The Supreme Court on Monday requested Punjab State Power Corporation (PSPCL) to present particulars of the funds made to genco Talwandi Sabo Power (TSPL), in direction of the incremental value incurred in procurement of imported coal for supplying energy to the state discom, together with different expenses.
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) had in July 2021 requested PSPCL to pay round Rs 500 crore, together with curiosity, to TSPL for default in cost for buy of imported coal in 2017.
The situation pertains to the procurement of home coal from Mahanadi Coalfields (MCL) to undertake era of electrical energy at Talwandi’s 2×660-MW unit and provide of electrical energy to PSPCL for distribution within the state.
A bench led by Justice JK Maheshwari, whereas searching for a response from TSPL, requested PSPCL to present particulars of the funds made underneath numerous heads as directed by the tribunal. It additionally posted the matter for additional listening to in July after PSCPL knowledgeable the judges that it had to date paid Rs 350 crore to the generator.
PSPCL has moved the Supreme Court in opposition to APTEL’s judgment that put aside the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission’s orders and allowed the incremental value incurred by TSPL in procuring alternate/imported coal for supplying energy to PSPCL and different expenses, together with deemed capability expenses and late cost surcharge. It held that signing of a gas provide settlement (FSA), association of coal for the undertaking and cost of coal expenses was the duty of PSPCL.
PSCPL stated that the tribunal had proceeded to permit the declare of TSPL for procurement of alternate coal, even though TSPL didn’t select to requisition the entire home coal obtainable underneath the coal linkage with MCL and even when the paperwork on report clearly set up that TSPL had requisite quantum of coal obtainable from MCL.
As a part of the power expenses components within the PPA, PSPCL was required to pay the price of coal bought by the vendor (TSPL). However, as per the tribunal’s impugned order, PSCPL is now additionally required to buy coal for TSPL and pay the price of coal as part of power expenses to TSPL, which might be conflicting, the attraction filed by the state discom stated.
Pursuant to a tariff-based aggressive bid course of, PSCPL and TSPL had in 2008 entered right into a long-term PPA for 25 years. The state discom was supposed to rearrange for the gas linkage of seven.72 million tonne every year from MCL and assign the identical to TSPL. “And thereafter, it was for TSPL to procure the coal on a regular basis during the term of the PPA. In any event the actual procurement of coal required from MCL on a continuous basis is the obligation of and had to be undertaken by TSPL and not by the discom,” the attraction stated.
“During the period from June, 2017 to October, 2018, TSPL had not procured the entire coal available under the coal linkage, for reasons best known to TSPL. Having failed in its obligation to procure the available coal, TSPL claiming higher tariff for coal arranged from imported/alternate sources, which was refused by PSCPL,” the attraction acknowledged.
While TSPL had moved the state fee in 2018 searching for value of alternate coal for June to September 2017 and October 2017 to September 2018, respectively, the state fee rejected its petition in April 2019 on the grounds that although the producing firm had claimed power majeure because of a hearth incident, it had deserted this declare and TSPL had been persistently short-requisitioning coal since October 2016 onwards ,and had by no means utilised the total storage capability obtainable on the plant website.
Source: www.financialexpress.com”