Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"23.28 In the base MVA support method, the Commission is of the view that the parallel operation charge has to be related to the fixed costs of the utilities. According to the tariff orders issues by the Commission for FY 2010-11 the transmission related fixed cost is Rs. 1172 Cr and distribution related fixed cost (upto 11 kV) for all Appeal no. 39 of 2014 the distribution licensees is Rs. 625.95 Crores. The total connected load in the system is 28275.29 MVA. The transmission related fixed cost as Rs/kVA of connected load works out to be Rs. 34.54/kVA/month and distribution related fixed cost (upto 11Kv) works out to be Rs. 18.45/kVA/month. Thus, the total fixed cost of transmission and distribution systems works out to Rs. 53.09 KVA/month.

"6.7. Hence, we decide that the parallel operation charge is applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to pay the parallel operation charges for the entire CGP capacity of 45 MW and not on the contracted demand from the PGVCL."

12. The Respondents including the GERC have contested the above claim of the Appellant. The Respondent nos.1 and 2 have largely relied on the earlier decision of this Appellate Tribunal on different aspects on the aspect of admissibility of the Parallel Operation Appeal no. 39 of 2014 Charges, reliance was placed on the decision dated 18.02.2011 in Appeal no. 120 of 2009 in CSPDCL Vs. Godawari Power, decision dated 12.09.2006 in Appeal no. 99 of 2006 in case of Urla Industries Association, and dated 24.04.2009 in Appeal no. 86 of 2008 of Indian Acrylics Ltd. Referring to the full Bench decision in Godawari Power, the objective and purpose of Parallel Operation Charges including the reason why it is levied on co-located captive power plant along with consuming unit was emphasized.

13. On the aspect of the claim of the Appellant for 3 minute integration and no liability to pay the charges for such 3 minute integration as given to some of the entities, it was urged by the Respondents that the same is available only to those who have availed specific option before passing the order dated 01.06.2011 by GERC and this has been decided by the Tribunal in SAL Ltd. case dated 31.05.2013 in Appeal no. 155 of 2012.

14. Likewise on the aspect of charging the parallel operation on installed capacity, reference was made to yet another decision of the Tribunal dated 05.11.2012 in Appeal no. 65 of 2012 of Shah Alloys Ltd. The enforceability of the Undertaking given by the Appellant to pay the charges as per the order dated 01.06.2011 of Appeal no. 39 of 2014 the GERC was also emphasized. The Respondents also submitted that the order of GERC dated 01.06.2011 had considered cogeneration captive plant also being subject to the Parallel Operation Charges.

II. Indian Acrylics Ltd -v- PSERC & Ors (Division Bench Judgment dated 24.04.2009 in appeal No. 86 of 2008) "5) Before us it is submitted by Mr. Deepak Sabharwal that the respondent No.2 had requested the Commission to withdraw the parallel operation charges on the ground, Appeal no. 39 of 2014 inter alia, that levy of these charges is against the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is contended by Mr. Sabharwal that if the respondent No.2 itself says that the levy of these charges is against law then the same must have been against law from the very beginning and therefore the review petition should have been allowed. Having carefully considered the submissions we find that there is no merit in the same. Mr. Sabharwal could not explain to us how the parallel operation charges are against the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003. It may be that the Board submitted a proposal to the Commission to discontinue the levy of parallel operation charges. It is also correct that the Board in its representation submitted inter alia, that levy of these charges were against provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (as can be seen from Chapter 6 of the public notice issued by the Commission for determination of ARR and tariff for the year 2006-07 in respect of Punjab State Electricity Board). This, however, does not mean that the Commission or the respondent No.2 become bound by such a statement in respect of the legal position. Neither the Commission nor the Board is estopped from charging parallel operation charges simply because the Board expressed such an opinion about the legal position of parallel operation charges. The appellant had failed to make out any ground for review. Nor is there any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we have dismissed the appeal."