Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. This Appeal has been filed by Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited, a State owned power Generating Company. Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission is the Respondent no. 1. The Respondent nos. 2 to 10 are the consumers or consumer Associations or Consumer Representatives. Maharasthtra State Electricity Distribution Company is the Respondent no.11. 2. Initially, the Appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the State Commission on 17.8.2009 in Case No. 115 of 2008 for True up for FY 2008-09 and tariff for FY 2009-10 of the Appellant. The Appeal was subsequently amended to challenge the State Commission’s orders dated 19.1.2010 and 5.3.2010 regarding true up for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08 and provisional true up for FY 2008-09 of the financials of the Appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. On 7.9.2006 the State Commission passed the order on the Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Respondent nos. 2 to 10 are the consumers or consumer Associations or Consumer Representatives. Maharasthtra State Electricity Distribution Company is the Respondent no.11. 2. Initially, the Appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the State Commission on 17.8.2009 in Case No. 115 of 2008 for True up for FY 2008-09 and tariff for FY 2009-10 of the Appellant. The Appeal was subsequently amended to challenge the State Commission’s orders dated 19.1.2010 and 5.3.2010 regarding true up for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08 and provisional true up for FY 2008-09 of the financials of the Appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. On 7.9.2006 the State Commission passed the order on the Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the Appellant for the FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07 in case no. 48 of 2005. 3.2. The State Commission on 25.4.2007 issued Multi Year Tariff (MYT) order in case No. 68 of 2006 in respect of the Appellant for the first Control Period from FY 2007-08 to FY...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant who is a successor in interest of M/s. Tata Tea Ltd. and a Licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the purpose of distribution of electricity in its licensed area, namely, Munnar in the State of Kerala preferred this Appeal against the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) Respondent No.1 whereby the tariff of the Appellant who, according to the Appellant, was consuming for itself less than 50% of the total energy purchased by it from the Kerala Sate Electricity Board (Board), Respondent No. 2, was passed with retrospective effect from 1.12.2007. 2. The facts are these: Transfer of interest of M/s. Tata Tea Ltd., a distribution licensee in favour of the Appellant was effected on 9.1.2007 and the order therefor was passed on 26.3.2007. On 4.7.2007, the Board who is the Respondent No. 2 filed a Tariff Petition before the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission for the year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Questions more on law than on facts are involved in this appeal preferred by the Bihar Steel Manufactures Association against the order dated 30.03.2010 whereby the Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no 1 herein, on the application dated 10.12.2009 of the respondent no.2, the Bihar State Electricity Board approved levy of fuel and power purchase cost adjustment charges at the rate of 69 paise per unit for the period during October,2008 to March,2009 and the order dated 19.05.2010 whereby the same charges were levied for the period from April 2009 to September, 2009 on the application dated 08.02.2010 filed by the said Board. 2. The appellant is an association of High Tension Specified Service Consumers of the second respondent having nineteen consumers each of whom operates induction furnaces with a dedicated transmission line directly connected with the grid/substation of the said respondent no 2. 3. The State Commission on 24.04.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member 1. This Appeal has been preferred by Wardha Power Company Ltd. against the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) in the petition filed by the Appellant seeking recovery of dues for supply of electricity in terms of the Power Purchase Agreement. 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. is the Respondent no.1. The State Commission is the Respondent no.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 3.1 The Appellant is a generating company which has set up a power project with 4 units of 135 MW each in Maharashtra. The Appellant participated in the competitive bidding for procurement of power on short term basis by the distribution licensee, the Respondent no.1 herein, in terms of the guidelines for competitive bidding notified by the Central Government for supply of 300 MW power on round the clock basis. 3.2 The bid of the Appellant was accepted and subsequently a Power Purchase Agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. 01) The appellant is a company engaged in the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity in the specified areas of south and south-west of Delhi and is a successor entity of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). The appellant has challenged the tariff order dated 23.02.08 whereby the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) has passed an order on determination of Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR) of the appellant for the FY 2008 to 2011 and the distribution tariff for the period of 01.03.08 to 31.03.09 for which the appellant had filed petition No. 51 of 2007. The appellant alleges that the Commission has disallowed the projections made by the appellant and in the process has caused a loss of Rs.886.07 Crores in the FY 2008 and Rs.1458.65 Crores in the FY 2009. The disallowance made by the Commission has been broken up in three parts, namely: (a) Those relating to truing up by the Commission pursuant to the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Manju Goel, Judicial Member, J. 01) This appeal challenges the order of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 08.07.09 determining the tariff for the Bhandardara-II Hydro Power Project (BHEP for short) run by the appellant. BHEP was commissioned in 1999. It has a 34 MW hydro power facility on river Pravara located about 12 km downstream from Bhandardara-I hydro power facility. The station is operated on water released from Bhandardara-I and the sluices of the Bhandardara Dam. Water released from Bhandardara-II is taken for irrigation through canals having total capacity of 1045 cusecs. BHEP-II was being operated only at a partial load of 18 MW as downstream canals were not capable of carrying the full discharge of 2700 cusecs required for full capacity operation. The plant has been designed as peaking power station to operate for 3 hours each during morning and evening peak taking into consideration downstream Nilwande Dam. However, the construc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri V.J. Talwar, Technical Member 1 Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, a distribution licensee in Western Gujarat is the Appellant. 2 Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 1st` Respondent. The Kutch Salt and Allied Industries Ltd (the Generating Company), is the 2nd Respondent. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd (GETCO), the Transmission Licensee in Gujarat is the 3rd Respondent. 3 State Commission has passed impugned Order dated 10.8.2010 directing the Appellant to procure excess energy generated by 2nd Respondent’s Wind Turbine Generator at tariff fixed by the Commission and to refund to the 2nd Respondent the amount deducted by Appellant @ 15% from the tariff rate determined by the Commission for the surplus energy available after captive use. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, the Appellant has filed this Appeal before us. 4 Brief facts of the case are as under: 5 2nd Respondent, the Generating Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. The comprehensive impugned tariff order for Wind Energy dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission is challenged in these Appeals by different parties. 2. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited has filed the Appeal No.197 of 2012, Indian Wind Power Association has filed Appeal No.198 of 2012. The various Associations of Spinning Mills have filed the Appeal Nos 200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association has filed the Appeal No.201 of 2012. 3. Beta Wind Farm Private Limited, the Appellant in Appeal No.197 of 2012 is a Wind Energy Generator. 4. Indian Wind Power Associations, the Appellant in Appeal No.198 of 2012 is an Association of Wind Energy Generators. Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, the Appellant in Appeal No.201 of 2012 is an Association of manufacturers of Wind Turbines. 5. The various Associations of Spinning Mills who are the Appellants in Appeal No.200, 208 of 2012 and 6 of 2013 have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The present appeal has been filed, under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by the petitioner/appellant NTPC Limited against the order dated 28.05.2013, passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the Central Commission) in Petition No. 269 of 2009, relating to the determination of generation tariff for Talcher Super Thermal Power Station (STPS), Stage-II (2000 MW) for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2014. 2. In the impugned order, the Central Commission has disallowed the following items under additional capital expenditure, namely:- (a) Claim of Rs. 10.35 crore for purchase of Generator Transformer, (b) Claim of Rs. 23.21 crore for balance civil works, (c) Claim of Rs. 48 lakh for Energy Monitoring System (EMS) and (d) Claim of Rs. 4528 lakh for purchase of wagons and locos. 3. The Central Commission has erred in disallowing the above claims on the grounds such as; the new Generator Transformer will only b...
Tag this Judgment!