Facts
The Appellant (HPGCL) filed a petition for True-up of FY 2014-15 and tariff determination for FY 2016-17. The State Commission (HERC), via orders dated 31.03.2016 and 29.06.2016, directed the Appellant to refund ₹64.45 Crore on account of excess recovery of fixed charges
Source reference: p. 3The Commission calculated the recoverable capacity charges for the DCRTPP and RGTPP plants (both less than 10 years old) on a pro-rata basis under Regulation 30(a) because their actual availability (78% and 76.34% respectively) was below the normative 85%
Source reference: p. 8HPGCL challenged this, arguing that Regulation 30(c)(i) provided a specific formula for plants under 10 years old and that the shortfall for RGTPP Unit-II was due to a turbine failure constituting 'Force Majeure'
Source reference: p. 4, 17Issues
1. Whether the recovery of Annual Fixed Charges for generating stations in operation for less than ten years is governed by the specific formula in Regulation 30(c)(i) or the general pro-rata provision in Regulation 30(a) of the MYT Regulations, 2012?
Source reference: p. 7 / para 132. Whether the equipment failure (turbine/rotor damage) at RGTPP Unit-II qualifies as a 'Force Majeure' event, warranting a relaxation of the Plant Availability Factor (PAF) for truing up fixed costs?
Source reference: p. 17 / para 29Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principles of statutory interpretation, specifically the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, which holds that a special provision prevails over a general one
Source reference: p. 10It interpreted Regulation 30 of the HERC MYT Regulations, 2012, noting that 30(a) is a general provision for recovery of fixed charges while 30(c)(i) is a specific provision for plants less than 10 years old
Source reference: p. 8-9Regarding Force Majeure, the Tribunal applied Regulation 3.23(vi) of the MYT Regulations, 2012, and the principle of "prudent utility practices," distinguishing controllable operational risks from uncontrollable external events
Source reference: p. 17, 23Reasoning
Regarding Issue 1, the Tribunal found that Regulation 30(c)(i) was a deliberate, distinct category for younger plants, mirroring CERC Regulations, intended to balance incentives for new generators
Source reference: p. 11-12It rejected the Commission's view that 30(c)(i) was a mere "aberration," ruling that every word of a statute must be given effect and a special provision cannot be rendered otiose by a general one
Source reference: p. 10, 16Mathematical evaluation showed that the proviso to 30(c)(i) prevents "50% recovery at zero availability," thus harmonizing it with 30(a)
Source reference: p. 15Regarding Issue 2, the Tribunal held that equipment failure is a "controllable parameter" under Regulation 8.3(b)
Source reference: p. 19, 23Since the RGTPP units had a history of low PLF since commissioning due to design/maintenance issues, the turbine failure was an operational risk, not a Force Majeure event like a natural calamity or statutory embargo. The generator bears the risk of its commercial choice of OEM and equipment quality
Source reference: p. 22-23Holding
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It held that for Issue 1, the recovery of Annual Fixed Charges for DCRTPP and RGTPP must be calculated strictly under the specific formula of Regulation 30(c)(i) rather than Regulation 30(a); the matter was remanded to the State Commission for re-calculation
For Issue 2, it held that the turbine failure did not constitute Force Majeure, and the Commission’s refusal to relax the PAF was upheld
Source reference: p. 24-25The Impugned Order was set aside only to the extent of the calculation methodology for plants under 10 years of operation
Source reference: p. 24Original Court PDF
HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITEDvsHARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in