Petition No.: 1/MP/2012. Case: Sadashiva Sugars Ltd. Bangalore Vs State Load Despatch Centre, Karnataka, Bangalore. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
| Case Number | Petition No.: 1/MP/2012 |
| Judges | Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairperson, Shri S. Jayaraman, Member and Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member |
| Issue | Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 31 |
| Judgement Date | November 19, 2012 |
| Court | Central Electricity Regulatory Commission |
Order:
(New Delhi)
-
In this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers, namely:
-
Declare that charges levied under
(a) Bill No. OA/UI/SLDC/1116 dated 08th August, 2011 for the period from
01st November 2010 to 28th February, 2011, produced herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-1;
(b) Bill No. OA/UI/SLDC/1420 dated 15th September,/2011 for the period from
01st March, 2011 to 31st March, 2011, produced herein and marked as ANNEXURE
P-2;
(c) Bill No. OA/UI/SLDC/2320-21 dated 05th November, 2011 for the period
from 01st April, 2011 to 26th April, 2011, produced herein and marked as
ANNEXURE P-3;
are illegal, capricious and opposed to the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Open Access in Inter State Transmission) Regulations, 2008 and
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Unscheduled Interchange charges and
related matters) Regulations, 2009, and consequently.
-
issue order/s direction setting aside the Bills at Annexure P-1, Annexure
P-2 and Annexure P-3;
-
direct the Respondent to refund a sum of ` 1,14,25,463/- (` One Crore
Fourteen Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Three Only), paid by
the Petitioner towards the illegal charges levied by the Respondent;
-
direct the Respondent to refund the excess UI Charges collected from the
Petitioner, in violation of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Unscheduled Interchange charges and related matters) Regulations, 2009, along
with an interest rate of one percent (1%) per month, from the date when
collected from the Petitioner, up to the date of refunded, in full; and
-
direct the Respondent to pay the cost of this Petition; and pass any
other order/s to meet the ends of justice.
Facts
The petitioner owns and operates a 15.5 MW cogeneration power plant at Nainegalli Village
in Bagalkot District in the State of Karnataka
and is connected to the State Grid. Tata Power Trading Company Limited executed
the Power Purchase Agreement dated 3.3.2008 with the petitioner. The power
generated used to be exported outside the State of Karnataka by availing
inter-State open access under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Open Access in Inter-State Transmission) Regulations, 2008 (Central Open
Access Regulations) on payment of fees specified thereunder.
Grievances
-
-
The petitioner has stated that the respondents raised the following bills
(the impugned bills), namely:
(i) Bill No. OA/UI/SLDC/1116 dated 8.8.2011 for the period from 1.11.2010 to
28.2.2011 for ` 1,14,25,463/-,
(ii) Bill No. OA/UI/SLDC/1420 dated 5.9.2011 for the period from 1.3.2011 to
31.3.2011 for ` 89,73,139/-, and
(iii) Bill No. OA/UI/SLDC/2320-21 dated 15.11.2011 for the period from
1.4.2011 to 26.4.2011 for ` 25,33,538/-.
-
The petitioner has stated that on receipt of the bills it found that the
charges levied under these bills were not in accordance with the Central Open
Access Regulations. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have approached the
respondent for the withdrawal of the bills. However, the petitioner has
claimed, the respondent threatened to not grant open access in case the bills
were not paid. The petitioner has stated that on 31.10.2011 it paid a sum of
`1,14,25,463/- (Rupees one crore fourteen lakh twenty five thousand four
hundred and sixty three only) under protest.
-
The petitioner has stated that it was billed for the Unscheduled
Interchanges (UI) Charges, Backup Power Supply Charges (BPS Charges) and
interest on the UI Charges. As per the petitioner, the respondent billed the UI
Charges at the prevailing UI rates but whenever it became entitled to receive
UI Charges these were paid at the rate of `2.80/kWh. The petitioner has alleged
that the respondent has not provided any supporting details, such as meter
readings, corresponding frequency, UI Price Vector for the period corresponding
to the drawl or injections. The petitioner has alleged that the actions of the
respondent are in gross violation of the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Unscheduled Interchange charges and related matters) Regulations,
2009 (UI Charges Regulations). The petitioner has further alleged that the BPS
Charges were billed by the respondent in accordance with the Karnataka
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Open Access)
Regulations, 2004, as amended, (Karnataka Open Access Regulations), as admitted
by the respondent in response to a petition (No 44/2011) filed by Falcon Tyres
Limited before the Karnataka State Commission. The petitioner has averred that
the respondent was not entitled to collect the BPS Charges as it did not supply
the backup power and could not do so because such supply amounts to trading in
electricity which the respondent cannot undertake in view of Section 31 of the
Electricity Act. According to the petitioner, no interest is payable, even if
the UI Charges are payable as billed, since there was no delay on its part to
make payments of UI Charges; these were not billed in time and that the delay
in billing was on the part of the respondent itself. The petitioner has
approached this Commission against the above backdrop.
Reply
-
The reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed by Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd., which operates the respondent even though, the
respondent as a statutory body, was expected to file the reply. The reply filed
has been taken on record as the respondent's reply. The respondent has raised a
preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition. According to
the respondent, the petitioner is an intra-State entity, being subject to the
scheduling, dispatch and other coordination activities of the respondent and as
such the dispute raised falls within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka State
Commission. Accordingly, it has been urged that the present petition is liable
to be dismissed on the ground that this Commission does not have the
jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised.
-
On merits, the respondent has submitted that for the deviation in the
generation schedule, the UI Charges are payable/receivable in terms of the
regulations of this Commission read with the regulations of the Karnataka State
Commission. It has been stated that the UI Charges levied by the respondent are
frequency linked and are based on deviation from schedule. The UI Charges
collected form part of the State UI pool which in their entirety, and without
the respondent retaining any part of it, are disbursed among the various
entities in the State of Karnataka.
The respondent has urged that the petitioner cannot be permitted to make any
grievance in regard to the UI Charges billed for under-generation of
electricity. The respondent has urged that the petitioner as an intra-State
entity is not governed by the regulations framed by this Commission. The
respondent has further submitted that along with the bills, the petitioner was
supplied with the details of day-wise, block-wise scheduled energy and actual
energy injected with respect to average frequency in a time block along with
the rates applicable. In addition, according to the respondent, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial