- (1.) M/s. Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.(SCSSSKL), Tal. Kagal, Distt. Kolhapur has filed a Petition on 13 June, 2014 under Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 read with Regulations 92 and 95 of the MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 for clarification and benefit of the Commission's Order dated 28.09.2007 in Case No. 63 of 2006.
(2.) The prayers of SCSSSKL are as follows: ... to clarify the Order dated 28th September 2007, under Section 86(1) (e) of "a) the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Regulation Nos. 92 and 95 of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 and pass with retrospective effect and give the benefit of the aforesaid order to the Petitioner; ... give directions to the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 91.30/ - b) Lakh which was paid for SCADA and PLCC equipments by the Petitioner;..."
(3.) The facts and contentions as stated in the Petition and further written submission dated 7 August, 2014 are as follows: 3.1 SCSSSKL manufactures white crystal sugar at Kagal, Distt. Kolhapur. The by - products are molasses and bagasse. SCSSSKL has a 12.5 MW bagasse based co - generation plant, and entered into an agreement with the Maharashtra State Electricity Development Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) on 5 April, 2006 for sale of surplus power from this plant. It was completed and surplus power supplied to MSEDCL accordingly. 3.2 As per the agreement, SCSSSKL paid the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (MSETCL) Rs. 311.29 lakh for the following work in respect of the plant: a) Rs. 183.79 lakh towards the cost of work to be executed by MSETCL (50% interest free refundable in advance); and b) Rs. 127.50 lakh towards cost of works to be executed by MSETCL for PLC, SCADA and metering equipments. 3.3 In its Order dated 8 August, 2005 in Case No. 37 of 2003, the Commission provided that the Renewable Energy (RE) project holder shall bear the cost of project switchyard and inter -connection facilities at the site up to the point of energy metering. Beyond that point, it should be borne by the State Transmission Utility. The RE project holder should bear the cost of evacuation facilities up to 50% as an interest free advance, which is refundable to him n five annual installments after one year of commissioning. 3.4 On a Review Petition of the Maharashtra Non -Conventional Energy Producers' Association (MNCEPA) in Case No. 63 of 2006, the Commission vide Order dated 28 September, 2007 had ruled that, since they form part of the evacuation arrangements beyond the point of energy metering, the capital cost related to Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) and Power Line Carrier Communication (PLCC) should be borne by MSETCL/concerned Transmission Licensee and recovered through its Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR). Hence SCSSSKL is entitled to refund of Rs. 91.30 lakh. 3.5 After learning that the cost of SCADA and PLCC is to be borne by MSETCL and not the RE project holder, SCSSSKL wrote to MSETCL on 8 August and 4 November, 2009 and 18 August, 2010. In its replies dated 27 December, 2010 and 6 December, 2013, MSETCL denied refund of the cost incurred by SCSSSKL towards SCADA and PLCC. 3.6 The Commission has wide inherent powers under Section 86(1)(e) of EA 2003 and Regulations 92 and 95 of its Conduct of Business Regulations, 2004. In Case No. 63 of 2006, the Commission stated that SCADA and PLCC are part of evacuation facilities, which are the concern of the State Transmission Utility (STU). The Commission has also implied that every Licensee under connection agreement shall be charged to recover the capital cost of SCADA and PLCC incurred by the concerned Licensee. SCSSSKL also has a similar case as that of the Petitioners in the (review) Case No. 63 of 2006 and (principal) Case No. 37 of 2003. ;