Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)Section 108 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Rithwik Energy Systems Limited ... vs Transmission Corporation Of Andhra ... on 28 September, 2006
21. Here, we are dealing with a biomass based co-generation project,
which was set up under NRSE Policy, 2001 notified by the Government of
Punjab and we are not dealing with Independent Power Producer engaged
in generation of renewable energy. This Appellate Tribunal, as we have
mentioned in the upper part of the judgment, in Rithwik Energy Systems
Limited vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and ors.,
reported in 2008 ELR (APTEL) 237, clearly held that a distinction must be
drawn in respect of a case where the contract is reopened for the purpose
of encouraging and promoting renewable sources of energy projects
pursuant to the mandate of Section 86(1) (e) of the Act which requires the
State Commission to promote co-generation and generation of electricity
from renewable sources of energy.
The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1965
Section 3 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Electricity ConsumersÂ’ ... vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory ... on 21 January, 2014
12.1 This Appellate Tribunal, in its judgment, dated 21.1.2014, in the
matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Consumers' Association vs. Tamil Nadu
Electricity Regulatory Commission & another, in Appeal No. 92 of 2013
and Appeal No. 109 of 2013, has recently held that the State Commission
in discharge of its function under the Electricity Act, 2003, has to be
guided by the directions of the State Government under section 108 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, but the same are not mandatory and binding upon
the State Commission. We affirm the same view because the State
Commission is an independent statutory authority vested with powers
under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulations and discharge the
functions according to the statutory provisions, and if any direction or
directive of the State Government, issued under Section 108 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, is of such of a nature which hampers the statutory
functions of the State Commission, the State Commission can ignore it and
discharge its statutory functions according to the Act and Rules &
Regulations and the State Commission is not bound by any such kind of
direction or directive of the State Government issued under the Electricity
Act, 2003. In the reported case, since the State Commission had simply
tried to implement the directions of the State Government by passing the
impugned order without considering its own functions and powers under
the Electricity Act, 2003 and its own Renewable Energy Regulations
notified under the Act, this Appellate Tribunal quashed the impugned
order of the State Commission and allowed the Appeals.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Junagadh Power Projects Private ... vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors. ... on 2 December, 2013
Page (42)
Judgment in Appeal No.207 of 2013
32.5 We further observe that substantial increase in the biomass fuel cost
has affected the viability of the Appellant's co-generation project
necessitating positive intervention on the part of the State Commission
because the fuel cost is an uncontrollable factor and variations in the fuel
cost are beyond the control of the Appellant. The State Commission has
the duty to incentivize the generation of electricity from renewable sources
of energy and if the renewable energy projects like that of the Appellant are
facing closure of the plants or generation is being affected appreciably on
account of abnormal rise in the price of biomass fuel then the State
Commission can revisit the fuel price to avert closure of such plants.
However, in such an intervention, the State Commission has to balance the
interest of the consumers as well as the generating company. Rightly
observed by the Full Bench of this Appellate Tribunal in Junagarh case
that the biomass projects are partially closed down or operating at an
extremely low plant load factor due to high rise in biomass fuel cost and
the same has affected their commercial viability. Even if the Appellant
accepted the generic tariff determined by the State Commission at the
relevant time and entered into between a long term Power Purchase
Agreement for 20 years, as in the case of the instant Appellant, then in the
changed circumstances, if the price of biomass fuel in the market has
increased to the extent it has resulted in partial closure of the biomass
plants and threat for total closure, then it is the duty of the State
Commission to interfere with the tariff agreed in the Power Purchase
Agreement and re-determine the fuel price and tariff. We subscribe to the
view adopted by the Full Bench of this Appellate Tribunal when the Full
Bench did not agree with the Respondent's contentions that no Power
Purchase Agreement can be reopened after change of the circumstances
during its validity period. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the State Commission should have considered the fuel price
for the Appellant's bagasse/biomass based co-generation project and then
determine the tariff after due consideration of the bagasse/biomass fuel
price.