NTPC (THERMAL)
BTPS 1,530.58 955.77 6.24 1,530.58 1,003.56 6.56 1,530.58 1,053.74 6.88 BTPS – III 565.87 379.62 6.71 565.87 418.53 7.40 565.87 484.50 8.56
III CGS (ER)
NTPC (THERMAL)
FARAKA 229.30 80.34 3.50 229.30 84.35 3.68 229.30 88.57 3.86 KAHELGOAN I 269.83 93.41 3.46 269.83 98.09 3.64 269.83 102.99 3.82 KAHELGOAN II 469.42 146.11 3.11 469.42 153.41 3.27 469.42 161.08 3.43 TALCHER 151.07 47.83 3.17 151.07 50.23 3.32 151.07 52.74 3.49
IV OTHERS
MeECL 0.55 0.38 6.80 0.55 0.38 6.80 0.55 0.38 6.80 HHPCL (NCE) 14.75 6.06 4.11 14.75 6.06 4.11 14.75 6.06 4.11 NVVNL Solar Bundled (JNNSM) 7.97 9.47 11.88 7.97 9.47 11.88 7.97 9.47 11.88 NVVNL Coal Bundled (JNNSM) 35.62 9.47 2.66 35.62 9.47 2.66 35.62 9.47 2.66 Suryapratap Solar (SEIPL) 6.55 5.75 8.78 6.55 5.75 8.78 6.55 5.75 8.78 SECI (Solar) JNNSM 39.17 24.15 6.17 39.17 24.15 6.17 39.17 24.15 6.17 Wind Power from PTC India Ltd. 87.16 30.77 3.53 87.16 30.77 3.53 87.16 30.77 3.53 Wind Power from SECI 87.16 23.71 2.72 87.16 23.71 2.72 87.16 23.71 2.72 PTC Nikachu 279.20 115.92 4.15 279.20 115.92 4.15 279.20 115.92 4.15 SPV (100 MW) Assam 34.95 11.62 3.33 139.81 46.49 3.33 139.81 46.49 3.33 Punatsangchhu-I - - - - 539.11 215.64 4.00
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page146
Sl.No. Source
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total
Charges
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchase
(MU)
Total
Cost
(Rs.
Crore)
Average
Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Punatsangchhu-II - - - - - -
Mangdechhu - - - - - -
TRADING PURCHASE 596.90 228.23 3.82 596.90 239.65 4.01 596.90 228.23 3.82 IEX 412.00 202.25 4.91 730.00 376.27 5.15 - -
UI Pool (DSM) - - - - - -
Additional Solar RPO (RECs) 27.59 24.73 24.71
Additional Non-Solar RPO (RECs) 17.53 32.68 31.41
V TOTAL PP COST 10,592.50 4,244.71 4.01 11,250.88 4,767.49 4.24 11,961.91 5,174.82 4.33
VI OTHER CHARGES
A Interstate Transmission Charges 737.54 774.41 920.78
B Interstate Other Charges - - -
C Intrastate Transmission Charges 395.78 415.57 436.34
D SLDC Charges 3.79 3.98 4.18
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES 1,137.10 1,193.96 1,361.31
VII GRAND TOTAL 10,592.50 5,381.81 5.08 11,250.88 5,961.45 5.30 11,961.91 6,536.12 5.46
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page147
Commission’s Analysis
7.6.6 The Commission has accepted APDCL’s submissions regarding new generating
stations that are likely to come up over the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-
22.
7.6.7 The Commission has considered the rate of purchase from various sources based on
the following approach:
a) The cost of power purchase from APGCL stations has been considered as
approved in the MYT Order for APGCL dated March 01, 2019 for the Control
Period from FY 2019-20to FY 2021-22.
b) For purchase from the existing Central Sector sources, the approved rate of
H2 of FY 2018-19 is escalated by 5%.
c) The rate for purchase from HHPCPL (Champawati) has been considered as
Rs. 4.11 per kWh, based on the approved rate.
d) The rate for Suryataap Solar has been considered at the approved level of Rs.
8.78 per kWh, as per final Tariff Order issued by the Commission.
e) For the upcoming Central Sector Power Plants like Pare and Kameng, the cost
is considered to be same as Doyang HEP.
f) For other upcoming projects, the cost is considered to be same as proposed
by APDCL.
g) APDCL is required to purchase the required short-term power either from the
Power Exchanges or through competitive bidding. The purchase through
bilateral sources has been clubbed with the purchase through Power
Exchanges, and the purchase rate has been considered as Rs.4.68per unit,
for FY 2020-21.
7.6.8 The RPO for the Control Period has been considered in accordance with the prevailing
AERC RPO Regulations, as a percentage of the total energy handled, which is equal
to the sales, reduced by the proportionate quantum of purchase from hydro sources.
7.6.9 In order to meet the projected shortfall in purchase of Solar and Non-Solar RPO after
purchase of RE Power, the Commission has considered purchase of RECs. The rate
for purchase has been considered as the revised floor rate of Rs. 1.00 per kWh and
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page148
Rs. 1.00 per kWh Solar and Non-Solar RECs, respectively. APDCL is directed to
ensure that the RPO targets are met for each year of the Control Period by
purchase of the necessary RE power or RECs. The total quantum of Solar and Non-
Solar RECs and the cost of purchase of RECs considered by the Commission for the
Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22, is shown in the Table below:
Table 99: REC Purchase considered by the Commission for the Control Period from FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22
Year
Solar RPO Non-Solar RPO
Shortfall
(MU)
REC Rate
(Rs/ kWh)
Total Cost
(Rs. Cr)
Shortfall
(MU)
REC Rate
(Rs/kWh)
Total Cost
(Rs. Cr)
2019-20 247 1.00 24.75 60 1.00 5.96
2020-21 222 1.00 22.17 156 1.00 15.59
2021-22 254 1.00 25.39 184 1.00 18.44
7.6.10 For this Control Period, APDCL has proposed PGCIL Charges and AEGCL Charges
separately. As per APDCL submission, from FY 2019-20 onwards, Transmission
Service Agreement with PGCIL will be transferred from AEGCL to APDCL and
accordingly, PGCIL will raise bills directly to APDCL. For projecting the PGCIL charges
for the Control Period, the Commission has escalated the PGCIL Charges estimated
for FY 2018-19 by 5%. The AEGCL and SLDC Charges have been considered same
as approved in the MYT Order for AEGCL dated March 01, 2019 for the Control Period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
7.6.11 The source-wise power purchase quantum and costs approved by the Commission for
the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22, is shown in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page149
Table 100: Power Purchase Quantum and Cost approved by the Commission for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22
Source
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kwh)
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kWh)
NTPS 165.91 68.80 4.15 165.91 66.26 3.99 165.91 76.10 4.59
LTPS 402.32 187.36 4.66 402.32 195.39 4.86 402.32 198.69 4.94
KLHEP 388.05 94.73 2.44 388.05 92.63 2.39 388.05 80.76 2.08
LRPP 502.59 128.15 2.55 501.22 128.91 2.57 501.22 130.03 2.59
NRPP 785.62 206.35 2.63 951.77 241.09 2.53 951.77 253.14 2.66
MSHEP 31.03 7.10 2.29 31.03 7.46 2.40 31.03 7.83 2.52
MSHEP (Other
Stages) 62.05 14.20 2.29 62.05 14.91 2.40 62.05 15.66 2.52
Namrup SPV 20.97 7.34 3.50 20.97 7.71 3.68
APGCL NET 2,337.57 706.70 3.02 2,523.31 753.98 2.99 2523.31 769.93 3.05
CSGS NER
Kopili HEP 422.79 44.78 1.06 422.79 47.02 1.11 422.79 49.37 1.17
Kopili HEP - II 51.76 6.43 1.24 51.76 6.75 1.30 51.76 7.09 1.37
Khandong HEP 111.29 17.59 1.58 111.29 18.47 1.66 111.29 19.40 1.74
RHEP 548.20 88.73 1.62 548.20 93.16 1.70 548.20 97.82 1.78
DHEP 97.97 45.53 4.65 97.97 47.80 4.88 97.97 50.19 5.12
AGBPP 788.12 292.07 3.71 788.12 306.67 3.89 788.12 322.01 4.09
AGTPP 176.61 79.81 4.52 176.61 83.80 4.74 176.61 87.99 4.98
AGTPP2 84.05 13.46 1.60 84.05 14.13 1.68 84.05 14.84 1.77
NHPC 216.58 57.73 2.67 216.58 60.62 2.80 216.58 63.65 2.94
OTPC 1,388.14 469.41 3.38 1,388.14 492.88 3.55 1,388.14 517.52 3.73
SUBANSIRI HEP - - 901.93 227.50 2.52
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page150
Source
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kwh)
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kWh)
KAMENG HEP 225.41 99.61 4.42 225.41 104.59 4.64 225.41 109.82 4.87
NTPC, BTPS 1,530.58 959.03 6.27 1,530.58 1,006.98 6.58 1,530.58 1,057.33 6.91
NTPC BTPS Unit
III 565.87 354.57 6.27 565.87 372.62 6.58 565.87 391.25 6.91
Pare HEP 128.35 54.35 4.23 128.35 57.07 4.45 128.35 59.92 4.67
CSGS NER
GROSS 6,335.72 2,583.09 4.08 6,335.72 2,712.56 4.28 7,237.65 3,075.69 4.25
CSGS ER
Farakka 229.30 80.38 3.51 229.30 84.40 3.68 229.30 88.62 3.86
Kahalgaon I 111.51 57.52 5.16 111.51 60.40 5.42 111.51 63.42 5.69
Kahalgaon II 469.42 146.06 3.11 469.42 153.37 3.27 469.42 161.04 3.43
Talcher 151.07 34.65 2.29 151.07 36.39 2.41 151.07 38.20 2.53
CSGS ER GROSS 961.29 318.62 3.31 961.29 334.55 3.48 961.29 351.28 3.65
OTHERS
HHPCPL
(Champawati) 14.66 6.33 4.32 14.66 6.64 4.53 14.66 6.98 4.76
IOCL (AOD) - - - -
MeECL 2.17 1.55 7.14 2.17 1.62 7.49 2.17 1.71 7.87
SECI Solar 34.95 22.63 6.47 34.95 23.76 6.80 34.95 24.95 7.14
JNNSM Solar
Bundled 8.74 10.38 11.88 8.74 10.38 11.88 8.74 10.38 11.88
Suryatap Solar* 4.19 3.68 8.78 4.19 3.68 8.78 4.19 3.68 8.78
JNNSM Coal
Bundled 35.09 9.80 2.79 35.09 10.29 2.93 35.09 10.80 3.08
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page151
Source
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kwh)
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kWh)
Power
Purchased
(MU)
Total Cost
(Rs Cr)
Average
rate
(Rs/kWh)
Wind Power (PTC) 87.16 30.77 3.53 87.16 30.77 3.53 87.16 30.77 3.53
Wind Power (SECI) 87.16 23.71 2.72 87.16 23.71 2.72 87.16 23.71 2.72
PTC Nikachu 139.81 58.05 4.15 139.81 58.05 4.15 139.81 58.05 4.15
SPV Assam 43.69 14.53 3.33 174.76 58.11 3.33 174.76 58.11 3.33
Short Term 54.53 25.49 4.68
Solar RECs 24.75 22.17 25.39
Non-solar RECs 5.96 15.59 18.44
OTHERS 457.63 212.13 4.70 643.23 290.27 4.51 588.70 272.96 4.64
TOTAL
PURCHASE 10,092.21 3,820.54 3.79 10,463.55 4,091.37 3.91 11,310.95 4,469.86 3.95
PGCIL Charges 537.18 564.04 592.24
AEGCL Charges 360.84 381.36 403.65
SLDC charges 3.85 4.90 6.40
Total Power
Purchase Cost 10,092.21 4,722.41 4.68 10,463.55 5,041.32 4.82 11,310.95 5,471.43 4.84
Therefore, the Commission approves total Power Purchase Expenses of Rs. 4722.41 crore, Rs. 5041.32 crore, and Rs.
5471.43crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22, respectively.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page152
7.7 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses
7.7.1 The O&M expenses include Employee Expenses, R&M expenses and A&G expenses.
Employee Expenses
7.7.2 APDCL submitted that the employee expenses have been projected on normative
basis as per Regulation 37 of the MYT Regulations, 2018. The following approach has
been adopted:
a) The employee expenses projected for FY 2018-19 have been considered as base
expenses for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
b) CPI inflation has been computed as average increase of CPI for the period from
FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18, which works out to 4.28%.
c) Considering the growth in the number of employees in FY 2018-19 vis-à-vis FY
2017-18, growth factor of 3% has been considered
7.7.3 The normative employee expenses computed by APDCL for the Control Period from
FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 are as shown below:
Table 101: Employee Expenses from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs Crores)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Employee Expenses for Previous Year 861.83 940.68 1010.37
Growth Factor 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
CPI Inflation 4.28% 4.28% 4.28%
Employee Expenses 925.68 1010.37 1085.22
Add: Provision due to new recruitment
of 3000 employees 15.00 - -
Total Employee Expenses 940.68 1010.37 1085.22
7.7.4 APDCL submitted that the projected employee expenses are inclusive of impact of
ROP and requested the Commission to consider the trajectory of normative employee
expenses inclusive of impact of ROP.
7.7.5 Accordingly, APDCL has projected the Employee expenses at Rs.940.68 Crore,
Rs.1010.37 Crore and Rs.1085.22 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page153
22, respectively.
Repair and Maintenance (R&M) Expenses
7.7.6 APDCL submitted that it has proposed R&M expenditure based on the MYT
Regulations, 2018. APDCL has proposed the value of ‘K’ as 3.65%, which is the
average of the actual ‘K’ from FY 2013-14 to FY 2017-18. APDCL submitted that the
increase in GFA is based on the proposed Capital Investment Plan. APDCL has
considered the average WPI from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18 of 0.33%.
7.7.7 APDCL has projected the R&M expenses at Rs.201.71 Crore, Rs.337.59 Crore and
Rs.459.31 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, respectively.
Administrative and General (A&G) Expenses
7.7.8 APDCL submitted that it has proposed A&G expenditure based on the MYT
Regulations, 2018. Over and above normal A&G Expenses, for each year of the
Control Period, APDCL has proposed a provision of Rs. 1 Crore for consumer
awareness initiatives, Rs. 1 Crore for special initiatives proposed by APDCL, and Rs.
1 Crore for making the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) independent.
For other regular expenses, APDCL has proposed escalation at the rate of WPI of
0.33% over the actual of past years as per the above Regulations.
7.7.9 APDCL has projected the A&G expenses at Rs.51.03 Crore, Rs.54.20 Crore and
Rs.57.38 Crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, respectively.
Commission’s Analysis
7.7.10 The Commission has computed the O&M Expenses for the Control Period on
normative basis as per the MYT Regulations, 2018. Any variation between normative
O&M expenses and actual O&M Expenses shall be considered under sharing of gains
and losses on account of controllable items as per the MYT Regulations, 2018 at the
time of truing up for respective year.
7.7.11 For computation of employee expenses for the Control Period, the Commission has
adopted the following approach:
a) The employee expenses computed in the APR of FY 2018-19 have been
considered as base expenses (Inclusive of the ROP);
b) CPI inflation has been computed as average increase of CPI for the period from
FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (8 months), which works out to 3.77%;
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page154
c) Considering the projected expansion of the distribution network and projected
increase in number of employees over the Control Period, growth factor of 1% has
been considered.
7.7.12 The normative employee expenses approved for the Control Period are shown in the
following Table:
Table 102: Approved Employee Expenses for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Employee Expenses for Previous Year
811.62 850.68 891.61
Growth Factor 1% 1% 1%
CPI Inflation 3.77% 3.77% 3.77%
Employee Expenses 850.68 891.61 934.52
Therefore, the Commission approves Employee Expenses of Rs. 850.68 crore,
Rs. 891.61 crore, and Rs. 934.52 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-
22, respectively.
7.7.13 For computation of R&M Expenses for the Control Period, the Commission has
considered the following approach:
a) WPI inflation has been computed as average increase of WPI index for the period
from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (8 months), which works out to 3%;
b) K-factor governs the relationship between R&M expenses and Gross Fixed Assets.
The Commission has analysed the relationship between approved R&M expenses
and Gross Fixed Assets for the past periods and accordingly the K-factor for the
Control Period is kept at the same level of 3.50% as approved for the last Control
Period, as there has been an increasing trend in R&M expenses over the years.
c) Since, K-factor has been considered on the basis of average GFA, for projection
of R&M expenses for the Control Period, average GFA for previous years has been
considered.
7.7.14 The normative R&M expenses approved for the Control Period are shown in the
following Table:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page155
Table 103: Approved R&M Expenses for Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Average GFA for previous year
4,159.82 4,809.82 5,459.82
K Factor 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%
WPI Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
R&M Expenses 149.97 173.40 196.84
Therefore, the Commission approves R&M Expenses of Rs. 149.97 crore, Rs.
173.40 crore, and Rs. 196.84 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22,
respectively.
7.7.15 For computation of A&G expenses for the Control Period, the Commission has adopted
the following approach:
a) The A&G expenses approved after APR of FY 2018-19 have been considered as
base expenses.
b) WPI inflation has been computed as average increase of WPI index for period from
FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 (8 months), which works out to 3%
c) For each Year of the Control Period, the Commission has considered total
provision of Rs. 2 crore comprising Rs. 1 crore for consumer awareness initiatives
and Rs. 1 crore for capacity building of APDCL employees. As additional provision
has been made for these special initiatives, APDCL shall submit segregated details
of activities undertaken and corresponding expenses incurred, at the time of true-
up.
7.7.16 The approved A&G expenses for the Control Period are shown in the following Table:
Table 104: Approved A&G Expenses for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
A&G Expenses for Previous Year
45.76 49.14 52.62
WPI Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Provision 2.00 2.00 2.00
A&G Expenses 49.14 52.62 56.20
Therefore, the Commission approves A&G Expenses of Rs. 49.14 crore, Rs.
52.62 crore, and Rs. 56.20 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22,
respectively.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page156
7.8 Depreciation
7.8.1 APDCL submitted that the depreciation has been claimed in accordance with the MYT
Regulations, 2018 after apportionment of depreciation for assets created out of
consumer contribution. Assets that have been depreciated to the extent of 90% of the
original cost are excluded from the asset base for calculating the depreciation.
7.8.2 APDCL submitted that its claim for depreciation is based on no funding from grant
considered for Fixed Assets vis-à-vis CWIP transferred to APDCL consequent to
unbundling of erstwhile ASEB as on 1st April 2005. As such, total depreciation on the
opening balance of GFA as on transfer scheme 1st April 2005 is claimed in totality.
7.8.3 Depreciation on subsequent assets is claimed after apportionment of available grant.
As no depreciation has been charged on assets created out of RGGVY, MNRE as well
as consumer contribution, grant received against such schemes is shown separately
with no claim of depreciation.
7.8.4 APDCL submitted that the effect of conversion of loan to grant as per the UDAY
scheme has been considered in FY 2018-19 and accordingly the opening balance of
grants including grants of Rs. 849.40 Crore (loans converted to grants under the UDAY
scheme) has been considered for purposes of calculating the depreciation in FY 2019-
20.
7.8.5 The depreciation proposed by APDCL for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22 is shown in the Table below:
Table 105: Depreciation claimed by APDCL for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Opening GFA 7,179.49 11,235.67 13,819.69
Closing GFA 11,235.67 13,819.69 15,789.16
Average GFA 9,207.58 12,527.68 14,804.43
Total Depreciation 113.99 134.81 149.09
Net Average Depreciation Rate 1.24% 1.08% 1.01%
Less: Depreciation on Asset funded
through Grant 60.79 103.40 149.09
Net Depreciation 53.20 31.41 -
Commission’s Analysis
7.8.6 For computation of depreciation, the Commission has considered the closing GFA for
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page157
FY 2018-19 as approved in this Order, as the Opening GFA for FY 2019-20. The
Capitalisation approved for tariff determination purposes in the Chapter on Capital
Investment Plan for the MYT Control Period, has been considered as asset addition
during the years. The Commission has considered the scheduled depreciation rates
as specified in MYT Regulations, 2018.
7.8.7 As per the Regulation 32 of the MYT Regulations, 2018, the total depreciation during
the life of the asset shall not exceed 90% of the original cost of GFA. The Commission
has computed the depreciation separately for assets added under each asset head in
each year. The Commission has disallowed the depreciation on assets where
depreciation is in excess of 90% of the original cost of asset under different asset
heads. The Commission has not considered depreciation on assets funded through
grants in accordance with Regulation 32of the MYT Regulations, 2018. The impact of
conversion of loan to grant under the UDAY Scheme, as explained in the Chapter on
APR for FY 2018-19, has also been considered.
7.8.8 In view of the above, the Commission has approved depreciation for the Control Period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as per MYT Regulations, 2018, as given in the Tables
below:
Table 106: Depreciation approved for FY 2019-20 (Rs. Crore)
SL Particulars Opening
GFA
Addition
during
the year
Rate of
depreciation
Depreciation as
per MYT
Regulations, 2018
1 Land & Rights 15.61 4.95 0.00% -
2 Leasehold Land 2.22 0.70 3.34% 0.08
3 Building 58.97 18.70 3.34% 3.53
4 Plant & Machinery 620.92 196.92 3.34% 38.25
5 Vehicle 11.94 3.79 5.28% 0.17
6 Furniture & Fixtures 19.12 6.06 5.28% 2.39
7 Office Equipment 32.46 10.30 6.33% 5.12
8 Other Civil Work 55.45 17.58 6.33% 2.36
9 Lines & Cable Network 1,232.86 390.99 3.34% 67.32
10 Total 2,049.55 650.00 119.21
11
Less: Depreciation for
Grants/Consumer
Contribution
101.44
12 Net Depreciation Allowed 17.77
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page158
Table 107: Depreciation approved for FY 2020-21 (Rs. Crore)
SL Particulars Opening
GFA
Addition
during the
year
Rate of
depreciation
Depreciation as
per MYT
Regulations, 2018
1 Land & Rights 20.56 4.95 0.00% -
2 Leasehold Land 2.92 0.70 3.34% 0.10
3 Building 77.67 18.70 3.34% 4.30
4 Plant & Machinery 817.84 196.92 3.34% 49.14
5 Vehicle 15.73 3.79 5.28% 0.44
6 Furniture & Fixtures 25.19 6.06 5.28% 3.03
7 Office Equipment 42.76 10.30 6.33% 6.28
8 Other Civil Work 73.03 17.58 6.33% 2.87
9 Lines & Cable Network 1,623.86 390.99 3.34% 86.80
10 Total 2,699.55 650.00 152.97
11
Less: Depreciation for
Grants/Consumer
Contribution
132.03
12 Net Depreciation Allowed 20.94
Table 108: Depreciation approved for FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)
SL Particulars Opening
GFA
Addition
during the
year
Rate of
depreciation
Depreciation as
per MYT
Regulations, 2018
1 Land & Rights 25.51 4.95 0.00% -
2 Leasehold Land 3.63 0.70 3.34% 0.12
3 Building 96.37 18.70 3.34% 5.08
4 Plant & Machinery 1,014.76 196.92 3.34% 60.02
5 Vehicle 19.51 3.79 5.28% 0.71
6 Furniture & Fixtures 31.25 6.06 5.28% 3.68
7 Office Equipment 52.05 10.30 6.33% 7.16
8 Other Civil Work 90.61 17.58 6.33% 3.39
9 Lines & Cable Network 2,014.85 390.99 3.34% 106.29
10 Total 3,349.55 650.00 186.44
11
Less: Depreciation for
Grants/Consumer
Contribution
162.71
12 Net Depreciation Allowed 23.73
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page159
Therefore, the Commission approves Depreciation of Rs. 17.77 crore, Rs. 20.94
crore, and Rs. 23.73 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22,
respectively.
7.9 Interest and Finance Charges
7.9.1 APDCL submitted that, it has projected the interest and financial charges based on the
existing source-wise loans outstanding, repayment schedule and prevailing interest
rates. At present, APDCL has loans mainly from Government of Assam and PFC (R-
APDRP loans). In order to reduce the interest burden and financial liabilities of APDCL
and to achieve financial turnaround, APDCL has joined the UDAY scheme of
Government of India. APDCL submitted that the UDAY MoU was executed on
4thJanuary 2017. Accordingly, process for conversion of Government loan into grant
and equity under UDAY is expected to be completed within FY 2018-19.
7.9.2 APDCL has claimed the interest and finance charges in line with the approach followed
in the true-up for FY 2017-18 and APR for FY 2018-19. GoA will take over 75% of
outstanding GoA loan of Rs. 1510.04 Crore as on 30-09-2015 which will amount to Rs.
1132.53 Crore in the form of Grant (Rs. 849.40 Crore) and Equity (Rs. 283.13 Crore).
With the taking over of outstanding GoA loan of Rs. 1132.53 Crore, only fresh loan
additions have been considered for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-
22. The outstanding normative GoA loan balance of FY 2018-19 (based on
methodology adopted by APDCL in its previous submissions before the Commission)
would be entirely liquidated with the taking over of GoA loan as per the UDAY scheme.
7.9.3 Further, in accordance with the UDAY guidelines, the interest rate has been assumed
to be 9.40% for the new loans. R-APDRP loans are given by PFC and governed by
separate guidelines and not covered by UDAY guidelines.
7.9.4 APDCL submitted that considering the observations made by the Commission in its
previous Tariff Orders, interest liabilities on GPF as well as NPS have not been claimed
in the instant Petition to provide tariff relief to that extent. Bank charges and interest on
bank overdraft have been estimated at the same level as actual payment made during
FY 2017-18. The same would be trued-up based on actuals during true-up of the
respective years.
7.9.5 Accordingly, APDCL submitted interest and finance charges for the Control Period
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page160
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as shown in the Table below:
Table 109: Interest and Finance Charges as submitted by APDCL for Period from FY
2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs. Crore)
SI. No. Particulars
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
1 Interest on existing PFC Loan 88.45 90.97 90.97
2 Interest on GoA Loan and new loans
23.13 46.01 61.62
3 Bank Charges 4.26 4.26 4.26
4 Less: Interest Capitalized 34.37 42.19 47.00
5 Total 81.47 99.04 109.85
6 Normative IWC claimed in
the petition 21.64 28.94 37.18
7 Estimated IWC (interest on
bank overdraft) 7.30 7.30 7.30
8 Difference 14.34 21.64 29.88
9
Net claim for interest &
finance charges in this
petition 67.13 77.41 79.97
Commission’s Analysis
7.9.6 The Commission notes that Interest on loan capital for the Control Period is required
to be allowed on normative basis as per Regulation 34 of MYT Regulations, 2018.
7.9.7 The normative closing balance of loan approved in APR for FY 2018-19is considered
as the normative opening balance of loan for FY 2019-20. The normative closing
balance of loan approved by Commission is after taking into account the impact of
implementation of UDAY scheme as detailed in APR of FY 2018-19.
7.9.8 The Commission has considered the addition of loan equal to 10% of the capitalization
approved in Capital Investment Plan for each year of Control Period. Repayment has
been considered in line with the depreciation approved for each year of Control Period.
7.9.9 The Commission has considered interest rate of 9.40% as agreed under UDAY
scheme, as the Commission has already envisaged that UDAY shall get implemented
in FY 2018-19. The interest rate shall therefore prevail for the entire Control Period. As
elaborated in earlier Chapters, the IoWC is being allowed on normative basis as
detailed in a subsequent section, and there is no provision for allowing the difference
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page161
between the normative IoWC and actual IoWC as part of the Interest and Financing
Charges.
7.9.10 The interest on loan capital as approved by the Commission for the Control Period is
shown in the following Table:
Table 110: Approved Interest on Loan Capital for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22(Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Net Normative Opening Loan 50.76 97.99 142.06
Addition of normative loan during the
year 65.00 65.00 65.00
Normative Repayment during the year 17.77 20.94 23.73
Net Normative Closing Loan 97.99 142.06 183.33
Interest Rate 9.40% 9.40% 9.40%
Interest Expenses 6.99 11.28 15.29
Therefore, the Commission approves Interest on Loans of Rs. 6.99 crore, Rs.
11.28 crore, and Rs. 15.29 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22,
respectively.
7.10 Interest on Working Capital
7.10.1 APDCL submitted that it has computed the IoWC as per Regulation 36 of the MYT
Regulations, 2018.The SBI MCLR (one-year tenor) of 8.50% effective from 1st October
2018 has been considered. Accordingly, the rate of interest on working capital has
been considered as 11.50% (8.50% + 3.00%). The computation of IoWC is as shown
below.
Table 111: IoWC from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 as projected by APDCL (Rs Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
O&M Expenses-One month 99.45 116.85 133.49
2-month Receivables 1006.21 1069.31 1142.21
Maintenance spares @ 15% of O&M
Expenses 179.01 210.32 240.29
Less: One-month Power Purchase Cost 448.48 496.79 544.68
Less: Consumer Security Deposit 648.00 648.00 648.00
Total Working Capital 188.19 251.69 323.31
Rate of Interest on WC 11.50% 11.50% 11.50%
Interest on WC 21.64 28.94 37.18
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page162
Commission’s Analysis
7.10.2 The Commission has computed IoWC in accordance with Regulation36 of the MYT
Regulations, 2018. The rate of Interest has been considered equal to State Bank of
India MCLR Rate (one-year tenor) prevailing for last available 6 months plus 350 basis
points, i.e., 11.50%
7.10.3 The Interest on Working Capital approved by the Commission for the Control Period
from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is shown in the following Table:
Table 112: IoWC approved by the Commission for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
One month of the amount of O&M expenses 87.48 93.14 98.96
Maintenance spares @15% of O&M expenses 157.47 167.64 178.13
Two months’ equivalent of the expected
revenue from sale of electricity 890.12 959.06 1030.25
Less: One-month Power Purchase Cost 393.53 420.11 455.95
Less: Amount held as CSD 753.70 791.39 830.96
Total Working Capital Requirement (12.17) 8.34 20.43
Rate of Interest 11.50% 11.50% 11.50%
Interest on Working Capital - 0.96 2.35
Therefore, the Commission approves IoWC of Nil, Rs. 0.96 crore, and Rs. 2.35
crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22, respectively.
7.11 Interest on Consumers’ Security Deposit
7.11.1 APDCL has claimed Interest on CSD as per Regulation 36.4 (c) of AERC MYT
Regulations, 2018, as shown in the Table below:
Table 113: Interest on CSD for the Control Period as Projected by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Interest on Consumer Security Deposit 68.02 68.02 68.02
Commission’s Analysis
7.11.2 As discussed in Chapter 4 of this Order, the actual Interest on CSD paid by APDCL is
much lower than the amount considered in the Audited Accounts. APDCL is duty
bound to pay/adjust the interest on CSD to all the HT and LT category consumers
every year. Therefore, the Commission has considered Interest on Consumer Security
Deposit after escalating approved interest of FY 2018-19 by 5% for each year of the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page163
Control Period, as shown in the Table below:
Table 114: Interest on CSD for the Control Period approved by the Commission (Rs.
Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Interest on Consumer Security Deposit 16.14 16.95 17.79
Therefore, the Commission approves Interest on CSD of Rs. 16.14 crore, Rs.
16.95 crore, and Rs. 17.79 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22,
respectively.
7.12 Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts
7.12.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected the provision for bad and doubtful debts as 1%
of the outstanding receivables of the past year as per the MYT Regulations, 2018.
7.12.2 The trade receivables appearing in the audited accounts for FY 2017-18 are Rs.
1235.47 Crore. Accordingly, the Petitioner has claimed Provision for Bad and Doubtful
Debts at 1% of Rs. 1235.47 Crore, i.e. Rs. 12.35 Crore in the respective ARR for the
MYT Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22.
Commission’s Analysis
7.12.3 The Commission has approved the Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts as submitted
by APDCL, as it is in line with the MYT Regulations, 2018.
Accordingly, the Commission allows the Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts
of Rs. 12.35 crore for each Year of the Control Period.
7.13 Return on Equity
7.13.1 APDCL submitted that the Commission has considered equity base of Rs.162.77 Crore
and allowed return @16% on the equity base of Rs. 26.04 Crores in its previous Tariff
Orders. Anticipating the notification by Govt. of Assam on the share application money
pending allotment amounting to Rs. 88.04 Crores transferred from erstwhile ASEB on
transfer of trading function to APDCL w.e.f. 01-04-2009 and Rs. 0.63 Crores
transferred on dissolution of ASEB as on 31- 03-2013, equity capital of Rs. 88.68
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page164
Crores has been considered as part of the equity capital base.
7.13.2 APDCL has considered that the existing loans from GoA to the tune of Rs. 283.13
Crores shall be converted to equity in accordance with the UDAY scheme provisions.
Accordingly, the same has been considered as part of the equity capital base. The rate
of return on equity has been taken as 16% as provided in the MYT Regulations, 2018.
The Return on Equity claimed by the Petitioner for the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22 is as shown below.
Table 115: Return on Equity from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 (Rs Crore) as submitted by
APDCL
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Opening Equity 534.58 534.58 534.58
Net Addition during the Year - - -
Closing Equity 534.58 534.58 534.58
Average Equity 534.58 534.58 534.58
Rate of Return on Equity 16.00% 16.00% 16.00%
Return on Equity 85.53 85.53 85.53
Commission’s Analysis
7.13.3 The Commission has approved the Return on Equity in accordance with Regulation 33
of the MYT Regulations, 2018. The Commission has considered the addition of equity
as Nil during each Year of the Control Period, based on the funding of capitalisation
approved in this Order. Further, as the entire net normative outstanding loan has been
converted to grants under UDAY scheme, the Commission has not considered any
conversion of loan to equity under UDAY. Therefore, the approved Return on Equity
at 16% for the Control Period is shown in the Table below:
Table 116: Return on Equity approved by the Commission for the Control Period (Rs.
Crore)
Sr.
No. Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
1 Opening Equity Capital 162.77 162.77 162.77
2 Equity addition during the year - - -
3 Closing Equity 162.77 162.77 162.77
5 Rate of Return on equity 16.00% 16.00% 16.00%
6 Return on Equity 26.04 26.04 26.04
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page165
Therefore, the Commission approves RoE of Rs. 26.04 crore for each Year of the
Control Period.
7.14 Non-Tariff Income
7.14.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected Non-Tariff Income considering annual
escalation of 5% over the estimated Non-Tariff Income for FY 2018-19, as shown in
the Table below:
Table 117: Non-Tariff Income as submitted by APDCL for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Rentals from Meters, Service Lines,
Capacitors, etc. 23.47 24.64 25.88
Income from recoveries on account of
theft of energy/ Malpractices 0.82 0.86 0.90
Delayed Payment Charges from
Consumers 177.19 186.05 195.35
Miscellaneous Recoveries 23.84 25.03 26.29
Cross Subsidy Surcharge on Open
Access Consumer 27.47 28.84 30.28
Wheeling Charges collected 4.32 4.54 4.76
TOTAL 257.11 269.96 283.46
Commission’s Analysis
7.14.2 The Commission has also considered annual increase of 5% over the Non-Tariff
Income approved for FY 2018-19for projecting Non-Tariff Income for FY 2019-20 to
FY 2021-22. Therefore, the Commission approves Non-Tariff Income at the same
level as proposed by APDCL.
7.15 Other Income
7.15.1 APDCL submitted that it has projected Other Income by considering annual escalation
of 5% over the estimated Other Income for FY 2018-19.
7.15.2 APDCL has projected Other Income of Rs.206.83 Crore for FY 2019-20, Rs.217.17
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page166
Crore for FY 2020-21, and Rs.228.03 Crore for FY 2021-22.
7.15.3 APDCL has not considered any sale of surplus power during the Control Period.
Commission’s Analysis
7.15.4 The Commission has considered annual increase of 5% over the Other Income
approved for FY 2018-19, except income from sale of surplus power.
7.15.5 The Commission has considered income from sale of surplus power in line with the
surplus energy available for sale outside State as per the Energy Balance approved in
this Order for the MYT Control Period. The rate of Rs. 2.26 per unit is applied on the
surplus energy available for sale. The rate is same as that considered for projecting
revenue from sale of surplus power for FY 2018-19.
7.15.6 The Other Income approved by the Commission for the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22, is shown in the Table below:
Table 118: Miscellaneous Income approved by the Commission for the Control Period
(Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
Other Income 253.67 223.14 291.61
Therefore, the Commission approves Other Income of Rs. 253.67 crore, Rs.
223.14 crore, and Rs. 291.61 crore for FY 2019-20, FY 2020-21, and FY 2021-22,
respectively.
7.16 Revenue from sale of electricity
7.16.1 APDCL has submitted that the Revenue from sale of electricity at existing tariff has
been computed based on the approved Tariff as per Tariff Order dated 19 March2018
and the category-wise sales projected by APDCL for the Control Period from FY 2019-
20 to FY 2021-22.
7.16.2 APDCL has submitted revenue at existing tariff of Rs. 6037.28 Crore for FY 2019-20,
Rs. 6415.85 Crore for FY 2020-21, and Rs. 6853.25 Crore for FY 2021-22.
Commission’s Analysis
7.16.3 The Commission has estimated the Revenue from sale of electricity at existing tariff
based on the tariff approved in the Tariff Order dated March 19, 2018 and the approved
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page167
category-wise sales for the Control Period.
7.16.4 The Revenue from Sale of Electricity from existing tariff as submitted by APDCL and
as computed by the Commission for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-
22 is given in the Table below:
Table 119: Revenue from Sale of Electricity for the Control Period (Rs. Crore)
Particulars
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
APDCL
Petition Commission
APDCL
Petition Commission
APDCL
Petition Commission
Revenue from
Sale of Electricity 6,037.28 5,788.91 6,415.85 6,088.96 6,853.25 6,533.88
7.17 Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Revenue Gap/(Surplus)
7.17.1 As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the Commission has approved the expenses
based on the principles specifies in MYT Regulations, 2018. The summary of ARR and
Revenue Gap/(Surplus) as submitted by APDCL and as approved by the Commission
for the Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 is given in the Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page168
Table 120: ARR & Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for APDCL for the Control Period approved by the Commission (Rs. Crore)
S. No.
Particulars FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
APDCL Approved APDCL Approved APDCL Approved
1 Power Purchase Expenses 5,381.81 4,722.41 5,961.45 5,041.32 6,536.12 5,471.43
2 O&M Expenses 1,193.42 1,049.78 1,402.15 1,117.63 1,601.91 1,187.55
a) Employee Expenses 940.68 850.68 1,010.37 891.61 1,085.22 934.52
b) R&M Expenses 201.71 149.97 337.59 173.40 459.31 196.84
c) A&G Expenses 51.03 49.14 54.20 52.62 57.38 56.20
d Impact of ROP
3 Depreciation 53.20 17.77 31.41 20.94 - 23.73
4 Interest and Finance Charges 67.13 6.99 77.41 11.28 79.97 15.29
5 Interest on Working Capital 21.64 - 28.94 0.96 37.18 2.35
6 Interest on CSD 68.02 16.14 68.02 16.95 68.02 17.79
7 Return on Equity 85.53 26.04 85.53 26.04 85.53 26.04
10 Other Debits, incl Provisioning for Bad Debts
12.35 12.35 12.35 12.35 12.35 12.35
19 Total Expenditure 6,883.11 5,851.49 7,667.27 6,247.46 8,421.09 6,756.54
20 Less: Non-Tariff Income 257.11 257.11 269.96 269.96 283.46 283.46
21 Less: Other Income 206.83 253.67 217.17 223.14 228.03 291.61
22 Aggregate Revenue Requirement 6,419.18 5,340.71 7,180.14 5,754.36 7,909.61 6,181.48 Revenue
23 Revenue at Approved Tariff (incl FPPPA)
6,037.28 5,788.91 6,415.85 6,088.96 6,853.25 6,533.88
27 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) 381.89 (448.19) 764.30 (334.59) 1,056.36 (352.40)
The Commission approves the Revenue Surplus of Rs.448.19 Crore for FY 2019-20, Rs. 334.59 Crore for FY 2020-21, and Rs.
352.40 Crore for FY 2021-22, at existing Tariff.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page169
8 Cumulative Revenue Gap till FY 2017-18 & Tariff for
FY 2017-18
8.1 Cumulative Revenue Gap/ (Surplus)
8.1.1 APDCL has submitted the cumulative Revenue Gap/ (Surplus) after Truing up of FY
2017-18 and APR of FY 2018-19 and ARR of FY 2019-20 as shown in the Table below:
Table 121: Revenue Gap/ (Surplus) to be considered for recovery as submitted by
APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Rate of Interest Amount
Revenue Gap/(Surplus) after Truing up of FY 2017-18
815.40
Carrying cost/(Holding) Cost for FY 2017-18 (half year)
12.60% 51.37
Carrying cost/(Holding) Cost for FY 2018-19 (full year)
12.20% 99.48
Carrying cost/(Holding) Cost for FY 2019-20 (half year)
12.45% 50.76
Total Carrying Cost 201.61
Total Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2017-18 1017.01
Revenue Gap/(Surplus) after APR of FY 2018-19
549.57
Carrying cost/(Holding) Cost for FY 2018-19 (half year)
12.20% 33.52
Carrying cost/(Holding) Cost for FY 2019-20 (half year)
12.45% 34.21
Total Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2018-19 67.63
Total Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2018-19 617.30
Revenue Gap /(Surplus) for FY 2019-20 381.89
Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2019-20
2016.21
8.1.2 APDCL submitted that it has rationalized the tariff and further reduced the cross-
subsidy between the consumer categories while proposing tariffs for the various
consumer categories for FY 2019-20. APDCL submitted that most of the tariff
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page170
categories are within +/-20% of the ACoS.
8.1.3 APDCL submitted that the total Revenue Gap of Rs. 2016.21 Crore cannot be entirely
recovered in a single year as it would result in a tariff shock for the consumers. Hence,
APDCL proposed to recover only 50% of the Revenue Gap after true-up of FY 2017-
18 and 50% of the Revenue Gap for FY 2019-20, amounting to Rs. 598.65 Crore as
detailed below.
Table 122: Revenue Gap proposed for recovery in FY 2019-20 by APDCL (Rs. Crore)
Particulars Amount
50% of the Revenue Gap after true-up for FY 2017-18
407.70
50% of the Revenue Gap for FY 2019-20 190.95
Total Revenue Gap proposed for recovery 598.65
Revenue at existing Tariff 6037.28
Percentage increase in Tariff 9.9%
8.1.4 APDCL submitted that the proposed increase in Tariff to meet the above Revenue Gap
shall be only 10% over the existing tariff, as shown in the above table.
8.1.5 The balance amount of Rs. 1417.56 Crore along with corresponding carrying cost is a
legitimate expense of the Petitioner. Therefore, APDCL proposed to request the Govt.
of Assam for funding of the same and the rest may be kept as Regulatory Assets to be
amortised in the subsequent years with adequate carrying cost.
8.1.6 APDCL also submitted that it reserves the right to claim any shortfall in the amount not
claimed herein in case of non-consideration by Government of Assam in subsequent
periods.
Commission’s Analysis
8.1.7 In Chapter 4 of this Order, the Commission has approved the Revenue Gap of Rs.
311.81 Crore for FY 2017-18 based on final truing-up. In Chapter 5, the Commission
has approved the Revenue Surplus of Rs. 25.84 Crore for FY 2018-19 based on APR.
However, the Commission has not considered the surplus arrived after APR of FY
2018-19 in line with the Regulation 10.3 of the MYT Regulations, 2015, as amended
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page171
in November 2017.
8.1.8 In Chapter 7, the Commission has computed the Revenue Surplus for FY 2019-20, FY
2020-21, and FY 2021-22 based on the approved ARR and revenue from existing tariff
as specified in MYT Regulations, 2018. The Commission has also considered the
Revenue Gap/(Surplus)approved for APGCL and AEGCL in their respective True-up
for FY 2017-18, by directly passing through the same in the Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of
APDCL for FY 2019-20.
8.1.9 The Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus) approved by the Commission for FY 2017-18
and FY 2019-20, along with the carrying cost, to be recovered in Tariff of APDCL for
FY 2019-20, is given in the Table below:
Table 123: Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2019-20 approved by the
Commission (Rs. Crore)
Sr. No.
Particulars Rate of Interest
(%) Amount
1 Revenue Gap/(Surplus) after Truing up of FY 2017-18
311.81
Carrying Cost for FY 2017-18 (half year) 12.60% 19.64
Carrying Cost for FY 2018-19 (full year) 12.20% 38.04
Carrying Cost for FY 2019-20 (half year) 12.45% 19.41
Total Revenue Gap/(Surplus) for FY 2017-18 (A) 388.90
2 Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20 (B) 5,340.71
3 Cumulative Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20 (C) = (A+B)
5,729.61
4 Revenue from Existing Tariff in FY 2019-20 (D) 5,788.91
5 Cumulative Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of APDCL for FY 2019-20 (E) = (C) – (D)
(59.29)
6 Impact of True-up of FY 2017-18 for APGCL along with holding cost (F)
(15.33)
7 Impact of True-up of FY 2017-18 for AEGCL along with holding cost(G)
(121.29)
8 Cumulative Revenue Gap/(surplus) for FY 2019-20 to be adjusted in Tariff along with holding cost (H)=(E)+(F)+(G)
(195.91)
8.1.10 Thus, the Cumulative Revenue Surplus after considering True-up of FY 2017-18 for
APDCL, AEGCL and APGCL along with holding cost and the Revenue Surplus of FY
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page172
2019-20 based on revised ARR and revenue at existing tariff, works out to a surplus
of Rs. 195.91 Crore.
8.1.11 Accordingly, the Commission has rationalised the category-wise tariffs to pass through
the Revenue Surplus of Rs. 195.91 Crore as well as further reduce the cross-subsidy
between consumer categories, as elaborated in subsequent sections of this Order.
8.2 Tariff for FY 2019-20
8.2.1 APDCL has proposed average tariff increase of 9.9% in order to recover additional
revenue of Rs.598.65 crore in FY 2019-20. APDCL has proposed to claim the balance
amount of Rs.1417.56 Crore from Govt. of Assam.
8.2.2 APDCL has not proposed any increase in energy charges for the Jeevan Dhara
category. However, APDCL has proposed an increase of Rs. 10 per connection in the
fixed charges for this category.
8.2.3 APDCL has proposed increase in both Fixed Charges as well as Energy Charges for
all other consumer categories. APDCL stated that it has made an attempt to bring
cross-subsidies within the range of +-20% of Average Cost of Supply (ACoS).
Commission’s Analysis
8.2.4 In determining the ARR and the retail supply tariff of APDCL for
FY 2019-20, the Commission has been guided by the provisions of the EA 2003,
National Electricity Policy (NEP), Tariff Policy, and the MYT Regulations, 2018.
8.2.5 Section 61 of the EA 2003 lays down the broad principles and guidelines for
determination of retail supply tariffs. The basic principle is to ensure that tariff should
progressively reflect the cost of supply of electricity and gradually reduce the cross-
subsidies between categories. The EA 2003 lays down special emphasis on
safeguarding of consumers’ interest and requires that the costs should be recovered
in a reasonable manner. The EA 2003 mandates that tariff determination should be
guided by factors which “encourage competition, efficiency, economical uses of
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page173
resources, good performance and optimum investment”.
8.2.6 The Commission is guided by the Tariff Policy of GoI for determination of category-
wise tariff, especially the limits of cross-subsidy by other consumers. The total impact
on revenue because of large increase in consumers of Jeevan Dhara category cannot
be off-set by cross-subsidy by other consumers within the prescribed limit. The
Commission feels that the State Government should come forward to compensate
APDCL for this impact on revenue through Revenue Grants/Subsidy.
8.2.7 The EA 2003 provides that while determining the tariff, the Commission shall not show
undue preference to any consumer of electricity but may differentiate according to the
consumer's load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during
any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or the geographical
position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is
required. The Tariff Policy notified by the Government of India provides comprehensive
guidelines for determination of tariff and determination of ARR of power utilities. The
Commission has followed these Guidelines, as far as possible.
8.2.8 The Commission has carried forward the process of tariff rationalization in this Order
to ensure that the tariffs of most categories are within +20% of the ACoS. For
categories, where the tariffs are beyond +20% of the ACoS, the Commission has tried
to ensure that the cross-subsidies are reduced. The Commission has tried to pass on
the benefit of cumulative Revenue Surplus for FY 2019-20 evenly to all categories of
consumers, while at the same time, reducing the cross-subsidies to the extent
possible.
8.3 Cost of Supply
8.3.1 APDCL submitted that considering the projected sale of 8273 MU during FY 2019-20,
the ACoS works out to Rs. 9.73 per kWh.
Commission’s Analysis
8.3.2 Considering the Net ARR after adjustments of gaps/(surplus) of AEGCL and APGCL
and the total sales approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20, the ACOS approved
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page174
by the Commission for FY 2019-20 works out to Rs. 7.06 per kWh, as shown in the
Table below:
Table 124: ACOS approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20
Particulars Unit Amount
Cumulative Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20 Rs. Crore 5,593.00
Sales MU 7,930
Average Cost of Supply Rs/kWh 7.05
8.3.3 The Commission’s analysis of the contributors to the ACoS is shown in the Table below
Table 125: Contributors of ACOS for FY 2019-20
Particulars Total ARR (Rs. Crore)
Contributors to ACOS
Rs/kWh %
Power Purchase Expenses 4,722.41 5.96 84.43%
Employee Expenses 850.68 1.07 15.21%
R&M Expenses 149.97 0.19 2.68%
A&G Expenses 49.14 0.06 0.88%
Depreciation 17.77 0.02 0.32%
Interest and Finance Charges 6.99 0.01 0.12%
Interest on Working Capital - - 0.00%
Interest on CSD 16.14 0.02 0.29%
Return on Equity 26.04 0.03 0.47%
Income Tax - - 0.00%
Provisioning for Bad & Doubtful Debts 12.35 0.02 0.22%
Less: Non-Tariff Income 257.11 -0.32 -4.60%
Less: Other Income 253.67 -0.32 -4.54%
Total ARR 5,340.71 6.73 95.49%
Past Revenue Gap/(Surplus) of APDCL, AEGCL and APGCL along with carrying cost
252.28 0.32 4.51%
Net Revenue Requirement for FY 2019-20 5,593.00 7.05 100.00%
8.3.4 Thus, power purchase expenses and employee expenses alone contribute around
90% of the ARR, which is reduced by 9% on account of Non-Tariff Income and Other
Income, and the combined Past Revenue Gap of APDCL, AEGCL and APGCL
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page175
contributes around 4.5% of the ARR.
8.3.5 As regards determination of the voltage-wise cost of supply (VCoS), the Commission
requires several inputs from APDCL based on the data developed on sustainable
basis.
8.3.6 The Commission had asked APDCL to submit the voltage-wise distribution loss of the
system. APDCL submitted that presently, the data is not sufficient to provide voltage-
wise loss data. APDCL submitted that a project on Energy Audit is being carried out
for three circles of APDCL namely Jorhat, GEC-II and Cachar, under the Commission’s
guidance. APDCL submitted that the outcome of this energy audit shall be helpful in
deriving voltage-wise losses.
8.3.7 In the Tariff Order for FY 2018-19, the Commission computed voltage wise cost of
supply based on the voltage wise losses submitted by APDCL and in line with the
methodology prescribed by APTEL. However, due to non-submission of data by
APDCL, the Commission is not in a position to compute voltage-wise cost of supply for
FY 2019-20.
8.3.8 The Commission directs APDCL to complete the metering at 33 kV, 11 kV level
and LT level for arriving at the voltage-wise losses. The Commission also directs
APDCL to expedite the energy audit exercise which shall give correct picture for
voltage wise cost of supply.
8.4 Tariff Philosophy and Design
8.4.1 Fixed costs comprise around 62% of the ARR of APDCL (excluding past Revenue
Gap/(Surplus)). However, the existing levels of Fixed Charges are quite low, and only
around 23% of the fixed cost is recovered through Fixed Charges. This translates to
recovery of only 14% of the total Revenue through Fixed Charges.
8.4.2 In view of the above, the Commission has approved a marginal increase in the Fixed
Charges for some HT categories.
8.4.3 As there is an overall reduction in ACoS, the Commission has reduced the Energy
Charges for all categories by different levels, to pass on the benefit of cumulative
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page176
surplus for FY 2019-20, partly/fully offset the increase in Fixed/Demand Charges for
certain HT categories and to rationalise the cross-subsidy in line with the Tariff Policy.
8.4.4 The rebate for Power Factor (PF) (leading or lagging) shall be as under:
a) In case, the average PF (leading or lagging) maintained by the consumer is
more than 0.85 and upto 0.95, a rebate of 1% on the Energy Charges on unit
consumption shall be applicable;
b) For PF (leading or lagging) of 0.95 and above upto 0.97, a rebate of 2% on the
Energy Charges on unit consumption shall be applicable;
c) For PF (leading or lagging) of 0.97 and above upto Unity PF, a rebate of 3% on
the Energy Charges on unit consumption shall be applicable.
8.4.5 The penalty for Power Factor (PF) (leading or lagging) shall be as under:
a) In case average PF (leading or lagging) in a month for a consumer falls below
0.85, a penalty @1% for every 1% fall in PF (leading or lagging) from 0.85 to
0.60; plus 2% for every 1% fall below 0.60 to 0.30 upto and including 0.30 shall
be levied on total unit consumption. PF penalty shall be levied on those
consumers where PF is recorded electronically.
8.4.6 The Commission has retained the night off-peak rebate to Rs. 1.50 per kWh, which is
equal to the additional charges of Rs. 1.50 per kWh during evening peak hours. This
is intended to incentivise the identified consumer categories to shift more of their
consumption to night off-peak hours, thereby increasing the utilisation of power within
the State, rather than APDCL having to sell the surplus power outside the State at
lower rates prevailing during night off-peak hours. This will also reduce the overall tariff
applicable to the categories having TOD tariff.
8.4.7 As stated earlier, the Commission has retained a rebate of 1.5% and 3% in the Energy
Charges with respect to the Energy Charges determined for FY 2019-20, for all
consumers taking supply at 33 kV and 132 kV, respectively.
8.4.8 The Commission has created the following two additional consumer tariff categories
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page177
to be applicable from the date of issuance of this Order.
a. Electric Vehicles Charging Stations (LT and HT)
b. HT Railway Traction
8.4.9 At present, GoA is providing targeted subsidies for a few categories. In the absence of
any written commitment from GoA for providing category-wise subsidy in FY 2019-20,
the Commission has approved the full cost tariff for FY 2019-20, as shown in the Table
below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page178
Table 126: Full Cost Tariff approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20
Sl. No. Consumer Category
Existing Tariff Increase/(Decrease) in Tariff Revised tariff
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
LT Category
LT-1 Jeevan Dhara 0.5 kW and 1 kWh/day*
20* 4.60 No change (0.05) 20* 4.55
LT-II Domestic A- below 5 kW
0 to 120 units per month 40 5.45 No change (0.05) 40 5.40
121 to 240 units per month 40 6.70 No change (0.05) 40 6.65
Balance units 40 7.70 No change (0.05) 40 7.65
LT-III Domestic-B 5 kW and above up to 25 kW
40 7.30 No change (0.05) 40 7.25
LT-IV Commercial Load above 0.5 kW and up to 25 kW
120 7.90 No change (0.30) 120 7.60
LT-V General Purpose Supply 135 6.80 No change (0.30) 135 6.50
LT-VI Public Lighting 120 6.65 No change (0.05) 120 6.60
LT-VII Agriculture upto 25 kW 40 4.65 No change (0.05) 40 4.60
LT-VIII(i)
Small Industries Rural up to 25 kW
40 5.20 No change (0.05) 40 5.15
LT-VIII(ii)
Small Industries Urban up to 25 kW
50 5.45 No change (0.05) 50 5.40
LT-IX Temporary Supply
Domestic 80 9.44 No change (0.05) 80 9.39
Non-Domestic Non- Agriculture
125 11.54 No change (0.05) 125 11.49
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page179
Sl. No. Consumer Category
Existing Tariff Increase/(Decrease) in Tariff Revised tariff
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Agriculture 50 5.19 No change (0.05) 50 5.14
LT-X LT Electric Vehicles Charging Stations
120 5.40
HT Category
HT-I HT Domestic above 25 kW (30 kVA)
40 7.30 No change (0.05) 40 7.25
HT-II HT commercial above 25 kW (30 kVA)
145 8.00 15.00 (0.40) 160 7.60
HT-III Public Water Works 135 6.40 No Change (0.05) 135 6.35
HT-IV Bulk Supply above 25 kW (30 kVA)
HT-IV(i) Government Educational Institutions
130 6.80 No Change (0.05) 130 6.75
HT-IV(ii)
Others 170 7.65 No Change (0.15) 170 7.50
HT-V(A)
HT Small Industries above 25 kW (30 kVA) and upto 50 kVA
60 5.90 No Change (0.05) 60 5.85
HT-V(B)
HT Industries-1 50 kVA to 150 kVA
130 6.55 10 (0.15) 140 6.40
HT-V(C)
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA (Option 1)
180 7.20 20 (0.30) 200 6.90
HT Industries-II above 150 kVA (Option 2)
300 6.50 No change (0.05) 300 6.45
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page180
Sl. No. Consumer Category
Existing Tariff Increase/(Decrease) in Tariff Revised tariff
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
Fixed Charges (Rs/kW/mth or Rs/kVA/mth)
Energy Charges (Rs. per
kWh)
HT-VI Tea, Coffee & Rubber 230 7.20 20 (0.30) 250 6.90
HT-VII Oil & Coal 300 7.80 No change (0.05) 300 7.75
HT-VIII HT Irrigation Load above 25 kW (30 kVA)
60 6.15 No change (0.05) 60 6.10
HT - IX HT Temporary Supply 160 9.20 No change (0.05) 160 9.15
HT – X HT Electric Crematorium 160 4.50 No change (0.05) 160 4.45
HT – XI HT Railway Traction - - - - 300 6.45
HT-XII Electric Vehicles Charging Station
160 6.90
Notes:
1. $$ - These are Base Tariffs; Additional ToD tariffs have been detailed in the Tariff Schedule
2. The Fixed Charges for LT Temporary and HT Temporary are respectively on Rs/kW/Day and Rs/kVA/Day basis as detailed in the Tariff Schedule
3. *- Jeevan Dhara Fixed Charge is Rs per connection per month
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 181
8.4.10 In case the GoA desires to provide category-wise subsidy in FY 2019-20 under
Section 65 of the EA 2003 after the issue of this Order, the GoA may do so under
intimation to the Commission. APDCL shall levy category-wise tariffs after adjusting
the amount of category-wise subsidy announced by the GoA, under intimation to the
Commission along with the complete calculations in this regard. APDCL shall obtain
post-facto approval of the Commission for the category-wise tariff after giving effect to
the targeted subsidy, as applicable.
The detailed Tariff Schedule is given in Chapter 11.
8.5 Category-wise Cross-subsidy
8.5.1 The Commission has computed the cross-subsidy with respect to the ACoS and
attempted to ensure that the cross-subsidies are within the limits of +20% of the ACoS,
as laid down in the Tariff Policy as well as several Judgments of Hon’ble APTEL. The
category-wise cross-subsidy approved for FY 2019-20 by the Commission in this
Order are given in the Table below:
Table 127: Category-wise Cross-Subsidy approved for FY 2019-20
Sr. No.
Category of consumers
Average Billing Rate
(Rs/kWh) *
Average Cost of Supply
(Rs/kWh)
Ratio of ABR to ACOS
(%)
Cross-subsidy provided
/(received)(%)
LT Category
1. Jeevan Dhara 0.5 kW
and 1kWh/day 5.23 7.06 74% -26%
2. Domestic A- below 5 kW 5.94 7.06 84% -16%
3. Domestic-B 5 kW and
above up to 25 kW 8.28 7.06 117% +17%
4. Commercial Load above
0.5 kW and up to 25 kW 8.69 7.06 123% +23%
5. General Purpose Supply 8.75 7.06 124% +24%
6. Public Lighting 7.47 7.06 106% +6%
7. Agriculture upto 25 kW 6.28 7.06 89% -11%
8. Small Industries Rural
upto 25 kW 6.36 7.06 90% -10%
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 182
Sr. No.
Category of consumers
Average Billing Rate
(Rs/kWh) *
Average Cost of Supply
(Rs/kWh)
Ratio of ABR to ACOS
(%)
Cross-subsidy provided
/(received)(%)
9. Small Industries Urban
upto 25 kW 6.81 7.06 97% -3%
HT Category
11. HT Domestic above 25
kW (30 kVA) 7.75 7.06 110% +10%
12. HT commercial above
25 kW (30 kVA) 8.61 7.06 122% +22%
13. Public Water Works 7.47 7.06 106% +6%
14. Bulk Supply above 25
kW (30 kVA)
14A Government Educational
Institutions 7.78 7.06 110% +10%
14B Others 8.59 7.06 121% +21%
15. HT Small Industries
above 25 kW (30 kVA)
and upto 50 kVA
7.76 7.06 110% +10%
16. HT Industries-I 50 kVA
to 150 kVA 8.38 7.06 119% +19%
17. HT Industries-II above
150 kVA 8.63 7.06 122% +22%
18. Tea, Coffee & Rubber 8.37 7.06 118% +18%
19. Oil & Coal 8.66 7.06 122% +22%
20. HT Irrigation Load above
25 kW (30 kVA) 8.71 7.06 123% +23%
Note: (+) Cross-subsidy provided to other consumer categories
(-) Cross-subsidy received from other consumer categories
* - ABR has been calculated based on the estimation of the total load and units to be
sold to that particular category in FY 2019-20. However, the ABR for individual
consumer in a category may vary depending on the total units consumed by the
consumer
8.5.2 As can be seen from the above Table, the Average Billing Rate for most of the
categories is within the band of 80% to 120% of ACoS, which is in accordance with
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 183
the Tariff Policy.
8.6 Fuel Price and Power Purchase Adjustment Charges (FPPPA)
8.6.1 Fuel Price and Power Purchase Adjustment charges as per the Regulations notified
by the Commission are applicable. As per Regulation 5.2 of the AERC (Fuel and Power
Purchase Price Adjustment) Regulations, 2010
“The FPPPA charges shall not exceed 25% of the variable cost component of
tariff or such other ceiling as may be stipulated by the Commission from time
to time, where the variable component of tariff is defined as total estimated
revenue from energy charges (EC) in a year the approved in the Tariff Order
divided by total estimated sales of the year. When FPPPA charges exceed
25% of the variable component of tariff, the licensee shall make a petition to
the Commission for recovery of the charges over the specified cap which shall
be recovered after Commission’s scrutiny and directives”.
8.6.2 APDCL shall strictly follow the above Regulation and when FPPPA charges exceed
25% of the variable components of the tariff, APDCL shall file a Petition before the
Commission and FPPPA charges beyond 25% of the variable cost component of tariff
shall be recovered only after Commission’s scrutiny and approval
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 184
9 Wheeling Charges and Cross-Subsidy Surcharge
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 The Commission has, in the present Order, determined the Wheeling Charges and
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge applicable for Open Access consumers of APDCL for FY
2019-20.
9.2 Allocation Matrix
9.2.1 The Commission has considered the following matrix, in line with the approach
adopted in its previous Orders, for allocation of expenses between the Wires Business
and Retail Supply Business as shown in the Table below:
Table 128: Allocation Matrix for Separation of ARR for Wires Business and Retail
Supply Business for FY 2019-20
Sr.
No.
Particulars Wires
Business
Retail Supply
Business
1 Power Purchase Expenses 0% 100%
2 Employee Expenses 60% 40%
3 R&M Expenses 90% 10%
4 A&G Expenses 50% 50%
5 Depreciation 90% 10%
6 Interest and Finance Charges 90% 10%
7 Interest on Working Capital 10% 90%
8 Interest on CSD 0% 100%
9 Return on Equity 90% 10%
10 Income Tax 90% 10%
11 Provisioning for Bad & Doubtful Debts 0% 100%
12 Less: Non-Tariff Income 0% 100%
13 Less: Other Income 10% 90%
9.2.2 The approved ARR for APDCL for FY 2019-20 has been segregated between the
Wires Business and Retail Supply Business, based on the above Allocation Matrix, as
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 185
given in the Table below:
Table 129: Separation of ARR for Wires Business and Retail Supply Business for FY
2019-20(Rs. crore)
Sr.
No.
Particulars Wires
Business
Retail Supply
Business
Total APDCL
1 Power Purchase
expenses - 4722.41 4722.41
2 Employee expenses 510.41 340.27 850.68
3 R&M expenses 134.97 15.00 149.97
4 A&G expenses 24.57 24.57 49.14
5 Depreciation 15.99 1.78 17.77
6 Interest and Finance
charges 6.29 0.70 6.99
7 Interest on Working
Capital - - -
8 Interest on Consumers’
Security Deposit - 16.14 16.14
9 Provision for Bad &
Doubtful Debts - 12.35 12.35
10 Return on Equity 23.44 2.60 26.04
11 Less: Other Income - 257.11 257.11
12 Less: Non-Tariff Income 25.37 228.30 253.67
13 ARR 690.30 4650.41 5340.71
9.3 Wheeling Charges
9.3.1 The Wheeling Charges applicable for Distribution Open Access consumers at 33KV
voltage level for FY 2019-20, has been determined from the ARR of the Distribution
Wires Business, as determined in the above Table.
Table 130: Wheeling Charges approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20
Sr.
No.
Particulars Units Total
1 Net ARR of Wire Business Rs. Crore 690.30
2 Total Energy Input into Distribution system MU 9440.01
3 Distribution Cost for Wires Business for 33 kV
voltage level (assuming 35% of cost at 33 kV)
Rs. Crore 241.61
4 Wheeling Charges for 33 kV voltage level Paise/kWh 26
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 186
9.3.2 The Wheeling Charges for FY 2018-19 as determined in the above Table, are
applicable for use of the distribution system of APDCL by other Licensees or
generating companies or captive power plants or consumers/users who are permitted
open access at 33 kV voltage level under Section 42(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
9.3.3 APDCL may approach the Commission for determination of Wheeling Charges for 11
kV level, as and when applicable, with all the relevant data, computations, and
justification.
9.4 Applicable Wheeling Losses
The Wheeling Losses applicable for Open Access transactions for FY 2019-20 shall
be as under:
Table 131: Wheeling Losses approved by the Commission for FY 2019-20
Sr. No. Particulars Total
1 At 33 kV level 5%
2 At 11 kV level 11%
9.5 Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS)
9.5.1 The Open Access consumers are liable to pay the CSS to compensate the utility for
any loss of revenue due to the shifting of the consumer to the Open Access system.
Eligible consumers with a connected load of 1 MW and above shall be allowed Open
Access.
9.5.2 The CSS for HT-II Commercial Category, HT-IV (i) Bulk Supply Govt. Edu. Institutions
category, HT-IV (ii) Bulk Supply Others category, HT-V (C) HT Industry category, HT-
VI Tea, Coffee & Rubber category, and HT-VII Oil & Coal category, computed in
accordance with the philosophy approved in previous Tariff Orders, is shown in the
Table below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 187
Table 132: Category-wise Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for FY 2019-20 (Rs/kWh)
Particulars Legend Approved
Average Billing Rate for HT-II– HT Commercial category A 8.61
Average Billing Rate for HT-IV (i) - HT Bulk Supply - Govt. Edu. Inst. category
B 7.78
Average Billing Rate for HT-IV (ii) - HT Bulk Supply Others category
C 8.59
Average Billing Rate for HT V (C ) HT-II Industry above 150 kVA category
D 8.67
Average Billing Rate for Tea, Coffee & Rubber category E 8.37
Average Billing Rate for Oil & Coal category F 8.66
Average Cost of Supply G 7.05
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for HT Commercial category H = A - G 1.56
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for HT Bulk Supply - Govt. Edu. Inst. Category
I = B - G 0.72
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for HT Bulk Supply Others category
J = C - G 1.54
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for HT-II Industry above 150 kW category
K = D - G 1.62
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for Tea, Coffee & Rubber category
L = E - G 1.31
Cross-Subsidy Surcharge for Oil & Coal category M = F - G 1.61
9.6 Applicability of Tariff
The approved Retail Supply Tariffs, Wheeling Charges and CSS for FY 2019-20 shall
be effective from April 1, 2019 and shall continue until replaced/modified by an Order
of the Commission.
(D. Chakravarty)
Member, AERC
(S. C. Das)
Chairperson, AERC
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 188
10 Directives
The Commission has issued certain directives to APDCL in the past Orders, with an objective
of attaining operational efficiency and streamlining the flow of information, which would be
beneficial to the sector and the Petitioner, both in the short-term and long-term.
As regards the directives issued by the Commission in the Tariff Order dated 19th March,
2018, APDCL has submitted the report to the Commission on compliance. The Commission
has reviewed the compliance of directives as submitted by APDCL and the status is as follows:
Status of Directives issued in the Tariff Order dated 19th March, 2018
Directive 1 - Change in beneficiary of PGCIL
The Commission directs APDCL and AEGCL to work out the modalities to make APDCL rather
than AEGCL the beneficiary of PGCIL, before the commencement of the next MYT Control
Period (from FY 2019-20 onwards), so that the PGCIL bills are raised to APDCL directly.
APDCL should include the PGCIL Charges in their Tariff Petition with effect from FY 2019-20.
Status: Complied with
Directive 2 – Revision of Pay
The Commission directs APDCL to submit actual impact on account of Revision of Pay,
including detailed calculation and justification along with documentary evidences based on
Audited Accounts for FY 2017-18 and revised projections for FY 2018-19. APDCL should
maintain details of expenses incurred on ROP in FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and also for the
arrears paid separately.
Status: Complied with
Directive 3 – Submission of Voltage-wise Losses and Voltage-wise Cost of Supply
APDCL is directed to submit properly reconciled data on voltage-wise losses and VCoS, based
on proper energy audit, and with complete explanation and supporting data, along with the
MYT Petition for the next Control Period.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 189
Status:
APDCL has reported that inadequate infrastructure has been a hurdle for carrying out
computation of voltage-wise losses and voltage-wise cost of supply since long. However, after
commissioning of necessary infrastructure under various schemes like IPDS, UDAY etc.,
APDCL expects to compute actual VCoS. Besides, outcome of the project carried out by PPS
Enterprise Limited of the three circles namely Jorhat, GEC-II and Cachar under guidance of
the Commission, will be helpful in this aspect.
Directive 4 – FPPPA
APDCL shall strictly follow the AERC (Fuel and Power Purchase Price Adjustment)
Regulations, 2010, for levy of FPPPA, and intimate the Commission and consumers before
levy of FPPPA.
Status: No FPPPA was claimed during FY 2018-19.
Directive 5: Verification of Sales and Revenue Data
APDCL is directed to reconcile the actual category-wise revenue and the revenue computed
using the actual category-wise sales and load and the tariffs applicable during the particular
Year, while submitting its true-up Petition for any Year. Such reconciliation should form part of
all future True-up Petitions filed by APDCL
Status:
APDCL reported that revenue is accounted on the basis of periodic system generated reports
through billing software. Absence of specific patch for various events viz. Assessment bill,
arrear adjustment at any subsequent period sometimes necessitates manual intervention for
course correction. However, action is being taken in this regard.
This Directive has not been complied with, as is evident from the discrepancies between
Revenue booked in the Accounts and the total Revenue computed based on approved Tariff
and Category wise sales and load, as observed during the Truing Up of FY 2017-18.
Directive 6 – Capacity Building of Tariff Cell
The Commission observes that there are several obvious errors in filing of the Petitions and
calculation and presentation of Revenue Gap/ (Surplus), etc. It is also seen that many of the
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 190
submissions are conceptually wrong. The Commission has provided for a Training Budget of
Rs. 1 Crore in the ARR of FY 2018-19. APDCL should prepare and submit the Training
Calendar for FY 2018-19 to the Commission by April 30, 2018. The Training should also focus
on capacity building of the Tariff Cell through special training regarding regulatory aspects of
ARR and Tariff determination, financial principles, etc., in order to realise long-term benefits.
Status:
Partially Complied with. Details of action taken regarding Capacity Building of the manpower
not submitted.
Directive 7 - Approval for deviation in Capital Expenditure scheme approved in
Business Plan Order dated September 1, 2016
The Commission directs APDCL to take prior approval of the Commission in case of any
addition and/or deletion of schemes or any change in funding pattern of schemes approved in
Business Plan Order dated September 1, 2016. APDCL shall also take prior approval of the
Commission in case of any emergency works, apart from the works approved in Business
Plan Order dated September 1, 2016, to be carried out during the Control Period from FY
2016-17 to FY 2018-19.
Status: Complied with.
Directive 8 - Compliance of Audit Observations
The Commission noted that Statutory Auditors and CAG have made several comments on the
Audited Accounts. APDCL is directed to take corrective actions on the same expeditiously.
Status: Complied with
Directive 9 - Separation of Feeders for Tea category
APDCL is directed to expedite the separation of Feeders for the Tea category from the rural
load, in order to ensure reliable quality of supply for the Tea category.
Status:
APDCL has informed the Commission that steps are being taken to install separate feeders
for the Tea gardens. However, these are under different stages of implementation.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 191
Directive 10: Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for Connected Load
APDCL is directed to carry out a campaign for soliciting details of the actual Connected Load
of the consumers through a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, in order to facilitate recovery of the
appropriate Fixed Charges. APDCL should ensure that the Scheme is simple and easy to
administer and the Format and procedure for voluntary submission of revised Connected Load
does not result in undue harassment to the consumers.
Status: Complied with
Directive 11 – Safety Measures
APDCL is directed to expedite the preparation of a DPR for improving the safety levels of
system operation, as there have been several concerns expressed regarding the safety of
APDCL’s operations. The Commission has provided Rs. 1 crore in the ARR of FY 2018-19 for
preparation of the DPR. APDCL should submit the DPR within 3 months of this Order and take
urgent steps to arrange the funds for taking up the capital works for necessary safety
improvement measures.
Status:
APDCL reported one Electrical Safety Officer was appointed. Further, M/s PPS Energy
Solutions has been appointed for preparation of DPR for improving the safety levels of system
operation. DPR yet to be submitted.
Directive 12 – Outsourcing of sub-stations
APDCL is directed to re-examine the present practice of outsourcing the maintenance of some
of the 33/11 kV sub-stations after analysing the pros and cons of such an approach. In case
outsourcing is done because of unavoidable reasons, APDCL is required to ensure proper
supervision and monitoring of the work of the Contractors appointed for the purpose, as the
primary responsibility for proper and adequate maintenance of the sub-stations and collection
of data on SAIDI, CAIDI, etc., lies with APDCL.
Status:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 192
APDCL informed that due to shortage of manpower, they resorted to outsourcing for
maintenance of some of the 33/11 kV sub-stations. However, APDCL is taking action for
recruitment of necessary manpower.
Directive 13: Provisioning for Bad and Doubtful Debts
It is observed that APDCL is provisioning for Bad and Doubtful debts every year, which is
approved by the Commission. However, the accumulated provision is not being utilised for
actual write-off of bad debts. APDCL needs to rationalise its approach and assess whether
further provisioning is required, and also to verify which receivables are beyond recovery and
need to be written off, through a proper process.
Status: Complied with.
Directive 14 - Incentive Scheme for Employees
APDCL shall examine to formulate an Incentive Scheme for employees, to reward the
employees for achieving clearly identified performance levels, which shall be payable in case
APDCL earns profit in any year. APDCL shall submit such Employee Incentive Scheme for
the Commission’s approval, along with the basic framework of the scheme, assessed
expenses, proposed method to recover the expenses on account of incentives, etc.
Status:
Not Complied with.
New Directives:
The Commission hereby issues the following to APDCL as under:
Directive 1: Submission of Voltage-wise Losses and Voltage-wise Cost of Supply
The Commission directs APDCL to complete the metering at 33kV, 11 kV and LT level for
arriving at the voltage wise losses. The Commission also directs APDCL to expedite Energy
Audit exercise in this regard. APDCL is directed to submit properly reconciled data on voltage-
wise losses and VCoS, based on proper energy audit, and with complete explanation and
supporting data, along with the MYT Petition for the next Control Period.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 193
Directive 2: Energy Accounting
It is observed that there is no proper metering arrangements in the 33KV and 11KV feeders
and also at the DTR level. The Commission directs APDCL to complete the metering at 33kV,
11 kV and LT level for arriving at the voltage wise losses, proper Energy Accounting and
assessment of loss.
Directive 3: Replacement of Defective Meters
It is seen that a large number of consumer meters are defective. APDCL is directed to take up
an exercise to verify the defective meters and to replace the defective meters.
Directive 4: Verification of Sales and Revenue Data
It is observed during Truing Up of FY 2017-18, there is mismatch between Revenue booked
in the Accounts and the total Revenue computed based on approved Tariff and Category wise
sales and load. APDCL is directed to examine the matter on priority basis and take necessary
steps to avoid occurrence of such discrepancies in future.
APDCL is directed to reconcile the actual category-wise revenue billed vis-a-vis revenue
computed using the actual category-wise sales, contracted demand/ Load and the tariffs
applicable during the particular year, while submitting its true-up Petition for any Year. Such
reconciliation should form part of all future True-up Petitions filed by APDCL.
Directive 5: Separation of Rural Feeders:
APDCL is directed to expedite the separation of Rural Feeders and the Industrial feeders in
order to ensure reliable quality of supply to the consumers.
Directive 6: Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for Connected Load
APDCL is directed to continue with its campaign for soliciting details of the actual Connected
Load of the consumers through a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, in order to facilitate recovery
of the appropriate Fixed Charges. APDCL should ensure that the Scheme is simple and easy
to administer and the Format and procedure for voluntary submission of revised Connected
Load does not result in undue harassment to the consumers.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 194
Directive 7: Capacity Building
In view of the recruitment drive of APDCL in 2018-19, where several new technical and
managerial personnel have been inducted, the Commission has provided Rs 1.00 (one) crore
for capacity building of APDCL in the ARR of FY 2019-20.
The Commission directs APDCL to prepare and submit the Training Calendar for FY 2019-20
to the Commission by April 30, 2019.
Directive 8: Compliance of Audit Observations
The Commission noted that Statutory Auditors have made several comments on the Audited
Accounts. APDCL is directed to take corrective actions on the same expeditiously.
Directive 9: Load Factor Incentive
APDCL is directed to submit their views on introduction of load factor incentives by September
2019.
Directive 10: Interest on Consumer Security Deposit
APDCL should devise a mechanism to pay interest on security deposit to all consumers
including LT consumers based on the present connected Load/Contracted Demand.
APDCL is directed to submit the status of compliance of above Directives to the
Commission at the end of each quarter. The Commission will review the status in the
month following the end of that quarter.
Directive 11 – Maintenance of Project-wise Database
APDCL is directed to maintain database on the individual Projects under each Scheme
with the following details and submit the following details for all ongoing projects at
the time of true-up and Tariff for ensuing year. Further, for all Projects that have not
commenced by March 31, 2019, APDCL shall obtain the Commission’s prior approval
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 195
based on the necessary details as identified below, even if in-principle approval has
been received:
a) Details/Scope of Project including activities, area covered, etc.;
b) Start date of Project;
c) Scheduled completion date of Project;
d) Funding Plan;
e) Cost-Benefit-Analysis of the Project
f) Present Status of Project, indicating physical progress in percentage
terms and in monetary terms;
g) Status of Capitalisation as per Field Reports and as per Accounts;
h) Whether the intended benefits of the Project have been achieved, etc.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. Chakravarty) (S. C. Das)
Member, AERC Chairperson, AERC
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 196
11 Tariff Schedule
This Chapter details the tariffs applicable in the State of Assam with effect from April 1, 2019
until replaced/modified by an Order of the Commission.
For the purpose of this Schedule, the consumers are divided into two distinct groups based
on voltage of supply, i.e., LT Group and HT Group. The consumers are further divided into
categories based on purpose of supply and nature of supply.
Common Terms & Conditions for both, LT Group and HT Group
(a) Surcharge for delayed payment: Surcharge @ 1.5% per month or part thereof at simple
interest shall be levied, if payment is not made in full on or before the due date.
(b) Payments shall be made by cash/local cheque/DD/Electronic Transfer (where
applicable): For all payments made by DD, the commission shall be borne by the
consumers.
(c) The Tariff does not include any tax or duty, etc., on electrical energy that may be payable
at any time in accordance with any law/State Government Rule in force. Such charges,
if any, shall be payable by the consumers in addition to tariff charge.
LT GROUP
Supply Voltage: 1 Ph, 230 V AC and 3 Ph, 415 V AC
Common Terms & Conditions for LT Group
(a) For the purpose of determination of monthly fixed charge based on Connected
Load, the Connected Load shall be rounded up to the next higher kW if the
decimal is higher than 0.5 and the nearest lower kW if the decimal is lower than
0.5.
(b) For Jeevan Dhara consumers having Connected Load below 0.5 kW,
Connected Load shall be rounded off to 0.5 kW.
Power factor penalty and rebate
[Applicable for LT IV –Commercial, LT V – General Purpose Supply, LT VIII – Small Industries,
and HT I – Domestic, HT II – Commercial, HT III – Public Water Works, HT IV – Bulk Supply,
HT V (A) - Small Industries, HT V (B) – HT I Industry, HT V (C) – HT II Industry, HT VI – Tea,
Coffee & Rubber, HT VII – Oil & Coal, HT VIII – Irrigation, and HT X – Electric Crematorium]
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 197
(a) Power Factor Rebate:
i. In case, the average PF (leading or lagging) maintained by the consumer is
more than 0.85 and upto 0.95, a rebate of 1% on the Energy Charges on
unit consumption shall be applicable;
ii. For PF (leading or lagging) of 0.95 and above upto 0.97, a rebate of 2% on
the Energy Charges on unit consumption shall be applicable;
iii. For PF (leading or lagging) of 0.97 and above upto Unity PF, a rebate of 3%
on the Energy Charges on unit consumption shall be applicable.
(b) Power Factor Penalty:
i. In case average PF (leading or lagging) in a month for a consumer falls
below 0.85, a penalty @1% for every 1% fall in PF (leading or lagging) from
0.85 to 0.60; plus 2% for every 1% fall below 0.60 to 0.30 upto and including
0.30 shall be levied on total unit consumption. PF penalty shall be levied on
those consumers where PF is recorded electronically.
LT Category-1 Jeevan Dhara:
Applicability
This Tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to any premises exclusively for the
purpose of own requirements with a Connected Load of not more than 0.5 kW and
consumption upto 1 kWh/day or 30 kWh per month.
(c) Tariff:
Consumption Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For consumption upto 30
kWh per month
Rs. 4.55 /kWh Rs. 20 per connection per
month
If any Jeevan Dhara consumer consumes more than 30 units per month for 2
consecutive months, then such consumer should be transferred to Domestic A
category and billed accordingly thereafter, irrespective of the number of units
consumed.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 198
LT Category –II: Domestic A
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers having connected load
below 5 kW for residential premises, exclusively for domestic purposes only. This shall
also include supply of power to occupants of flats in multi-storied buildings, if the
premises have not been classified under Domestic B or HT Domestic and receiving
bulk power at single point without any individual metering arrangements for domestic
purposes.
(a) Tariff
Consumption Energy Charge Fixed Charge
First 120 kWh per month Rs. 5.40 /kWh
Rs. 40 /kW/ month From 121 – 240 kWh per Month Rs. 6.65 /kWh
Balance kWh Rs. 7.65 /kWh
NOTE:
If any part of the domestic connection is utilised for any use other than dwelling purpose
like commercial, industrial, etc., the entire consumption shall be treated under that
category and the respective tariff shall be applied for the entire consumption.
LT Category-III: Domestic-B
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers having Connected Load
of 5 kW and above upto 25 kW exclusively for domestic purposes only. This shall also
include bulk supply at single point for supply to occupants of flats in multi-storied
buildings having individual metering for domestic purposes.
(a) Tariff:
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs 7.25 /kWh Rs. 40 /kW/month
NOTE:
If any part of the domestic connection is utilised for any use other than dwelling purpose
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 199
like commercial, industrial, etc., the entire consumption shall be treated under that
category and the respective tariff shall be applied for the entire consumption.
LT Category-IV: LT Commercial
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers having Connected Load
upto 25 kW to all establishments and institutions of commercial nature and connected
with trading activities, including commercial offices, Government and public sector
commercial installations, commercial houses, optical houses, shops, hotels,
restaurants, bars, refreshment stalls, showcases of advertisements, theatres, cinema
halls, guest houses, laundries, dry-cleaners, Railway stations, public and private bus-
stands not covered under any other category of consumers, copy works, X-ray
installations, private nursing homes/clinical laboratories, photographic studios, battery
charging units, workshops, petrol pumps, factory & printing presses not using motive
power in the manufacturing process, private educational and cultural institutions,
lodging and boarding houses.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 7.60 /kWh Rs. 120 /kW/month
LT Category V- LT General Purpose Supply
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers having Connected Load
upto 25 kW to all Non-commercial and Non-domestic users of electric power like
Government offices, Semi-Government Educational and cultural institutions,
Government hospitals, dispensaries, Charitable institutions and Trusts (public or
private formed solely for charitable or religious purposes), Dharamshala, Non-
commercial boarding and lodging houses and other Non-commercial institutions.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 200
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 6.50 /kWh Rs. 135 /kW/month
LT Category VI-Public Lighting
Applicability
This tariff is applicable to supply of power for street lighting systems in Municipalities,
Town Committees and Panchayat, etc., Signal systems in roads and park lighting, in
areas of Municipality/Town Committee/Panchayat, etc.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 6.60 /kWh Rs. 120 /kW/month
N.B. In case any unmetered supply is provided in exigency, the energy shall be
assessed considering 12 hours per day burning hours for the energy charge. For
example, if the total connected load of the street light service is 1 kW, energy shall be
assessed as 12 units per day.
LT Category VII-Agriculture
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power for agriculture / irrigation purpose in
the agricultural sector having Connected Load upto 25 kW.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 4.60 /kWh Rs. 40 /kW/month
LT Category VIII – Small Industries
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for supply of power for industrial purposes having licence from
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 201
designated authority of appropriate Government and not covered under any other
category, for consumers having Contract Demand/Connected Load upto 25 kW.
(a) Tariff
Energy
Charge
Fixed Charge
Rural Industries – for all consumption Rs. 5.15 /kWh Rs. 40 /kW/month
Urban Industries - for all consumption Rs. 5.40 /kWh Rs. 50 /kW/month
LT Category IX: Temporary Supply:
Applicability
This Tariff will be applicable for electric supply of power at LT, which is temporary in
nature for a period not exceeding one month.
Charges
Domestic Rs. 80/kW/day or Rs. 9.39/kWh whichever is higher
Non-Domestic non-
agricultural
Rs.125/kW/day or Rs. 11.49/kWh whichever is higher
Agricultural Rs. 50/kW/day or Rs. 5.14/kWh whichever is higher.
LT Category X: Electric Vehicles Charging Station:
Applicability
This tariff is applicable to consumers who use electricity exclusively for Electric Vehicle
Charging installations at LT level.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption
Domestic Rs 5.40 /kWh Rs. 120 /kW/month
Note: Consumers can charge their own Electric Vehicles at their respective premises,
paying the charge applicable to the consumer category.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 202
HT GROUP
Tariff for this group is applicable for those consumers availing power supply at 11 kV
or above. Calculations shall be deemed to be in kVA for consumers under this part of
the tariff schedule. However, consumers above 25 kW (or 30 kVA) Connected Load
and drawing power at LT are also covered under this Group. During the period of
conversion from LT supply to HT supply, the consumer shall have to pay the necessary
compensatory charges (10% & 3% of total energy consumption for LT line & DTR,
respectively).
Common Terms & Conditions for HT Group
(a) For supply at voltages higher than as applicable to the consumers, rebate @ 3%
shall be applicable on energy consumption for each higher level of voltage, and
a surcharge of 3% shall be applicable if consumer draws power at lower than the
applicable voltage level.
(b) In case, metering is done on the L.T. side of the distribution transformer, for a
group of consumers receiving power, then for the purpose of billing, an additional
energy consumption on account of transformer loss computed @ 3% on the
consumer’s Energy Charges shall be added.
(c) Voltage Rebate
i) A rebate of 3% in the Energy Charges shall be applicable for all consumers
taking supply at 132 kV.
ii) A rebate of 1.5% in the Energy Charges shall be applicable for all
consumers taking supply at 33 kV.
(d) Contract Demand: The Contract Demand shall be as per the Agreement executed
between the consumer and APDCL. In case declaration/option is not made by the
consumer, 100% of the Connected Load converted to kVA shall be the contracted
demand.
(e) Billable Demand: Billing demand shall be 100% of Contracted Demand or
Recorded Demand, whichever is higher. In case the meter remains defective in a
month, billing demand shall be considered as per clause 6.3.4 of AERC (Electricity
Supply Code) Regulations, 2017, as amended from time to time.
(f) Overdrawal Penalty: If the Recorded Demand is higher than the Contracted
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 203
Demand in a month, then fixed charge based on Contracted Demand shall be
levied at three times the normal rate for the portion of demand exceeding the
Contracted Demand.
HT Category I: HT Domestic
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers having Connected Load
above 25 kW (or 30 kVA) to residential premises, exclusively for domestic purposes
only. This shall also include supply of power to occupants of flats in multi storied
buildings/ residential colony, receiving bulk power at single point with single metering
for domestic purposes.
(a) Tariff:
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 7.25 /kWh Rs. 40 /kVA/month
NOTE:
If any part of the domestic connection is utilised for any use other than dwelling purpose
like commercial, industrial, etc., the entire consumption shall be treated under that
category and the respective tariff shall be applied for the entire consumption.
HT Category-II: HT Commercial
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers having Connected Load
above 25 kW (or 30 kVA) to all establishments and institutions of commercial nature
and connected with trading activities, including commercial offices, Government and
public sector commercial installations, commercial houses, optical houses, shops,
shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, bars, refreshment stalls, showcases of
advertisements, theatres, cinema halls, guest houses, laundries, dry-cleaners, Railway
stations, public and private bus-stands not covered under any other category of
consumers, copy works, X-ray installations, private nursing homes/clinical
laboratories, photographic studios, battery charging units, workshops, petrol pumps,
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 204
factory & printing presses not using motive power in the manufacturing process, private
educational and cultural institutions, lodging and boarding houses.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 7.60 /kWh Rs. 160 /kVA/month
HT Category - III: Public Water Works
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for public water supply maintained by Government or
Government Corporations, Municipalities, Town Committees and Panchayats.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 6.35 /kWh Rs. 135 /kVA/month
HT Category – IV: Bulk Supply
Applicability
This tariff is applicable to Bulk consumers with a Connected Load above 25 kW (or 30
kVA) provided that the consumers not covered by any other category such as any
domestic connection, industries, tea, etc., and who make their own internal distribution
arrangement at their own cost and receive power at the point of supply at high or extra
high voltage. This is further classified as under:
(i) Government educational institution-like universities, engineering colleges,
medical colleges with residential facilities and
(ii) Others - categories not included in any of the above categories, including
Government offices, Railways, Military Engineering Services, etc.
(a) Tariff
(i) Bulk Government Educational Institutions
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 6.75 /kWh Rs. 130 /kVA/month
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 205
(ii) Others
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 7.50 /kWh Rs. 170 /kVA/month
HT Category V (A): HT Small Industries
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for supply of power for industrial purposes having licence from
designated authority of appropriate Government and not covered under any other
category, for consumers with Connected Load above 25 kW (or 30 kVA) and up to 50
kVA, irrespective of location of the industry in rural area or urban area.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 5.85 /kWh Rs. 60 /kVA/month
HT Category V (B)-HT-I Industries
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for supply of power to industrial consumers having licence from
designated authority of appropriate Government and not covered under any other
category, at a single point for industrial purposes with Contract Demand/Connected
Load above 50 kVA and up to 150 kVA.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge (Base
Tariff)
Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 6.40 /kWh Rs. 140 /kVA/month
TOD tariff
In addition to the above Base Tariff, the following Time of Day (TOD) tariff for HT-I
industries shall be applicable:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 206
Time Slot Energy charge (Rs. /kWh)
0600 hrs to 1700 hrs (normal) 0.00
1700-2200 hrs (peak) (+) 1.50
2200-0600 hrs (night off-peak) (-) 1.50
HT Category V (C): HT-II Industries
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for supply of power at a single point for industrial purposes
having licence from designated authority of appropriate Government and not covered
under any other category, for Contract Demand/Connected Load above 150 kVA.
(a) Tariff
A consumer may opt for any one of the following Options depending on his
requirements by prior intimation to concerned billing unit of Discom. A consumer may
change his Option only after six months of availing that particular Option.
Option -1
Energy Charge
(Base Tariff)
Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 6.90 /kWh Rs. 200 /kVA/month
In addition to the above Base Tariff, the following Time of Day (TOD) tariff for HT-II
Industries shall be applicable:
Time Slot Energy Charge (Rs. /kWh)
0600 hrs to 1700 hrs (normal) 0.00
1700-2200 hrs (peak) (+) 1.50
2200-0600 hrs (night off-peak) (-) 1.50
Option -2
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 6.45 /kWh Rs. 300 /kVA/month
No TOD Tariff will be applicable for consumers who opt for Option-2.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 207
HT Category VI-Tea, Coffee and Rubber
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for tea, coffee and rubber plantation/production by utilisation of
electrical power in factory, irrigation, lighting, etc., in the Estate.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge
(Base Tariff)
Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 6.90 /kWh Rs. 250 /kVA/month
In addition to the above Base Tariff, the following Time of Day (TOD) tariff for
HT-VI Tea, Coffee & Rubber shall be applicable:
Time Slot Energy Charge (Rs./kWh)
0600 hrs to 1700 hrs (normal) 0.00
1700-2200 hrs (peak) (+) 1.50
2200-0600 hrs (night off-peak) (-) 1.50
HT Category VII - Oil and Coal
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for supply of power to consumers at a single point for
installations of Oil and Coal Sector.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge (Base
Tariff)
Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 7.75 /kWh Rs. 300 /kVA/month
In addition to the above Base Tariff, the following Time of Day (TOD) tariff for HT-VII
Oil and Coal shall be applicable:
Time Slot Energy Charge (Rs./kWh)
0600 hrs to 1700 hrs (normal) 0.00
1700-2200 hrs (peak) (+) 1.50
2200-0600 hrs (night off-peak) (-) 1.50
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 208
HT Category VIII: HT Irrigation
Applicability
This tariff shall be applicable for electricity supply for agriculture / irrigation purpose in
the agricultural sector for pump set above 25 kW (or 30 kVA) and for whom power has
been supplied at 11 kV or above.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 6.10 /kWh Rs. 60 /kVA/month
HT Category IX: Temporary Supply:
Applicability
This Tariff will be applicable for electric supply of power at HT which is temporary in
nature for a period not exceeding one month.
HT Category – X: Electric Crematorium
Applicability
This tariff is applicable for electricity used in Electric Crematoriums for all purposes,
including lighting.
(a) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption. Rs. 4.45/kWh Rs. 160/kVA/month
Charges
Rs. 160 /kVA/day or Rs. 9.15 /kWh, whichever is
higher
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 209
HT Category XI: Railway Traction:
Applicability
This tariff is applicable to the Railways for traction loads.
(b) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 6.45 /kWh Rs. 300 /kVA/month
HT Category XII: Electric Vehicles Charging Stations:
Applicability
This tariff is applicable to consumers who use electricity exclusively for Electric Vehicle
Charging installations at HT level.
(c) Tariff
Energy Charge Fixed Charge
For all consumption Rs. 6.90 /kWh Rs. 160 /kVA/month
Note: Consumers can charge their own Electric Vehicles at their respective premises,
paying the charge applicable to the consumer category.
This Tariff Order shall continue to be applicable until it is replaced/modified by an Order
of the Commission.
This Tariff Order is signed by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission on March
01, 2019.
These Tariffs take effect from April 1, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. Chakravarty)
Member, AERC
(S. C. Das)
Chairperson, AERC
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 210
12 Annexures
24th Meeting of the State Advisory Committee
VENUE : ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE, GUWAHATI – 22.
DAY / DATE : TUESDAY, 5th February, 2019.
LIST OF MEMBERS / SPECIAL INVITEES: AT ANNEXURE-I (ENCLOSED)
The 24th Meeting of State Advisory Committee (SAC) was chaired by the Hon’ble
Chairperson, AERC, Shri S.C. Das IAS, (Retd.). At the onset, the Chairperson welcomed all
members and invitees to the meeting. He briefed the participants that the meeting was
convened, primarily, to discuss the Multi Year Tariff (MYT) Petitions for FY 2019-20 to
FY2021-22, which were filed by the State Power Utilities in December 2018. The
Chairperson informed that the utilities would make short PowerPoint presentations on the
important features of their respective petitions during the meeting. He further informed the
participants that a Public Hearing is also scheduled to be held on 12th February 2019 on
these petitions.
The Chairperson stated that as stipulated by Section 87 of the Electricity Act 2003, the
Commission has made it a point to approach the SAC for advice in all important matters of
policy, including Regulations and Tariff making. He requested the members to offer their
valuable advice on the petitions and in particular, on the following aspects:
a) The Discom has claimed increase in fixed charges stating that these charges
accounted for only 14% of the electricity tariff as on date, while fixed cost
constituted 60% of the total cost. The Commission increased fixed charges last
year by Rs 5 and Rs 10 across different categories of consumers.
b) The High Tension (HT) consumers have been claiming that cross subsidy
surcharge be reduced further and tariff be based on voltage wise cost of supply.
c) APDCL have signed the UDAY scheme and as per the MoU, the Company has
to restrict the distribution loss to 15% or below in 2019-20. The distribution loss
achieved by APDCL in FY 2018-19 is 17.64 %.Whether the Distribution loss
trajectory for the MYT period is to be determined keeping in view the MOU under
the UDAY scheme.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 211
The Chairperson observed that the State Power Companies have been making huge capital
investments and most of these are funded under different schemes of the State & Central
Governments and loans from ADB and the World Bank. With capitalization of these projects,
electricity tariff is likely to be affected over the next couple of years. The Chairperson further
observed that there is a possibility of decrease in POC charges with increase in State
generation in the coming years and concern displayed by the Central Government regarding
high POC charges for few states and constitution of a Committee to study the matter afresh.
The Welcome address was followed by an introductory session among the members and
invitees. Thereafter, the agenda items were taken up for discussion in seriatim.
The important points raised by the Hon’ble Members during the course of discussions are
briefly recorded below.
Agenda: Confirm the Minutes of the 23rd meeting of SAC held on 15.06.2018
The Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Committee were circulated among the Members and
Special Invitees. The following comments were received on the above:
a) Shri A.K. Baruah, Adviser AASIA brought to the notice of the Commission that point
No.VI of Agenda No. 5 regarding the status of reconstitution of the Consumer Grievance
Redressal Forums was raised by him and not by the member mentioned in the minutes.
b) Shri Baruah stated that one of his observations regarding non-payment of load security
interest to LT consumers by APDCL was also not recorded in the minutes.
The Chairperson, AERC directed that necessary modifications be made to the minutes.
It is regretted that there was an inadvertent mistake in the name of the member. As directed
by the Commission, rectification has been made and point No.VI of Agenda No. 5 of the
minutes of the 23rd meeting of SAC held on 15.06.2018 shall henceforth be read as under:
“Shri A. K. Baruah, Adviser, AASSIA enquired regarding the status of the re-
constituted Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums. Chairperson AERC remarked
that the Commission had written to the Discom to reconstitute 3 CGRFs in Jorhat,
Guwahati and Silchar as per the AERC Regulations and the process is underway.”
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 212
Chairperson AERC remarked that at present there are eight (8) CGRFs across the State
and the Commission has directed only three to be reconstituted with independent members
according to the AERC Regulations, 2016. This was because the total number of cases
recorded in the 8 CGRFs annually was not more than 20-25. He observed that most of the
grievances, more than 95%, were sorted out at the sub-divisional level. The Chairperson
further observed that APDCL should improve record keeping of the grievances attended at
sub-divisional and divisional levels.
Regarding the point of non-payment of load security interest to LT consumers, an addition
has been made to the minutes in Agenda No 5 as Point No. viii as under:
“Shri A.K. Baruah, Adviser AASSIA stated that although, APDCL is paying load
security interests to HT consumers, no payment is being made to the LT consumers.
He observed that this is a contravention to the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003
as the Act advocates interest payment to all consumers irrespective of the category
to which the consumers belong”.
The Commission directed APDCL to devise a means to pay interest on load security to the
LT consumers as well, as has been specified in the AERC Regulations & the Electricity Act,
and furnish an action taken report in the next SAC meeting.
Shri Champak Baruah, Member stated that he mentioned about the introduction of merit
cum seniority in promotion of Engineers of the three Companies but there are no records
of the same in the minutes.
The Chairperson clarified that as the matter relates to internal administration of the utilities
over which the Commission has no jurisdiction, it was not recorded.
Agenda: Action Taken on the minutes of the 23rd Meeting of SAC.
A power-point presentation was made by Assistant Director (Engineering) AERC, Shri J.
Bezbaruah on the salient features of action taken reports submitted by the power utilities.
Hard copies of the action taken reports were also circulated among the members of SAC.
The Chairperson AERC asked the respective utilities to respond to any query from the SAC
Members. The important points of discussion are noted below:
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 213
i. Shri Subodh Sharma, President, Bidyut Grahak Manch stated that solid steps need
to be taken by the State Generating Sector to improve own generation capacity. He
observed that more State generation would help reduce the POC charges. He further
observed that performance of the state generation sector has a direct bearing on the
health of the State Transmission and Distribution utilities.
ii. Shri Dilip Kumar Sarma, Sr. Consultant, NETC stressed that all efforts should be
made to establish large sized generation plant inside the State of Assam either in
State or Central sector which will contribute towards moderating the existing POC
charges and in turn the domestic tariff.
iii. Regarding action taken by the Generation Company following decision of
construction of the National Gas Grid in the State, MD APGCL, Ms Kalyani Baruah
informed that APGCL has submitted a proposal to both MOPNG and GAIL for 9.75
MMSCMD of gas to set up power plants at various locations of Assam. Out of the
9.75 MMSCMD of gas, 6.60 MMSCMD is for the proposed 250 MW Chandrapur
Thermal Power Project and 1450 MW (2X725 MW) Thermal Power Project at Lower
Assam. The balance 3.15 MMSCMD gas is proposed to be utilized by the 725 MW
Amguri Thermal Power Project and 100 MW Ph-II Namrup Replacement Power
Project. MD, APGCL further informed that the price of gas available would be high
and APDCL is considering appointing consultants to conduct a feasibility study for
the proposed projects.
Chairperson AERC observed that APGCL should accept the gas available even if
price may be high, keeping in mind the future energy security of the State.
Shri V.K. Pipersenia, IAS (Retd), Chairman APDCL/AEGCL /APGCL informed that
they would soon initiate the process to appoint consultants to conduct a feasibility
study regarding the viability of the proposed gas projects vis-à-vis the cost of gas
available.
Shri D. Chakravarty, Member AERC, suggested that gas available should be a
mixture of both domestic and RLNG to reduce cost. MD, APGCL informed that
MOPNG has given assurance that the gas made available would be a mixture of
both domestic and RLNG and likely to be priced between $8- $12 per MMBTU.
Shri Subodh Sharma suggested that since the National Gas Grid is likely to be
completed by 2020, therefore, the viability study needs to be completed at an early
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 214
date so that these projects come into existence before gas becomes available. He
informed the house that M/s GAIL had proposed uniform pricing of gas throughout
the country; however, the outcome of the proposal is unknown.
Shri Dilip Kumar Sarma stressed that APGCL through the Govt. of Assam should
vigorously pursue the proposal of M/s GAIL to the Ministry of Petroleum for uniform
pricing of gas through out the country irrespective of distance or direction. At the
same time, commitment from GAIL should also be obtained for minimum quantum
of gas required for economic operation of gas based plants to be established by
APGCL
Shri Dilip Kumar Sarma also observed that, given the present energy scenario, the
gas that would be available in the country for the next 50 years would meet only 15-
20% of the total requirement. Therefore, gas that would be supplied to Assam would
be imported gas and likely to be priced at $8-$9 per MMBTU.
iv. Shri K. Medhi, Secretary, NESSIA opined that there have been discussions
regarding setting up of power projects in Chandrapur since a long time, however,
nothing concrete has been achieved so far.
MD, APGCL replied that different kinds of projects were proposed in the past. She
stated that as suggested by Advisory Committee Members, a pumped storage
project was proposed to be set up at Chandrapur. It was informed that although some
investors had shown interest in the project initially, they failed to bid when tenders
were floated for the same, even after repeated extensions.
v. Shri A.K Baruah, Adviser, AASSIA suggested that APGCL should ensure adherence
to the timelines for completing their projects.
vi. Shri Subodh Sharma enquired regarding the new timelines for completion of the
NRPP project.
MD, APGCL informed that gas turbine (Open Cycle) project of NRPP is likely to be
commissioned in April, 2019 and the combined cycle project by December, 2019.
vii. He further enquired as to why same generation output was shown throughout the
MYT period for NRPP. It was informed that APDCL has committed gas of 0.66
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 215
mmscmd from M/s GAIL of which 0.49 will be utilized in NRPP and with the remaining
gas, APGCL proposes to run few units of NTPS.
Shri Sharma observed that APGCL should make efforts to actually achieve the
proposed generation or else power procurement planning of APDCL gets affected
and the consumers may end up paying higher electricity price. He suggested that
the quantum of generation shown by APDCL and APGCL should match.
viii. Shri Champak Baruah enquired as to the status of the 70 MW Amguri Solar Power
Project. He emphasized the fact that while the last date for bidding of the project was
shown as 29.05.2019 in the last meeting, now the same is shown as 06.02.2019.
It was informed by the MD, APGCL that as suggested by SAC Members in the last
meeting, APGCL decided to implement the project on its own through EPC
contractors as project implementation through SECI was getting delayed. Therefore
new tenders were floated and it is expected to receive a number of bids by
06.02.2019.
It was emphasized from the Chair that APGCL should take steps for timely
completion of their projects such as NRPP, 120 MW Lower Kopili Hydel project, 24
MW Borpani Middle-II SHEP, etc
ix. Shri K. Medhi, General Secretary, NESSIA suggested that since APGCL has not
succeeded in adding sizeable new generation capacity, perhaps, APGCL may not
undertake any new project and instead, APDCL may be asked to procure power from
outside sources through different modes.
Chairperson, AERC agreed that APGCL had not achieved much success with new
projects in recent years except for 70 MW Lakwa Replacement Power Project
(LRPP), which was commissioned in time, and reiterated that the Company must
make ardent efforts to increase generation. He observed that the power generated
by APGCL is one of the cheapest powers available to the Discom. The Chairperson
further observed that emphasis must also be laid for fast completion of the Central
Sector Generation projects in Assam as the State receives 50% allocated power
from these projects.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 216
x. Regarding (2x800) MW Coal based Margherita Project, it was informed by MD,
APGCL that although the matter has been pursued with the Central Government
several times, no progress has been made in getting coal linkage for the project, so
far.
xi. There was a suggestion in the last meeting that newly recruited engineers of the
State distribution company may be trained on the technical aspects of electricity by
their deputation to generation/ transmission Company and similar measure may be
adopted for engineers of the generation / transmission sector so that these new
recruits get a good idea of the overall power sector. Shri V.K. Pipersenia, Chairman,
APGCL/AEGCL/APDCL commented that although it’s a good suggestion, the three
power Companies must devise their own HR policies. Shri Pipersenia informed that
at present, the Discom has a shortage of manpower and therefore, they are not in a
position to depute any Engineer to other utilities. The three companies have to
together decide on the matter.
Regarding the Development of 100 MW (25x4) Solar Power Plant within the State by
APDCL it was informed by Shri R. Agarwal, IAS, MD, APDCL that Azure Power India
Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and Maheshwari Mining and Energy Pvt. Ltd, Telangana were
the successful bidders for 90 MW and 10 MW respectively. It was informed that the
timeline for implementation of the projects will be 18 months from the date of signing
the PPA. It was further informed that the bidders have identified the land for the
projects. The land in Udalguri area which was identified for one project has already
been transferred to the developer by the BTC administration while land acquisition is
under process for the rest of the projects.
Shri Subodh Sharma suggested that as agricultural land cannot be used for power
projects, the low lying lands of Brahmaputra river valley may be used for the purpose.
MD, APDCL informed that the land identified for the projects were lying vacant and
as such, there was some relaxation in norms and conversion of the land allowed for
the purpose of setting solar plants.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 217
xii. It was further informed by MD, APDCL that as suggested in the last meeting, APDCL
is carrying out energy audit of the 33/11 KV Jalukbari sub-station under PAT scheme.
Based on its output, it was informed that, similar audit may also be carried out in near
future for other sub-stations.
Chairperson AERC stated that as was informed in the last meeting, energy audit
study has been taken up by the Commission in three circles of APDCL namely
Guwahati Circle II, Jorhat and Cachar. Two Consultants were engaged through open
bidding but the work was delayed due to absence of transformer meters and 33 KV
& 11 KV line meters. He informed that meetings with concerned APDCL officers was
held from time to time and metering works are likely to be completed shortly. The
audit works will start immediately when the necessary infrastructure is in place.
Shri Subodh Sharma observed that the meters installed should have provisions for
IT connectivity in future.
MD, APDCL responded positively stating that the meters installed have the provision
for IT connectivity.
xiii. On safety related aspects, MD, APDCL informed that the Company have taken a
slew of measures to ensure safety of the consumers. APDCL have started replacing
the bare conductors for LT consumers with AB conductors, all transformers under
Saubhagya scheme are fenced and whenever cases of unfenced transformers are
reported, the Company immediately takes necessary action for fencing.
Shri Subodh Sharma suggested that many electrical accidents can be avoided if
emphasis is laid on proper earthing of the conductors.
MD, APDCL agreed to the suggestion and assured that action would be taken in this
regard. He requested the members to offer suggestions to APDCL regarding these
issues so that appropriate action can be initiated. He stated that there is shortage of
manpower to maintain the lines and recently a number of recruitments have taken
place in this regard which is expected to help the Company considerably.
Shri Champak Baruah commented that accidents also take place due to non
adherence to safety procedures by the linemen and officers of APDCL. Instances
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 218
have come to his notice where linemen are taking shutdown instead of JEs, which is
not as per safety protocol. He observed that prior information of shutdown to the local
people while working on the electric lines /poles/ transformers is essential.
Chairperson AERC observed that APDCL must ensure that the safety protocols are
being followed and continue with their safety initiatives for the consumers.
xiv. Shri Saurav Agarwal, FINER informed that as requested in the last meeting, APDCL
circulated an advisory to the field offices regarding the new provision that the
requirement for declaring minimum 65% of the contracted demand no longer exist.
However, APDCL is not allowing a consumer to reduce the contract demand after
the month of September.
It was clarified by APDCL that it is sticking to the month of September as tariff
petitions, showing the load, is to be submitted by the month of November each year.
Chairperson AERC informed that as per the Supply Code Regulations, a consumer
can reduce the contract demand only once in a year, but as this was the first year of
the new
Supply Code Regulations, he asked APDCL to look into the matter to consider some
relaxation, if feasible.
Agenda: Presentation on MYT Petitions for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 by AEGCL
There was a brief power point presentation on the MYT petitions for FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22 along with true up for FY 2017-18 and Annual Performance Review for FY 2018-
19. The presentation of AEGCL is enclosed as Annexure I. The following discussions took
place during the course of the presentation.
i. It was informed that from FY 2019-20, the transmission charges on account of
PGCIL shall be reflected in the tariff of APDCL.
ii. Shri Subodh Sharma commented that APDCL must correctly ascertain the PGCIL
charges and may seek help of AEGCL in this regard.
Chairperson AERC observed that PGCIL charges are basically the POC charges
and the actual amount can be ascertained through SLDC. He opined that APDCL
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 219
shall acquire the expertise in calculating these charges over a period of time and
until then, may seek assistance from AEGCL.
iii. Shri Subodh Sharma pointed out that while the cost of AEGCL should have been
around 30-40 paise/unit for the MYT period of FY 2019-20 to FY 20121-22, AEGCL
was asking a tariff of 51- 62 paise/unit.
MD, AEGCL explained that the tariff included the BST charges of 20 paise per unit.
.
iv. Shri Subodh Sharma stated that Generators like Kathalguri Power Station, being a
central sector generator, despite having the AEGCL network at their bays, have to
evacuate their power through PGCIL network. Therefore, the consumers of Assam
have to bear high POC charges. These issues need to be taken up by the Assam
Government with the Central Government and Shri Sharma requested AERC to
bring the matter to the notice of the State Government.
Chairperson AERC observed that many States are facing similar issues and these
matters are being examined in the Central Government. However, he noted the
suggestion of Shri Sharma.
v. Shri Subodh Sharma opined that AEGCL is the best performing company among
the three power utilities of the State and it is important that policy decisions should
not cause any harm to the Company.
vi. Shri Sharma again pointed out the issue regarding Tariff Based Competitive
Bidding (TBCB) which has been made compulsory for setting up new intrastate
transmission projects as per the Tariff Policy, 2016. He expressed concern that the
State Transmission Company may suffer if TBCB is accepted.
Chairperson, AERC stated that it is a policy decision of the Government of India
that any intra state transmission project, which cost above a threshold limit, shall
be developed by the State Government through competitive bidding process and
the limit is to be decided by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions. The
Chairperson informed that AERC, in consultation with the State Government and
AEGCL, has specified a threshold limit through a draft notification in January 2019.
He further informed that comments on the draft notification may be submitted within
31st March, 2019.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 220
vii. Shri S.N. Kalita MD, AEGCL informed that as directed by the Commission, the
Company has taken initiative to restructure and strengthen SLDC.
Agenda: Presentation on MYT Petitions for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 by APGCL
APGCL made a brief power point presentation on MYT petitions for FY 2019-20 to FY
2021-22 along with true up for FY 2017-18 and Annual Performance Review for FY 2018-
19. The presentation of AEGCL is enclosed as Annexure II. The important points raised
by the participants during the course of the presentation are summarized below:
i) MD APGCL, Ms K. Baruah informed that the tariff proposed for Lakwa Thermal
Power Station (LTPS) for the MYT period starting with FY 2019-20 are Rs 5.31/unit,
Rs 5.66/unit and Rs 5.62/unit respectively. The proposed tariffs are the highest
among the APGCL power stations as special R&M has been proposed for the
Station which will require major overhauling.
ii) It was further informed by MD, APGCL that the new projects are being financed
from ADB as 90 % Grant and 10% loan while R&M of old plants are being financed
with State Government assistance. On a query from Shri Subodh Sharma, it was
further informed by Ms Baruah that APGCL may restructure the Company and
convert the capital grants to equity.
iii) The members expressed concern that the thermal stations of APGCL were unable
to generate to their installed capacity due to inadequate availability of gas and
important projects like Margherita Coal based project is yet to receive coal linkage.
Besides, commissioning of most of the ongoing projects of APGCL has been
delayed due to various reasons. They observed that if APGCL did not improve its
performance, the performance of AEGCL will suffer too. And the consumers also
have to bear greater cost of power through POC charges for power purchased from
outside the State.
Given the above scenario, all members agreed that the State Government has to
play a pivotal role in ensuring adequate gas availability and coal linkage for the
projects of APGCL, at the earliest.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 221
Agenda: Presentation on MYT Petitions for FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 by
APDCL
There was a short Power Point presentation from APDCL on the MYT petitions for
FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 along with true up for FY 2017-18 and Annual Performance
Review for FY 2018-19. The presentation of AEGCL is enclosed as Annexure III. The
following discussions took place during the course of the presentation:
i. APDCL informed that due to repeated persuasions against the POC charges by six
States including Assam, the Ministry of Power called a meeting to hear their
grievances. It was further informed that APDCL submitted their viewpoints on the
matter and requested that 80% of the fixed cost may be socialized instead of 20%
as is done now.
MD, AEGCL observed that only 26% of the PGCIL transmission capacity is being
utilsed and the rest 74% stands for reliability of the system and future use. He
therefore, suggested that 74% may be proposed as reliability cost of the network to
be equally shared by all users.
Chairperson AERC observed that if 50% of the charges are socialized and 50%
charged through POC, even then there will be some considerable reduction in the
transmission charges..
ii. It was informed that for the first time Assam is receiving 50 MW RTC Wind Power
from projects in Tamil Nadu. APDCL has signed agreement with SECI and PTC and
Assam is receiving the power from 4th February, 2019. It was further informed that
APDCL would receive another 50 MW of wind power within this year. It was also
informed that the 3rd unit of NTPC Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station will be
commissioned shortly. Although, the price of this thermal power is high, APDCL will
procure the power as per PPA. APDCL informed that Assam will soon also receive
around 200 MW power from Mangdechu Hydro Electric project in Bhutan.
iii. The Discom informed that APDCL has been chosen the ADB Best Performing Utility
award for timely implementation of its projects under 2017 ADB loan 3200 IND. The
award would be given in October this year
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 222
Agenda: Comment and suggestion of the Members
i. Shri Subodh Sharma offered the following suggestions –
a) Due to SAUBHAGYA, DDUGJY and other such schemes of the
Government of India, the domestic consumers are increasing at a faster
pace than any other consumer category. As such, increased sale to such
consumers also increases the distribution losses of the Company and
affecting its revenue. APDCL is expected to function as a commercial entity;
however, the peculiar consumer mix is preventing it from doing so. As such,
adequate subsidy from the State Government is essential.
b) Although, first financial restructuring of the distribution Company was
carried out years back and with signing of the UDAY scheme, another
restructuring is underway, APDCL is yet to draw up a master plan to bring
a commercial turnaround. The loss making utility must try to chalk out a
master plan as to what should be the tariff at which it can achieve a financial
turnaround, considering all the regulatory provisions and subsidies of the
State Government that is likely to be available. They must also consider the
investments required to bring the losses to the required level.
c) The three State Power Companies are symbiotically interconnected and in
the long run, success of one would depend not only on its own performance
but on the performance of the other two as well. Therefore, each Company
must try to build itself as a robust commercial organization.
Chairperson AERC stated that in every Tariff Order, the Commission sets
some parameters for achievement by the Companies. APDCL should make
all efforts to achieve the targets set in tariff orders like distribution loss,
collection efficiency, etc; so as to achieve a financial turnaround. The
Chairperson observed that technical loss in the system may be higher than
what is envisaged, in addition to commercial losses. A lot of investment in
distribution infrastructure is required to reduce technical loss and to have
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 223
an idea of these losses, the Commission is conducting the energy audit in
three Electrical Circles. The final report of this audit is likely to be submitted
by the end of this year and then the Commission would be in a better
position to issue directions.
ii. Shri K. Medhi, General Secretary, NESSIA offered the following suggestions –
a) The proposed increase in fixed charges is very high while improved power
scenario is a matter of opinion and usually differs from place to place.
Instead of enhancing fixed charges, APDCL may conduct actual load
survey sub-division wise. This would help increase the connected load and
increase in fixed charges may not be necessary.
He requested the Commission to look into the above aspects before
allowing any enhancement.
b) Due to programmes such as SAUBHAGYA and DDUGJY, the performance
of APDCL is dwindling. He stated that AT&C losses have increased
substantially, collection efficiency has gone down even when the number
of connections have increased; and arrears increased compared to earlier
years. In view of the above scenario Shri Medhi suggested that
1. APDCL should try to enhance alternate and effective time tested
methods for revenue realization.
2. Adopt energy efficient technologies & equipments and encourage
consumers to do the same.
c) APDCL should encourage use of solar rooftops in the State and try to draw
the benefits of Central Government sponsored schemes for solar rooftops.
d) There are many ghost (non-existent) electricity consumers and if the arrear
of these ghost consumers are taken out, the balance sheet will be cleaner.
Shri Medhi opined that there is a presumption that 40% of the total arrear
is due to non-existent consumers.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 224
Chairperson AERC assured that the suggestions would be considered
while taking any decision.
iii. Shri Abhijit Sharma, Secretary, ABITA made the following submissions –
a) He enquired regarding the status of providing dedicated feeders to the tea
gardens.
Shri Rakesh Agarwal, MD APDCL stated that an amount of Rs 20 Crores
were earmarked in the budget for installation of 11 numbers of dedicated
feeders. However, tendering for the purpose is in process.
He informed that from FY 2018-19, the process of financing of the State
government has undergone a massive change. Initially, whenever, funds
were allocated by the State Government, the entire fund was released to
APDCL and the money could be utilized. However, now, the State
Government gives an allocation in the budget, a DPR/ proposal has to be
submitted from APDCL, then administrative approval is received, then
tendering/ allotment of works have to be done, then it has to be uploaded
for financial sanction, and once the work is partially executed, only then the
finance is released just like a State Government Department. He observed
that due to this change in the process of release of funds, works are getting
delayed.
MD, APDCL informed that during the last year 14,000 smart meters were
installed in Guwahati as a pilot project and in January this year the
Company was able to generate bills for 11000 meters without any kind of
human intervention. He stated that technological interventions would make
services convenient for the consumers; however, this would not only
require the support of consumers but also massive investments. He
informed that APDCL is trying to bring investments through IPDS, ADB
Financing and the State Government.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 225
b) While appreciating the endeavors of APDCL, Secretary, ABITA stated that
the tea sector contributed around 8% of the total revenue of the Company
amounting to approximately Rs 800 Cr. He explained that unless the supply
to rural consumers and the tea gardens are separated, power position in
the tea estates is unlikely to improve as the quality of power available may
not be good enough for use in the tea gardens. As a result, the tea gardens
have to utilize their generators and power produced is costlier than the
power. from APDCL. While APDCL loses revenue, the tea gardens have to
pay greater cost of production.
c) Secretary, ABITA also observed that as directed by the Commission in the
last meeting, the Company can introduce Voluntary Disclosure of load
program from time to time where consumers can be asked to disclose their
loads. The Company may allow consumer to enhance their loads in a
hassle free way with very few documentation requirements.
MD APDCL informed that this is being done and about Rs 25 Cr additional
fixed charges are collected after the VDL scheme in October last year.
Chairman APDCL suggested that online facility for enhancement of load
should be made available.
d) Secretary, ABITA stated that with the ongoing works of SAUBHAGYA, all
the development works of APDCL has taken a backseat.
MD APDCL informed that some of the contractors involved in the
development schemes like ADB, IPDS were also chosen for implementing
the SAUBHAGYA scheme and since it is a time bound program, the
development works were somewhat delayed. However, he assured that he
and Chairman APDCL are personally reviewing the progress of every work
under the schemes, and lots of advancement in the works is expected in
the next couple of weeks.
It was informed from APDCL that online facilities were launched for new LT
connections, however, applications received through online facility are very
few. Therefore, as directed by Chairman, APDCL, the Company is planning
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 226
to facilitate only online applications for new connection for LT consumers
so that they get acquainted with the new systems. It was further informed
that online facility for new HT connections will be launched too, shortly.
Shri Subodh Sharma observed that the electronic meters are equipped with
facilities to capture the maximum demand during the month and APDCL
can check if the contracted demand has been exceeded by any consumer.
Chairperson, AERC agreed to the suggestion and observed that the meter
readers are not taking such readings and may be asked to do so by the
concerned authorities. He noted that for HT consumers, it is being done
because if these consumers exceeded contract demand they were
penalized but for LT consumers, the same was not practiced. He further
observed that this practice will do away with the necessity for conducting
internal load survey by the Company, as has been proposed.
iv. Shri Saurav Agarwal, Chairperson, Power, FINER made the following observations:
a) As load enhancement is to be allowed online, load reduction should also
be allowed online once a year.
Chairperson AERC directed APDCL to look into the matter.
b) Cost of power is one of the highest. One of the factors contributing to this
is costly power from NTPC Bongaigaon Station. APDCL and the consumers
must raise their voice against such tariffs when the petitions are filed for tariff
determination in the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. APDCL may
consider opening a separate Cell or assign competent officers with the
responsibility to voice these concerns in CERC. Recently, the draft MYT
Regulations has been notified and there was no representation from Assam.
APDCL can have a dedicated Cell to voice the concerns of the people of Assam
in appropriate Forums like CERC, whenever necessary.
It was clarified from APDCL that the Company has been submitting response
petitions before the CERC against NTPC tariff petitions and also contesting
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 227
these in the Appellate Tribunal. APDCL cited an example where the Kathalguri
station of NEEPCO had filed a petition before CERC requesting for reduction
in PLF stating non availability of fuel. NEEPCO stated the example of APGCL
gas stations whose PLF were low due to non availability of gas. This is a recent
case where APDCL managed to win the case against NEEPCO.
Chairperson AERC observed that the consumers like FINER and ABITA may
also file petitions before the concerned forum.
Shri Subodh Sharma stated that an individual consumer residing in Delhi have
made representations to CERC against the NTPC petitions. However, he also
observed that this is a costly affair and large consumers like FINER and ABITA
should come forward.
c) In the last budget, the Government of Assam has announced 5% electricity
duty ad valorem on the total consumption which has increased the electricity
duty substantially for the industrial consumers.
Chairperson AERC opined that it is the policy decision of the State
Government.
d) A number of points have been raised by the Statutory Auditors on the
financial Statements of APDCL and requested the Commission to consider
those while determining tariff.
The Commission assured that all the points which are likely to impact the tariff will be
scrutinized before making a decision.
The Chairperson, AERC thanked the members for their suggestions.
Agenda: Discussions on Draft Regulations notified by AERC
Two draft Regulations namely Draft AERC (Electricity Supply Code) (First Amendment)
Regulations, 2018 and Draft AERC (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matters)
Regulations, 2018 were notified as previous publications as per Section 181 (3) of the
Electricity Act 2003 and public hearings were also held. These Regulations were circulated
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 228
among the Advisory Committee members. Chairperson, AERC requested the Members to
submit their comments on the Regulations, if any.
There was no comment from any member.
Agenda: Any Other matter.
No other matter came up for discussion.
Chairperson, AERC assured the members that the MYT proposals of the utilities would be
prudently scrutinized and the valuable suggestions offered by each stakeholder would be
taken into account while determining tariffs for FY 2019-20 and Annual Revenue Requirement
for FY 2020-21 and FY2021-22.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks from the Chair.
Sd/-
Secretary,
Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission.
APDCL MYT Order for Control Period from FY 2019-20 to FY 2021-22 Page 229
ANNEXURE –A
24th Meeting of SAC - LIST OF MEMBERS & SPECIAL INVITEES PRESENT
MEMBERS
1. Shri Subhash Chandra Das, IAS (Retd), Chairperson, AERC.
2. Shri Dipak Chakravarty, Member, AERC
3. Smt. Utpala Saikia, Joint Secretary, Power Deptt., Government of Assam
4. Shri G.A Nayyar, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Assam.
5. Shri Subodh Sharma, Consumer Activist
6. Shri Dilip Kumar Sarma, Sr. Consultant, NETC
7. Shri Abhijit Sharma, Secretary. ABITA
8. Shri Abhijit Kakati, MRK, ABITA
9. Shri Niladri Roy, Advocate, Silchar Bar Council
10. Shri A.K. Baruah, Advisor, AASSIA
11. Shri Sailen Baruah, President, NESSIA
12. Shri Kumud Medhi, Secretary, NESSIA
13. Shri P.K. Goswami, Former Director, Technical Education and Retd. VC, Assam
Science and Technology University
14. Shri Saurav Agarwal, Chairperson, Power, FINER
15. Shri Rajeev Goswami, DDG, FINER
16. Shri Champak Baruah, Ex- Member (Technical), APDCL.
17. Shri Arup Kr Mishra, Director, AEDA
18. Shri Pronip Kr. Barthakur, Ex Director, ONGC
19. Shri Birendra Kr. Das, President, Grahak Surakha Sanstha
SPECIAL INVITEES
1. Shri V.K. Pipersenia, IAS (Retd), Chairman, APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL
2. Shri Rakesh Agarwal, IAS, Managing Director, APDCL
3. Ms. Kalyani Baruah, Managing Director, APGCL
4. Shri Satyendra Nath Kalita, Managing Director, AEGCL