Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. Was the tariff in respect of the appellant properly determined according to the law? Did not the order impugned amount to ad hocism? These are the questions vehemently spread out and put forward in course of the of hearing of the appeal preferred by the appellant M/S Aarti Steels Limited, (hereinafter to be referred to as ASL), a company that operates a 50MW coal based thermal power plant, against the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no 1 in this appeal. The second and the principal contesting respondent is the GRIDCO Ltd by which the tariff payable to the appellant was determined. The four other respondents, namely the Central Electricity Supply Utility, (CESU, the respondent no.3), the North Eastern Electricity Company of Orissa Ltd, (the respondent no 4), the Western Electricity Supply Co. (the respondent no 5), and the Southern Electricity Supply Co. (the respondent no 6) who are the dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. The appeal at the instance of Gujarat UrjaVikas Nigam Ltd.( hereinafter to be referred to as GUVNL),preferred against the order dated 21.10.2011 in Petition No. 109 of 2011 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein is concerned with interpretation of certain clauses of a contract called Power Purchase Agreement entered into by and between the appellant GUVNL and the Adani Power Ltd.( hereinafter to be referred to as APL), the respondent No.2 herein on 2.2.2007 in order to find out the contractual obligations of the parties in so far as it relates to the time of commencement of supply of electricity by the APL to the GUVNL.To be more precise, what is the connotation of the words ‘Commercial Operation Date’ (COD) and ‘Scheduled Commercial Operation Date’ (SCOD) has been the bone of contention between the appellant and the respondent No.2 and the order impugned having gone in favour of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Orange Country Resorts and Hotels Ltd., is the Appellant herein. 2. Karnataka State Commission is the 1st Respondent. 3. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., is the 2nd Respondent. 4. The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Commission on 24th May,2012 rejecting the prayer of the Appellant sought for determination and payment of compensation for the loss incurred by it. 5. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- i) The Appellant is the consumer of the Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd.,(the Distribution Company, R-2) serviced under HT(2)(b)(ii) tariff category. ii) The Power Supply Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the Distribution Company(R-2) for an initial quantum of 30 kVA Contract Demand. iii) By another PSA dated 10.5.2007 the Appellant availed additional supply for 150 kVA. iv) The Distribution Company(R-2) under Power Suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. This Appeal has been filed by Parrys Sugar Industries Ltd. challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (“State Commission”) dated 24.5.2012 disallowing the claim for payment against the energy injected by Appellant into the State grid without any Power Purchase Agreement or generation schedule or permission for open access. 2. The State Commission is the 1st Respondent. The distribution licensee and the State Load Dispatch Centre are the 2nd and 3rdRespondents respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The Appellant has a sugar factory with co-generation plant of 24 MW capacity and exportable capacity of 20.86 MW at Hullatti village, Haliyal Taluka of Uttara Kannada District in the State of Karnataka. 3.2 A PPA was entered into between the distribution licensee, the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant for sale of surplus energy from the above co-generation facility on 22.1.2007. 3.3 The Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. The question posed in this Appeal is as follows:- “Whether the Appellant could be held to be a Long Term Open Access Customer when the term of Energy Wheeling Agreement was merely for the period of three years”? 2. The Kaveri Gas Power Ltd. has filed this Appeal as against the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) holding that the Appellant is a Long Term Open Access Customer. 3. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Kaveri Gas Power Ltd.,” the Appellant herein” is a company involved in the business of setting up power plants and generating electricity. The Appellant set up a 6.79 MW natural gas based captive power plant at Maruthur village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk in Tamil Nadu State. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution (b) Corporation Ltd.(2nd Respondent) accorded the wheeling approval for the Appellant’s plant on 24.5.2006. (c) Initially,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. The present Appeal has been preferred by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited against the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“Central Commission”) in the matter of fixation of tariff for sale of power from Ranganadi Hydro Electric Project of the Appellant from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014. 2. The Appellant is a generating company engaged in the generation of electricity. The Appellant has a Hydro Electric Project viz, Ranganadi Hydro Electric Project. 3. The Central Commission is the Respondent no.1. The Respondent nos. 2 to 8 are the beneficiaries of the power from Ranganadi Hydro Electric Project. 4. The facts of the case are as under. 4.1 The Appellant on 19.11.2009 filed a petition before the Central Commission for fixation of tariff for sale of power from Ranganadi Hydro Electric Project for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2014. In the aforesaid petition, the Appellant sought for normative Op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. The Tata Power Company Limited (the Appellant) challenging the Tariff Order for the Financial Year 2011-12 passed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘State Commission’) has filed the present Appeal. 2. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Tata Power Company Limited filed the petition for determination of tariff for the Financial Year 2011-12 for 60 MW capacity each of the Unit-2 and Unit-3 at Jojobera as per Jharkhand State Electricity Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2010. (b) After observing the formalities and hearing the parties, the State Commission passed the impugned order dated 20.8.2011 determining the tariff after considering the relevant materials placed before it. (c) The Appellant is aggrieved by the denial of its following claims: (i) The State Commission did not allow deviation sought by the Appellant and disallowed the Station Heat Rate of 265...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
ORDER This Application for condonation of delay has been filed by Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited in the Appeal against the Tariff Order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding tariff of Powergrid, the Respondent no. 2 herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: i) The Central Commission passed a tariff order on the petition of the Respondent no. 2 regarding determination of final transmission tariff including tariff for additional capital expenditure for upgradation of transfer capacity of Talcher-Kolar HVDC Bi—pole from 1.8.2007 to 31.3.2009. ii) Aggrieved by capitalisation of the computed loss of revenue and incentive to Powrgrid for the period of shut down of the transmission system for the purpose of upgradation instead of reimbursement by the beneficiaries in instalments, the Applicant filed a Review Petition before the Central Commission on 11.05.2009 within the specified time limit. iii) The Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is the Appellant herein. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Regulatory Commission (R-1) (State Commission) allowing the Review Petition filed by the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R-2). 2. The short facts are as follows:- (a) The Appellant, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Ajmer Vidyut) is the Distribution Licensee in the State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited, the second Respondent is involved in mining of rock phosphate located in Udaipur District of Rajasthan. (b) Both the Appellant and Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R-2) are the public Sector undertakings of the State of Rajasthan. (c) Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (R-2), had set-up various Wind Energy Power Plants in Jaisalmer District of Rajasthan. A Wheeling and Banking Agreement was entered into ...
Tag this Judgment!