Case: In Re: Indian Sugar Mills Association Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

JudgesPramod Deo, Chairperson S. Jayaraman and V.S. Verma, Members
IssueElectricity
Judgement DateJanuary 11, 2010
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order:

Pramod Deo, Chairperson S. Jayaraman and V.S. Verma, Members, (New Delhi)

1. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs through this petition:

(a) The CDM revenue sharing with the distribution utility should not be allowed.

(b) The bagasse price need to be determined on the basis of weighted average of bagasse price during the season & off season

2. Briefly, the background of the case is as under:

(a) The Commission had published a draft notification of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Tariff determination from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2009 (the regulations) vide notification dated 15.5.2009.

(b) Subsequently, the draft regulation was amended by incorporating therein the norms for Solar PV and Solar Thermal technology and the amended regulation was published vide notification dated 1.7.2009 seeking comments/suggestions/objections.

(c) A public hearing was held on 22.7.2009 for considering the views of the stakeholders.

(d) The regulations were finalized taking into consideration the comments/suggestions/objections received in response to the public notice and in the public hearing and notified on 16.9.2009.

(e) The petitioner has sought amendment of the regulations on the provisions relating to CDM benefit sharing mechanism and bagasse price determination mechanism.

3. According to the petitioner, CDM benefit to a project developer is one of the main criteria while conceiving planning and implementing the project and the developers accordingly have proceeded on the assumption that the benefits of CDM in its entirety would accrue to them. It has been submitted that the provisions relating to sharing of the above benefit with Distribution Company, would lead to dislocation of the investment already made.

4. The petitioner has further alleged that the Commission has not accepted the options given by it for determination of bagasse price and has arbitrarily reduced the price of bagasse by evaluating it on cost of calorific value of coal by considering pit head located power generation units.

5. Learner counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material submitted by the petitioner was not considered at the time of finalizing the regulations.

6. Having heard the Petitioner and after considering the materials available on record, we find that the above contention is not supported by the materials available on record. Submissions by the stakeholders on both the issues raised...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT