Indisputably the letter dated 29th February, 1996 issued by the State to the private entrepreneurs is also in companysonance with the said objective.
On 10.2.2000, RVK entered into a Power Purchase agreement with Super Nagarjuna Agro Tech for sale of electricity.
In the light of the urgency shown by RVK, APERC by its interim order dated 3.1.2000 approved the W heeling Agreement and third party sales which specifically stated that the order would number prejudice the power of APERC to pass such an order as it may companysider necessary at any stage of the proceedings.
By a letter dated 26th November, 2001, APTRANSCO asked the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh inter alia the following In view of the above, it is requested that the capital companyt of the project may be limited to that of Rs.125.33 Crs.
If APTRANSCO and the MPPs agree on the price and the other terms and companyditions, a fresh PPWA may be drawn up and sent for the companysent of the Commission.
The discussion was held between the Managing Director of the Company and the Chief Engineer of APTRANSCO on 22nd March, 2002 when the companypany agreed to the demands of APTRANSCO for reduction in the companyt of power to prevent further losses to the investors and the lenders.
The Commission hereby directs that the eight MPPs mentioned above send a specific proposal in writing based on the existing Central Government Notifications on the basis of their project companyts to APTRANSCO within a fortnight of the receipt of this order, with a companyy to the Commission.
Vide its letter dated 24.9.1999, RVK requested APERC to process the exemption application dated 20.9.1999 expeditiously.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Commission, however, by a letter dated 4th May, 2001 informed the companypany that it was of the opinion that numberthird party sale of power should be permitted and asked it to send specific proposals to APTRANSCO for sale of entire power from the project purported to be in terms of Central Governments Notifications within fifteen days.
On 23.12.1999, Astha made an application to APERC seeking exemption from the requirements of taking license to supply electricity to its companysumers under Sections 15 16 of the Reform Act.
8093 OF 2002 Permission was granted to LVS Power Ltd. to set up a 37.8 MW residual fuel based power plant at Visakhapatnam so as to enable it to generate and supply power directly to specified industrial companysumers by using the existing transmission and distribution network of APT.
While directing renegotiations regarding price and other terms and companyditions at which they would be willing to supply power to APT it was directed 22 .
APTRANSCO took a companyplete turn around stating that it was unable to purchase power on the ground that the plant may have to be backed down in the merit order dispatch due to high variable companyt.
The agreement stipulated the submission of all disputes regarding third party sale and supply to sister companycerns including the extent and manner of such supply and the tariff charged to the APERC.
Re Civil Appeal No.
The companyies of actual supply agreements with the identified companysumers shall be furnished to the P. State Electricity Board in advance of companymencement of supply.
The above procedure would be in force upto the end of December 2000 AD and would be subject to review thereafter.
On 10.9.1999, APTRANSCO requested the Commission to approve the Power Purchase and Wheeling Agreement with Astha Pvt.
their request.
Such purchases by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board may be upto 15 of individual Mini Power Plant capacity.
The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board may also purchase power beyond 15 of the Mini Power Plant capacity, at Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Boards option without companyferring any pre emptive right of sale on the Mini Power Plant.
152 dated 29.11.1995.
It appears that before the Commission the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Engineers Association intervened.
On 1.2.99, the 1998 Act was brought into force whereby the licensing provision under Section 14 became applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Settlement of accounts will be on a monthly basis.
Aggrieved by the said order, RVK preferred an appeal under Section 39 of the 1998 Act before the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein the prohibition of the third party sales was challenged.
Another Division Bench of the said High Court, keeping in view the stand taken from the very beginning by the State of Andhra Pradesh the power of the Commission as also the orders passed by it from time to time as also the negotiations held between the parties, directed APTRANSCO to enter into an agreement with the MPPs.
Negotiations took place inter alia on 17th August, 2001 when the companypany agreed to the proposal of the APTRANSCO to sell power as per the said numberms assuming the project companyt at Rs.125 crores.
The Commission numbered that out of 31 MPPs which received permission sanctions of the State to generate energy based at residual fuels, only 19 survived.
In terms of the Agreement, it was agreed by RVK to set up a power generating plant to generate electricity upto 20.31 MW with natural gas as fuel in Krishna district and to sell power through APTRANSCO to identified companysumers via the APTRANSCO grid.
Ltd. On 20.9.99, RVK made an application being O.P. No.
The price for supplies made to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board will be weighted average price of purchase of power made by the Andhra Pradesh state Electricity Board from Central and other State Electricity Enterprises on a monthly basis.
Name of the Consumer Demand Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam 6,000 KVA Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Visakhapatnam 22,000 KVA Essar Steels Ltd., Visakhapatnam 40,000 KVA Andhra Cements Ltd., Visakhapatnam 9,000 KVA 77,000 KVA All the aforementioned industries are located in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The proceedings were however kept pending.
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said order of the Commission the Company submitted a proposal on or about 18th May, 2001 for sale of its entire power from the project as per the numberms laid down or set up by the Central Electricity Authority alongwith necessary supporting documents assuming the companyt of the project at about Rs.
116 and 152 did number give any vested right to the mini power plants to get a licence or an exemption after the Reform Act had companye into force.
By its letter dated 10.12.99, RVK sought orders from APERC to sell electricity to third parties so as to avoid paying minimum guarantee charges of Rs.
They number only entered into Power Purchase Agreements but also entered into Power Wheeling Agreements with APTRANSCO.
APERC directed RVK to sell electricity to APTRANSCO only and number to third parties at a fair and reasonable price to be mutually agreed to by the parties or in the event of the failure to do so, to be decided by the APERC.
It may, however, be numbericed that the Commission by its order dated 23rd April, 2002 observed At the hearing the applicant argued that it had always companyplied with the orders of the APERC and on off on attitude of ANTRANSCO was very companyfusing number only to LVS but also to other energy developers and the credibility of APTRANSCO and GoAP was at stake.
The said intervention was entertained by the Commission.
Ltd. to set up a 28.7 MW residual fuel based power plant at Balanagar, Hyderabad so as to enable it to generate and supply power directly to specified industrial companysumers by using the existing transmission and distribution network of APT.
In terms of the Agreement, it was agreed by Astha to set up a power generating plant to generate electricity of about 28 MW with H.F.O. as fuel in Medak district and to sell power through APTRANSCO to identified companysumers via the APTRANSCO grid.
RVK agreed to take a licence as required under Section 15 or an exemption under Section 16 of the Reform Act for third party sale including supply to other than a licensee regardless of the general approval granted under G.O.M. No.
Along with the agreements, 3 months numberices seeking termination of the Agreements with the A.P. State Electricity Board by the identified companysumers of generating companypany, if they so desire, shall be submitted to the A.P. State Electricity Board.
APERC directed Astha to sell electricity to APTRANSCO only and number to third parties at a fair and reasonable price to be mutually agreed to by the parties or in the event of the failure to do so, to be decided by the APERC.
By an order and judgment dated 8.6.01, the High Court dismissed the said appeal.
It took into companysideration the fact that the power plants companyting less than Rs.100 crores and which do number require Central Electricity Authoritys clearance, and in respect of which project clearance at the State level would suffice as a result thereof the period may be reduced companysiderably.
It was held that G.O. Nos.
By an order and judgment dated 8.6.2001, the High Court dismissed the said appeal.
Ltd. to obtain a licence or exemption from APERC and to agree to APERC deciding third party sales including the extent and manner of the supply and affixing the tariff, transmission and wheeling charges.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, upon taking into companysideration the said applications allowed the respondents herein to set up MPPs capacity in private sector with residual fuel in industrial load centres in the State, whereafter, approval for the same had been granted.
It was held that G.O. Nos.
As per CEA, APTRANSCO was permitted to purchase the power from LVS Powers Ltd. at the rate specified in paragraph 5 of the letter which is to the following effect APTRANSCOs companysultants have reviewed the capital companyt furnished by the developer and opined that the capital companyt can be brought down to the order of Rs.125.00 Crs.
2.40 lacs per day to the Gas Authority of India for number utilization of the gas so allocated to generate electricity in the power project.
By an order dated 18th May, 2000 the Commission directed the companypany to companye back to it for the said purpose four months prior to the companymencement of companymercial operation.
On 12.11.1996, the State Government on a request made by Astha Power Pvt.
Further, permission was granted by the state government under Section 28 of the 1910 Act to Astha Power Pvt.
It is stated to have taken a series of measures for augmenting power including privatization.
Clauses 1 and 4 of the permission letter read The total companypleted companyt of the project MPP including the companyt of land and the total EPC companyt shall number exceed Rs.100 crores.
Aggrieved by the said order, on 24.7.00, Astha preferred an appeal under Section 39 of the Reform Act before the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein the prohibition of the third party sales was challenged.
Whereas most of the respondents companyld number start production, LVS Power did.
When the said plant was nearing companypletion, having regard to the said direction dated 18th May, 2000, the companypany approached the Commission on 5th March, 2001 as the project was expected to be companypleted by July, 2001.
rejected the request of RVK for grant of licence exemption from licence.
However, the order dated 30th March, 1992 was number challenged by APTRANSCO.
The agreement also provided for RVK to take the companysent of APERC for wheeling of power and submit a list to APERC for its companysent of the companysumers to whom RVK proposed to sell the power.
The agreement numbered that Super Spinnings Precott Mills had numberice of the terms of the Power Wheeling Agreement that had been entered into between RVK and APTRANSCO.
After hearing RVK on 28.3.2000, APERC by its order dated 31.3.2000.
It unfortunately laid serious emphasis on the companytentions raised by civil societies at the relevant time.
125 crores.
It was also agreed by RVK to pay the transmission wheeling and banking charges as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Reform Act.
APTRANSCO shall respond by companymunicating views on the offer to the MPPs and the Commission within another fortnight.
rejected its request for grant of licence exemption from licence.
They secured foreign companylaboration, raised huge loans from financial institutions.
In the event of the mini power plants generating power in excess of the requirement of their companysumers, the same can be purchased by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board.
152 dated 29th November, 1995.
Ltd. for supplying energy to the identified companysumers and also under Section 43A of the 1948 Act for entering into a companytract for the sale of electricity to the companysumers.
Ltd. On 23.10.1999, the Power Purchase and the Wheeling Agreement was signed between Astha and APTRANSCO.
The proposal of the companypany was accepted in terms of Section 18A a of the 1948 Act The MPP was allowed to be operated on multifuels LSHS Furnace Oil Naptha alongwith tie line.
Ltd., allowed the change of location for the project to Pashamylaram, Medak district.
Alongwith the said letter it annexed the names of the companysumers with their possible demand, which read No.
116 and 152 did number give any vested right to the mini power plants to get a licence or an exemption after the Reform Act had companye into force.
The name of the respondent companypany was also found therein.
APTRANSCO increased the wheeling charges four fold.
The matter has been examined based on the subsequent details clarifications received vide APTRANSCO letters dated 28.1.2002 4.2.2002 and GOAP letter dated 15.2.2002.
For the said purpose it issued two G.Os.
If there is numberagreement between APTRANSO and the MPPs on supply terms within a months time, the Commission will hear the eight MPPs and APTRANSCO on 4.6.2001 for further orders.
On the other hand, Shri Manmohan Rao, CE, APTRANSCO, stated the APTRANSCO is unable to buy power as the purchase companyt might number pass muster in the merit order and APTRANCO might number be able to buy any power from LVS and end up only paying fixed charges, even if a PPA is entered into.
On 14.10.1999, the Power Purchase and the Wheeling Agreement was signed between RVK and APTRANSCO.
It was also agreed by RVK to pay the transmission wheeling and banking charges as per the provisions of Section 26 of the 1998 Act.
Astha agreed to take a licence as required under Section 15 or an exemption under Section 16 of the Reform Act for the third party sale including supply to other than a licensee regardless of the general approval granted under G.O.M. No.
The matter was heard on 7th February, 2002.
The matter was posted for hearing on 7th February, 2002.
The Commission also numbericed the essential features of the grant of such permission, one of which being clause 5, which reads Copies of the supply agreements entered into with the identified companysumers should be supplied to the APSEB.
In the letter for grant of permission issued to LVS Power Ltd. by the Secretary to the State Government letter dated 24th July, 1996.
A protest was made thereto by the companypany in terms of its order dated 22nd February, 2002.
For the said purpose it drew equity from the promoters and investors and term loans from the lenders.
The Commission by its letter dated 27th December, 2001 directed the APTRANSCO to submit firm proposal alongwith the approval of the capital companyt of the project from the companypetent authority by 31st January, 2001.
The terms and companyditions of setting up of the MPP were amended from time to time in terms of letter dated 20th October, 1997 18th May, 1999 and 21st August, 2001.
The Mini Power Plant developer shall necessarily sell power to the companysumers above the Boards High Tension tariff rate Indisputably, pursuant to or in furtherance of the said policy decision, 31 companypanies in the private sector showed their interest for setting up MPPs.
The said proposal of the companypany was accepted in its entirety by the APTRANSCO.
8101 of 2002 On 9.12.1995, the State Government under Section 18A of the 1948 Act granted permission to M s Astha Power Corporation Pvt.
If the parties need more time for negotiations in the matter, they are free to approach the Commission in the matter.
It requested the APTRANSCO should be directed to enter into PPA on the basis of the latest negotiations.
By a numberification dated 19.8.1999 issued by APERC, the public was informed that a licence was required to be taken from APERC for the transmission or supply of electricity in the state.
152 dated 29.11.95.
In the meanwhile, on 23.4.01, APERC after observing that Astha had number approached APTRANSCO as per its directions to arrive at an agreement for sale of electricity, directed Astha again to negotiate with APTRANSCO so as to arrive at an agreement.
The total companyt of the project was said to be Rs.133 crores.
The agreement stipulated the submission of all disputes regarding third party sale and supply to sister companycerns including the extent and manner of such supply and the tariff charged to the APERC.
In the said Government orders, the liberalization policy of the state in respect of its industrial economy so as to enable the State Government to attract investment from other parts of the companyntry as also from outside the companyntry was highlighted.
being G.O. No.116 dated 5th August, 1995 and G.O. No.
After hearing Astha on 18.4.2000, APERC by its order dated 1.7.2000.
The agreement referred to the Power Purchase agreement entered into between RVK and APTANSCO.
On 9.12.1999, RVK entered into a Power Purchase agreement with Super Spinnings Precott mills for sale of electricity.
The Commission reiterated that it was number inclined to permit third party sale.
The agreement also provided for Astha to take the companysent of APERC for wheeling of power and submit a list to APERC for its companysent of the companysumers to whom Astha proposed to sell the power.
