Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The Appeal No. 131 of 2012 has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in the Tariff Petition, being Case No. TP 02 of 2011 approving the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Appeal No. 131 of 2012 Retail Supply Tariff (RST) for the Financial Year 2012-13 of Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the Electricity Board), Respondent No.2 in this Appeal, the distribution licensee in the State of Bihar. 2. Facts of the case giving rise to Appeal No. 131 of 2012. The relevant facts of the case, relating to Appeal No. 131 of 2012, are as follows: 2.1 that the Appellant is an association of industries and traders who are taking supply of electricity from the Electricity Board (Respondent No.2) under different category i.e. low-tension, high-tension, etc from the electrical system ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the Bihar State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Case No. 14 of 2011 and 15 of 2011 whereby the learned State Commission has rejected the petitions of the Appellants/Petitioners on the ground that since the petitioners namely; M/s Bharat Sugar Mills and M/s New Swadeshi Sugar Mills, even after being given opportunity several times, did not file any petition for determination of tariff specific to their generation plants and the State Commission has not determined the tariff for their plants for the period prior to 1.6.2009. 2. The Appellants-Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 18.7.2012 on the ground that though the State Commission upheld and reiterated the norms and benchmarks fixed by it, but failed to apply the same and made a clear departure from the said norms and b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. (1) VBC Ferro Alloys Limited (2) Progressive Constructions Limited and (3) Konaseema Gas Power Limited are the Appellants herein. 2. They have filed this Appeal as against the impugned order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Commission allowing the Petition filed by BESCOM by directing the Appellants to supply power to BESCOM as per the Power Purchase Agreement dated 27.2.2009 entered into between BESCOM and the Appellants. 3. The short facts are follows: (a) The Appellants are engaged in the business of owning, operating and maintaining Generating Station. The Appellants 1 and 2 have jointly formed a Special Purpose Company by the name of M/s. Konaseema Gas Power Limited, the 3rd Appellant with the objective of generating power. (b) The 1st Appellant namely VBC Ferro Alloys Limited, is the leader of the said consortium. (c) The Power Company of Karnataka which is a Government Company had invited bids on 27.5.2007 for purchase of 1500 M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This appeal arises out of an impugned order dated 28th March, 2012, passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short referred to as State Commission) in Petition No. 45 of 2011, filed by the appellant under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for fixing the tariff for FY 2010-11, in respect of its Bio Mass based Power Plant situated in the State of Punjab. The tariff of the appellant Company has been fixed under the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination from Renewable Energy Sources), Regulations, 2009 which had been adopted in the State of Punjab (with minor modifications which are not relevant to the present case). 2. That the appellant is the Biomass based Power Generating Company and the respondent no.1 is the State Regulator for the Electricity. 3. The relevant facts for deciding this Appeal are as under:- 3.1. that the appellant filed a petition under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for Revision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. This is an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, filed by the appellant against the Order dated 06.06.2013, passed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Petition No.356-358 of 2012, filed by the distribution licensees (respondents herein) wherein the State Commission had allowed petitions filed by the respondents and determined the Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and Revision of Retail Tariff for FY 2013-14 including the changes made for the determination of time block for maximum demand in a special manner for open access customers. 2. Thus the State Commission by the impugned order has permitted the respondents/petitioners to change the time block for recording maximum demand for open access consumers to 15 minutes instead of 30 minutes in their tariff booklet. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.06.2013 due to the following aspects: (i) that the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. This Appeal has been filed by Nabha Power Ltd. and LandT Power Development Ltd. challenging the order dated 1.10.2012 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission rejecting the claims of the Appellants for tariff adjustment and extension of time in respect of the 2x700 MW Rajpura Thermal Power Project developed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 pursuant to a competitive bidding process. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant no.1, Nabha Power Ltd. is a company which is a special purpose vehicle that had been set up initially by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (œElectricity Board?), for developing Rajpura Thermal Power project under the tariff based competitive bidding. The entire shareholding of Nabha Power Ltd. was subsequently transferred to M/s. LandT Power Development Ltd., the Appellant no.2 herein after having been selected as the successful bidder for the development of the project throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Shamanur Sugars Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant has filed this Appeal as against the Order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in the Petition filed by the Respondent Distribution Company allowing the claim for damages against the Appellant for the electricity sold by the Appellant to third party during the subsistence of the Power Purchase Agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent Company. 3. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Appellant Company is a sugar mill having co-generation facility. It generates electricity for its captive consumption and sells the surplus electricity to third party. M/s. Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (BESCOM) is the distribution licensee, the 1st Respondent. Karnataka State Commission is the 2nd Respondent. (b) The Appellant Company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement on 07.03.1998 with the then existing Karnataka Electricity Board, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member: 1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) passed in Petition No. 67 of 2011 whereby the State Commission has approved the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the Appellant for the year 2012-13 and also reviewed the revenue requirements for the year 2011-12. The State Commission has, by the impugned order, allowed the return on equity only at the rate of 15.5% without giving effect to the entire provision under Regulation 15 of the Tariff Regulations of the Central Commission, 2009 applicable in the State of Punjab, namely; grossing up (23.481%) of the return on equity. The State Commission has, by the impugned order also not allowed the Review Petition filed by the Appellant. 2. The present Appeal raises an issue as to whether the tax has to be grossed up on the equity des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. M/s. Penna Electricity Company Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. Challenging the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission rejecting its claim relating to the underpaid fixed charges of Rs.18.06 under Combined Cycle Operation and the claim of underpaid variable charges of Rs.12.77 Crores under Combined Cycle Operation for the period from 1.7.2006 to 15.6.2009, the Appellant has presented this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is an independent power producer. The Generating Capacity of the Appellant is 52.8 MW. The technology is gas based Combined Cycle Operation. The generating station is located at Valantharavai Village, Ramnad District in Tamil Nadu. (b) The Generating Station of the Appellant is dedicated to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the first Respondent herein. The entire power generated by the Generator has to be supplied only to the Electricity Board as per the Agreement. When the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. œWhether the interpretation of the Central Commission over the certain clauses of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Regulations, 2009 regarding additional capitalization admissible to Generating Units in determination of tariff is valid or not?? 2. This is the question involved in the Batch of this Appeal. 3. Since the issues raised in these Appeals No. 129,150,167,184,212,224,232,247,252,253 of 2012 and 53 of 2013 are same, thiscommon judgment is being rendered. 4. The short facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are as follows: (a) NTPC, the Appellant is a Generating Company owned by the Central Government. The Central Commission is the first Respondent. The other Respondents are the various beneficiaries of the power projects of the NTPC. (b) The above Appeals arise out of the Impugned Orders passed by the Central Commission on different dates determining the tariff of the Appellant for the period between 1.4.2009 and ...
Tag this Judgment!