Before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission Gandhinagar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION GANDHINAGAR Petition No.1640 of 2017 In the Matter of: Petition under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulations 23 and 80 of the GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 for direction/clarification that the Petitioners and the Respondent are permitted to jointly eXamine and discuss the techno-commercial issues of the Parallel Operation Charges in respect of the Captive Power Plants at Petitioner No. 1’s manufacturing plants/units situated at Dahej and Hazira, so as to evolve a mutually acceptable resolution under the aegis of the Commission. Petitioner No. 1 : Reliance Industries Limited, Vraj, Near Suvidha Shopping Centre, Paldi, Ahmedabad – 380007. Petitioner No. 2 : Reliance Utilities and Power Private Limited, CPP Control Room, Village Padana, TaluKa Lalpur, Jamnagar – 361280. Represented By : Learned Senior Advocate Shri Saurabh Soparkar with Advocate Amrita ThaKore V/s. Respondent : Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007. Represented By : Shri N. P. Jadav and Ms. Venu Birappa AND I.A. No. 14 of 2017 in Petition No.1640/2017 In the Matter of: Application for impleadment as Respondent in Petition No. 1640 of 2017 filed by M/s. Reliance Industries Limited. Applicant : Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007. 1 | Page Represented By : Shri V. T. Patel and Shri H. H. Patel Intervener : Laghu Udyog Bharati - Gujarat, 307, Ashram Avenue, B/h Kochrab Ashram, Near Paldi Cross Roads, Ahmedabad – 380 006. Represented By : Shri S. C. Bohra CORAM: Shri P. J. Thakkar, Member Shri K. M. Shringarpure, Member Shri Anand Kumar, Chairman Date: _16/02/2019. DAILY ORDER 1. The matters were kept for hearing on 16.1.2019. 1.1. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Saurabh SoparKar, on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the representatives of the Petitioner as well as the Respondents held joint meeting and discussed technical-commercial aspects of the issues involved in the subject matter of the present Petition. The Committees constituted for the said purpose have prepared their reports and the same are submitted for consideration and decision of the Commission. He also clarified about the earlier settlement between the parties as per the directives of the Hon’ble High Court in its Order dated 28.04.2009 and the Order of 2 | Page the Commission dated 01.06.2011 in Petition No. 256 of 2003 and the impact of the incremental capacity of CGP at the Dahej and Hazira Complex of the Petitioner taking into consideration the earlier Orders of the Commission as well as the settlement between the Petitioner and GETCO. 2. Shri N. P. Jadav and Ms. Venu Birappa, on behalf of the Respondent submitted that subsequent to the Commission’s Order dated 10.11.2017, joint examination was carried out for mutually acceptable solution by committees consisting of representatives of GETCO and the Petitioner. The officials of the Respondent visited the existing CPPs of Petitioner at Dahej and Hazira and based on the visit and the technical arrangements at site, the reports have been prepared by the committees and submitted on record of this Petition for consideration and decision of the Commission. 3. Shri V. T. Patel, appearing on behalf of Gujarat Urja ViKas Nigam Limited (GUVNL), submitted that GUVNL had filed an IA seeKing impleadment in the present petition, being IA No. 14 of 2017, but they are now withdrawing the said application for impleadment. The Commission may, therefore, permit the withdrawal of IA No. 14 of 2017. 4. Shri Sharad Bohra appearing on behalf of Laghu Udyog Bharti (LUB) submitted that an application seeKing impleadment as a party to the present petition has been filed vide their letter dated 7.6.2017 wherein they have requested the Commission to direct the Petitioner and the Respondent to provide them copies of the petition and submissions. 3 | Page However, neither the copies of the petition, reply / submissions nor a copy of the Committee reports, as referred today, are provided to them. Shri Raj Tillan made his oral submissions with regard to technical and commercial aspects for levy of POC. 5. Shri Bharat Gohil, present during the hearing, on behalf of Utility Users’ Welfare Association, submitted that since the outcome of Petition No. 1475/2015 would be having direct bearing on the present petition, the Commission should decide the aforesaid petition first. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Saurabh SoparKar, in reply, submitted that the intervenor LUB has no locus standi in the present case. He also opposed the contention of UUWA with regard to issues raised by them. He further submitted that they have no objection to providing a copy of the petition, Committee reports and other documents to the Intervenors but since both the Petitioner and the Respondent GETCO have made their submissions, another hearing may not be necessary. The Commission may allow parties to file their written submissions and thereafter, the matter may be decided. 7. We have noted the submissions made by the parties. 8. We note an IA, being IA No. 14 of 2017, seeKing impleadment to present petition was filed by Gujarat Urja ViKas Nigam Limited (GUVNL). We also note that GUVNL has filed an application on affidavit dated 18.12.2018 stating that they have decided not to pursue the matter and sought permission of the Commission for withdrawal of the said impleadment application. On the date of hearing i.e. 16.01.2019, Shri V. T. Patel, 4 | Page appearing on behalf of GUVNL reiterated the facts stated in affidavit dated 18.12.2018 and submitted that the Commission may allow the applicant to withdraw the aforesaid IA. Accordingly, we permit the withdrawal of IA No. 14 of 2017 filed by GUVNL and the said IA is disposed of as withdrawn. 9. We note that an application has been filed by Laghu Udyog Bharati seeking impleadment and an opportunity of hearing. We note that the subject matter of the present Petition is to direct the Petitioner and the Respondent to jointly examine the technical and commercial issues of parallel operation charges in respect of the Petitioner’s CGPs and evolve a mutually acceptable resolution subject to the approval of the Commission. The Commission vide Order dated 10.11.2017 decided that it does not have any objection to the parties entering into joint discussion and arriving at a mutually acceptable solution with a caveat that the Commission shall finally decide whether such solution is within the four corners of law and whether the comments/ suggestions of any other staKeholders are necessary before finally approving it. The Petitioner and the Respondent have examined the issue from technical perspectives and have submitted the reports of the Committees for consideration and decision of the Commission. The Respondent submitted that as regards the technical issues, they are satisfied with the arrangement that the Petitioner has put in place, while the Commission may take a view on the commercial issues. In this regard, the Petitioner submitted that he will accept the decision of the Commission in Petition No. 1475 of 2015 as far as commercial issues under this petition are concerned. LUB which is an organization of small scale industries desired to join as a party impleader in the present 5 | Page matter. The Petitioner objected the impleadment on the ground that LUB has no locus standi in the matter. Since, it is for the Commission to seeK the comments/suggestions of any other staKeholders as per Order dated 10.11.2017, we decide and direct the Petitioner to provide a copy of the Petition and all the documents to LUB and other objectors who were present in the hearing held on 16.1.2019. The Objectors have liberty to file their submissions within 15 days from the receipt of the same with a copy to the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner and the Respondent may file their submissions if any, on the submissions of the Objectors with a copy to them within 15 days thereafter. 10. After receipt of submissions from the Objectors, the Petitioner and the Respondent, the Commission shall pass appropriate order. 11. The matter is reserved for Order. 12. We order accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- [ P. J. THAKKAR] [K. M. SHRINGARPURE] [ANAND KUMAR] MEMBER MEMBER CHAIRMAN Place: Gandhinagar. Date: 16/02/2019 6 | Page .