Monday, August 8 2022 Sign In   |    Register
 

News Quick Search


 

News


Front Page
Power News
Today's News
Yesterday's News
Week of Aug 01
Week of Jul 25
Week of Jul 18
Week of Jul 11
Week of Jul 04
By Topic
By News Partner
Gas News
News Customization
Feedback

 

Pro Plus(+)


Add on products to your professional subscription.
  • Energy Archive News
  •  



    Home > News > Power News > News Article

    Share by Email E-mail Printer Friendly Print

    Mytrah Energy Proposes Review Of Old Order, CERC Disposes


    June 6, 2022 - Saur News Bureau

     

      Highlights :

      Mytrah Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd. cannot also take the benefit of MoP's letter dated 13.2.2018 as it nowhere states that waiver from payment of transmission charges and losses is applicable for the use of ISTS network before the date of commercial operation and generation of electricity by the wind power generator.

      In a recent order, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ordered as dismissed the petition of Mytrah Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd. (MEIPL) praying for review of the order dated 6.8.2019.

      The Commission had ordered on 6.8.2019 that the review petitioner, as the generating station of the review petitioner was not ready on the date of commercial operation of Asset-IV, shall bear the transmission charges of Asset-IV proportionate to the quantum of Long Term Access (LTA) granted to it, i.e. 75 MW from 10.6.2018 to the date of commissioning of its generation.

      MEIPL moved the CERC with the several submissions of which the most important was that the commission had erred at many places and that the order dated 6.8. 2019 suffered from many loopholes. After hearing the arguments both for and against the petition, two judge bench headed by PK Pujari concluded the following decisions before dismissing the petition:

      1. MEIPL should have responded to PGCIL's (Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd) contention that the transmission charges of Asset-IV should be borne by the generators from the date of operationalization of LTA till the commissioning of the respective generation, especially when MEIPL was well aware that Asset-IV of PGCIL is connected to its generation for which 75 MW LTA was also given by the PGCIL with start date as February, 2016. However, MEIPL choose not file any reply and has also not controverted the contentions of PGCIL. We are not convinced with the contentions of MEIPL that it chose not to file any reply in the matter as it was a proforma party. Accordingly, the contention of MEIPL that it did not file any reply as it thought that it was a proforma party appears to be an afterthought and therefore it is rejected.

      2. APTEL's order dated 21.8.2020, which was filed by MEIPL against the Commission's order dated 6.8.2019, is self explanatory. It is observed that on the submissions of MEIPL to file review petition before the Commission, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequent to withdrawal, MEIPL filed the present review petition before the Commission. It is further observed from the APTEL's order dated 21.8.2020, that no effective order on any of the interlocutory applications in DFR No. 43 of 2020 was passed and that the appeal was not even registered by APTEL. MEIPL was allowed to withdraw DFR No. 43 of 2020 by the APTEL on submission of MEIPL to file review petition before the Commission. In the present case, the fact of filing the review petition before the central commission was the reason for withdrawal of DFR No. 43 of 2020 and this was in the knowledge of APTEL. As APTEL did not proceed further with DFR No. 43 of 2020, nor passed any effective order, did not register the appeal and allowed withdrawal of the same to file review petition before the central commission is sufficient ground for entertaining the review petition. Accordingly, we observe that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the review petition is maintainable.

      3. No benefit of 5th and 6th amendments to the 2010 Sharing Regulations can be given to MEIPL as they mean generation of electricity after declaration of commercial operation is a necessary condition for claiming waiver from the payment of transmission charges for use of ISTS network to fall under this category.

      Therefore, MEIPL cannot also take the benefit of MoP's letter dated 13.2.2018 as it nowhere states that waiver from payment of transmission charges and losses is applicable for the use of ISTS network before the date of commercial operation and generation of electricity by the wind power generator.

    TOP

    Other Articles - International


    TOP

       Home  -  Feedback  -  Contact Us  -  Safe Sender  -  About Energy Central   
    Copyright © 1996-2022 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Energy Central® and Energy Central Professional® are registered trademarks of CyberTech, Incorporated. Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central. Other terms of use may apply. Membership information is confidential and subject to our privacy agreement.