The banked energy at one facility of a company cannot be adjusted against the electricity consumption of its other units, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has ruled.

It dismissed an appeal filed by Maharashtra Seamless (MSL) against an order of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) which  rejected a petition seeking adjustment of banked energy units from its industrial plant at Vile Bhagad towards its other plant at Sukeli.

Background

MSL, a flagship company of the Jindal Group, operates two industrial plants—one at Sukeli and another at Vile Bhagad in Maharashtra. Both plants are Extra-High-Tension (EHT) consumers, with contract demands of 16,330 KVA and 8,000 KVA, respectively.

MSL established a 7 MW wind energy captive power project in Satara district. This project initially supplied power to its Sukeli plant through open access.

MSL sought permission to consume power from JSW Energy for its Sukeli plant, which was granted by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company  (MSEDCL).

MSEDCL later objected to this arrangement, contending that sourcing from multiple generators was not permissible. It advised MSL to change the drawal point of the wind power from the Sukeli plant to the Vile Bhagad plant.

Following MSEDCL’s advice, MSL changed the open access permission and drawal point for its captive power project from Sukeli to Vile Bhagad from September 2012 until the end of FY 2012-13.

On February 4, 2013, MSEDCL granted wind open access permission to MSL for sourcing power from the captive project at the Vile Bhagad plant. It also granted  permission to MSL’s Sukeli Plant for sourcing 6 MW of power from JSW power effective from April 1, 2013.

The Vile Bhagad plant was unable to absorb all the captive power, leading to an accumulation of over 5 million surplus unadjusted energy units.

MSL made several attempts to adjust these surplus units, including requesting MSEDCL to change the drawal point back to the Sukeli plant.

Eventually, MSL discontinued its power purchase agreement with JSW and again sought a change in the drawal point of power back to the Sukeli plant to enable the adjustment of the accumulated units.

MSEDCL permitted MSL to consume power from the wind project at the Sukeli plant from February 15, 2014, to March 31, 2014.

MSEDCL rejected MSL’s subsequent requests to offset the unadjusted wind energy units of its Vile Bhagad plant for FY 2013-14 against the energy bills of its Sukeli plant.

Following this, MSL approached the MERC with a petition seeking the adjustment of banked units from the Vile Bhagad plant to the Sukeli plant.

Commission’s Analysis

APTEL emphasized that while MSL is a single entity owning both industrial plants and the captive wind power project, the two industrial units are distinct and separate consumers under the Electricity Act, 2003.

Each plant has its own consumer number and is considered an independent entity for electricity supply and related matters.

APTEL also noted that each plant’s open access permissions were distinct and separate, specifying particular generation and consumption points.

It highlighted that MSL did not challenge MSEDCL’s initial denial of permission to source power from multiple generators, which was contrary to open access regulations and a previous APTEL judgment.

The appellate authority also rejected MSL’s claim for credit notes for wind power units injected from April 1, 2014, as the company had not installed special energy meters (SEM) at its Sukeli unit until June 13, 2014. This was in line with the open access regulations and previous orders mandating SEM installation.

In January, APTEL upheld the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission’s decision dismissing a similar petition filed by a wind energy generator, contending that regulations should not retroactively impact PPA.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.