 "Power Regulators bat for legislative changes to ensure grid security")
Taking a serious note of grid collapse, which took place twice last year (July 30 & 31), the Forum of Regulators (FoR), a representative body of power regulators, has emphasized a need for ring-fencing of Load Despatch Centres by amending sections 27 and 31 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to provide that a government company other than a generating company or licensee or authority or corporation be designated to operate regional load dispatch centre (RLDC) or state load dispatch centre (SLDC).
Besides, FoR has called for delegation of powers of a civil court including the power of execution to Appropriate Commission and non compliance of such orders be treated as contempt of court.
FoR has opposed any move to empower RLDC or SLDC to impose penalty for non compliance by amending sections 29 and 33 of the Electricity Act, 2003. FoR, which discussed these amendments at its recent meeting, said the imposition of penalty by RLDC or SLDC does not go with the role assigned to these institutions.
“Further, the principle of natural justice demands that any person being imposed penalty must be given an opportunity of being heard. The matters involving imposing of penalty are adjudicatory in nature and the law generally defines the process of adjudication of disputes. Provision of appeal is also provided. The proposed amendment does not take care of these factors,” FoR observed.
Moreover, FoR has suggested that under section 94 of the Electricity Act the Appropriate Commission should have all the powers of a civil court including the power of execution.
“The power ministry could consider amendment to provide that ‘non-compliance of orders of the Appropriate Commission would be treated as contempt of court,” FoR said.
According to FoR, there is a need to enhance the penalties under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and treating the order of the Appropriate Commission as a decree of the Civil Court.
However, FoR said the imposition of penalty is an adjudicatory process and proper procedures are required to be followed and there should be a provision for appeal. FoR reiterated that the amendment should provide that non-compliance of the orders or directions of the Appropriate Commission would be treated as contempt of court.