Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Infrastructure Development in Beta Wind Farm (P) Limited vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory ... on 24 May, 2013Matching Fragments
82. Therefore, the contention in respect of applicability of the tariff order is decided as against the Appellant.
83. The third issue is regarding the Capital Cost.
84. According to the Appellants, the State Commission has failed to include various items like infrastructure, development charges, operation & maintenance charges and Panchayat taxes etc in the capital cost. As per the calculations made by the Appellants, the capital cost should be Rs. 6.5 crores to Rs. 7 crores/MW as against Rs. 5.75 crores/MW as decided by the State Commission.
85. The reply made by the learned Counsel for the State Commission on this issue is as follows:
" The State Commission had examined the details which were available in the public domain as well as comments received from various stakeholders. After carefully studying the same, capital cost of Rs. 5.75 crores/MW was decided. The stakeholders had furnished break up of costs supported by legal documents like invoices, tax receipts etc., in spite of Commission's reminders to the stake holders to Appeal No.197, 198, 200, 201 and 201 of 2012 and 6 of 2013 furnish the same. In fact, the infrastructure development charges, operation & maintenance charges and taxes are included in the capital cost decided by the State Commission."
Appeal No.197, 198, 200, 201 and 201 of 2012 and 6 of 2013
91. The Appellants have challenged the capital cost on the ground that the infrastructure development charges and O&M charges have not been included. The capital cost comprises land cost, wind generator cost, cost of the evacuation facilities and infrastructure development cost, etc.
92. The State Commission has taken into consideration the same and fixed the capital cost. The Appellants have not been able to establish their case before us that the capital cost determined by the State Commission is not adequate to cover their costs. In our view, the capital cost has been fixed correctly by the State Commission. Accordingly, this issue is decided as against the Appellants.