Improvements to device may eventually cut external power demands for buildings by 50%

In a letter to the PM, Tamil Nadu chief minister Edappadi K Palaniswamy said any hasty amendments to the Electricity Act might create hardship to state power utilities.

German electricity consumers will for the first time see a drop in the fee added to their bills to fund renewables, a boost for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has pledged to curb the cost for voters.

Just over a decade ago, the state of California faced serious concerns about whether its utilities could generate and/or buy enough power to assure that the world’s seventh-largest economy could keep the lights on. The infamous California energy crisis, which affected several other western states as well, was a complex tangle of poorly structured deregulation, significant market manipulation (remember Enron?), and other causes. Along with rolling blackouts, California endured an official state of emergency that lasted 34 months, led to the recall and replacement of Gov. Gray Davis, and cost the state and its ratepayers billions of dollars — a cautionary tale for all states of electricity supply unable to meet demand.

Trillions of dollars will be invested in renewable energy over the next 25 years, driving some of the most profound changes yet in how humans get their electricity. That's according to a new forecast by Bloomberg New Energy Finance that plots out global power markets to 2040. 

The U.S. brought online nearly 700 MW of new electricity generation in October, and practically all of it was large-scale solar energy, according to data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Office of Energy Projects.

U.K. renewable power generation rose 28 percent last year as more wind farms and solar plants came online, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said.

German electricity consumers will for the first time see a drop in the fee added to their bills to fund renewables, a boost for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has pledged to curb the cost for voters.

Trillions of dollars will be invested in renewable energy over the next 25 years, driving some of the most profound changes yet in how humans get their electricity. That's according to a new forecast by Bloomberg New Energy Finance that plots out global power markets to 2040. 

This paper analyses the determinants of invention in efficiency-enhancing electricity generation technologies that have the potential to facilitate climate change mitigation efforts, including fossil fuel based technologies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, renewables and nuclear technologies.

This report investigates the effects of select climate policies, non-climate policies, as well as political economy factors on the decarbonisation of electricity in OECD countries from 2000 to 2015. Effects are analysed on the three phases of decarbonisation: (1) increasing the share of renewables installed, (2) increasing the use of renewables in generation, and (3) reducing the emissions from electricity.

Meeting the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement requires a transformational change in our infrastructure systems. This working paper aims to shed light on the extent to which current electricity generation projects under construction at the global level - the "pipeline" - are consistent with what a low-carbon transition requires.

To benefit fully from cross-border trade in electricity, interconnected countries need to establish a non-discriminatory trading regime based on co-operation and co-ordination, says this study of trade in renewables-based electric power in Europe.

1. The Appellant is a generator maintaining and operating two units of coal-fired thermal generation plants. For purposes of setting up the said units, the construction work started some time in 2011. It had entered into an arrangement with the second Respondent (Discom) for supply of electricity for purposes of start-up, its need continuing the first unit having been commissioned on 11.02.2014 followed by the second unit commissioned on 02.08.2015.

2. The Appellant was a consumer for start-up power for the period 01.09.2013 to 31.05.2015. By the billing raised for supply of such electricity in terms of the Supply Agreement dated 07.01.2013, the Respondent Discom treated it as a commercial consumer on the reasoning that it would fall in the residual category, referring in this context to the tariff schedule, in absence of any separate category for start-up power consumer being specified in tariff schedule.

1. Indian Railways, an establishment working under the control of the Central Government in terms of the Railways Act, 1989, has been constrained to come to this Tribunal by the present appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to assail the decision of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "TNERC" Appeal No. 188 of 2019 & IA No.980 of 2019 Page 2 of 9 or "State Commission") dated 25.03.2019 passed in Petition No. M.P. 4 of 2019, declining to entertain the request, inter-alia, for direction to the respondents - State Transmission and Distribution Companies - to process the application and grant non-discriminatory open access based on its claim of being a deemed licensee with certain other ancillary reliefs, the prime reason being that the State Commission was not satisfied with the "form" in which such petition had been presented.

Mr. Hemant Sahai Mr. Aditya K. Singh Ms. Anukriti Jain Ms. Molshree Bhatnagar Ms. Puja Priyadarshini Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Ms. Poorva Saigal Ms. Anushree Bardhan Mr. Shubham Arya Ms. Tanya Sareen Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey for R-2 2 Original Petition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2019 Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Nishant for R-3 & 4 Mr. Brahmanandam (Rep.) for R-5 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2 OF 2019 SB Energy Solar Private Limited 1st Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset Area-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, Delhi - 110037. .... PETITIONER Versus

1. These Appeals are filed by the solar power plants challenging impugned order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "APERC" or "State Commission"). The petitions pending before APERC was for 9 Appeal Nos. 368, 369, 370, 371, 372 & 373 of 2019 approval for procurement of power by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which are hereinafter referred to as "AP Discoms", at the tariff competitively determined.

1. The present Execution Petition is filed by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Page 1 of 25 EP No.09 of 2016 in A. No. 171 of 2012 Limited ("TPDDL/Petitioner") for execution of the Judgment dated 10.02.2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 171 of 2012. The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the tariff order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Delhi Commission/Respondent") in Petition No. 05 of 2012 whereby, the true up of expenses of the Petitioner for FY 2010-11 and ARR for the Control Period FY 2012-13 to FY 2014-15 were determined. By the said judgment this Tribunal has inter-alia decided as under:-

1. The present Appeal No. 340 of 2016 has been preferred by M/s. Azure Sunrise Private Limited (Appellant) against the Impugned Order Dated 14th December, 2016 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter the "State Commission") in Petition No. 19/ 2016 (hereinafter the "Petition"), wherein the State Commission has arbitrarily and unjustifiably retrospectively reduced the approved extension of time of 137 days granted by the distribution licensee, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter the "CESCOM") to only 25 days, after more than 12 months of such extension being granted and acted upon by both the parties and has further recorded that the necessary consequences as per the terms of the PPA (as defined hereinafter) shall follow.

1. The present appeal has been filed by Indian Captive Power Producers Association (ICPPA) (Appellant) against the daily order dated 01.02.2019 ("impugned order") passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission ("Respondent Commission") in Petition No. 1672 of 2017, preferred by the Appellant. Vide the present appeal, the Appellant is seeking necessary directions for expediting the proceedings in Petition No. 1672 of 2017 preferred by the Appellant. Under the aforesaid Petition, the Appellant is seeking amendment of the provisions of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 ("GERC OA Regulations, 2011") as detailed therein. However, even after a lapse of more than 2 years, the Respondent Commission has failed to hear the Petition on merits, thereby leading to a delay in deciding the said case.

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Swasti Power Limited ("Appellant") under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Electricity Act"), challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission's ("State Commission / Respondent No.1") Order dated 21.10.2015 in Petition No. 08 of 2015 ("Impugned Order") whereby the State Commission despite coming to the conclusion that the Respondents are in breach of their obligations towards construction of 220/33KV sub-station at Ghansali or in strengthening/augmentation of the existing 33KV evacuation system had erroneously dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant while holding that there is no specific condition under the Power Wheeling Agreement dated 30.09.2005 and Power Purchase Agreement dated 03.07.2009 executed between the parties, under which the Appellant could be compensated for the loss of generation due to inactions of the Respondent No. 2 & 3.

2. The facts, which led to filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:

Admittedly, the 2nd Respondent is the HT consumer of electricity having Contract Demand of 3500 KVA with the Appellant. It entered into an agreement on 10.10.2011 with the Appellant-Discom for supply of power in terms of above Contract of Demand.

3. Apparently, consumer company made an application for energy drawl from open access through IEX and it was considered as short term open access (STOA) consumer. Admittedly, in terms of Regulation 26(vii) of the RERC (Terms and conditions for Open access) Regulations 2016 (for short "Regulations of 2016"), every short term open access consumer shall provide the injection/drawl schedule (block- wise maximum power) for inter-State transactions every day to SLDC, RDPPC and the Distribution Licensee before 10:00 am of the day 3 preceding the day of drawl/injection as per the open access capacity sanctioned.

1. By this appeal, challenge has been brought to order dated 04.03.2015 of first Respondent i.e. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter variously referred to as "WBERC" or "State Commission") in case No. TP-55/13-14 thereby determining Multi Year Tariff (MYT) for the period beginning with financial year (FY) 2014-15 upto FY 2016-17 by which the appellant, representing a set of industrial consumers, claims to be adversely affected. The grievances of the Appellant relate to alleged inherent inconsistency in the approach on account of "excessive allowance of power purchase cost"; non-compliance of Tariff Regulations in matter relating to "Provisional Determination of Project Cost" of specific units; incorrect treatment of "non-tariff income"; and, erroneous "recurring" allowance of "interest on working capital loan" provided by Government of West Bengal without scrutiny as to delay in repayment.

Mr. Amit Kapur Ms. Poonam Verma Mr. Saunak Kumar Mr. Rajguru Mr. Sidhant Kaushik Ms. Aparajita Upadhyay Ms. Adhishree Chakraborty Ms. Sakshi Kapoor Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Ms. Abiha Zaidi for R-2 Order PER HON'BLE MR. S. D. DUBEY, TECHNICAL MEMBER IA No. 324 of 2020

1. Against the backdrop of validity of certain acts of the third Respondent (Procurer) encashing the Performance Bank Guarantee and terminating the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) being questioned by the Appellant (Developer), the issues of the propriety of the approach of Appeal No. 319 of 2019 & IA Nos. 1565, 1566 & 1915 of 2019 Page 2 of 37 the first Respondent - Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "UPERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission") - to the process of adjudication and the general expectation of its neutrality particularly at the stage of an appellate scrutiny of its decision by this Tribunal have come up for consideration in this appeal.

1. The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3

In terms of guidelines issued by Ministry of Power (MoP) for determination of tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensees, on 18.05.2009, Respondent No.3- MSEDCL issued a request for proposal for procurement of 2000 MW (+30%-20%) for a period of 25 years on long term basis. In that process, the following bidders were qualified:

i. Emco Energy Ltd. ( 200 MW @2.879 Rs/kWh) ii. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Amravati) ( 1200 MW @ 3.260 Rs/kWh) iii. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd (1200 MW @ 3.280 Rs/kWh) iv. Rattan India Power Ltd. (Nashik) (950 MW @ 3.450 Rs/kWh v. Wardha Power Company Ltd. (675 MW @ 3.620 Rs/kWh)

1. These two matters have come up against almost identical backdrop of proceedings recorded by Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to variously as "TNERC" or "State Commission" or "Commission"), the Appellant in first captioned appeal being Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited, which was the petitioner in D.R.P. No. 19 of 2012, the second captioned appeal having been instituted by Samalpatti Power Company Private Limited, petitioner in D.R.P. No. 16 of 2012.

2. It appears that the said two petitions had come up for consideration before the State Commission around the same point of time, the hearing having been concluded, the orders having been reserved by similar proceedings recorded on 21.12.2018. Noticeably at that stage, the State Commission was functional in full strength with the Chairman and two Members in position. Before orders could be passed in either of the said matters, one of the members (Mr. G. Rajagopal) Appeal No. 127 of 2019 and Appeal No. 146 of 2019 Page 3 of 8 demitted office in January, 2019. Meanwhile, certain written submissions had been placed on record by the parties which were respondents before the State Commission (respondents in these appeals as well). Along with the said written submissions, certain documents were submitted to which exception was taken by the appellants primarily on the ground that it was new material, taking on board the same amounting to (as per their contention) amendment of the pleadings, it being statedly impermissible at the stage at which it had been tendered for record. Since the Registry of the Commission seems to have returned such material upon objections being taken, the respondents herein were constrained to file applications - i.e. IA No. 1 of 2019 in the first captioned matter and IA No. 2 of 2019 in the other matter.

1. This Appeal is filed by Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited challenging the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "APERC/Commission").

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present Appeal are as under:

(i) 2nd Respondent - M/s SNJ Sugars & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.

is a sugar plant with co-generation power plant having capacity of 20 MW. It uses bagasse as a fuel for power generation. It approached the Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (known as "NEDCAP") for setting up of power plant and accordingly it got the approval on 07.04.2000.

1. The Appellant West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company (WBSEDCL) has come up with the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Central Commission) in Petition No. 298/MP/2018 which had been instituted by the Respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking declaration as to right to recover a sum aggregating Rs.111,74,47,434 Crores towards principal and delayed payment surcharge at the rate of 1.5% per month as on 31.08.2019 along with further interest till payment. It appears that the Appellant had resisted the claim by raising the issue of limitation pleading that the Appeal No. 20 of 2020 Page 2 of 5 petition of DVC could not be entertained, it being time barred.

The depressing sameness of the days for those locked-in as the epidemic rages, is relieved only by the 24X7 flow of electricity – the juice that keeps us all connected, informed, entertained and as summer...

Archives, Room Use Only - TK144.F67 1846

Archives, Room Use Only - HD9685.G7 B69 1986

Archives, Room Use Only - QC517.S935 1830

Archives, Room Use Only - Z5831.R66 1994

Archives, Room Use Only - QC521.B35 1857

Archives, Room Use Only - TK5264.F74 1901

Archives, Room Use Only - TK145.F57 1884

Archives, Room Use Only - TK5266.H47 1897

Archives, Room Use Only - TF627.P74 1863

Archives, Room Use Only - TK5262.F74 1901

Archives, Room Use Only - QC517.C85 1821

Archives, Room Use Only - UG610.S74 1917

Archives, Room Use Only - QC527.C13 1891b

Archives, Room Use Only - QC507.M53x

Archives, Room Use Only - TK151.B43 1901

Archives, Room Use Only - QC527.H37 1853