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that on the submissions of MEIPL to file review petition before the Commission, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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.