Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member: 1. The instant Appeal has been directed against the impugned tariff order dated 23rd March, 2012 passed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short OERC) in respect of Annual Revenue Requirement and Tariff Proposals submitted by 4 Distribution Companies (DISCOMs) in Orissa state viz Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa (CESU), Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa (SOUTHCO), Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd, (WESCO) and North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (NESCO) for the year 2012-13 for determination of distribution tariff, in respect of electric supply in Orissa state, wherein learned OERC had increased the demand charges for the H.T. and E.H.T. Railway Traction supply from existing Rs.200/- per KVA to Rs.250/- per KVA i.e. @ Rs.50/- per KVA and energy charges from Rs.4.70/KWH to 4.90/KWH i.e. @ 20 paise per KWH unit for E.H.T. Railway Traction and from Rs.4.75/KWH to Rs.4.95/KWH i.e. @...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are generating power from non-conventional energy sources and moving the energy on the wires of the licensees. They are aggrieved by the wheeling charges fixed by the Commission by means of tariff orders dated March 23, 2004, March 22, 2005 and March 23, 2006 for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-09 respectively. The facts reveal enterprise and entrepreneurship for setting up gas based generation plants and also saga of endeavour and effort of the Central Govt., State Govt., upto a particular stage, and the entrepreneurs to augment generation through non-conventional energy sources and also of road blocks to it. The relevant initiatives which need to be mentioned are re-counted below: 2. On October 17, 1988, a Memorandum of understanding was entered into between the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board [now Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (for short 'APTRANSCO')] on the one hand and The Andhra Sugars Ltd., Sri Vish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. Talwar, Technical Member: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) is the Appellant. 1. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the first Respondent. Gujarat Electricity Transmission Corporation (GECTO) is the second Respondent. 3rd 4th and 5th Respondents are distribution licensees in the State of Gujarat. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned Order of State Commission dated 23.9.2009 in respect of wheeling charges for wheeling power from Captive Wind Energy Generators setup by the Appellant in the State of Gujarat through Transmission system of GECTO (R‐2) to various locations for its own use, ONGC, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. Material facts of this case are given below. 4. State Commission (R‐1) notified Regulations for Procurement of Power from Renewable Sources on 29.9.2005. Government of Gujarat (State Government) issued Wind Power Policy 2007 on 13.6.2007 to encourage generation of electricity from Renewable Sources of Energy in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Appellant in both these Appeals in Appeal No. 12 of 2010 and Appeal No. 116 of 2010. Since common issues have been raised in these Appeals, the common judgment is being rendered though the impugned orders are different. 2. The Appeal 12/2010 has been filed as against the impugned order dated 14.10.2009. The Appeal 116/2010 has been filed as against the impugned order dated 25.2.2010. 3. Let us now deal with the relevant facts in each of the Appeals. Appeal No. 12 of 2010 4. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) is the Appellant. M/s TCP Limited is the 1st Respondent. This Appeal filed by the TNEB is directed against the order passed by the State Commission (R-2) dated 14.10.2009 in the Petition DRP No. 18 of 2008 filed by the M/s TCP Limited, the 1st Respondent as against the Appellant. 5. The 1st Respondent, M/s TCP Limited is having a captive power plant at Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District in Tamil Nad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Hon’ble A.A. Khan, Technical Membe 1. The Appellant, Reliance Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘REL’ or ‘BSEB’ as known earlier) has challenged the order of Respondent No. 1, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for brevity referred to as ‘MERC’/’The Commission’) passed on 12 Dec. 2007 in Case No. 7 of 2002 relating to petition filed by Appeal No 3 of 2008 Respondent No. 2, Tata Power Company Ltd. (for short ‘TPC’) whereby certain alleged outstanding dues on account of differences in energy rates between R. 2.09 per kwh ad Rs. 1.77 per kwh and shortfall in minimum off-take of energy claimed by ‘TPC’ from ‘REL’ (Reliance Energy Ltd. Which was earlier known as BSES) are allowed by the impugned order. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. TPC has been a licensee to generate and supply electricity in Mumbai area for over eight decades and, inter alia, directly supplies power to railways, refineries...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson: 1. M/s. Davangere Sugar Company Limited is the Appellant herein. Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission is the First Respondent. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), is the Second Respondent. 2. This Appeal has been filed as against the impugned order dated 24.1.2013 determining the amount of compensation to be paid by the Appellant to the BESCOM in view of 3rd party sale made by the Appellant through Open Access. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) The Appellant is a Generating Company. It entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with KPTCL, the Transmission and Bulk Supply Licensee under Karnataka Reforms Act for the sale of power from its plant situated at Davangere on 17.1.2002. (b) The KPTCL on 5.7.2003 terminated the PPA between the Appellant and KPTCL without assigning any reason. Therefore, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court against the said termination. (c) During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, t...
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. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2011, directing the Appellant to pay the amount to be calculated by the generator, the 1st Respondent, after working of the invoices from the year 2001 to 2006, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 3. The short facts are as follows: (a) PPN Power Company Private Limited, the 1st Respondent, is a Generating Company. The said Power Company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the predecessor of the Appellant, on 3.01.1997 for sale of the entire energy generated by the Power Generating Station pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Power Purchase Agreement. Thereafter, the PPN Power Company set up a 330.5 MW Power Generating Station. It had been generating power through a combine cycled gas turbine power station in Nagapattinam District of Tamil Nadu. The Power Company commenced its commerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson. 1. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), the Distribution Company, is the Review Petitioner herein. 2. The Petitioner BESCOM filed the Petition in OP No.26 of 2008 before the State Commission claiming compensation from M/s. Shamanur Sugars Limited, the Generating Company, the 1st Respondent for the electricity sold by it to 3rd party during the subsistence of the Power Purchase Agreement between the Petitioner and the said Shamanur Sugars Limited. 3. This Petition was allowed by the State Commission directing the Generating Company to pay the compensation to the Petitioner Company. 4. As against the said order, the Shamanur Sugars Limited filed an Appeal before this Tribunal in Appeal No.44 of 2013. 5. After hearing the parties, this Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by M/s. Shamanur Sugars Limited by the judgment dated 7.1.2014 holding that the BESCOM was not entitled to compensation. 6. Aggrieved by this judgment of this Tribunal, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL931
1. This Orderwill dispose of three sets of appeals. Appeal Nos. 4, 13, 14, 23, 25, 26 and 35 of 2005 have been filed either by the Power Intensive Industrial Consumers or their associations and are directed against the Order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC/Commission), dated 14^th June, 2005, to the extent it fixes Tariff for power intensive industrial consumers at the rate of Rs. 3.72 per KWH.2. Appeal No. 36 of 2005, filed by an association of Power Intensive Industrial Consumers, challenges Circular No. 42 of 2005 of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB/Board) issued in compliance with the Order of the PSERC, dated 14^th June, 2005, whereby Tariff to various categories of consumers were revised.3. The other two appeals being Appeal Nos. 54 and 55 of 2005, have been filed by the PSEB. While Appeal No. 54 of 2005 is directed against the Tariff Order of the PSERC, for the year 2004-2005, dated 30^th November, 2004, the other Appeal, being Appeal No. 55...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
1. This judgment will dispose of four appeals mentioned on the title of this judgment. The appeals No. 188/05, 179/05 and 27/06 are directed against the order of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Raipur (Commission for short) dated 29.09.05. The appeals No. 16/06 is directed against the order dated 29.11.05. The appeals were disposed of earlier by this Tribunal vide a judgment dated 11th May, 2006. That judgment was challenged in three appeals, being No.4268, 3996 and 4529/06 which were disposed of by the Supreme Court vide a judgment dated 11.05.06 setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal and remanding the matter for a fresh judgment. The Supreme Court, in particular, wanted this Tribunal to decide the issue of application of Section 10(2) of Electricity Act 2003 to the facts of this case. We have heard the parties on all the issues involved.2. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL for short) established a sponge iron / steel plant at Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in the yea...
Tag this Judgment!