Author: PPD Team Date: 04/03/2025
APTEL modifies judgment in Jindal India review petition, clarifies order sequencing
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has issued an order in response to Jindal India Thermal Power Limited’s petition seeking a review of its July 31, 2024, judgment in Appeal No. 78 of 2022. The tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal, but the petitioner argued that the order contained clerical, typographical, and patent errors requiring correction under APTEL’s review powers.
APTEL found merit in the petitioner’s contentions and directed modifications to the order’s paragraph sequencing. It ruled that paragraph 19 should precede paragraph 18, and the original paragraph 18 should be modified. The revised text states that while the tribunal finds no error in the commission’s decision, the tariff petition should have been adjourned indefinitely instead of being disposed of. The appellant may revive the petition after the Odisha High Court rules on W.P. No. 18150 of 2018.
With this clarification, the appeal and review petition now stand disposed of.
Petition No: RP No. 11 of 2024 | Read the ful order here.
CERC disposes of JSWEUL’s petition on AGC implementation after withdrawal request
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has disposed of JSW Energy (Utkal) Limited’s (JSWEUL) petition seeking relaxation under Regulation 24(2) of the CERC (Indian Electricity Grid Code) Regulations, 2023. The petition pertained to the implementation of automatic generation control (AGC) for Unit 2 (350 MW) of the company’s thermal power plant in Sahajbahal, Jharsuguda, Odisha.
During the hearing on February 11, 2025, the petitioner’s counsel informed the commission that AGC implementation had been completed and sought permission to withdraw the petition. In light of this submission, CERC allowed the withdrawal, and the petition was officially disposed of.
Petition No: 82/MP/2025 | Read the ful order here.
CERC rejects PSPCL’s review petition on Parbati-III hydro project tariff order
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has rejected Punjab State Power Corporation Limited’s (PSPCL) petition seeking a review of its March 31, 2024, order in Petition No. 96/GT/2020, filed by NHPC Limited. The case concerned the revision of tariff for 2014-19 and the determination of tariff for 2019-24 for the 520 MW Parbati-III hydroelectric power station.
PSPCL argued that the incentive calculation for the normative annual plant availability factor (NAPAF) above 90 percent was incorrect. However, CERC maintained that its intent remained unchanged since its June 25, 2014, order, which specified that no incentive would be allowed until the commissioning of the upstream Parbati-II hydroelectric project. Since the impugned order followed the same principle, the commission found no apparent error warranting a review.
PSPCL also contested NHPC’s methodology for computing capacity charges in energy bills. CERC noted that similar issues had been raised and addressed in the original petition. It ruled that PSPCL’s petition effectively sought to reargue the case on merits, which is not permissible in a review. Finding no apparent error, CERC dismissed the petition.
Review Petition No. 22/RP/2024 in Petition No. 96/GT/2020 | Read the ful order here.
CERC rejects BALCO’s plea for scheduled delivery date extension, cites delay
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has rejected Bharat Aluminium Company Limited’s (BALCO) petition seeking an extension of the scheduled delivery date (SDD) under force majeure provisions of its power purchase agreement (PPA) with Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO). The agreement, dated August 23, 2013, along with an addendum signed on December 10, 2013, governed power supply arrangements between the parties.
CERC noted that power supply under the PPA commenced in phases—56 MW on September 3, 2015, 44 MW on October 5, 2015, and an additional 100 MW on December 19, 2015. However, BALCO filed the petition only on November 6, 2019, exceeding the three-year limitation period. While TANGEDCO acknowledged transmission constraints as a force majeure event in a letter dated February 20, 2016, BALCO failed to raise a dispute within the 30-day period prescribed under Article 4.7.4 of the PPA. Even considering TANGEDCO’s letter as the reference point, the deadline for filing the petition would have been March 20, 2019, but BALCO approached CERC months later.
CERC ruled that BALCO was not vigilant in raising the dispute within the prescribed time frame and rejected its argument that the cause of action was continuing. The commission held that the petition was time-barred and affected by the principles of waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. As a result, BALCO’s additional requests for tariff adjustments and payment directions to TANGEDCO were also dismissed.
Petition No: 63/MP/2020 | Read the ful order here.
Featured photograph is for representation only.