Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Delhi
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J., Chairperson and H.L. Bajaj, Member (Technical)1. This appeal is directed against the order of the West Begal Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short WBERC/Commission), dated December 16, 2006 in appeal No.1 of 2006. The appellant is a manufacturer of Aluminium and Copper. It has a factory at Belurmath, West Bengal. The appellant is having an existing Contract Demand Agreement for 8.5 MW with the CESC Limited and draws power at a voltage of 33 KV through dedicated lines from the Belurmath receiving Sub-Station of CESC. For this purpose, the appellant has installed a 33 KV Sub-Station at its premises. 2. The appellant has a captive power plant at Hirakud, Orissa. On October 31, 2003, the appellant filed an application under Sections 9 and 42 of The Electricity Act, 2003, before the Commission seeking permission for open access to wheel surplus captive power of an approximately 9 MW from its power plant to its Belur factory. The distance between the captive p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Gujarat State Commission dismissing its Petition praying for the direction to the Distribution Licensees not to deduct 15% from the tariff determined by the State Commission for the sale of surplus energy available after captive use; the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as under: (a) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the Appellant is a Wind Power Generator. The Gujarat State Commission is the First Respondent. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited the 2ndRespondent and Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited the 3rdRespondents are the Distribution Licensees. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, the 4th Respondent is a Transmission Utility. (b) The Appellant during the Financial Year 2008-09 installed 21 MW Wind Turbine Generators comprising of 14 Nos. of Wind Turbine Generators of 1.5 MW each for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Mr. H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member. Appeal No. 92 of 2007 challenges the order of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC or the Commission in short) dated April 21, 2007 passed in O.P. No. 27 of 2004. Appeal No. 138 of 2007 challenges the APERC order dated September 14, 2007 in O.P.No. 6 of 2007. 2. In both the appeals No. 92 and 138 of 2007, similar issues have been agitated by the appellant against the impugned orders of the Commission. In view of the similarity of grounds of appeals and the issues involved we have heard both the appeals together. We have taken appeal No. 92 of 2007 as reference and the decisions in this appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to appeal No. 138 of 2007 also. 3. The facts of the case as brought out by the appellant are given hereinunder in brief: 4. A 6 MW biomass co-generation power plant was established by the appellant in pursuance of the policy of the Government of India for the promotion of non-conventional energy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
P.S. Datta, Judicial Member: 1. Introduction: - In all, there are five Appeals being Nos.136 of 2011, 162 of 2011,167 of 2011, 137 of 2011 and 163 of 2011. All the five Appeals arise out of two but almost identical orders passed separately on 7.7.2011 by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission which is one of the Respondents in all the five Appeals. The Appeal no. 136 of 2011, 162 of 2011 and 167 of 2011 relate to the order dated 7.7.2011 which was passed by the Commission in O.P. No.33 of 2010, while Appeal no.137 of 2011 and Appeal no.163 of 2011 relate to the order dated 7.7.2011 which was passed separately by the Commission in O.P. No. 34 of 2010. The Appeal no. 136 of 2011 has been preferred by JSW Steel Ltd. where the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. of Karnataka is the Respondent no.2. In Appeal no.162 of 2011, the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Govt. of Karnataka is the Appellant and JSW Steels Ltd. is the Respondent no.2. Gulberga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. “Whether the Haryana State Commission has the jurisdiction to go into the dispute with regard to validity of the Notice of Termination of the PPA issued by the Appellant to PTC (R3) raised in the Petition filed by the Haryana Power (R2) seeking for the enforcement of the PPA entered into between the Appellant and PTC (R3) to which the Haryana Power (R2) was not the party”? 2. This is the question posed for consideration in this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows;- a) M/s. Lanco Budhil Hydro Power Private Limited (LANCO Budhil), is the Appellant herein. It is a Generating Company which has been authorised by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to establish and operate a 2x35 MW Hydro Power Project in Himachal Pradesh. b) Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the First Respondent. c) Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (Haryana Power), a generating company owned by the Government of Harya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Awadh Wood Product is a consumer of electricity in the State of Uttar Pradesh having established a Cold Storage plant at Bahraich, UP. The 1st Respondent, UP Power Corporation Limited (Power Corporation) is a deemed licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act) and was a Distribution, Retail and Bulk Supply Licensee under UP Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (Reforms Act). The 2nd Respondent is an Executive Engineer, an employee of Power Corporation (R-1). The 3rd Respondent is the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission). 2. On 18.07.2003, the Appellant filed Petition No. 132 of 2003 before the State Commission under Section 26 read with Section 10H of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 praying for issuance of the following directions to the Power Corporation (R-1):- a. To restore an independent feeder of 137 KVA at Motipur substation exclusive for the Applicant to supply it with continuou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. A volley of questions while deciding the four appeals arise: a) whether the Commission can determine or enhance the bulk supply tariff at a flat rate applicable to different licensees in their respective areas of distribution? ,b) whether the parameters laid down in section 61 of the Act should not be followed?, c)whether, more particularly, criteria such as costs, expenses, availability of power, consumer base, consumer mix, efficiency of operations, financial viability of each licensee, distribution loss, geographical position which would vary from licensee to licensee should not have been considered?, d) whether there can be a uniform increase of bulk supply tariff applicable to the different licensees, e) whether in revising the bulk supply tariff the consumers of different licensees have really subsidized the consumers of the Kerala State Electricity Board?, f) whether there can be a provisional hike in bulk supply tariff as done by the Kerala S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. The primary question that arise for consideration in the present Appeal is as follows: “Whether the Haryana State Commission has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute under Section 86 (1) (b) and Section 86 (1) (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 between Generating Company, the Appellant and the Distribution Licensee, Haryana Power (R-2) over a Power Purchase Agreement dated 21.3.2006 in which the said Distribution Licensee was not a party ?” 2. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited is the Appellant herein. It has presented this Appeal challenging the impugned order dated 25.8.2011 passed by Haryana State Commission dismissing interlocutory application filed by the Appellant before the State Commission questioning the jurisdiction of the State Commission to go into the dispute in question. 3. The short facts are as under: (a) Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited, the Appellant is a public Limited generating Company. Haryana Ele...
Tag this Judgment!