Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Judgement in Appeal Nos. 385, 387, 388, 412, 607, 608, 610 & 611 of 2023

14. Further, submitted that the terms 'Grid Support Charges' and 'Parallel Operation Charges' seem to have been used interchangeably, however, conceptually though related, they are distinct:

(a) 'Parallel Operations' refers to a situation where a captive generating plant has co-located consumption at a load which also draws power from the grid, it has to be understood in contradistinction to isolated operation of a captive plant, inter-alia, an issue for the concerned SERC to examine and decide as to what are the costs imposed by parallel operations on the Discom/Transco and whether the same is covered by the tariff or any additional charge has to be imposed/recovered in this behalf, the reasons for parallel operation include:-

r. Whether interlock has been provided, so that whenever the CPP trips, to prevent load transfer on the other supply system that is being operated in parallel?

50. In the light of the foregoing, the Appellants most respectfully pray that this Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order and issue time bound directions to the APERC to: -

(a) Identify the source for levy of GSC under the Electricity Act, 2003; and

(b) Conduct a technical study prior to levy of any charge on generators (CPP or otherwise) operating in parallel with the grid.

II. Indian Acrylics Ltd. v. PSERC (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, 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 Judgement in Appeal Nos. 385, 387, 388, 412, 607, 608, 610 & 611 of 2023 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."