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
MR. RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. Appeal Nos. 102,103 and 112 of 2010 have been filed by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited respectively against the order dated 20th March, 2010 of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission determining the Annual Revenue Requirements and Retail Supply Tariff for the Financial Year 2010-11 of the North Eastern Electricity Supply Company Limited, the distribution licensee. The State Commission is the respondent No. 1. The distribution licensee which supplies electricity to the appellants is the respondent no. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1. The appellants are operating Ferro Alloy plants and are Extra High Voltage (EHT) consumers of respondent no.2/distribution licensee. Even though the appellants are the consumers of the distribution licensee, their premises are connected to the transmission lines and network of the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited, the transmiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. How is tariff for the Wind Energy Projects to be commissioned during the FY 2010-11 in the State of Rajasthan to be determined? Whether Regulation 85 of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 (for short, ‘the Regulations, 2009’) which provides an indexation formula shall be the sole determining factor for determination of tariff for the Wind Energy Projects to be commissioned during the FY 2010-11? Whether Part III of the Regulations, 2009 will have no relevance for determination of tariff for the projects to be commissioned during FY 2010-11? Whether the doctrine of harmonious construction of different provisions of the Regulations should be invoked for the purpose of determination of tariff for the FY 2010-11 in the case of renewable energy projects? Whether harmonious construction of the different provisions of the Regulations is capable of providing complete rel...
Tag this Judgment!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
V.J. Talwar, Technical Member 1. Chattisgarh State Transmission Company Limited is the Appellant. Chhatisgarh State Electricity Board is the predecessor of the Appellant. 2. M/s R R Energy Limited is the first Respondent. Chhatisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) is the 2nd Respondent. 3. M/s R R Energy Limited (R-1) is a generating company having rice husk (biomass) based power plant of 14 MW capacity in state of Chhatisgarh. Respondent – 1 has constructed 132 kV line to evacuate power from its power plant. Appellant had charged 15% of the cost of the line as supervision charges from the Respondent – 1 before providing connectivity to its system. State Commission vide its order dated 29.10.2009 directed the Appellant to refund the supervision charges to Respondent -1. 4. Aggrieved by this impugned order of State Commission, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 6. M/s. R.R. Energy Limited, the Respon...
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
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
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON M/s. Suchi Papers Mills Limited is the Appellant. M/s. Surya Processors Private Limited is the Second Respondent. 2. The Appellant took the electricity connection from the independent feeder of M/s. Samtel Colour Limited. The Appellant as well as M/s. Samtel Colour Limited are the continuous process units doing manufacturing work round the clock. 3. M/s. Surya Processors Private Limited the second Respondent applied for the independent feeder but due to non availability of corridor, the UP Power Corporation Limited, 5th Respondent proposed to connect M/s. Surya Processors Private Limited with M/s. Samtel Colour Limited’s feeder. Under clause 3.4 (d) (ii) of the supply code, the consent from the independent feeder (original consumer) is mandatory. Therefore, M/s. Surya Processors Private Limited filed a petition before the State Commission for giving a direction to the distribution licensee to release electricity connection to M/s. Surya Processo...
Tag this Judgment!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!