The SC rejected Tata Power’s plea against the transmission contract awarded to Adani Listrik | Rare Techy
Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (MERC) decision to award Adani Electricity a Rs 7,000 crore transmission contract on nomination basis in March last year was challenged in an appeal by Tata Power Company Ltd, which the Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday.
In order to achieve a balance to develop a sustainable model of electricity regulation in the state, a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and consisting of Justices AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala ordered the state power regulatory commission to frame regulations for tariff determination within three months. .
“Within three months from the date of our decision, we ordered all state regulatory commissions to draft regulations under Article 181 of the Act outlining the criteria for determining tariffs. The National Electricity Policy (NEP) and the National Tariff Policy (NTP) are also included in Section 61, and the appropriate commission will be governed by these principles while formulating this recommendation regarding tariff determination”, the bench stated in its 93-page decision.
Based on its decision dated February 18, 2022, APTEL rejected the appeal filed by Tata Power under Article 111 of the Law against the decision of MERC dated March 21, 2021. Tata Power appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The high court proposed the order of the Appeal Tribunal for Electricity (Aptel) from February 18, which stated that MERC’s decision to award a transmission contract using the RTM line (regulating the tariff mode) under Section 62 of the Electricity Act 2003 cannot be described as ” wrong, wrong, or improper .”
When the relevant commission(s) have framed the regulations, they should be amended to include provisions on the criteria for choosing the modality to determine the tariff, if they are not already included, according to Chief Justice Chandrachud, who wrote the judgment. on behalf of the bench.
The bench stated that the MERC will determine the tariff by exercising its general regulatory powers under Article 86(1)(a) of the Law, adding that the MERC does not have a framed regulation and does not notify guidelines that prefer criteria or guidelines for choosing the modality to determine the tariff.
The bench said that the commission when guided by the principles in Section 61, will strike a balance that will create a sustainable model of electricity regulation in the states. Additionally, the bench said that the regulatory commission should address the unique needs of the state while drafting these regulations.
Tata Power filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging MERC’s decision on how transmission licenses for large infrastructure projects such as – construction of a 1,000 MW HVDC link between 220 KV EHV and 400 KV Kudus stations – can be granted without compliance. competitive bidding procedure based on tariffs (TBCB) and by “not including other developers.”
For feedback and suggestions, write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org