Reading Time: 2 minutes
In a recent matter before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC), a dispute arose concerning the denial of Long-Term Open Access (LTOA) for a wind energy project. The case, involving JB Renewable LLP and JB Ecotex LLP as petitioners and the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) as the primary respondent, centered on the inability to utilize energy generated from a 2.1 MW wind turbine for third-party sale due to alleged policy restrictions.
The petitioners claimed that DGVCL’s communication, dated August 30, 2019, unlawfully restricted energy wheeling arrangements, citing a limitation that third-party sales cannot exceed 50% of contracted demand. The petitioners argued this restriction is only applicable for captive use under the Gujarat Wind Power Policy, 2016, and not for third-party transactions. Despite this, the energy generated from September 2019 to February 2020, amounting to over 2.56 million units, was injected into the grid. The petitioners also paid necessary transmission charges to Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation (GETCO). However, DGVCL allegedly denied signing a wheeling agreement and retained the revenue by selling the energy to other consumers.
The petitioners sought amendments to their original petition, adding a prayer for the adjustment of the energy generated during the disputed period in their consumption bills. They contended that their plea for amendments was based on subsequent developments and that addressing these issues would not prejudice the respondents.
DGVCL, in its response, raised several objections. It argued that the amendments introduced new claims, were barred by limitations, and contradicted settled principles of law. The company maintained that no agreement existed for wheeling the energy in question and that allowing such amendments would cause inequity and disrupt settled accounts. Further, DGVCL asserted that any injection into the grid without a valid agreement was wrongful and could not justify relief.
After considering the arguments, the Commission acknowledged the contested nature of the amendment but permitted the petitioners to amend their pleadings. The decision aims to facilitate a comprehensive examination of the case’s merits. The Commission emphasized that allowing amendments does not guarantee relief and that all issues, including objections regarding limitations and equity, will be addressed during the final hearing.
The petitioners have been instructed to submit their amended petition within a week, while the respondents have two weeks to file their responses. The case is scheduled for the next hearing on November 28, 2024.
