Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The impugned directive on imposition of parallel operation charges is based on two decisions of this Tribunal, certain portions whereof have been quoted by the State Commission in paras 4.24.2 and 4.24.3, they being (i) judgment dated 12.09.2006 in Appeal No.99 of 2006 and (ii) judgment dated 18.02.2011 in Appeal No. 120 of 2009. We need not extract the relevant portions of the said judgments but only note that they do give an elaborate justification for captive power plants to be subjected to parallel operation charge, mainly on account of various advantages that accrue to them owing to parallel operation which justification by itself, however, will not turn the decision on the present appeal.

Table 102: Parallel Operation Charges All CPP Consumers Rs.20/- per KVA per month ..."

11. There is no dispute over the fact that parallel operation charge has been levied on captive power plants in the State of Rajasthan for the first time by the impugned order. There is also no dispute to the extent that there was no proposal made by the respondent Discom in the application on which the impugned order was passed. This necessarily also confirms the fact that there was no occasion for any stakeholder to raise any objection or give any suggestion or make any comment on the proposal which was possibly added suo-motu by the Commission to impose parallel operation charges on captive power plants in the State of Rajasthan. It is also clear, and the learned counsel for the respondents are unable to refute this as a fact, that there is no scientific study or survey made or undertaken, nor any data called for or gathered, there being nothing before the State Commission in the nature of information as to cost incurred on which there could be legitimate return quantified for the purposes of determining the rate of parallel operation charge to be imposed.

12. Though the impugned order has been challenged by the appellant on various grounds including on the ground that since it is not connected to the system of the distribution licensee, it being dependent only on the transmission licensee's system for surplus power generated by it to be wheeled to the location of its other manufacturing units for own consumption within the State of Rajasthan, it cannot be subjected to any parallel operation charge, there being no element of parallel operation undertaken, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he would primarily focus on the primary objection that there has been a serious breach of the principles of natural justice and the legislative scheme of Section 64, as extracted above.

14. Thus, the direction of levying parallel operation charge as contained in para 4.24.5 of the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The matter relating to imposition of such parallel operation charges on the captive power plants is remitted to the State Commission for fresh consideration and determination in accordance with law. Ideally, the Commission should invite a proposal to be moved for such purposes by the concerned stakeholder (here, the distribution licensee) which shall be considered by the Commission after duly following the procedure envisaged under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003.For removal of doubts, we add that the appellant or for that matter other similarly placed stakeholders, upon being duly notified of the proposal upon it being published will have the opportunity to raise objections, give suggestions, make comments or present relevant scientific data or inputs (to which material the Commission, within its own wisdom and discretion may also add by undertaking survey or study or any such other exercise as may be required). Tariff determination to the extent a proposal is mooted for levy of parallel operation charge on captive power plants in the State of Rajasthan will be finalized by the State Commission, as expeditiously as possible, following the law and letter &spirit of the regulations governing the said subject.