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
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
H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member, J. 1. Five distribution companies in Karnataka have filed these appeals against the orders passed by Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC or the Commission in short) whereby the Commission has determined the Annual Revenue Requirements (ARR) and tariff for the distribution companies for the Multi Year Tariff Period 2007-08 to 2009-2010. As the following common issues have been agitated in these appeals, we are disposing these appeals with this common judgment. 1. Truing up for the past period 2. Inadequate Power Purchase Cost allowed. 3. Inclusion of Transmission Losses in calculating loss level for the appellants. 4. Interest and Finance Charges 5. Depreciation and Operation and Maintenance Charges 6. Loss level for Multi Year Tariff Period 7. Fixing Differential Tariffs across different licensees. 2. In addition to the above issues, in Appeal Nos. 15, 21 and 22 of 2008, the following issue is also agitated. 8. Limiting the purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
H.L. Bajaj, Technical Member. This appeal challenges the order dated May 09, 2006 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC or the Commission in short) in petition No. 197/2004 read with Review Order dated February 05, 2007 in Review Petition No. 46 of 2006 passed by the Commission whereby the Commission has determined the tariff in respect of SALAL Hydro Electric Project of NHPC for the period from April 01, 2004 to March 31, 2009. 2. During the course of hearing before us counsel for the parties agreed that there are only two issues which need to be examined. In this regard our order dated December 10, 2008 is reproduced below: “So far as this appeal is concerned, as pointed out by the counsel for the parties there are two issues: (i) Has the Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that when depreciation recovered in a year is more than the amount of repayment during that year, the entire amount of depreciation is to be considered as repayment of lo...
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
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. The common judgment is being rendered in these two Appeals, as these appeals would arise out of the common order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission disposing of the two Petitions No. 10 and 11 of 2008 and giving directions to both the parties, namely Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd and Aryan Benefication Limited. 2. The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company has filed an Appeal No. 119 of 2009 as against the Aryan Benefication Limited (ABL). Similarly the Aryan Benefication Limited has filed Appeal No. 125 of 2009 as against the Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Limited, on being aggrieved over the respective findings made in the impugned order dated 23.1.2009. 3. The short facts are as follows:- i) Ms Aryan Coal Benefication is the coal based generating station. This generating station entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board for suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON, J. 1. Both these Appeals No. 77 of 2009 and 86 of 2009 have been heard together and Common Judgment is being rendered as both the Appeals would arise out of the Common Order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) on 18.02.2009. 2. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, the erstwhile Electricity Board, is the Appellant in Appeal No. 77 of 2009 and Essar Power Ltd. is the Appellant in Appeal No. 86 of 2009. The short facts are as under: 3. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited is the successor of the Electricity Board of Gujarat (Electricity Board). The erstwhile Electricity Board had entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 30.05.1996 with the Essar Power Limited (EPL) for the purchase of power for a period of 20 years. In the same year, on 29.06.1996, the Essar Power Limited entered into another PPA with its sister concern Essar Group of Companies. Under the PPA which was entered with the Electricity Board, the Essa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Velagapudi Power Generation Ltd is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant is the generator of electricity out of nonconventional energy source. The sanction was accorded to the Appellant in respect of 3 MW bio-mass power plant at Doppalapudi Village, Guntur District. Accordingly, the Appellant entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (R-2) for the purchase of electric energy generated by the Appellant. By revised proceedings, the Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (NEDCAD) or the Corporation in short), the nodal agency, enhanced the capacity from 3 MW to 4 MW. Consequently another PPA was entered into. Since various disputes arose between Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh (R-1) and AP. Transco (R-2), the Appellant filed a petition in OP No. 7 of 2007 before the State Commission seeking for various reliefs in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Chairperson 1. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited is the Appellant herein. Devangere Sugar Company Limited is the first respondent. 2. A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent. In pursuance of the same the Respondent, the generating company, was bound to sell the power generated by it to the Appellant at the agreed rates as mentioned in the PPA. Since the agreed rates were not paid in time, the Respondent sent a Default Notice to the Appellant stating that if the dues were not paid within the stipulated time, the contract will be terminated. However, the reply was sent by the Appellant to the Respondent pointing out that there had been no default. Since default had not been rectified, the Respondent sent a Notice of Termination and stopped supply to the Appellant. 3. Challenging the same, the Appellant filed a petition before the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Per Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Nath, Technical Member 1. The above Appeals have been filed by M/s Sarjan Realities Pvt. Ltd., Indian Wind Energy Association and M/s Enercon (India) Limited, Wind Energy Developers in the state of Maharashtra. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (R-2) is Distribution Licensee in Maharashtra. M/s Bajaj Finserv Ltd. (R-3) is also a Wind Energy Developer. 2. The Appeals are against the order dated 9.3.2009 in case No. 8 of 2008 by Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (R-1). In the impugned order the Commission gave clarifications sought for by M/s Bajaj Finserv Limited (Respondent 3), on Commission’s order dated 20.11.2007 regarding charges for wheeling of energy from Wind Energy Projects classified as Group II Projects, through the transmission and distribution system of MSEDCL (R-2). Group II Wind Energy Projects are those projects which were commissioned after 27.12.1999 and before 1.4.2003. Appellant’s Wind Energy Proj...
Tag this Judgment!