Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. The Commission in its order dated 4.1.2000 in Petition No. 2/99 (suo motu), after going through a transparent process of hearing and consultations with all concerned, had resolved to implement the scheme of Availability Based Tariff (ABT), having the following distinguishing features, in different regions of the country in a phased manner: 2. The scheme of ABT was implemented in a phased manner from the following dates in case of the generating stations supplying electricity to more than one State; 3. As of now, for the reason that ABT is in operation in all the regions of the country for sufficient time, considerable exposure and experience of the scheme has been acquired by all concerned. The beneficial results of ABT are also evident in the scheduling and despatch of generation capacity and maintenance of grid frequency within a reasonable frequency band.4. The Commission's tariff regulations dated 26.3.2004 specifying terms and conditions of tariff for the period 2004-2009 dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. The application has been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) for grant of transmission licence for construction and maintenance of the transmission lines and facilities to be used for evacuation of power from Karcham-Wangtoo HEP to the Central Transmission Utility's Abdullapur sub-station located in the State of Haryana, as under: (a) LILO of 400 kV D/C Baspa - Nathpa Jhakri transmission line at Wangtoo; (b) 400 kV D/C Karcham-Wangtoo-Abdullapur transmission line (Quad conductor); and 2. The applicant is a joint venture company promoted by Jaiprakash Hydro Power Limited (JHPL) and Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (PGCIL). The applicant, as well as JHPL are group companies of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL). A hydroelectric project, namely Karcham-Wangtoo HEP is being developed by a group company of the applicant. The applicant has proposed the transmission system primarily for evacuation of power from Karcham-Wangtoo HEP to Abdullapur ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. The review applicant, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has made this application seeking review of the order of the Commission dated 23.3.2007 in Petition No. 5/2002 determining the tariff in respect of Thermal Power Station-II of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. Review of the order has been sought on the following grounds: (a) Award of reimbursement of FERV based on actuals in addition to capitalization in respective years. (b) Non-deduction of 1/5th of the value of the mandatory spares capitalized from the value of spares considered for working capital requirement. (c) Revision of target availability after considering the additional mine capacity.2. We have heard the representative of the review applicant. Review petition is admitted on the grounds mentioned in sub-paras (a) and (d) of Para 1 above. We do not find any merit in other grounds for the reasons recorded in the succeeding paragraphs. Non- deduction of 1/5th of value of Spares for wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. Torrent Power Generation Ltd had filed the main petition seeking `in principle' approval of the project capital cost and financing plan in respect of its proposed 1100 MW SUGEN Combined Cycle Power Project in the State of Gujarat in terms of second proviso to Regulation 17 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2004 as amended (hereinafter referred to as the tariff regulations, 2004). The original petitioner had claimed the capital cost of the project at US $ 349.58 million plus Rs. 1508.30 crore including IDC and Financing Charges (FC) of Rs. 194.40 crore and Working Capital Margin of Rs. 49.50 crore. The Commission by its order dated 22.8.2006 had accorded 'in-principle' approval for the project capital cost of US $ 339.436 million plus Rs. 1448.43 crore including IDC and FC and excluding WCM, subject to certain conditions. The project capital cost as approved included the cost of initial spares of Rs. 111.86 crore (comprisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. The petitioner, Northern Regional Load Despatch Centre has filed this petition for implementation of frequency linked Unscheduled Interchange (UI) mechanism on hydro generating stations owned and operated by Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), for overall economy and efficiency in grid operation.2. The petitioner informed that BBMB generating stations have 2866 MW generating capacity. Its beneficiary states are Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. BBMB has maximum reservoir based generation and it can be varied to dampen the frequency spikes and dips within the limits of schedule of overall generation and water releases for the day.3. Currently, BBMB is out of ambit of the UI mechanism, which means that while calculating the UI charges the dispatched schedules issued to BBMB generating stations are replaced by their actual generation.Thus, due to post facto revision of BBMB schedules, the incentive to flex generation in response to the real-time variation in grid frequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. The present application has been made by Coastal Gujarat Power Limited under Section 63 of Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) for adoption of tariff for supply of electricity arrived at through international competitive bidding process for Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (hereinafter referred as 'Mundra UMPP').2. Section 63 of the Act envisages that the Appropriate Commission shall adopt the tariff if such tariff has been determined through the transparent process of bidding in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government. The Central Government in Ministry of Power has issued the guidelines contemplated under Section 63 of the Act, titled "Guidelines for Determination of Tariff by Bidding Process for Procurement of Power by Distribution Licensees" (hereinafter referred to as 'the guidelines') vide Resolution No. 23/11/2004-R&R (Vol.II) dated 19.1.2005. The salient features of the bidding process as laid down in the guidelines are discussed hereunder for conveni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
review/modification/re-consideration/clarification of the order dated 23.3.2007 in Petition No. 113/2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the original application").3. In the original application, the petitioner had prayed for adoption of tariff in respect of 2000 MW thermal power station proposed to be set up in Sidhi District of State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the generating station") in terms of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) dated 14.9.2006 and 28.9.2006 with the respondents, under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act). Earlier, the petitioner had made an application, taken on the file of the Commission as Petition No.95/2003, also under Section 63 of the Act, for adoption of tariff, which it had proposed to set up in Sonbhadra District, Uttar Pradesh (UP) based on the bids called by the State Government in February 1995. The application was disposed of by order dated 30.7.2004 wherein it was held by the Commission that the application under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
1. The application is made for review and consequently revision of methodology for sharing of transmission charges for 220 kV S/C Korba- Budhipadar Transmission Line (the transmission line) between Eastern and Western Regions for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 approved by order dated 16.3.2006 in Petition No.69/2004, based on the directions of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity as contained in its judgement dated 14.11.2006 in Appeal No. 19/2006 with a further direction to the first respondent for revision of billing.2. The Commission by its said order dated 16.3.2006 had approved transmission charges for the transmission line for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009. The Commission directed that the transmission charges would be shared in the ratio of 1/3rd:2/3rd between the long-term customers in Eastern and Western Regions respectively. It was further directed that within the region the long-term customers would share the transmission charges in the ratio of their allotted t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
Reported in : (2007)LCCERC1259
1. The application is made for clarification on the Order dated, 9th May, 2006, limited to the aspect of payment of incentive, that is, whether incentive is payable based on target PLF of 80 per cent or 75 per cent.2. We have heard the representatives of the parties present at the hearing.3. The Commission by its order dated, 9th May, 2006 had approved Tariff for Badarpur Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as "the generating station") for the period 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2009. The Commission, inter alia, decided as under: On consideration of the analysis of the situation.... Target Availability/PLF at 75 per cent has been considered for recovery of full fixed charges and computation of fuel element in the working capital for the period from 1st April, 2004 to 31st March, 2009. 70. In addition to the charges approved above, the Petitioner is entitled to recover other charges also like incentive, claim for reimbursement of income tax, other taxes, cess levied by a S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Electricity Regulatory Commission CERC
Reported in : (2007)LCCERC1267
1. The application was made for review of order dated 19.7.2006 in Petition No.159/2004 whereby the Commission had determined tariff for Korba STPS for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009. A number of grounds were raised by the petitioner in support of the application for review.By order dated 1.12.2006, the application for review was admitted on grounds of computation of interest on loan and computation of cost of maintenance spares.2. It has been pointed out that tariff for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 was claimed by the petitioner considering an amount of Rs.37671 lakh as loan outstanding as on 31.3.2004, after adjusting the cumulative repayment of Rs.46957 lakh up to that date. The petitioner has averred that the Commission in its order dated 19.7.2006 has taken cumulative repayment of loan up to 31.3.2004 as Rs.67646 lakh and thereby the loan outstanding as on 31.3.2004 has been considered Rs.16964 lakh, and allowed interest accordingly. According to the petitioner, the methodol...
Tag this Judgment!