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 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. 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!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Surendra Kumar, Judicial Member. 1. The instant Appeal is directed against the impugned tariff order 2012-13, dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter called the State Commission) for determination of railway traction tariff and bulk supply category to the Railway in Madhya Pradesh wherein the State commission had increased the Demand Charges for the Railway Traction supply for existing Rs.220/- per KVA to Rs. 265/- per KVA i.e. @ Rs.45/- per KVA and energy charges from Rs.4.70/KWH to Rs.5.00 /KWH i.e. @ Rs.0.30 per KWH unit for the year 2012-13, effective from 10.4.2012 based on the ARR and Tariff Applications made by the distribution licensees namely, Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (East Discom), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (West Discom) and Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (Central Discom), (Respondent No. 2 to 4 herein) in Petition No. 72/201...
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 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
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member. 1. The present Appeal has been filed by M/s. Puri Oil Mills Ltd. against the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 passed by Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (œState Commission?) rejecting the Petition of the Appellant for re-determination of tariff of their two canal based Mini Hydro Power Plants and amendment of the concluded Power Purchase Agreement entered into with Haryana Power Purchase Centre for sale of power. 2. The Appellant is a generating company which has set up two small Canal based hydro power plants with installed capacity of 1.4 MW each. Haryana Power Purchase Centre which is responsible for procurement of power for the distribution licensees and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., the distribution licensee are the Respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively. The State Commission is the Respondent no.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The Appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Haryana Renewable Energy...
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
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!