chhattisgarh state electricity regulatory commission (fbc) boiler in which a fuel mixture of...

of 30

Petition No. 25 of 2012(M)

In the Matter of

Petition under section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

M/s Salasar Steel & Power Ltd. …. Petitioner

V/S

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution

Co. Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.) …. Respondent

Present: Narayan Singh, Chairman

Vinod Shrivastava, Member

ORDER (Passed on 29.10.2014)

1. M/s Salasar Steel & Power Ltd., the petitioner or M/s Salasar

herein, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

The Petitioner has set up a 15 MW Power Plant and a Sponge Iron

Plant of 2x100 TPD capacity at village Gerwani, Raigarh (C.G.) The

15 MW power plant of the Petitioner is designed to harness the

waste heat released by the sponge iron plant, to produce electricity,

through a waste heat recovery (WHR) boiler, to the tune of 5 MW.

The Petitioner has also separately installed as Fluidised Bed

Combustion (FBC) boiler in which a fuel mixture of dolachar, coal

washery rejects and F-grade coal is used. The Petitioner is

connected to the 132 KV Raigarh sub-station through 132 KV

dedicated single circuit line for evacuation of power.

2. Respondent is the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company

Ltd. (CSPDCL). CSPDCL is responsible for distribution of electricity

within its licensed distribution area as well as procurement of

surplus power from various sources.

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur - 492 001 (C.G.)

Ph. 0771-4048788, Fax: 2445857 Website: www.cserc.gov.in, E-mail: [email protected]

of 30

Petitioner’s Submission

3. The petitioner submitted the followings:

(a) The Petitioner is aggrieved on account of the whimsical and

arbitrary application of the Order, dated 27.11.2008 passed by

the Commission is Suo-Motu Petition No. 15 of 2008, by the

CSPDCL which has been subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble

Appellate Tribunal of Electricity vide judgment dated

28.04.2010 in Appeal no. 32 of 2009. The Petitioner is also

aggrieved due to the selective interpretation of the Interim

Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

nos. 5683-5685 of 2010 as per its own convenience.

(b) While the Respondent has adjusted the Parallel Operation

Charges (POC) already paid by the Petitioner for FY 2009-10

against the cross-subsidy surcharge payable, since the

Petitioner could not meet the requirement of a Captive Power

Plant ["CPP"] under Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, it has

failed to levy such cross-subsidy surcharge in accordance with

the Order dated 27.11.2008 and Judgment dated 28.04.2010,

wherein concession has been extended to co-generation plants

and only 50% cross-subsidy surcharge may be levied when

the consumption of the industry is below the power generated

by the co-generation plant.

(c) Vide order dated 27.11.2008 in Suo Motu P. No. 15/2008(M),

the Commission has held as under:-

“This facility provided to a co-generation plant will, however,

not be available in case of the power generated using the

other boilers which have been installed primary for

optimization of capacity and as these boilers have no direct

relationship with the operation of the sponge iron plant.

Therefore if the consumption of the industry exceeds the

generation of the cogeneration plant calculated on an annual

basis, in proportion of the capacity of the boiler, cross-subsidy

shall be payable at full rate on the amount of electricity

consumed in excess of generation from WHR boilers. The

company should declare the potential of power generation

from the steam generated by waste heat recovery boiler and

of 30

other boilers to the Board, since both the boilers support the

same turbine for generation of electricity.

(d) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by this

Commission, the Respondent licensee preferred an appeal

before the Hon'ble Appellate for Electricity, New Delhi, being

Appeal No. 32 of 2009. The Hon'ble Tribunal, vide Judgment

dated 28.04.2010 has upheld the order of the Commission and

has further dismissed the appeal, being devoid of merit.

"As a matter of fact by letter dated 27.08.2008, the State

Commission sought clarification from the Ministry of Power as

to whether the Sponge & Iron industry can be allowed to use

electricity generated through waste heat recovery by paying

cross-subsidy surcharge. By letter dated 06.09.2008 the State

Commission sought a similar clarification from the Ministry of

New and Renewable Energy. By the reply dated 22.12.2008,

the Ministry of Power forwarded the opinion of the CEA to the

State Commission, which states as follows:

"6. In the situation described by the CSERC the generating

plants set up by the sponge iron industry may be treated as

co-generation plants acting as independent power producer,

which would be at liberty to use part of their power

themselves and sell the surplus power to any entity.

(e) Further, by another letter dated 18.08.2009, the Ministry of

power gave the following suggestion to the State

Commission:-

"2. The FOR vide their letter No. 15.4/2009-GC-MOP/FOR

/CERC dated May 12, 2009 has informed that the issue was

discussed in the tenth meeting of FOR held in Chennai on

January 30, 2009. A presentation was also made by the

Chairperson, CSERC in the meeting, relevant extracts of which

are as follows: "CSERC has resolved this issue through

imposition of cross subsidy surcharge on the electricity

consumed by Sponge Iron Plant. A view also emerged that the

SERCs could consider making the cross subsidy surcharge zero

for cogeneration plant in view of the provisions of Section

86(1)(f) of the Act."

of 30

(f) The Respondent licensee further preferred appeals before the

Hon'ble supreme Court of India, being Civil Appeal No. 5683-

5685 of 2010 against the Judgment dated 28.04.2010 of the

Hon'ble Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to

admit the appeals and has further stayed the operation of the

impugned orders.

(g) The Petitioner informed the Commission that the respondent

had not yet started billing the petitioner for cross subsidy

surcharge @ 50% in accordance with the order dated

27.11.2008 in Suo Motu P. No. 15 of 2008(M) passed by this

Commission.

(h) That vide letter dated 10.06.2011, the Commission informed

the Respondent with a copy to the Petitioner that the

Petitioner could not maintain the CPP status during FY 2009-

10 since the captive consumption was below 51%.

(i) That the office of the C.E. (BR), CSPDCL, Bilaspur, vide letter

dated 15.07.2011 further wrote to the Sr. Accounts Officer,

CSPDCL, Bilaspur that the Petitioner had failed to qualify as

CPP for FY 2009-10 due to which the Petitioner was liable to

pay cross-subsidy surcharge to the Respondent. The Sr.

Accounts Office was therefore directed to issue Supplementary

Bill provisionally for an amount of Rs. 6,10,150/-.

(j) The Letter dated 15.07.2011 also directed the Sr. Accounts

Officer, CSPDCL, Biaspur to issue the Supplementary Bill for

cross-subsidy surcharge to the Petitioner with the following

remark –

"The billing of cross subsidy surcharge is provisional. The

outcome of order pending before the Appellate Tribunal for

electricity and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the

subject matter is binding to both CSPDCL and Captive Power

Generators."

(k) That consequently, a Supplementary Bill dated 23.08.2011

was issued by the Sr. Accounts Officer, CSPDCL, Bilaspur to

the Petitioner for Rs. 6,10,318/- on account of cross-subsidy

surcharge for FY 2009-10. It is to be noted that the cross

subsidy surcharge has been calculated at normal rate without

extending the 50% concession granted by the Commission

of 30

vide its order dated 27.11.2008 in Suo Moto Petition No. 15 of

2008 (M) for co-generation plants. The Supplementary Bill has

also incorporated the remark as directed by the Office of the

C.E. (BR) CSPDCL, Bilaspur vide it Letter dated 15.07.2011.

(l) Aggrieved by the incorrect calculation of cross-subsidy

surcharge for the Petitioner for FY 2009-10, the Petitioner vide

letter dated 29.09.2011 requested the Respondent to revise

the Supplementary Bill dated 23.08.2011 by extending the 50

% concession on cross-subsidy surcharge to Petitioner's co-

generation power plant, in terms of the Order dated

27.11.2008 in Suo Moto Petition No. 15 of 2008 (M) passed by

this Commission.

(m) That instead of refunding the amount due to the Petitioner in

terms of Letter dated 29.09.2011, the Respondent vide its

regular bill for the month of February 2012, has billed

miscellaneous charges amounting to Rs. 6,10,318/- for the

cross-subsidy surcharge payable by the Petitioner for FY 2009-

10. As per the said bill, the amount was due on 19.03.2012.

(n) That having no other option available, the Petitioner vide letter

dated 23.03.2012 was constrained to make the payment of

the entire regular bill for the month of February, 2012,

including the incorrect amount of Rs. 6,10,318/- for cross-

subsidy surcharge for FY 2009-10, under protest.

(o) Petitioner has further submitted that this Commission's order

dated 15.12.2011 in P. No. 42/2011 and P. No. 30/2011 dated

29.12.2011 in P. No. 43/2012 and dated 26.06.2012 in P. No.

04/2012 wherein the Commission has directed that the

recovery of cross subsidy surcharge be kept under abeyance

in the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are

decided. Also the due adjustment of POC charges already paid

are not being done. As a matter of principle, POC is only levied

on the CPPs but not on the IPPs, therefore levy of cross

subsidy surcharge and POC shouldn’t be done simultaneously.

4. With the above submissions in this petition, the petitioner has

sought following reliefs:

of 30

(a) Direct the Respondent to revise the Supplementary Bill dated

23.08.2011 issued to the Petitioner incorporating the correct

amount of cross-subsidy surcharge;

(b) Direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 6,10,318/-

recovered illegally on account of incorrect calculation of cross

subsidy surcharge payable by the petitioner for FY 2009-10,

along with interest at prevalent bank rates.

(c) Direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 11,62,582/-

due to the petitioner, along with interest at prevalent bank

rates;

CSPDCL’s Submission

5. The respondent has submitted that the case CA No 5683-5685/2010

for clarification/modification of the interim order passed by Hon’ble

Apex Court is under active consideration and has bearing on this case,

the Commission should not proceed in this case. In reply to the

petition, Respondent CSPDCL has submitted as follows on 19.12.2012

and its subsequent submissions:

(a) The petitioner has questioned the amount provisionally

demanded in supplementary bill dated 23.08.2011 for 2009-

10. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the order dated

27.11.2008 passed by this Commission in P. No. 15 of 2008

which was upheld by the judgment dated 28.04.2010 in

Appeal No. 32 of 2009 of the Hon'ble APTEL, the operation of

which was stayed by the order dated 02.08.2010 of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5683-5685 of

2010. The petitioner wrongly alleges that the respondent has

selectively interpreted the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and has whimsically and arbitrarily applied the Commission's

order dated 27.11.2008. The petitioner also relies upon this

Commission's order dated 15.12.2011 in P. No. 42/2011 and

P. No. 30/2011 dated 29.12.2011 in P. No. 43/2012 and dated

of 30

26.06.2012 in P. No. 04/2012 wherein the Commission has

directed that the recovery of cross subsidy surcharge be kept

under abeyance in the matter is pending before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court are decided and the Commission had also

observed that the due adjustment of parallel operation

charges had not been given.

(b) The pending appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

pertains to the year 2006-07. It is not relevant at all to the

present supplementary bill raised by the respondent which

pertains to the year 2009-10.

(c) The Commission's order dated 27.11.2008 had held, inter alia,

that the supply of power to the industry of the company

therein from its generating plant in that case during 2006-

2007 constitutes a violation of the provision of the Act and

that, while no penalty was imposed for the same, the

consumption of electricity generated by its power plant shall

attract cross subsidy to be paid to the licenses as a logical way

to regularize such consumption. It was also held that the

company therein shall pay cross subsidy surcharge at half the

normal rate for the energy consumed during 2006-07. For

subsequent years, the company was required to declare the

potential power generation from the steam generated by WHR

boilers and the other boilers which support the same turbine

for generation of electricity, and that the cross subsidy shall

be payable at full rate on the amount of electricity consumed

in excess of generation from WHR boilers if the consumption

of the industry exceeds the generation of the cogeneration

plant calculated on an annual basis in proportion to the

of 30

capacity of the boiler. That order was challenged before the

Hon'ble Tribunal in appeal No. 32 of 2009.

The Commission had also passed an order dated 23-01-

2009 in Petition Nos. 10 & 11 of 2008 in the case of Aryan

Coal Benefication Ltd. wherein the Commission, inter alia,

followed its earlier order dated 27.11.2008 with regard to the

legality of the supply of power from its own generating plant

in the circumstances of the case and with regard to the

liability to pay cross subsidy surcharge to the licensee for the

electricity consumed out of the electricity generated. In this

order, the Commission had also held that the parallel

operation charges was not payable where the generating plant

did not qualify as a CPP, and that the same should be

adjusted. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble

Tribunal in Appeal No. 119 of 2009 by the licensee. It was also

challenged by Aryan Coal Benefication Ltd. in Appeal No. 125

of 2009.

The common judgment dated 09.02.2010 of the Hon'ble

Tribunal disposing of Appeal Nos. 119 of 2009 and 125 of

2005 held that the supply of electricity for its own industry out

of the electricity generated by itself, even if does not qualify to

be a CPP, does not require a license or open access, and that

the Commission was right in holding that the company was

liable to pay cross subsidy surcharge for the past and for

future also the Aryan Coal Benefication Ltd. may continue to

supply even without qualifying as CPP on payment of cross

subsidy surcharge.

Substantially following the same lines of its aforesaid

judgment dated 09.02.2010, the Hon'ble Tribunal passed

of 30

judgment dated 28.04.2010 in Appeal No. 32 of 2009 and

other similar connected appeals upholding the order of the

Commission dated 27.11.2008 with respect to payment of

cross subsidy surcharge for supply of electricity to the industry

of the company from the electricity generated by the

company. The Hon'ble Tribunal also upheld the Commission's

order with respect to the rate of cross subsidy surcharge at

50% for the energy consumed out of cogeneration for 2006-

07.

The aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Tribunal were

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA Nos.

4968-4969 of 2010 and CA Nos. 5683-5685 of 2010. In CA

Nos. 4968-4969 of 2010 relating to the M/s Aryan Coal case,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to make the following

order dated 30.07.2010.

“Until further orders, operation of the impugned order

shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that the

supply system, as prevalent today, on payment of cross

subsidy charges, will continue, till further orders."

In CA Nos. 5683-5685 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

was pleased to make the following orders dated 02-08-2010.

"Until further orders, operation of the impugned order

shall remain stayed.”

(d) As the Commission was incorrectly construing Hon'ble

Supreme Court’s order dated 02.08.2010 (while passing the

order dated 15.12.2011 in Petition No. 42 of 2011) ignoring

the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s interim order dated 30.07.2010

(e) It is submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized

of an application for clarifying and / or modifying its order

of 30

dated 02.08.2010, propriety and deference to the highest

Court requires that the further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court be no pre-empted by exercises of interpretation of the

said order by or before the Commission.

(f) It is also submitted that the appeal pending before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court relates to 2006-07 and has no bearing

whatsoever on the present case which relates to 2009-10 and

for which there are specific statutory Regulations.

(g) The order dated 27.11.2008 of this Commission in P. No. 15 of

2008 (M) was with respect to 2006-07 during the period that

there was no Regulation on the matter. It cannot have any

application after the 2005 Regulation came into effect for

2007-08 upto 2010-11 and/or after the 2011 Regulations

came into force for 2011-12 onwards. The said order of this

Commission cannot be considered to have any over-riding

effect on the statutory Regulations issued by the Commission.

Consequently, the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the appeal arising out of the aforesaid order dated

27.11.2008 are restricted to 2006-07 and cannot have any

bearing for 2007-08 and thereafter.

(h) It is submitted that the cross subsidy surcharges is payable by

the Petitioner for 2009-10 as per Clause 6(b)(ii) of The

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Connectivity & Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2005 as

amended by the First Amendment Regulations of 2007, which

is applicable for 2007-08 and 2010-11 and which provides as

follows:-

"(ii) Cross subsidy surcharge shall also be payable by

such consumer who receive supply of electricity from a

of 30

person other than the distribution licensee in whose area

of supply is located, irrespective of whether he avails

such supply through transmission / distribution network

of the Board / licensee or not."

It may be pertinent to point out that clause 33(6)(b)(ii)

of The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Connectivity & Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011,

which is applicable from 2011-2012 onwards also similarly

provides for payment of cross subsidy surcharges as follows:-

"(ii) Cross subsidy surcharge shall also be payable by such

consumer who receive supply of electricity from a person

other than the distribution licensee in whose area of supply is

located, irrespective of whether it avails such supply through

transmission / distribution network of the licensee or not."

In the said 2011 Regulations, Clause 33(6)(b)(v)

provides as follows in respect of generation from renewable

sources of energy.

(v) For consumers procuring power through renewable

energy based power generating plant, the cross subsidy

surcharge shall be 50% of the cross subsidy surcharge

determined for that year.

Illustration: Suppose the cross subsidy surcharge

worked out for 2011-12 is 75 paise per kWh and the

cross subsidy surcharge worked out for 2012-13 is 70

paise per kWh. For consumers procuring power through

renewable energy based power generating stations, the

cross subsidy surcharge shall be 38 paise per unit and

35 paise per unit for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13

respectively.

Thus, there was no provision for concessional cross subsidy

surcharge in the 2005 Regulations applicable for 2009-10.

Even in the 2011 Regulations, there is no provision

whatsoever for any concessional rate of cross subsidy

surcharge in respect of co-generation plants as provided for in

the case of renewable energy sources.

of 30

The provisions of the Regulations are binding and,

consequently, the Petitioner is liable for payment of cross

subsidy surcharge as it is not a captive user and the

Respondent is bound to levy and collect the same.

(i) The respondent is not at all liable to refund the amount of Rs.

11,62,582/- towards POC as claimed by the petitioner or

otherwise, and the respondent is also not liable to refund the

amount of Rs.6,10,318/- paid by the petitioner.

(j) The respondent ought not to have adjusted or deducted any

parallel operation charges as the petitioner has availed parallel

operation facility and operated its load and generating plant in

parallel with the grid and the petitioner is liable to pay the

same.

In fact, the supplementary bill and the demand is required to

be revised by levying the cross subsidy surcharge at the full

rate as per the applicable 2005 Regulation and without

adjusting the parallel operation charges paid / payable by the

petitioner; and the respondent is not only entitled, but is also

duty bound, to do so and recover the same.

(k) With the above submissions, the respondent has prayed that

the Commission may be pleased to dismiss the petition with

costs and allow the respondent to issue revised supplementary

bill for the full amount of cross subsidy surcharge payable for

2009-10 at the full rate as per the Regulations in force for the

relevant period without adjustment of any parallel operation

charges paid / payable for the said period and to recover the

same.

Analysis and decision

6. In the earlier orders it has been deliberated in detail about the

treatment of electricity consumed by power generated from

captive generating plant/generating company. As per the Rule

3(1) and 3(2) of Rules, 2005 that in case the consumption of

electricity of a end user with respect to aggregate electricity

generated on an annual basis of a power plant is less than fifty

of 30

one percent, the power plant has to be "treated as a generating

company" and the electricity consumed by such end user has to

be treated as a "supply" of electricity by "a generating company."

Petitioner has argued in length about cross –subsidy surcharge. The

company is of the view that since transmission and/or distribution

lines of licensee is not used and no open access has been sought for

its industrial power requirement it is not liable to pay any cross-

subsidy surcharge. The power which a captive user consumes power

from its captive generating plant only, qualifies as captive

consumption. A captive user can consume power as a retail

consumer or open access consumer if its power requirement is not

met from its captive generating plant. To qualify as captive

generating plant and captive user, the requirements as prescribed in

Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules ,2005 has to be fulfilled. As per

Section 42 of the Act,2003, only captive users are exempted from

paying cross-subsidy surcharge. Section 42 of the Act is reproduced

below:

"42. .(1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maintain an

efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution system in his area of supply

and to supply electricity in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act.

(2) The State Commission shall introduce open access in such phases and

subject to such conditions, (including the cross subsidies, and other operational

constraints) as may be specified within one year of the appointed date by it and

in specifying the extent of open access in successive phases and in determining

the charges for wheeling, it shall have due regard to all relevant factors including

such cross subsidies, and other operational constraints:

Provided that such open access may be allowed before the cross subsidies are

eliminated on payment of a surcharge in addition to the charges for wheeling as

may be determined by the State Commission :

Provided further that such surcharge shall be utilised to meet the requirements

of current level of cross subsidy within the area of supply of the distribution

licensee:

Provided also that such surcharge and cross subsidies shall be progressively

reduced and eliminated in the manner as may be specified by the State

Commission:

of 30

Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable in case open

access is provided to a person who has established a captive

generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his

own use."

7. Regarding issue of cross-subsidy surcharge when entity who is

supplying electricity to itself without using open access or

transmission and/or distribution lines of licensees, it may be

fruitful to mention few judgments passed by Hon'ble Tribunal. In

Appeal no 119 of 2009, Hon'ble Tribunal held as under:

"i) The Aryan Plant Company being a generator which is found to be not

qualified as a captive generating plant can transfer power generated by it for

its own use to its own coal washeries through its own dedicated line without

license or open access

ii) The Aryan Plant Company transferring power to its own coal washeries

through its own dedicated transmission line can not be treated as ‘supply’ as

envisaged under Section 2 (70) of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the Aryan

Plant Company is not bound either to avail open access or to obtain a license

under the Act.

iii) Under the Act and the Regulations framed under the said Act a consumer is

entitled to receive the supply of electricity from the source other than the

licensee thereby making a proviso to compensate the licensee therefore,

show that there are provisions for the payment of cross subsidy surcharge

and by that process, it safeguards the interest of the distribution licensee in

whose area the consumer is located."

8. In appeal no 32,33 and 118 of 2009 (Salasar case), Hon'ble

Tribunal has ordered as under:

"7. The first issue relates to the failure of imposition of penalty in the

proceedings under section 142 of the Electricity Act. According to the Learned

Counsel for the Appellant, the State Commission having initiated proceedings

under section 142 of the Act and having found that there is a violation, ought to

have imposed some punishment on the respondents and as such the impugned

order is illegal. This contention, in our view, is misconceived. It is the judicial

discretion of the State Commission to decide whether to impose any

punishment or not as it considers appropriate as against the utilities even when

there is any violation. In other words, it is up to the State Commission to decide

of 30

whether at all to impose any punishment even when it finds that there is some

violation. If the State Commission considers that the punishment was required

in the facts and circumstances, it may impose punishment. It is not mandatory

on the part of the State Commission to impose some punishment where there is

some violation. A perusal of section 142 of the Act makes it very clear that is

only directory since the expression used in the said section is only “may” and

not ‘shall”. So, it is not compulsory on the part of the State Commission to

impose some punishment even assuming that there is some violation.

Therefore, it is not open to the distribution licensee, the Appellant to claim that

the State Commission ought to have imposed penalty on the respondent utility

as there is some violation. It should be made clear that every show cause

notice need not necessarily culminate in to the imposition of penalty merely

because there is some violation. As mentioned above, the imposition of penalty

under section 142 of the Act is purely directory and discretionary. To this effect,

we have already given a judgment in Appeals No. 119 and 125 of 2009, dated

09.02.2010. Therefore, the first contention would fail.

8. The second contention is that, having found that the Respondent plant

is not a captive power plant, the respondent cannot be allowed to supply

electricity on payment of cross subsidy surcharge especially when the cross

subsidy surcharge is applicable only when open access is availed of. This

contention also, in our view, does not hold good in view of the settled law as

laid down by this Tribunal in earlier judgment in the case of OCL India Limited

versus OERC as reported in 2009 ELR APTEL levy of cross subsidy surcharge is

permissible even when the dedicated lines are used without availing the open

access. The relevant portion of the observations made by this Tribunal in the

above referred case is as follows:

“18. It is settled law that the underlying philosophy behind levy of surcharge is

that the consumer must compensate for the loss of cross subsidy to the

distribution licensee. It cannot be disputed that the surcharge is not payable

even after availing the status of the open access customer. Mere submitting the

application for availing the power is not enough to put the entire responsibility

on the distribution licensee.”

9. On the above principle, there is nothing wrong on the part of the State

Commission to have held that the cross subsidy surcharge is payable to the

distribution licensee even when the lines of the distribution licensee have not

been used.

10. It is not correct on the part of the Learned Counsel appearing for the

Appellant to contend that cross subsidy surcharge would be applicable only

of 30

when the open access is availed of. Section 42(2) of the Act deals with the two

issues:

(i) Open Access and (ii) Cross subsidy surcharge. In so far as open access is

concerned, section 42(2) is not restricted to open access on the lines of the

distribution licensee. In other words, section 42(2) which deals with cross

subsidy cannot be read to mean to involve itself with the open access.

11. The cross subsidy surcharge, which is referred to in the proviso to sub

section (2) of section 42 of the Act, is a compensatory charge. It does not

depend upon use of distribution licensee’s lines. It is a charge to pay any

compensation to the distribution licensee irrespective of the fact whether its line

is used or not, in view of the fact that, but for the open access the consumer

would have taken the quantum of power from the distribution licensee and in

the result the consumer would have paid tariff applicable for such supply which

would include an element of cross subsidy surcharge on certain other

categories of consumers. On this principle, it has to be held that cross subsidy

surcharge is payable irrespective of whether the lines of the distribution

licensees are used or not.

12. As a matter of fact, the State Commission has directed the respondents

to pay the cross subsidy surcharge to the Appellant being distribution licensee

which would be in the interest of the consumers. To this effect, this Tribunal

has given a judgment in Appeal No. 119 of 2009, Chhattisgarh State

Distribution Company Limited versus Aryan Coal Benefication dated 09.02.10.

Therefore, the second contention also would fail."

9. It may also be apposite to mention the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in civil appeal no 5479 of 2013 M/s Sesa Sterlite

Ltd Vs Orrisa Electricity Regulatory Comm. & Ors-

"(2) Open Access and CSS

22. Open access implies freedom to procure power from any source. Open access

in transmission means freedom to the licensees to procure power from any

source. The expression “open access” has been defined in the Act to mean “the

non-discriminatory provision for the use of transmission lines or distribution

system or associated facilities with such lines or system by any licensee or

consumer or a person engaged in generation in accordance with the regulations

specified by the Appropriate Commission”. The Act mandates that it shall be duty

of the transmission utility/licensee to provide non-discriminatory open access to

its transmission system to every licensee and generating company. Open access

of 30

in transmission thus enables the licensees (distribution licensees and traders) and

generating companies the right to use the transmission systems without any

discrimination. This would facilitate sale of electricity directly to the distribution

companies. This would generate competition amongst the sellers and help

reduce, gradually, the cost of generation/procurement.

23. While open access in transmission implies freedom to the licensee to procure

power from any source of his choice, open access in distribution with which we

are concerned here, means freedom to the consumer to get supply from any

source of his choice. The provision of open access to consumers, ensures right of

the consumer to get supply from a person other than the distribution licensee of

his area of supply by using the distribution system of such distribution licensee.

Unlike in transmission, open access in distribution has not been allowed from the

outset primarily because of considerations of cross-subsidies. The law provides

that open access in distribution would be allowed by the State Commissions in

phases. For this purpose, the State Commissions are required to specify the

phases andconditions of introduction of open access.

24. However open access can be allowed on payment of a surcharge, to be

determined by the State Commission, to take care of the requirements of current

level of crosssubsidy and the fixed cost arising out of the licensee’s obligation to

supply. Consequent to the enactment of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003, it

has been mandated that the State Commission shall within five years necessarily

allow open access to consumers having demand exceeding one megawatt.

(3) CSS: Its Rationale

25. The issue of open access surcharge is very crucial and implementation of the

provision of open access depends on judicious determination of surcharge by the

State Commissions. There are two aspects to the concept of surcharge – one, the

cross-subsidy surcharge i.e. the surcharge meant to take care of the

requirements of current levels of cross-subsidy, and the other, the additional

surcharge to meet the fixed cost of the distribution licensee arising out of his

obligation to supply. The presumption, normally is that generally the bulk

consumers would avail of open access, who also pay at relatively higher rates. As

such, their exit would necessarily have adverse effect on the finances of the

existing licensee, primarily on two counts –one, on its ability to cross-subsidise

the vulnerable sections of society and the other, in terms of recovery of the fixed

cost such licensee might have incurred as part of his obligation to supply

electricity to that consumer on demand (stranded costs). The mechanism of

surcharge is meant to compensate the licensee for both these aspects.

of 30

26. Through this provision of open access, the law thus balances the right of the

consumers to procure power from a source of his choice and the legitimate

claims/interests of the existing licensees. Apart from ensuring freedom to the

consumers, the provision of open access is expected to encourage competition

amongst the suppliers and also to put pressure on the existing utilities to improve

their performance in terms of quality and price of supply so as to ensure that the

consumers do not go out of their fold to get supply from some other source.

27. With this open access policy, the consumer is given a choice to take electricity

from any Distribution Licensee. However, at the same time the Act makes

provision of surcharge for taking care of current level of cross subsidy. Thus, the

State Electricity Regulatory Commissions are authorized to frame open access in

distribution in phases with surcharge for:

(a) Current level of cross subsidy to be gradually phased out along with cross

subsidies; and

(b) obligation to supply.

"28. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances though CSS(cross-subsidy

surcharge) is payable by the Consumer to the Distribution Licensee of the area in

question when it decides not to take supply from that company but to avail it

from another distribution licensee. In nutshell, CSS is a compensation to the

distribution licensee irrespective of the fact whether its line is used or

not, in view of the fact that, but for the open access the consumer

would pay tariff applicable for supply which would include an element

of cross subsidy surcharge on certain other categories of consumers.

What is important is that a consumer situated in an area is bound to contribute to

subsidizing a low and consumer if he falls in the category of subsidizing

consumer. Once a cross subsidy surcharge is fixed for an area it is liable to be

paid and such payment will be used for meeting the current levels of cross

subsidy within the area. A fortiorari, even a licensee which purchases electricity

for its own consumption either through a “dedicated transmission line” or through

“open access”would be liable to pay Cross Subsidy Surcharge under the Act.

Thus, Cross Subsidy Surcharge, broadly speaking, is the charge payable by a

consumer who opt to avail power supply through open access from someone

other than such Distribution licensee in whose area it is situated. Such surcharge

is meant to compensate such Distribution licensee from the loss of cross subsidy

that such Distribution licensee would suffer by reason of the consumer taking

supply from someone other than such Distribution licensee."

of 30

In the above mentioned case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, one of

the issue was whether end user of electricity was "consumer" or

"distribution licensee". It was found by Hon'ble Apex court that end

user was consumer as no distribution of electricity was being done.

Having established that the end user was consumer, the other issue

was whether such consumer is liable to pay cross-subsidy surcharge

as the transmission and/or distribution lines was not used for

consumption of electricity by the end user from its power plant. On

this issue Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered that cross-subsidy

surcharge is payable irrespective of the fact that whether lines of

licensee is being used or not.

10. In the instant case the power plant of petitioner is generating

company and not a captive generating plant for the year 2007-

08. The end user of power plant of petitioner for this year is not a

captive user but it has to be treated as consumer for that

particular year. According to Section 42 of the Act only captive

users are exempted from payment of cross subsidy surcharge.

Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld that cross-subsidy surcharge is

compensation to the distribution licensee irrespective of the fact

whether its line is used or not. As per the provisions of the Act,

cross-subsidy surcharge is not levied on supply by a power plant

to licensee and for power consumed outside the State. It is clear

that in this instant case power plant of petitioner had supplied

electricity to its industrial load. In view of judgement of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and Hon'ble Tribunal, petitioner has to pay cross

subsidy surcharge to CSPDCL for industrial consumption within its

premises irrespective of the fact that it has not used the lines of

licensee for the years 2007-08.

11. The Commission in its order dated 27.11.2008 in P No 15 of 2008,

has held that cross subsidy surcharge will be half of the normal rate for

the energy consumed from the co-generation plant.

Hon’ble ATE has also passed order in respect of co-generation in

Appeal No.57 of 2009, 54 of 2012, 59 of 2012 and review order in

of 30

appeal no IA 262 of 2012 in RP (DFR) No.1311 of 2012 in APPEAL NO.

57 of 2009. Judgements of the Hon’ble ATE in these orders are

reproduced below;

Order dated 26/04/2010 in appeal no 57 of 2009,

“45. Summary of our conclusions is given below:-

(I) The plain reading of Section 86(1)(e) does not show that the

expression ‘co-generation’ means cogeneration from renewable sources

alone. The meaning of the term ‘co- generation’ has to be understood

as defined in definition Section 2 (12) of the Act.

(II) As per Section 86(1)(e), there are two categories of `generators

namely (1) co-generators (2) Generators of electricity through

renewable sources of energy. It is clear from this Section that both

these categories must be promoted by the State Commission by

directing the distribution licensees to purchase electricity from both of

these categories.

(III) The fastening of the obligation on the co-generator to procure

electricity from renewable energy procures would defeat the object of

Section 86 (1)(e).

(IV) The clear meaning of the words contained in Section 86(1)(e) is

that both are different and both are required to be promoted and as

such the fastening of liability on one in preference to the other is totally

contrary to the legislative interest.

(V) Under the scheme of the Act, both renewable source of energy and

cogeneration power plant, are equally entitled to be promoted by State

Commission through the suitable methods and suitable directions, in

view of the fact that cogeneration plants, who provide many number of

benefits to environment as well as to the public at large, are to be

entitled to be treated at par with the other renewable energy sources.

(VI) The intention of the legislature is to clearly promote cogeneration

in this industry generally irrespective of the nature of the fuel used for

of 30

such cogeneration and not cogeneration or generation from renewable

energy sources alone.”

Order dated 30/01/2013 in appeal no 54 of 2012,

“40. Summary of our findings:

i) This Tribunal in its judgment in Appeal No.57 of 2009 has specifically

observed that the intention of the legislature is to clearly promote the

co-generation also irrespective of the nature of the fuel used and

fastening of the obligation on the co-generator would defeat the object

of Section 86(1)(e). The Tribunal also mentioned in the above

judgment that the conclusion in Appeal No.57 of 2009 of being generic

in nature, would apply to all the co-generation based captive

consumers who may be using any fuel. Therefore, reasoning given by

the State Commission for distinguishing the judgment of this Tribunal,

which is binding on the State Commission, is wrong.

ii) The definition of the obligated entity would not cover a case where a

person is consuming power from co-generation plant.

iii) The State Commission by the impugned order, in order to remove

difficulties faced by the obligated entities, has clarified that the

obligation in respect of co-generation can be met from solar and non-

solar sources but the solar and non-solar purchase obligation has to be

met mandatorily by the obligated entities and consuming electricity

only from the co-generation sources shall not relieve any obligated

entity. When such relaxation has been made, the same relaxation must

have been allowed in respect of consumers meeting electricity

consumption from captive Co-generation Plant in excess of the total

RCPO Obligations. Failure to do so would amount to violation of Section

86(1)(e) of the electricity Act, which provides that both co-generation

as well as generation of electricity from renewable source of energy

must be encouraged as per the finding of this Tribunal in Appeal No.57

of 2009. Unfortunately the State Commission has failed to follow the

judgment given by this Tribunal in Century Rayon case.”

Also in line with the order of Hon’ble ATE, the Commission has

issued order dated 21/05/2013 in P no 28 of 2012 and 7 of 2013

and in the matter of in the matter of - RPO compliance for

obligated entities consuming power from co-generation power

of 30

plant filed by Chhattisgarh Sponge Iron Manufacturers Association

and Bhilai Steel Plant. The judgement of the Commission in this

order is reproduced below;

“31. In view of orders passed by Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal No.57 of

2009, 54 of 2012, 59 of 2012 and review order in appeal no IA 262 of

2012 in RP (DFR) No.1311 of 2012 in APPEAL NO.57 of 2009, it is

decided that captive users/consumers consuming power to the extent

of RPO specified under Regulation, 2011, from fossil fuel based co-

generation plants shall be exempted from RPO for the year 2012-13.

As per Hon'ble Tribunal Judgment, definition of the obligated entity

would not cover a case where a person is consuming power from co

generation plant. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”

From the above it is clear that the Commission has been

promoting consumption from co-generation power. Accordingly

cross subsidy surcharge will be 50% of the normal rate.

12. Petitioner in its petition has also pleaded that no adjustment or

deduction has been granted for the POC paid by the petitioner to

the respondent for this period.

I. It may be pertinent to high light regulatory back ground

facts pertaining to parallel operation charges. On

15.06.2005, the Commission fixed parallel operation charge

for availing grid support by CGP's in the tariff order for year

2005-06 as was hitherto before fixed by the Madhya

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in its earlier tariff

orders. It is pertinent to note that MPERC was the Regulator

before bifurcation of the State of M.P and the POC was fixed

as Rs.16/- per KVA per month on the installed capacity of

the CGP. Thereafter a petition No. 17/2005 was filed on

behalf of the members who owned captive generating

plants, seeking orders of the Commission on purchase of

power by the licensee from CGPs and other matters, mostly

relating to tariff. On 06.02.2006, an order was passed in

this petition. Upon pleading by the petitioners in this

of 30

petition, the Commission reviewed the rate of parallel

operation charges fixed by the Commission in its tariff order

dated 15.06.2005. By order dated 06.02.2006, passed in

petition No. 17/2005, the Commission reviewed the parallel

operation charges and refixed the same at Rs. 10/- per KVA

per month as against Rs. 16/- per KVA per month.

II. Again on 04.04.2006, a representative of CGP owner moved

a review application before the Commission seeking for

review of its earlier order dated 06.02.2006 and prayed for

total withdrawal of parallel operation charges. By order

dated 4th May, 2006 the Commission rejected the review

petition at the admission stage itself, while pointing out

formidable fallacies in adding new reliefs.

III. Aggrieved by the order of the Commission, the some parties

preferred appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. The appeal was

dismissed and the Hon'ble Tribunal declined to interfere with

the order of the Commission fixing parallel operation

charges at Rs. 10/- per KVA per month. However, the

Hon'ble Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commission

with direction that the parallel operation charges may be

fixed on the basis of the data, materials and scientific inputs

relating to parallel operations already placed by the parties

or that may be placed by the parties before the conclusion

of hearing and such exercise shall be carried out

independently and without in any manner being influenced

by this judgment.

IV. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the

Commission took up the task of determination of parallel

operation charges and registered a suo-motu petition No.

39/2006(M). The Commission decided to seek the assistance

of a technical consultant to study the impact caused due to

CGP's which are operating in parallel with the State grid.

The Commission called for enquiries and assigned the task

of 30

to M/s Electrical Research & Development Association

(ERDA), Vadodara, an eminent research and testing

organization in the field of power accredited by the

Government of India. The consultant was assigned the task

to collect various system data and parameters of some

representative CGPs in the State, and suggest the rate of

parallel operation charges.

V. After carrying out the study, the consultant submitted a

report to the Commission, and prepared a discussion paper

giving details of the methodology of study, observations

made and proposed three alternative methods for

calculation of parallel operation charges. This discussion

paper was circulated by the Commission in the public

domain and copies were sent to all stakeholders for

obtaining their comments, if any, on the outcome of study

and methods proposed for calculation of parallel operation

charges. After hearing all the parties, the Commission

passed order in suo-motu petition No. 39/2006(M) on

31.12.2008. The Commission decided to fix the parallel

operation charge derived on the basis of Base MVA Support

method. The charges were fixed at Rs 21 per KVA. In this

order, it was held that instead of levying parallel operation

charges on the installed capacity of CGP, the demand

towards auxiliary load of CGP (which shall not be more than

10% of the capacity of the plant), contract demand of the

CGP contracted with the utility, the power supplied by the

CGP to CSEB or sold inside/outside the State through open

access, should be excluded from the installed capacity for

the purpose of calculation of POC.

VI. Thereafter, the distribution licensee, CSPDCL filed a review

petition No.20 of 2009 (M) and explained practical

difficulties in implementation of the impugned order passed

in petition No. 39 of 2006(M). CSPDCL pointed out certain

of 30

discrepancies in formula specified in order dated

31.12.2008. Due to deduction of contract demand (for

availing retail supply with licensee) in computation of POC,

in certain cases where installed capacity of power plant was

less than contract demand and entire power generated from

power plant of CGP was consumed by own industrial load,

the POC bills resulted in negative. The Commission reviewed

the formula and passed an order in this review petition on

13.10.2009. It was held that POC shall be calculated at the

rate of Rs.21/- per KVA per month (the rate as decided by

the ERDA) on the captive and non-captive load of CGP which

may either be co-located, fed through the grid or through

dedicated lines of CGP. It was further held that the billing of

parallel operation charges as decided above shall remain

effective from 1st January 2009, till it is revised by the

Commission.

VII. Subsequently, the CSPDCL held consultations with CGPs for

reaching at methodology for computation of captive load.

CSPDCL vide letter dated 29.12.2009, requested the

Commission to approve installation of meters at premises of

plant owners to compute captive and non captive load of

CGPs. The Commission vide letter dated 05.01.2010

rejected the request of CSPDCL and directed to discuss the

issue with concerned officer of the Commission. A meeting

was also held between representatives of CGPs and CSPDCL

and it was decided to evolve a tabulated formula for

computation of captive and non-captive load.

VIII. CSPDCL had submitted a format to the Commission for

calculation of captive and non-captive load of CGPs. The

format submitted by CSPDCL was as follows:

of 30

Particulars to be submitted by captive generating company for computation of parallel operation

charges as per Commission's Order dated 13.10.2009

Installed Capacity of

power plant in KVA

Auxiliary power

demand of the power plant in KVA

PPA with CSPDCL for

the quantum of power in KVA

Inter-State open

access sought for the quantum of

power in KVA

Captive/Non-captive

load of CPP in KVA

A B C D E = A - (B+ C + D)

IX. It may be worthy to mention report of ERDA on parallel

operation charges as highlighted in suo-motu petion no 39

of 2006(M):

"10. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PARALLEL OPERATION:

In its report ERDA has enumerated following advantages and

disadvantages to the CPP as well as utility:

10.1 Advantages to CPPs:

(1) The fluctuations in the load is absorbed by the utility grid in the

parallel operation mode. This will reduce the stresses on the captive

generator and equipments. The bulk consumer can operate his

generating units at constant power generation mode irrespective of his

load cycle.

(2) Fluctuating loads of the industries connected in parallel with the

grid inject harmonics into the grid. The current harmonics absorbed by

the utility grid is much more than that by CPP generator. These

harmonics flowing in the grid system are harmful to the equipments

and are also responsible for polluting the power quality of the system.

(3) Negative phase sequence current is generated by unbalance

loads. The magnitude of negative phase sequence current is much

higher at the point of common coupling than at generator output

terminal. This unbalance current normally creates problem of

overheating of the generators and other equipments of CPP, if not

running in parallel with grid. When they are connected to the grid, the

negative phase sequence current flows into the grid and reduces stress

on the captive generator.

(4) Captive power plants have higher fault level support when they

are running in parallel with the grid supply. Because of the higher fault

level, the voltage drop at load terminal is less when connected with the

grid.

of 30

(5) On account of increase in plant load factor of captive generator,

additional revenues can be generated by the CPPs by sale of surplus

power to the

utility.

(6) In addition to the above, CPPs enjoy the following advantages

also:

(i) In case of fault in a CPP generating unit or other equipment,

bulk consumers can draw the required power from the grid and

can save their production loss.

(ii) The grid provides stability to the plant to start heavy loads like

HT motors.

(iii) The variation in the voltage and frequency at the time of starting

large motors and heavy loads, is minimized in the industry, as

the grid supply acts as an infinite bus. The active and reactive

power demand due to sudden and fluctuating load is not

recorded in the meter.

(iv) The impact created by sudden load throw off and consequent

tripping of CPP generator on over speeding is avoided with the

grid taking care of the impact

(v) The transient surges reduce the life of equipment of the CPP. In

some cases, the equipment fails if transient is beyond a limit. If

the system is connected to the grid, it absorbs the transient

load. Hence, grid enhances the life of CPP equipments.

In short, the gains to the CPPs is quite substantial in case there is grid

support.

10.2 Disadvantage of Parallel Operation to CPPs:

(1) The CPP-holder is required to pay for minimum contract demand

even if connection is floating to take care of emergency.

(2) The CPP-holder is required to install higher rating switchgear

depending on grid fault level."

X. On perusal of above findings of ERDA, in the mentioned

case, it appears that it is mainly the industrial load which

derives benefits by operating its co-located power plant in

parallel to the grid. It can be said that an industrial unit

which has installed power plant in its same premises draws

of 30

certain grid support while paralleling its power plant with the

grid. So parallel operation charge is technical grid support

charge levied to industries which have own power plant

located in same premises. ERDA has not studied the case

where a captive generating plant uses the grid for carrying

its total electricity generated for its captive

use(consumption). But ,the study was oriented on such

industrial units where power plant was co-located(power

plant installed in same premises where there is industrial

load).The study revealed that the industrial load of such co-

located power plant draws benefits from grid when it

operates its power plant in parallel(synchronization) with the

grid. In suo-motu petition no 10 of 2008(M) and petition no

11 of 2008(M), in case of Aryan Coal Benefication Ltd the

issue related to billing of parallel operation operation

charges when power plant does not qualifies as captive

generating plant was not deliberated in detail. This order

was passed on 23.01.2009. Hon'ble Tribunal had also upheld

the order of the Commission. But this aspect whether

parallel operation charges and cross subsidy surcharge are

identical and levied for same purpose was not examined by

this Commission while dealing the Aryan case. However

after passing of this order, as mentioned in regulatory back

ground facts above, after consultation with all stake holders

in order dated 13.10.2009 passed in petition no 20 of

2009(M) it was held as under:

"It will be appropriate to specifically identify the parameter responsible for

causing shock, pollution and disturbance in the grid as parameter for

calculation of POC. The power generated by CPP can be utilized for auxiliary

consumption captive load, non-captive load, supply to utility and for inter

state sale. In case of elimination of supply for auxiliary consumption, supply

to utility and power for inter state sale as per provision in our order dt.

31.12.2008 the balance remains power supply to captive and non-captive

loads of CPP, and this can be specifically identified as an element for

payment of POC. The essence of technical study conducted and

report submitted by the ERDA is that the load connected to grid is

of 30

responsible for creation of shocks, disturbance and pollution in the

grid. Though the grid absorbs the pollution of the loads of the

consumers who has agreement with the utility and utility charges

to consumers as per the retail tariff fixed by the Commission, but

the grid also used to absorb the pollution of the captive and non-

captive loads of the CPP connected with the grid which is not the

consumer of utility and therefore, captive and non-captive load of

CPP can be parameter for payment of POC. Such captive and non-

captive load of CPP can either be co-located, supplied through the

grid or may be supplied through dedicated system. We have thus

come to the conclusion that the POC shall be calculated at the rate

of Rs.21/- per KVA per month (the rate as decided by the ERDA)

on the captive and non-captive load of CPP which may either be

co-located, fed through the grid or through dedicated lines of

CPP".

XI. In the above order dated 13.10.2009, it was ordered that

parallel operation charges have to be levied on captive and

non-captive load of CPP. So, it can be inferred that cross-

subsidy surcharge and parallel operation charges are paid to

licensee for different purposes. As per Hon'ble Supreme

Court also cross subsidy surcharge is a compensatory

charge paid to distribution licensee as a consumer goes out

of manifold of distribution licensee. Whereas, parallel

operation charges has to be levied to industries which have

co-located power plants for providing grid support by the

licensee. The industrial load of petitioner has taken grid

support and so it is liable to pay parallel operation charges.

Parallel operation charges is fixed in Rs/KVA/month.

Whereas cross subsidy surcharge is fixed in terms of

Rs/kWh. Both the charges have different purposes.

Accordingly, it is liable to pay parallel operation charges as

the industrial load of its power plant derives certain benefits

from grid. Parallel operation charges collected by CSPDCL

from petitioner for financial year 2007-08 should not be

adjusted with the cross-subsidy surcharge billed.

of 30

Conclusion

1. Petitioner is liable to pay cross –subsidy surcharge for the

electricity consumed (own industrial consumption) from its

own power plant, irrespective of the fact that it has not used

the lines of licensee for the year 2009-10. Respondent is

directed to review the bill dated 23.08.2011 for recovery of

cross subsidy surcharge issued in line with judgment in this

order.

2. Cross subsidy surcharge will be half of the normal rate for the

energy consumed from the co-generation power plant for the

year 2009-10. This facility provided on consumption from co-

generation plant will, however, not be available in case of

consumption from power generated using the other boilers.

3. Parallel operation charges collected by CSPDCL from petitioner

for that year 2009-10 should not be adjusted with the cross-

subsidy surcharge to be billed.

We order accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vinod Shrivastava)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(Narayan Singh)

CHAIRMAN

chhattisgarh state electricity regulatory commission (fbc) boiler in which a fuel mixture of...

Documents