Decided on October 15,2015

Emco Energy Limited Appellant
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. And Ors. Respondents


- (1.) THE petition has been filed under clause (f) of sub -section (1) of Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act) for adjudication of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents relating to tariff for supply of electricity.
(2.) THE petitioner a generating company as defined in the Act, has developed a coal -based thermal power plant, comprising two units of 300 MW capacity each (the generating station) in Chandrapur District of the State of Maharashtra. The first unit of the generating station was commissioned on 19.3.2013 and the second unit on 1.9.2013. The petitioner entered into longer -term/medium -term arrangements for supply of electricity to the States of Maharashtra (200 MW), Tamil Nadu (150 MW) and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) (200 MW). Supply of electricity to the State of Maharashtra is at levelised tariff of Rs. 2.897 per unit and to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli at levelised tariff of Rs. 4.618 per unit. The tariff in both cases was discovered through the process of competitive bidding and was adopted by the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission respectively. The petitioner has executed the Power Purchase Agreement dated 17.3.2010 with Respondent No. 1, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) and the Power Purchase Agreement dated 21.3.2013 with Respondent No. 2, Electricity Department, Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DNH) for supply to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Supply of power to the State of Tamil Nadu is stated to be sale through GMR Energy Trading Limited. In accordance with the above PPAs, on occurrence of certain events, described under Article 10 of the PPAs as 'Change in Law' events, resulting in additional recurring or non -recurring expenditure, the petitioner is permitted to seek relief of offsetting of the additional expenditure through tariff. According to the petitioner, subsequent to execution of the above PPAs, certain Change in Law events took place during construction period leading to increase in capital cost for setting up the generating station. The petitioner has further submitted that certain other 'Change in Law' events have occurred during the operating period that have led to increase in operating cost. Majority of the Change in Law events referred to by the petitioner are common to both the agreements. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks offsetting of the additional cost/expenditure by the respondents through tariff revision.
(3.) BASED on the averments in the petition that the petitioner has entered into agreements with the distribution utilities in the States of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of DNH for supply of power, the petitioner has claimed that it has the composite scheme for generation and sale of electricity in more than one State. Accordingly, the petitioner has claimed that this Commission as the 'Appropriate Commission' as defined under the PPAs has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate its tariff under clause (b) of sub -section (1) of Section 79 of the Act and adjudicate the tariff -related disputes under clause (f) of sub -section (1) of Section 79.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.