Loading...

Proceeding
Sno Hearing Date Procceding Next Hearing Date & Time Status
1 11-12-2020 Hearing held through video conferencing.

Shri Rishabh Garg, Counsel along with Shri Md. Zeyauddin, Shri Prashant Kumar and SHri Amber Sidiqui for respondent.

Shri Abhinav Kardekar, Counsel for CSPDCL.

Shri S.R. Dhruw for CEI.

2. The counsel of CSPDCL wants to file submissions and seeks time for such filing. He is allowed two weeks time with direction to provide copies of submissions to the respondent and the CEI.

3. The case be listed for final hearing on 07.01.2021 at 3:30 PM.
07-01-2021
15:30:00
Under Process
2 07-01-2021 Hearing held through video conferencing.

Shri Rishabh Garg, Counsel along with Shri Md. Zeyauddin for respondent Ms BALCO.

Shri Abhinav Kardekar, Counsel for CSPDCL.

No one present for CEI.

2. In reply to notice dated 02.07.2020, the respondent Ms BALCO admitted the data submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector and submitted that unit-I of 4x300 MW power plant of BALCO is an IPP unit.

3. The CSPDCL had earlier filed an application on 02.01.2021 raising doubt over status of unit-I as IPP or CPP sought to implead Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Limited as party in the present petition to verify actual status, stating that Ms BALCO had entered into PPA with the trading company for power supply.

4. Before considering the application dated 02.01.2021 of CSPDCL, we think it appropriate to call the Chief Electrical Inspector personally to explain whether the unit-I of BALCO is an IPP or a CPP. Thereafter, if required, the application of CSPDCL will be considered.

5. The case be listed for hearing on 01.02.2021 at 3:30 PM.
01-02-2021
15:30:00
Under Process
3 01-02-2021 Hearing held through video conferencing.
Shri Rishabh Garg, Counsel along with Shri Md. Zeyauddin for respondent Ms BALCO.
Shri Abhinav Kardekar and Ms Gurpreet Kaur Chawla Counsels for CSPDCL.
Shri H. Toppo, CEI and Shri S.R. Dhruw present.
2. Heard the parties and perused the documents. Facts of the case are as follows:
(i) As per records, Balco’s power plant unit No.1 is an IPP. The Chief Electrical Inspector, in his report for the FY 2018-19, has stated that this unit generated 1248.88 MUs of energy, out of which 78.99 MUs i.e. 6.32% of the power generated by the IPP, was consumed by Balco itself, which amounts to self-consumption. On the basis of this data submitted by Chief Electrical Inspector, a suo motu petition was registered by the Commission and a notice was issued to the Balco to the effect that they could not maintain captive status, and, therefore, liable for consequences for loosing of captive status.
(ii) The learned counsel for the respondent Balco submitted that the IPP status of their power plant unit No. 1 has never been questioned nor are they claiming any benefit of captive power plant. Therefore, question of their loosing captive status does not arise. Respondent CSPDCL argument was that Balco has consumed some of the power of the IPP for their own use. Therefore, they are liable for payment of cross subsidy surcharge.
3. We have gone through the documents on records and considered the contentions of both the parties. It is clear that the power plant (Unit No. 1 of Balco’s power plant) in question is an Independent Power Plant and, as per report of the Chief Electrical Inspector, they have consumed 6.32% of the power generated from this unit for their own use. The respondent Balco, in their submission, have also accepted that the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector dated 18.07.2019 is correct. Therefore, as per provisions in the Electricity Act and relevant Rules made thereunder, it is a case of payment of cross subsidy surcharge for the portion of power used for self-consumption by Balco.
4. With these observations, the petition is disposed off.
---- Disposed