Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants aggrieved by the Tariff Order dated 23.3.07 passed by the State Commission determining the Retail Supply Tariff for the year 2007-08. Since, the issues are the same, common judgement is being rendered in all these Appeals. The short facts are as under: 2. The Appellants are High Tension (HT) and Extra High Tension (EHT) Consumers. The Distribution Licensee, the Respondent filed the Annual Revenue Requirement Petition before the State Commission. They had sought for some changes in retail supply tariff for the HT Consumers for the reason that there was a rise in the bulk supply tariff. In addition to that, the Distribution Judgment in Appeal No. 62,73, 127 of 2007 and 48 of 2010 Licensee had sought for Govt subsidies to prevent any increase in retail supply tariff. 3. The State Commission called for the objections and suggestions from the members of the public and the persons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CSERC or Commission in short) dated September 13, 2006 in petition No. 24 of 2006 (T) filed by the first respondent, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB or Board in short).3. The appellant has an iron ore beneficiation plant at Kirandul in Dantewada District of Chhattisgarh set up to process iron ore fines from NMDC. The process consists of grinding, washing and cleaning of iron ore for beneficiation and pumping in the form of iron ore slurry to the appellant's pellet plant located at Visakhapatnam where the iron ore fines are converted into pellets. The pellets are then used at the appellant's steel plant located at Hazira in Gujarat.4. The appellant is availing electricity supply from the first respondent at 132 kV and is a power intensive industry initially with a contract demand of 15 MVA with effect from May 25, 2005. It was contemplated that the contract demand would be i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. The appellant has impugned in this appeal the order dated 22.05.08 passed by Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, respondent No.1 herein and referred to as the Commission hereinafter, in petition No. 22 (L) of 2007 approving the application of respondent No.2 for grant of transmission licence for two lines viz 220 kV double circuit JSPL – OP Jindal Industrial Park 23.7 kV and 220 kV double circuit OP Jindal Park – Jindal Power Ltd. 19 km. The appellant has also impugned the actual licence dated 20.06.08 issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated 22.05.08. The original appellant, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, is a State Electricity Board and successor to the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board for the area of the newly constituted State of Chhattisgarh. The original appellant was reorganized vide a transfer scheme notified by the State Government of Chhattisgarh under section 131 of the Electricity Act 2003 (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Ms. Manju Goel, Judicial Member The present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the TNERC or the Commission) in M.P. No. 13 of 2004 titled “M/s. SAS Hotels and Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board”. The appellant is a statutory body constituted by Government of Tamil Nadu under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The respondent No.1 is a company dealing with real estate business as well as running of hotels. Two of its hotels are Hotel Residency, Chennai and Hotel Residency, Coimbatore. In 1986, the appellant set up a wind farm at Mullaikadu. Keeping in view the requirement of these windmills for wheeling of power, the appellant vide B.P. Ms. (FB) No. 129 (Tech. Br.) during 1986 permitted private parties to install windmill generators for generating power for their own use. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal presents a pure question of law: whether the Tribunal can give directions to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to amend, modify or relax any of the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for determination of Generating Tariff) Regulations, 2009 on the alleged ground that it has been found impossible for the appellant, a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act,2003 to reach the benchmarks or the yardstick fixed by the Commission in its said Regulations, 2009, by virtue of the provisions contained in the said Regulations conferring power to the Commission to amend the Regulations. 2. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, following the reforms in the power sector was bifurcated and restructured as a result of which the function of power generation has been vested with the appellant. The function of retail distribution of power has been vested ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Mr. H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member, J. This appeal challenges order dated April 29, 2008 passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) whereby the Commission has granted in-principle approval of the project cost of the 2 X 270 MW thermal power project proposed to be set up by the appellant in the state of Punjab. 2. Facts of the case to the extent relevant for this appeal are briefly given below:- 3. The appellant, M/s GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act with the object of engaging in the business of establishing, maintaining, operating a Thermal power station at Goindwal Sahib in the state of Punjab and for supplying electricity from the said station. 4. The Government of Punjab invited bids from prospective project developers’ proposals on the basis of an International Competitive Bidding in the year 1996 to establish a coal based thermal power generation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member, J.In this appeal Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (UPRVUNL in short) has challenged Tariff Order dated March 26, 2007 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission in short) in petition No. 435 of 2007 for the ARR of FY 2007-08 and as modified by the Commission on October 10, 2007 partly allowing the review petition of the appellant. Thus Original Tariff order dated GB March 26, 2007 has merged with the Review Order dated October 10, 2007. 2. We now proceed to deal with the two issues the appellant has agitated before us: 3. Issue No. 1 Exclusion of Capacity of Units under Renovation and Modernization (RandM). 4. Mr. M.G. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the impugned order dated October 10, 2007 the Commission accepted the submissions of the appellant to the effect that the units under Renovation and Modernization (RandM) should not be considered for calculation of the Plant Load Fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. M/s Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., MSPGCL in short, (the Appellant) is a company formed under the Government of Maharashtra General Resolution no. ELA-003/P.K.8588/Bhag-2/Urja-5 dated 24 January 2005, after re-organization of the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The Appellant is in the business of generation of electricity in the State of Maharashtra. The Appellant submitted its application for approval of Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and Tariff Petition for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 in February 2006 before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC or the Commission).MERC through its order dated 7 September 2006 determined the ARR and tariff for the Appellant. The Appellant sought a review of the above order of the MERC on various issues through petition filed on 19 October 2006, which was disposed of by the MERC through its order dated 07 December 2006. The Appellant was aggrieved by the said order of the MERC, hence has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. What should have been the tariff for co-generation units in the State of Karnataka and whether the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission who is the respondent no.7 in this appeal has rightly determined the tariff in respect of the units co-generating electricity in that State by its order dated 11.12.2009 are the questions posed before us in this appeal preferred by the South India Sugar Mills Association (Karnataka), a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 which is a conglomeration of 30 Co-generators. 2. According to the appellant, the total generation of electricity from co-generation is about 400 MWs. In the matter of fixing the price of non-firm power particularly from the non- conventional sources, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) framed CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2009 which came into effect from 16th September, 2009. The State Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited is the Appellant herein. M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited is the First Respondent. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant, in this Appeal, has challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 28.9.2012 holding in favour of the First Respondent that the Notice of Recovery sent by the Appellant, was not maintainable. 3. The relevant facts that are required for disposal of the Appeal in short, are as under: (a) M/s. LANCO Tanjore Power Company Limited earlier known as M/s. Aban Power Company Limited was selected through the process of international competitive bidding by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the establishment of 126.13 MW Naptha based Combined Cycle Power Project in Karur District Tamil Nadu. (b) The Power Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the First Respondent for th...
Tag this Judgment!