chhattisgarh state electricity regulatory commission 1 of 24 petition no. 78 of 2013(d) in the...

of 24

Petition No. 78 of 2013(D)

In the Matter of

Petition under Regulation 13.6 of the State Electricity Grid

Code, 2011

M/s Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd.,

Siltara, Raipur …. Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission

Co. Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.)

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution

Co. Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.)

3. M/s Jagdamba Power & Alloys Ltd.,

Raipur (C.G.) …. Respondents

Present: Narayan Singh, Chairman

Vinod Shrivastava, Member

ORDER

(Passed on 11.09.2014)

1. The petitioner herein, M/s Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. is an

Integrated Steel Plant situated in Siltara Industrial Area,

Raipur comprising of manufacturing facilities for Sponge Iron

(DRI), MS Billets, Ferro Alloys and MS Wires. The petitioner

has also set up power generation facility of 73 MW.

2. The petitioner is a 'captive generating plant' within the

meaning of section 2(8) of the Electricity Act, 2003 with zero

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Shanti Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Raipur - 492 001 (C.G.)

Ph. 0771-4048788, Fax: 2445857 Website: www.cserc.gov.in, E-mail: [email protected]

of 24

contract demand and is presently connected through the 132

KV DCSS dedicated feeder (constructed by the petitioner)

with the 220/132 KV Siltara sub-station of the respondent.

3. The Respondent, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Co.

Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'CSPTCL'), is a deemed

licensee (STU) within the meaning of section 14 of the

Electricity Act, 2003.

4. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner under Regulation

13.6 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Grid Code, 2011

("Grid Code"), seeking relaxation from the Commission from

complying with the provisions of Regulation 4.2.1 and

Regulation 4.2.2 of the Grid Code.

5. As per petitioner, he is intending to avail the entire quantum

of 25 MW electricity generated by one of its group companies

i.e. M/s Jagdamba Power & Alloys Ltd. ("JPAL"), located near

to the petitioner for captive use. It is submitted that the

petitioner is holding ownership of 26.06% equity in JPAL, and

is thus a captive consumer of JPAL, subject to fulfillment of

51% consumption norm in terms of Rule 3 of the Electricity

Rules, 2005.

6. As per the petitioner, in order to avail the 25 MW power from

JPAL, the petitioner has written to the respondent STU,

requesting that JPAL be disconnected from the grid sub-

station and the power generated by JPAL be transmitted to

of 24

the petitioner through the vacant second circuit of existing

132 KV dedicated line constructed by the petitioner. However,

the respondent has orally informed the petitioner that the

transmission of power of JPAL through the vacant second

circuit of existing 132 KV dedicated line to the petitioner is not

possible as the respondent has already planned to utilize the

vacant second circuit for its own purpose and for which

necessary steps have already been initiated.

7. Further, considering the above and also that the petitioner

and JPAL are located in different directions of same industrial

area and the option of laying a dedicated line between the

two plants is practically not possible, hence, the petitioner has

no other option but to seek approval for tapping of line of

JPAL with petitioner's existing 132 KV line. As per Regulation

4.2.1, Note 2, the licensee may, under special circumstances,

consider any deviation from the prescribed quantum for

injection of power to the state grid with reference to voltage

of injection, subject to technical feasibility and specific

approval by the Commission, and further subject to fulfillment

of minimum technical requirement of meter as specified in

Regulation 8.6 of the Grid Code. In the instant case, though it

may appear at first that the petitioner's installed capacity is

higher than the prescribed permissible limits on 132 KV i.e.

upto 75 MVA for single circuit, transmission of power on the

proposed tapped line will never exceed the permissible limit

of 24

due to limitation of its transformer capacity. As such, the

Commission may consider relaxation of the above norm in

view of the special circumstances of the instant case and non

availability of vacant second circuit.

8. The petitioner further submitted that as per provisions of

Regulation 4.2.4 of the Grid Code, the Commission is

competent to consider the connectivity as proposed by the

petitioner for availing the 25 MW electricity of JPAL for captive

use, as a special case on account of the fact that laying down

of dedicated line between the two plants is impractical and

also because the vacant second circuit of the 132 KV

dedicated line is not available.

9. As per petitioner, the erstwhile CSEB has sanctioned for

construction of 1 No. of 132 KV bay at 220/132 KV sub-

station Siltara, for 132 KV DCSS line, so that the petitioner

could avail dedicated connectivity with the grid. After

depositing an amount of Rs. 1,01,52,575/- with CSEB for

execution of the above work.

10. Now, the petitioner has planned to expand its Steel Melting

Shop requiring an additional power of approximately 25 MW.

The petitioner's group company i.e. JPAL which is an

independent power plant is also having dedicated connectivity

on 132 KV with 220/132 KV S/s Siltara with installed capacity

of 24

of 25 MW and injecting power with the grid for third party

sale.

11. In order to fulfill the requirement of consumption of 51%

power from JPAL so that the petitioner may qualify as a

'captive user', the petitioner vide letter dated 14.11.2013

requested for permission from the respondent to synchronize

the captive generators of the petitioner with that of JPAL

through the vacant second circuit of the existing 132 KV

dedicated line constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner

proposed that JPAL be disconnected from the substation / grid

and the power generated by JPAL be transmitted to the

petitioner through the vacant second circuit of existing 132

KV dedicated line constructed by the petitioner. It is also

submitted that the said proposal is within the tenets of the

Grid Code as well as the petitioner's legal right to use the

power of its group company i.e. JPAL, for captive use, as per

Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005. However, no favorable

consideration of the aforesaid proposal has been received by

the petitioner from the respondent till date.

12. In view of the above, following peculiar circumstances arise in

the instant case which require consideration of the

Commission:

(a) The petitioner can lawfully use the power of its group

company i.e. JPAL for captive use;

of 24

(b) Ordinarily the petitioner could have and would have

used the power of JPAL by transmitting the same

through the vacant second circuit of existing 132 KV

dedicated line constructed by the petitioner and paid for

by the petitioner;

(c) However, the transmission licensee apparently requires

the same for its own purpose; and

(d) The petitioner and JPAL are located in different

directions of same industrial area and the option of

laying a dedicated line between the two plants is

practically impossible.

13. That having no other alternative available and having

analyzed all available options, the petitioner submits the

instant petition seeking relaxation from the Commission in the

provisions of the Grid Code in relation to line loading limits

and mode of connectivity.

14. Petitioner in its rejoinder dated 19.02.2014 has also

submitted that the above position has been further clarified

by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal No. 16 of 2013 vide

judgment dated 13.01.2014. The relevant portion is as

under:-

"17. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant

in view of the above judgment, it is now settled position that

a common evacuation system / transmission line can be built

of 24

for more than one generating station without obtaining a

transmission license.

Xxxxxxxxxxx

25. That apart, the dedicated transmission lines as defined

under the Act contemplate the same to connect two

generating stations.

26. The definition of the term 'dedicated transmission lines'

under the Electricity Act, 2003 is extracted below:

2(16) "Dedicated Transmission Lines" means any

electric supply line for point to point transmission which

are required for the purpose of connecting electric lines

or electric plants of a captive generating plant referred

to in Section 9 or generating station referred to in

Section 10 to any transmission lines or sub stations or

generating stations or the load centre, as the case may

be."

27. The reading of the above definition would make it clear

that merely because a transmission line connects two

generating stations, it does not lose the character of a

dedicated transmission line.

XXXXXXXXXXX

58. The next question is as follows: If two generating

stations can make use of a common evacuation system,

consisting of dedicated transmission lines, whether the

metering system and the energy computation formula

proposed by the Appellant and endorsed by Power Grid could

be utilized for accounting among the two systems?

XXXXXXXXXX"

of 24

15. In reply to the petition, the Respondent CSPTCL submitted

that at present M/s Godawri Power & Ispat Limited (herein

Petitioner) & M/s Jagdamba Power & Alloys Limited (JPAL) are

having connectivity with 220 KV substation Siltara through

132 KV independent & dedicated 132 KV DCSS lines.

16. The 132 KV DCSS dedicated line meant for Petitioner from

220 KV Substation Siltara to Petitioner premises was

constructed by erstwhile CSEB under deposit scheme and this

circuit was charged on 04.09.2007.

17. Similarly, the 132KV DCSS dedicated line from 220 KV

Substation Siltara to JPAL premises was constructed by

erstwhile CSEB under deposit scheme and this circuit was

charged on 10.03.2007.

18. The aforesaid connectivity arrangements of Petitioner and M/s

JPAL from 220 KV substation Siltara on 132 KV through

independent dedicated 132 KV feeder was made for

complying to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

19. As per CSEGC, the generators are to be connected through

dedicated feeder with the grid substation and metering

arrangements are provided that is in line with the CEA

Metering Code.

20. Dedicated line so constructed under deposit scheme shall be

the property of the licensee and can be utilized by him after

of 24

expiry of two years from the date of connection under the

provisions of prevailing Supply Code-2005 regulation 5.3.

21. The respondent has highlighted clause 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 of State

Grid Code-2011, which are as follows:-

Clause 4.2.1: Generating Stations: The voltages at which a

generating station may be connected with the grid of transmission

or distribution license (as applicable) can be 400, 220, 132 or 33

KV. The connection point/interface point shall be the point at the

sub-station of the licensee system where power is injected. The

metering point shall be at the connection point/interface point.

Following are the prescribed quantum for injection of power to the

state grid with reference to voltage of injection:-

S.N. Voltage of injection

Maximum Quantum of power that can be injected into grid

1 33 KV Up to 15 MVA

2 132 KV Up to 75 MVA for single circuit and 150 MVA for double circuit

3 220 KV Up to 200 MVA for single circuit and 400

MVA for double circuit

Note :-

1. For arriving at the quantum of power to be injected in MVA,

power factor as indicated in the nameplate or the design

details of the generator will be taken into account.

2. Under special circumstances, any deviation from the above

limits may be considered by the license subject to technical

feasibility and specific approval by the Commission. Subject

to fulfillment of minimum technical requirement of meter as

specified at clause no. 8.6 of this code.

3. Provision for redundancy in dedicated transmission line shall

be the responsibility of generator concerned.

of 24

Clause 4.2.2 : All the generating stations including captive

generating plants (CGP) having Injection and/or drawal

requirements of more than 15 MVA shall have connectivity with the

grid under either of the following modes, at their own cost, subject

to technical feasibility:-

1. At nearest EHV sub-station through dedicated EHV

transmission line.

2. At pooled/switching/load catering/step up EHV sub-station

with dedicated EHV transmission line.

3. No tap connectivity at EHV line shall be allowed.

22. Further clause 4.2.4 of State Grid Code-2011 says "All the

existing generators including CGPs connected with the grid

under any modes other than prescribed at clause 4.2.2 and

4.2.3 shall have to ensure connectivity with the grid as per

prescribed options given in Clause 4.2.2/4.2.3 failing which

their connectivity shall be liable for disconnection from the

grid. However, Commission may allow such connection for

Certain Period on request of the Intra-state user as a special

case on compelling reasons."

23. On going through the clause 4.2.2 of State Grid Code, it is

evident that connectivity of intra state user whether IPP/CPP

with the grid of the transmission licensee will be at EHV

substations through dedicated EHV lines or at pooled /

switching / load catering/ step up EHV sub-station and no tap

connectivity at EHV line shall be allowed.

24. Second circuit of 132 KV dedicated line meant for petitioner

connectivity is being used by the respondent for system

of 24

improvement work as approved by the Commission under

capital investment plan and hence cannot be spared to

petitioner for providing connectivity with JPAL.

25. In present scenario, as far as connectivity to Petitioner is

concerned, they are having grid connectivity with respondent

grid on 132 KV through 132 KV dedicated transmission line &

also for M/s JPAL, they are having independent grid

connectivity from respondent grid, and the petitioner can opt

open access for transfer of power for its own use as per the

provisions of the CSERC (Connectivity & intra State Open

Access) Regulations-2011.

26. The manner in which Petitioner has sought captive user status

of M/s JPAL under clause 3 of Electricity Rule 2005 by tapping

M/s JPAL generator on 132 KV dedicated line meant for

Petitioner is not permissible under any Act / Regulations.

Tapped connectivity of a generator (herein M/s JPAL) in to a

dedicated line meant for another captive consumer (herein

Petitioner) to fulfillment the criteria of captive user is against

the provision of EA-2003, Electricity Rule 2005 and the

prevailing CSEGC which is in consistent with the IEGC as per

the section 86(1) (h) of the EA-2003.

27. Definition of captive user as defined in electricity Rule 2005 is

"shall mean the end user of the electricity generated in

of 24

Captive Generating Plant and he term captive use" shall be

construed accordingly.

28. Petitioner is a CPP having own captive generation & captive

load cannot be termed as captive consumer of another

generator (herein M/s JPAL) under the ambit of clause 3 of

Electricity Rule 2005.

29. In the past Hon'ble commission through Suo-Motu motion

under petition No. 21/2009 (M) had regularized dedicated

connectivity with respondent grid substations of several

IPP/CPPs having tapped connectivity with grid after serving

notices to the generators, Transmission & Distribution

licensee.

30. Further relaxation as desired by the Petitioner in Grid Code-

2011 clause 4.2.2 can be permitted for certain period as a

special case. However, future planning to maintain

connectivity as per the provision of clause 4.2.2 by Petitioner

is missing in the instant petition. There is no provision for

permanent relaxation in Grid Code 2011 clause 4.2.2. In view

of it, the call of the petitioner is misleading and undefined.

31. Regarding granting relaxation in provisions of clause 4.2.1 i.e.

maximum power which can be injected by IPP/CPP in to the

grid on 132 KV that is 75 MVA per circuit, Petitioner in its

petition has highlighted action plan to limit their injection of

power in to the grid from their total capacity of generators i.e.

of 24

110 MW or 137 MVA and otherwise drawal from grid to meet

out their load (about 102 MW) which is a subject matter of

State Supply Code under the desired connectivity

arrangement under various contingencies like outage of load

& failure of generators respectively. Respondent states that

according to the technical standards of the CEA and the

provision in the Grid code a single Circuit 132 KV line is

sufficient only for 75 MVA, and the petitioner's proposal will

breach the aforesaid provision and endanger grid security.

32. Connectivity arrangement as desired by petitioner may lead

ambiguity while deciding the captive status of generators by

this Commission.

33. The petitioner themselves have admitted that they have

supply agreement with distribution licensee CSPDCL upto

01.10.2008. However, they do not intend to avail any

contract demand from CSPDCL even in future and this line is

primarily used for the purpose of evacuation of power. This

version of petitioner is incorrect and misleading. Recently

before filing the instant petition they have requested CSPDCL

for enhancement of CD from zero (0) to 4000 KVA.

34. Petitioner's submission about Hon'ble APTEL judgments dated

02.01.2013 and 13.01.2014 on appeal No. 81/2011 and No.

16/2013 respectively to justify their proposed connectivity

arrangement in the instant petition is not appropriate without

of 24

considering the connectivity conditions of generators in the

above said appeals. In both the appeals various issues

involved were discussed in related with utilization of common

transmission corridor in order to have connectivity with CTU

of two generators. Whereas, In this case tapping of one

generator with the dedicated line of other CPP is proposed,

which is not in order.

35. Therefore, proposed connectivity arrangement in the instant

petition between two generators is not acceptable as it is not

permitted under any regulations or grid code. Further

relaxation as desired by the petitioner in Grid Code 2011

clause 4.2.2 can be permitted for certain period as a special

case, but future planning to maintain connectivity as per the

provisions of clause 4.2.2 by petitioner is missing. There is no

provision of permanent relaxation of clause 4.2.2 of the Grid

Code 2011.

36. In the desire connectivity arrangement under the ambit of

Rule 3 of Electricity Rule 2005, metering for the purpose of

power drawal from CSPDCL, meters will be installed at

respective bus of generator / CPP i.e. M/s GPIL & M/s JPAL.

When power is drawn by petitioner from M/s JPAL it will be

recorded in the import register of CSPDCL's meter installed at

M/s GPIL end. Similarly in case of power drawn by M/s JPAL

from M/s GPIL, it will be recorded in the import register of

of 24

CSPDCL's meter installed at M/s JPAL. This may lead to

various complication in energy accounting.

37. Respondent No. 2 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co.

Ltd. (CSPDCL) in thier submission dated 08.07.2014 have

pointed out that as per Clause 4.2.2 all the generating

stations including captive generating plants (CPP) having

injection and / or drawal requirements of more than 15 MVA

shall have connectivity with the grid under either of the

following modes, at their own cost subject to technical

feasibility:

(a) At nearest EHV substation through dedicated EHV

transmission line.

(b) At pooled / switching / load catering / step up at EHV

substation with dedicated EHV transmission line.

(c) No tap connectivity at EHV line shall be allowed.

38. It is very clear that tap connectivity of EHV line has been

prohibited. In the past also the Commission itself had initiated

proceeding under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003

against CSPDCL and 20 generators by registering a suo motu

[petition No. 21/2009(M)] for ensuring independent

connectivity by various generators which was not availed by

generators even after 2 years of enactment of State Grid

Code 2007. Thus any relaxation on this count is not

acceptable to anybody including CSPDCL.

of 24

39. Thus the option left to the petitioner to avail power of JPAL as

a captive consumer is either through laying a dedicated

transmission line from JPAL to GPIL or through Open Access.

Accordingly, the petitioner may opt either of the feasible

options available for which CSPDCL has no objection.

40. From various submissions made by the petitioner and

respondent, and also arguments made during the hearing of

the petition. The case in brief as emerges is as follows:-

41. M/s Godawari Power Ispat Ltd. has established an integrated

steel plant in the Siltara Industrial Estate, Raipur where he

has also set up power generating plant having capacity 73

MW. The petitioner has availed connectivity with State

Transmission Licensee (CSPTCL) by laying dedicated 132 KV

DCSS line from 220 KV S/s Siltara. The petitioner is availing

the said connectivity with zero (0) contract demand with the

Distribution Licensee of the area.

42. The sister concern of the petitioner M/s Jagdamba Power &

Alloys Ltd. (JPAL) is a generating plant having capacity 25 MW

and is installed in the same industrial area i.e. Siltara, Raipur.

This generating plant is situated in the opposite direction with

that the petitioner. M/s JPAL for injection of power in the

State Grid has also availed dedicated connectivity on 132 KV

through DCSS line with 220 KV S/s Siltara, Raipur.

of 24

43. As per the prevailing Supply Code, for availing the said

connectivity by the petitioner and its sister concern M/s JPAL,

the cost of line along with the cost of bay at substation has

been borne by them.

Keeping in view, the proposed expansion in

manufacturing units of the petitioner, he has proposed to

utilize power of M/s JPAL as CPP through vacant second circuit

of 132 KV line laid for his industry from 220 KV S/s Siltara by

disconnecting connection of M/s JPAL from the grid. As the

petitioner is having more than 26% equity share in M/s JPAL

therefore this power plant is a captive power plant, under

Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 subject to fulfillment of

more than 51% consumption by the petitioner in a year. This

situation has arisen because M/s JPAL is situated in the

opposite direction of the industrial area where the petitioner

industry is situated and it is very difficult for the petitioner to

lay a dedicated line connecting M/s JPAL.

44. On receipt of request by the respondent CSPTCL, they

intimated the petitioner that 2nd circuit of the line for

providing connectivity to his industry is being utilized for

some other purpose under system improvement scheme and

therefore the respondent is unable to spare the 2nd circuit for

providing connectivity with M/s JPAL. Keeping in view that

respondent is unable to spare 2nd circuit of his line he has

of 24

proposed to have direct tapped connectivity of M/s JPAL with

the line connecting his industry with the substation.

45. The petitioner is well aware that tapped connectivity with such

dedicated line is not permitted under various provisions of the

State Grid Code.

46. Let us first see the provisions made in clause 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and

4.2.4 of the Electricity Grid Code, 2011:

"Clause 4.2.1: Generating Stations: The voltages at which a

generating station may be connected with the grid of transmission

or distribution license (as applicable) can be 400, 220, 132 or 33

KV. The connection point/interface point shall be the point at the

sub-station of the licensee system where power is injected. The

metering point shall be at the connection point/interface point.

Following are the prescribed quantum for injection of power to the

state grid with reference to voltage of injection:-

S.N. Voltage of injection

Maximum Quantum of power that can be injected into grid

1 33 KV Up to 15 MVA

2 132 KV Up to 75 MVA for single circuit and 150 MVA for double circuit

3 220 KV Up to 200 MVA for single circuit and 400

MVA for double circuit

Note :-

1. For arriving at the quantum of power to be injected in MVA,

power factor as indicated in the nameplate or the design

details of the generator will be taken into account.

2. Under special circumstances, any deviation from the above

limits may be considered by the license subject to technical

feasibility and specific approval by the Commission. Subject

of 24

to fulfillment of minimum technical requirement of meter as

specified at clause no. 8.6 of this code.

3. Provision for redundancy in dedicated transmission line shall

be the responsibility of generator concerned.

Clause 4.2.2 : All the generating stations including captive

generating plants (CGP) having Injection and/or drawal

requirements of more than 15 MVA shall have connectivity with the

grid under either of the following modes, at their own cost, subject

to technical feasibility:-

4. At nearest EHV sub-station through dedicated EHV

transmission line.

5. At pooled/switching/load catering/step up EHV sub-station

with dedicated EHV transmission line.

6. No tap connectivity at EHV line shall be allowed.

Clause 4.2.4: All the existing generators including CGPs

connected with the grid under any modes other than prescribed at

Clause 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 shall have to ensure connectivity with the

grid as per prescribed options given in Clause 4.2.2 / 4.2.3 failing

which their connectivity shall be liable for disconnection from the

grid. However, Commission may allow such connection for certain

period on request of the Intra-state user as a special case on

compelling reasons.

Connectivity through pooling substation will be allowed only if

found technically feasible. The cost of common infrastructure like,

transmission line, switchgear / step up transformer or any other

equipment / infrastructure including the facility for real time data

transfer/communication etc. as the case may be, shall be borne by

the constituent generators/CGP(s) in proportion to their respective

power injection to the grid.

An existing generating plant, presently not covered under clause

4.2.2 and 4.2.3, shall be subject to load-shedding plan of CSPDCL

as and when enforced, till their connectivity is as per clause 4.2.2

or 4.2.3 as the case may be."

of 24

47. As per the information furnished in the petition by the

petitioner, it is evident that, finally his total connected load

will reach to 110 MW (85 MW + 25 MW) or 137 MVA, which

will be more than permissible limit of 75 MVA for single circuit

132 KV line, as per the State Grid Code. The petitioner

through its submission made has tried to explain the

modalities which he will be adopting to restrict maximum

transfer of power to the tune of 75 MW only. In his

submission, apart from the difficulties shown in providing

connectivity with M/s JPAL with his industry has expressed his

financial constrain in transfer of power through open access.

Therefore, he has requested the Commission to condone

various provisions of the State Grid Code and permit him to

avail connectivity of M/s JPAL with his industry through

tapped connectivity by isolating the connectivity of M/s JPAL

with the State Grid.

48. On the submission made by the petitioner, respondent

CSPTCL has strongly opposed for permitting tapped

connectivity of M/s JPAL with the dedicated line connecting

the grid with the petitioner industry on the ground that

tapped connectivity of a generator (M/s JPAL) with the

dedicated line meant for another captive user, herein is

petitioner to fulfill the criteria of captive user is against the

provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Rules, 2005

of 24

and the prevailing CSEGC which is in consistent with the IEGS

as per the Section 86(1)(h) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

49. Here the petitioner is having its captive power plant. Captive

generation and the captive load cannot be termed as captive

consumption of another generator, as per Clause 3 of the

Electricity Rules, 2005.

In the order passed by this Commission under Suo Motu

P. No. 21/2009(M) has regularized dedicated connectivity with

the grid S/s for several IPP/ CPP which were earlier connected

under tapped connectivity through constant persuasion with

the Generator / Transmission & Distribution Licensees. As per

the State Grid Code, 2011 Clause 4.2.4, The Commission is

permitted to allow transfer of power under tapped

connectivity for certain period as a special case but in the

instant case, the petitioner has not declared his future

planning to remove such tapped connectivity. As per the

Supply Code, transfer of maximum 75 MW is permitted on

132 KV single circuit line but going through the details

furnished by the petitioner, total load that will be connected if

tapped connectivity is permitted will be 110 MW i.e. 137 MVA

which will be violation of the provisions of the Supply Code

and technical standards as laid down by the Central Electricity

Authority and may in danger the grid security.

of 24

The connectivity arrangement as requested by the

petitioner may also lead to ambiguity while deciding the

captive status of the generator. In the submission made by

the respondent CSPTCL, it is already clarified that the 2nd

circuit of 132 KV DCSS line is being utilized by them under

system improvement scheme as approved by this

Commission.

50. Petitioner in his various submissions and arguments made

during the hearing highlighted that the DCSS line was

constructed as a dedicated line for his industry for which he

has paid the entire amount, therefore he has got the legal

rights to use the same as on date also.

Here definition of dedicated feeder as defined in clause

4.50 of the prevailing Supply code, is as follows:-

"4.50 Consumers desirous of getting power supply from

dedicated feeder may request for such facility to the licensee. The

dedicated feeder may be extended from the substation to the

consumer’s point of supply. In such cases the consumer shall be

liable to pay the cost of bay and all protection switchgears and its

accessories provided at the substation for this feeder in addition to

the cost of laying of the feeder. On receipt of such request, the

licensee will check the feasibility based on merit of providing a

dedicated feeder to the consumer’s premises. Such dedicated

feeder shall be the property of the licensee and shall be maintained

by the licensee. Such feeder shall not be used to extend supply to

any other consumer within the initial period of two years from the

date of its commissioning without written consent of the consumer

who has paid the cost of line and bay."

of 24

From the above, it is amply clear that use of such

dedicated line for other purpose is prohibited till expiry of

initial two years agreement period. Without written consent of

the petitioner, however, in the present case, the two year

period has already over, the transmission licensee can use

such line for other purpose also.

51. The petitioner in his submission has intimated that they are

availing connectivity with the State Grid with zero contract

demand, whereas, as per the documents filed by the

respondent, it shows that recently petitioner has requested

the State Distribution licensee for enhancement of his

contract demand from zero to 4000 KVA, which is under

process. The petitioner plea of Hon'ble ATE on appeal No.

81/2011 & 16/2013 on proposed connectivity arrangement so

far it relates with the instant petition, it is also not correct

because the same stand submitted without considering the

connectivity condition of generator under the said appeals.

Thus it is amply clear that proposed connectivity

arrangements between two generators are not acceptable and

permitted. However, the relaxation as said by the petitioner in

clause 4.2.2 can be permitted for certain period as a special

case but in absence of their planning for independent

connectivity, such permission cannot be granted.

52. For determination of captive status of the petitioner under the

proposed connectivity, metering for the purpose of power to

of 24

be drawn from CSPDCL, metering will be done at respective

bus of generator / CPP. In case power is drawn by the

petitioner from M/s JPAL it will be recorded in the import

register of CSPDCL's meter. Similarly, in case, any power is

drawn by M/s JPAL from M/s GPIL, it will be recorded in

import register of CSPDCL's meter installed at M/s JPAL end,

which will lead to complication in energy accounting.

53. Therefore going through the various discussions made in

foregoing para, we are of the considered opinion that

petitioner cannot be permitted for availing tapped connectivity

as proposed by him in his petition. However, he is at the

liberty to avail the power from M/s JPAL through open access

under the prevailing Rules and Regulations or by laying

dedicated line from his industry to M/s JPAL.

We dispose of the petition accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vinod Shrivastava)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(Narayan Singh)

CHAIRMAN

chhattisgarh state electricity regulatory commission 1 of 24 petition no. 78 of 2013(d) in the...

Documents