August '92: The Government of Maharashtra (GOM) writes to the Government of India (GOI): "The Company (DPC) has especially advised us not to audit the cost of the project initially".
August '92: The Government of Maharashtra (GOM) writes to the Government of India (GOI): "The Company (DPC) has especially advised us not to audit the cost of the project initially".
September 21: MSEB writes to GOI: "DPC will have cast upon it statutory duties and to that extent is likely to be subject in the due performance of such duties to public and judicial scrutiny. This may not be acceptable to foreign promoters."
September 30: Chairman, MSEB writes to Jt Secy, GOI: "Public and judicial scrutiny of business policy and decisions as per the (Electricity Supply) Act will not be acceptable by a company like DPC".
October 10: The PMO rejects the proposal; says GOI guarantee not possible.
August '93: The CEA study finds reasonable cost to be Rs 1.81 crore per MW for December '96 and Rs 1.91 crore per MW for December '97. Enron still works out to be over Rs 4 crore per MW.
September 10: Secretary (Energy), GOM sets the agenda: a) Amending Electricity Act to restrain MSEB from restraining the operations of DPC pursuant to powers conferred on MSEB, b) Tariff structure under the Acts to be brought in consonance with Enron tariff structure, c) that DPC will have no reporting requirements to any authority or MSEB beyond the Purchase Power Agreement, d) statutory arbitrations will not apply. September 20: The CEA writes to GOM that the Enron project "is not the least cost option". It states that while it has given an "in principle" clearance, the tariff issues need to be resolved.
November 11: FIPB reassures the GOI and the GOM that the high cost of power at 7.506 cents (7.506) per unit is "more or less" the same as the cost of similar projects in the state. FIPB fails to note that there are, at this time, no similar projects in Maharashtra (or in India).
December 6: MSEB's solicitors state that the approval of tariff by CEA is important in the context of the overall tech-no-economic clearance. The counsel of the GOM claims otherwise in Court.
March 7, '96: DPC writes to the CEA detailing the 'minor' changes: "There has been no change in the capacity charges for Phase I." This, against the GOM's claim to have reduced capacity charges as a result of reductions in capital costs.
May 7: DPC states that it will include the regassification plant in the project. The petitioners ask how can there be no change in tariff after adding Rs 1,580 crore to the project by way of this plant.