&w=3840&q=100)
SC rules in favour of Himachal in power dispute with JSW Hydro Energy
JSW Hydro Energy had argued that, under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) Tariff Regulations, it was required to supply no more than 13 per cent as free power.
'We have allowed the appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh by interpreting the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the CERC Regulations, 2019 in the context of the subsisting and continuing contractual relationship between the parties,' said a Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Bench held that the CERC Regulations, 2019, did not prohibit the company from supplying free power beyond 13 per cent and that the Implementation Agreement remained valid and enforceable. While CERC must give effect to its regulations and allow a pass-through of up to 13 per cent free power in tariff calculation, any additional supply is a contractual obligation governed by the Implementation Agreement.
On interpreting the CERC Regulations, the court stated that the 13 per cent limit applies only for tariff purposes and does not prevent the company from supplying more than that amount of free power.
'Further, a writ petition before the High Court for aligning the Implementation Agreement with the CERC Regulations, 2019, and the CERC's order dated 17.03.2022 is not maintainable,' the court held.
In allowing the state's appeal, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court for intervening in the tariff fixation domain, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CERC.
'Considering the expertise and specialisation of the CERC as a statutory regulator and the wide-ranging jurisdiction it exercises under the Electricity Act, as well as Respondent No. 1's (JSW Hydro Energy) conduct in not seeking relief against the appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh) before the CERC, we have held that the present writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court,' the Bench added.
JSW Hydro Energy Limited operates a 1,045 MW hydroelectric project at Karcham Wangtoo, originally allotted to Jaiprakash Industries Limited under a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1993.
Under the subsequent Implementation Agreement with the Himachal Pradesh government, JSW (through its predecessor) had agreed to provide 18 per cent of net power generation to the state free of cost after the first 12 years of commercial operation.
Later, JSW approached the CERC and then the High Court when the state declined to revise the free power obligation to 13 per cent in line with the 2019 regulations.
The High Court had ruled in favour of JSW and directed the state to align the Implementation Agreement with the CERC Regulations. The Supreme Court has now overturned that ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders nationwide clean-up of ₹1.6L-cr regulatory assets
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed electricity regulatory commissions (RCs) across the country to prepare a detailed roadmap for liquidating existing regulatory assets (RAs) within the next three years. The court also instructed the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to ensure strict compliance with this directive by registering a suo motu petition. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. (HT Archive) The direction came in response to a petition filed by Delhi's three major power distribution companies -- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd, and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd -- challenging the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) approach to electricity tariff determination. The companies argued that DERC's tariff policies over the years led to a massive accumulation of regulatory assets, which as of March 31, 2024, stood at ₹27,200.37 crore across the three discoms, including carrying costs. While examining the issue, the bench of justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta widened the scope of the case, noted that the problem of increased RA was not a phenomenon limited to Delhi. For instance, Tamil Nadu reported an estimated RA of ₹89,375 crore as of FY 2021–22, while Rajasthan's cumulative RA had crossed ₹47,000 crore by FY 2024–25. In contrast, the electricity regulatory commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Sikkim, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh stated that they had never created RAs. The Maharashtra commission confirmed it had not created any regulatory assets since March 2020, in compliance with the National Tariff Policy, 2016, and the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. Rule 23 prescribes that regulatory assets should not exceed 3% of the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR). The bench held that each RC must prepare a trajectory and roadmap for the liquidation of its regulatory assets, including provisions to deal with carrying costs. It further ordered a thorough audit to determine why discoms were allowed to accumulate RAs without recovery for extended periods. To monitor and enforce these measures, APTEL was directed to invoke its powers under Section 121 of the Electricity Act and issue orders, instructions, or directions to ensure that the RCs fulfill their duties regarding regulatory assets. APTEL must also register a suo motu petition and continue monitoring until the liquidation timelines conclude. The judgment underlined that while increasing electricity tariffs is a tool to bridge revenue gaps, it may impose a sudden 'tariff shock' on consumers. To avoid this, commissions may opt to recover part of the gap immediately and create a regulatory asset for the remainder—recoverable in subsequent years. However, this should not become a long-term practice. 'The financial health and commercial viability of distribution companies must be ensured by the regulatory commissions,' the bench said. It emphasized that tariffs must be cost-reflective, and that revenue gaps between approved ARR and projected revenue should only arise in exceptional circumstances. Highlighting the consequences of unchecked RA accumulation, the court said, 'Disproportionate increase and long pending regulatory assets depict a regulatory failure. It has serious consequences on all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden is only on the consumer.' The court found that while RCs are meant to be independent authorities having functional autonomy, their decisions give a clear impression of a lack of ability to take 'firm' decisions. 'Instead of taking strong decisions on the basis of the statutory mandate, we see instances where the Regulatory Commissions manage and manoeuvre to arrive at a tariff by creating regulatory assets over and above all permissible limits. This is where the problem lies,' the court observed. The bench reminded the RCs to call for ARR, ensure that tariffs are determined, and that truing up is conducted in a timely manner, by exercising suo motu powers if necessary. 'Ineffective and inefficient functioning of the Regulatory Commissions, coupled with acting under dictation can lead to regulatory failure. The commissions are accountable for their decisions, and they are subject to judicial review,' the bench said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Disclose solar power price supplied to other states, HC tells SECI
Vijayawada: The high court on Wednesday directed Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) to disclose the price of solar power at which it was supplying to other states, at the time it entered into an agreement to supply power to Andhra Pradesh at Rs 2.49 per unit. The court also directed to place the orders of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) approving the unit price quoted by SECI. CPI state secretary K Ramakrishna and then TDP MLA and present finance minister Payyavula Keshav filed separate PILs in the high court challenging the agreement made by the then YSRCP govt with SECI for supply of 7,000 MW of solar power at Rs 2.49 per unit. The counsel for the petitioner argued that SECI made an agreement to supply solar power at Rs 2.49 per unit with AP, but the same SECI made an agreement with Gujarat govt for supply of solar power at Rs 1.99 per unit. The counsel further said that the power purchase price should be derived through tender route according to the Electricity Act but it was not followed while entering into an agreement with SECI. Arguing on behalf of the state govt, advocate general Dammalapati Srinivas said the high court has allowed APERC to decide the unit price and it has approved the price quoted by SECI. The petitioners can challenge the decision of APERC if they have any grievances on the same. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like For all your EV needs ScottishPower Learn More Undo The counsel for SECI submitted that the per unit price of solar power used to be anywhere between Rs 2.52 and Rs 2.61 at the time when it entered an agreement with AP. The unit price offered to AP was the lowest at that time when compared to other states, he stated. Considering the arguments, the high court bench headed by Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati directed SECI to submit an affidavit with details of prices at which it had made agreements with other states at the time of entering into the agreement with AP.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
India's dignity belittled by hand-pulled rickshaws: SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed deep anguish over the prevailing inhuman practice of hand-pulled rickshaws ferrying visitors in the eco-sensitive and automobile-free Matheran hill station in Maharashtra's Western Ghats and said this belittles India's march towards a developing country and its Constitution which promises social and economic justice. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria recalled a 45-year-old judgment in the Azad Rickshaw Pullers Association case, in which Supreme Court had come to the rescue of exploited cycle-rickshaw pullers and framed a scheme for ensuring their dignity and livelihood, and said that it is the duty of the Maharashtra govt to frame a scheme within six months to provide e-rickshaws to persons engaged in ferrying tourists on hand-pulled rickshaws. Dictating the judgment in court for the bench, CJI Gavai said, "It is really unfortunate that even after 45 years of the SC judgment on cycle-rickshaw pullers of Punjab, the inhuman practice of one human being ferrying another on hand-pulled rickshaws is prevalent (in Matheran)." "Are we alive to the social and economic justice of every human being as mandated by the Constitution? Unfortunately, the answer is in the negative. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo Continuing such inhuman practices even after 75 years of the Constitution would be akin to betraying the promise 'We the People' made to all citizens - social and economic justice," he said. To ensure social and economic justice, the state must frame a scheme for the people who hand-pull rickshaws so that they earn their livelihood with dignity, the bench said and asked the Maharashtra govt to take a leaf out of the e-rickshaw scheme which is working well to empower tribal women around the Sardar Patel statue at Gujarat's Sardar Sarovar dam. The CJI said that the govt could purchase e-rickshaws for Matheran and rent them out only to those who hand-pull rickshaws to rehabilitate them.
