Regulatory Updates
?
NLDC?
?
?
Link to today’s report :?https://report.grid-india.in/psp_report.php ?
?
Demand Met during Evening Peak hrs(MW) (at 19:00 hrs; from RLDCs)??->??28029??? MW (ER) ->??213693? ??MW (Total)?
?
Peak Shortage (MW)?-> 0 MW(ER) -> 207 MW (Total)?
?
Time Of Maximum Demand Met?-> 22:48 (ER)-> 22:40 (All India)?
?
?
IEX?
?
DAM MCP Odisha 96 Time Blocks?:? Avg-> Rs 4674.48/ MWh ;?
DAM MCP India 96 Time Blocks?:? Avg-> Rs 4674.48/ MWh ;?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
MoP
?
?
Provides clarification and guidelines for the optimal utilization of generating stations in the Electricity Grid, emphasizing the importance of offering un-requisitioned surplus power in the power market to prevent unused power capacity at the national level.
?
?
?
?
APTEL
?
Order dated 08.04.2024 in APL No 223 of 2020
?
?
?
The Appellant B. N. Chandrappa’s claim against BESCOM and KERC for a higher tariff of Rs.9.56 per unit was dismissed due to deliberate delays in completing the solar project, entitling him to a reduced tariff of Rs.5.20 per unit as per the generic tariff order.
领英推荐
?
?
?
?
Order dated 08.04.2024 in Apl No 203, 242 & 248 of 2022
?
?
Solar power developers in Madhya Pradesh contested a Central Electricity Regulatory Commission order regarding power procurement practices. The developers highlighted that the power drawn during non-generation hours was inaccurately labeled as 'infirm power' in the order, contrary to industry norms where such power is typically treated as negative deviation under the DSM regulations. Following the appeals, the Central Commission's order was set aside, with criticism directed at the treatment of night-time/non-generation hour drawls under the DSM Regulations as unjust and unreasonable.
?
?
Order dated 08.04.2024 in APL 136 of 2021
?
The appellant Sri. Govindappa’s petition seeking a tariff of Rs.9.56/kWh for energy supplied from his Solar Roof Top Plant to BESCOM was initially dismissed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that he is entitled to the specified tariff as per the generic tariff order and the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement, ultimately overturning the Commission's decision.
?
?
?
?
Order dated 18.04.2024 in APL NO 237 OF 2023
?
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity upheld Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd.'s entitlement to carrying cost at the rate of late payment surcharge as per the PPA provisions due to the levy of evacuation facility charges being deemed a "change in law" event because it was established that the circular issued by Coal India Limited on 19.12.2017, which imposed the evacuation facility charges, amounted to a change in law.?
?
?
?
?
Order dated 19.04.2024 in ?IA Nos 2232 OF 2022 & 82 OF 2024 IN APL NO 69 OF 2023
The appeal was filed due to disputes over a terminated Power Purchase Agreement due to significant delays in the commissioning of the Teesta Generating station, leading to cost overruns and non-fulfillment of contractual obligations under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), leading to delays and financial disagreements, with the Appellate Tribunal ordering a Bank Guarantee by Respondent No 2 (M/S TEESTA URJA LIMITED) i.e to secure potential liabilities and ensure financial protection for the Appellant (Haryana Discoms). This order was made to provide a form of security or assurance to the party making the claim (Appellant) in case they were to succeed in the appeal.
?
?
?
Order dated 24.04.2024 in APL_No_229_of_2020
The appeal by Adani Power Tx (Rajasthan) Ltd was upheld as the Commission's failure to assess the impact of Change in Law events (in this case were the implementation and imposition of Krishi Kalyan Cess and GST) on the project cost led to the Appellant being entitled to seek restitution under the Transmission Services Agreement.
?
?
?
?
?