If Fraud Committed, Victim Is Consumer Resident: Expert Aram Gabrielyan on Jradzor SHPP Case

If Fraud Committed, Victim Is Consumer Resident: Expert Aram Gabrielyan on Jradzor SHPP Case


On On July 29, 2010, the Public Services Regulatory Commission of the Republic of Armenia discussed the draft decision to impose a fine on "ANI" OJSC. The project envisages imposing a fine of 1 million AMD on ANI OJSC and securing 400 million AMD of damages caused by the company to ENA.

The PSRC recalculated payments for electricity delivered from a small hydroelectric power plant at Jradzor and substantiated that according to the  governmental resolution in 2017 “Gateway Canal Metering Observatory was transferred to ANI Company, while the dam, as well as 5 main canal structures have not been transferred to the Company and are state-owned. And the company has used it, which has played a role in changing the energy tariff.

The hearing was postponed, the company petitioned to the State Cadastre Committee for clarification.

Expert Aram Gabrielyan wrote on his Facebook page about the commission meeting:

"Who is the main instigator of fraud is difficult to understand in the current legislative field. They have focused on the ownership of the head-water intake hub. At first glance, it may not seem to be the most important issue, but ownership of the dam and head node is important as it gives grounds for transferring the SHPP from "built on irrigation system" status to "built on natural drain" high at a price too to sell electricity to ENA, which is what happened.

The important part for the resident starts here and questions arise:

1. If fraud has occurred, then the victim is not the ENA but the energy consuming resident. So why does the Commission propose to compensate for the ENA's "damage"?

And environmentalists have another question. Who allowed the river bed to be allowed if the RA Water Code (Article 32) prohibits it? ”

August 12, 2019 at 16:07