In the matter of: M/s Rauzagaon Chini Mills (A unit of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.) Rauzagaon , District Barabanki (U.P.

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Petition No /2015 Quorum Shri Desh Deepak Verma, Chairman Smt. Meenakshi Singh, Member Shri I. B. Pandey, Member In the matter of: Petition u/s 86 (1) (f) along with other relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, In the matter of: M/s Rauzagaon Chini Mills (A unit of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.) Rauzagaon , District Barabanki (U.P.) Petitioner 1. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 2. Director (Operation), Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 3. Chief Engineer, Power Purchase Agreement Directorate, Shakti Bhawan, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 4. Director Transmission (Commercial), Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Shakti Bhawan, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow Respondents ORDER (Hearing held on ) Whereas the petitioner M/s Rauzagaon Chini Mills (A unit of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.) Rauzagaon , District Barabanki (U.P.) has filed Petition No /2015 in the matter of petition u/s 86 (1) (f) along with other relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on regarding dispute of Annual Maintenance Charges for the 132 KV transmission line. Brief History of the Case: Page 1 of 5

2 1. Balrampur Sugar Mill has its plant at Rauzagaon, District Barabanki entered into PPA with UPPCL on for sale of 16 MW power and 23 MW power from Bagasse based Cogeneration Plant. It was interfaced with UPPTCL Grid substation located at Chandauli with dedicated 132 KV line of length 56.5 Km. The power was evacuated at Chandauli till As per clause 8.4 of PPA the petitioner has to pay of 1.5% of the cost of transmission evacuated system with Annual escalation of 5% to UPPCL towards maintenance of 132 KV lines. 2. In January, 2009, UPPCL decided to terminate the line at newly constructed 132 KV of Ramsanehi Ghat and thus the length of the transmission line became limited to 5.5 Kms. The petitioner has submitted that AMC has not been reduced for the line length from 56.5 (Chandauli to 15.5 Ramsanehi Ghat) despite several reminders and has submitted the AMC of line length 56.5 up to The respondents have denied this claim. During the hearing on Shr D. D. Chopra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a sugar plant at Rouzagaon, Distt. Barabanki which has a co-generation plant which generates 16 MW and 23 MW power. Initially the power was evacuated through 132 KV line of line length 56.5 Kms terminating at Chandauli sub-station till UPPTCL terminated this line at newly constructed 132 KV substation at Ramsanehi Ghat and now the line length is only Kms. UPPTCL has revised the losses for the new line length but has not amended the AMC for the new line length of 15.5 Kms from the initial line length of 56.5 Kms when this issue was raised the UPPTCL they directed us to first enter into connectivity agreement then the AMC will be revised. The petitioner has entered into connectivity agreement with UPPTCL, but UPPTCL has not revised the AMC. The petitioner requested the Commission to: i. Issue directions to respondent no. 2 & respondent no. 4 to revise AMC on the basis of length of transmission line of 15.5 Km. between the petitioner the petitioner s generating plant and UPPCL s 132 KV S/s Ramsanehi Ghat on pro data basis of the cost of original transmission line of length 56.5 Km. and not to include the cost of bay at Ramsanehi Ghat while treating this as transfer of bay from 132 KV sub-station Chandauli, and ii. Issue directions to respondent no. 2 & respondent no. 4 to refund the excess amount of AMC already paid by the petitioner from with upto date interest, and Page 2 of 5

3 iii. Issue directions to respondent no. 2 & respondent no. 4 or the concerned authority to refund the cost incurred by the petitioner in the construction of = 41 Km. length of transmission line. Shri Shalendra Gaur, Executive Engineer appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 submitted that some time is required to submit the WS. The Commission granted fifteen days time to the respondents to file the reply and one week thereafter to file the counter and directed to list on During the hearing on Shri S. K. Bhattacharya and Shri Shailendra Gaur, Executive Engineer appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 submitted that they have submitted the WS on and they have nothing more to say. Shri Vinay Tripathi, Executive Engineer, UPPTCL appearing on behalf of Director Operation (UPPTCL) who is respondent no. 2 submitted that they are collecting data from the field and will sent to design only then the AMC will be decided and requested for one month time. None appeared on behalf of UPPCL (respondent no. 1) and Power Purchase Agreement Directorate (respondent no. 3) in the hearing on and The Commission took serious view of non appearance of respondent no. 1 & 3. Further it seems that there is no convergence of views in UPPTCL as Director (Commercial) and Director (Operation) seem to be giving different views. Managing Director (UPPTCL) advised to hold a meeting, with Director Operation (UPPTCL), Director Commercial (UPPTCL) and representative from UPPCL and Power Purchase Agreement Directorate and come to a definite conclusion and file the reply before 27 th May, If no reply was received by 27 th May, Commission was to proceed to take its own decision based on the facts available. During the hearing on Commission enquired whether the meeting has been held by Managing Director, UPPCL. Shri Puneet Chandra, Advocate for UPPTCL submitted that meeting could not be held by Managing Director, UPPTCL. He however, submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 & 4 that UPERC has notified Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grant of Connectivity to Intra State Transmission System) Regulation 2010 and thereafter also approved Procedure for Grant of Connectivity to Intra State Transmission System and as per clause 10.3 & 10.4 of the said Regulations. Page 3 of 5

4 10.3 In cases where maintenance of such dedicated transmission line is undertaken by the State Transmission Utility / any other transmission licensee at the option of the applicant, such applicant shall sign an Annual Maintenance Contact on terms and conditions as mutually agreed: Provided that the applicant shall make payment of the annual maintenance charges for meeting expenses towards maintenance of the dedicated transmission line to the State Transmission Utility / any other transmission licensee In cases where construction or maintenance of such dedicated transmission line is undertaken by any other agency (State Transmission Utility / any other transmission licensee) at the option of the applicant, the Commission shall assume no role to adjudicate upon the disputes between such licensee and applicant or refer such dispute for arbitration. Counsel for UPPTCL Shri Chandra also argued that, in view of the above clause the Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter and the present petition is non maintainable. He further submitted that AMC can not be revised until necessary amendment is made in Power Purchase Agreement by PPA Unit of UPPCL and PPA Unit has been advised to do so accordingly. Shri V. P. Srivastava, Chief Engineer PPA Unit of UPPCL appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 3 submitted that the petitioner has never approached the PPA Unit for the amendment in the PPA from when the line was terminated at Ram Sanehi Ghat, so this petition is pre mature and is bound to be rejected. Respondent No. 1 & 3 further submitted that the UPERC grant of connectivity to Intra State Transmission System unbundling of the erstwhile UPSEB in the year 2002, functions related to transmission of electricity became the job of UPPTCL and it was UPPTCL which must have changed the metering location of power evacuated from Chandauli Sub Station to Ram Sanehi Ghat, Sub Station. It was only for the purpose of Bill Meter Reading and Check Meter reading of the of the Generating Mill that the officers of UPPCL and the representative of the Mill had jointly recorded on : The 132 KV supply from RCM to Chandauli is diverted to 132 KV S/S RS Ghat metering system commissioned at 132 KV S/S RS Ghat. Further meter reading will be carried out at 132 KV S/S RS Ghat. Page 4 of 5

5 Without the amendment having being effected in Article 8.1 of the PPA, it was not legally permissible for the petitioner to have agreed to evacuate power from Ram Sanehi Ghat, Power Sub Station instead of Chandauli, Sub Station. Article 8.1 of the PPA dated provides: Power from the Generating Plant shall be transmitted at 132 KV through a 132 KV line from the Generating plant located at Rauzagaon Distt. Barabanki. The power so transmitted shall be interfaced with UPPCL s 132 KV grid sub station located at Chandauli by STU. The claim of the petitioner for being charged reduced AMC charges w.e.f is misconceived and erroneous in law for the reason that PPA dated is a binding legal document between UPPCL and the petitioner. Without effecting amendments in the relevant articles of the PPA there may be no reduction in the AMC charges on account of shortened transmission line. The reduction in AMC charges will be w.e.f. the date necessary amendments in the PPA are approved by this Hon ble Commission. No retrospective effect, it is submitted, can be given to prospective change in PPA for reduction in AMC charges. The petitioner should have approached UPERC to grant permission to the parties to carry out necessary amendments in article 8.1 of the PPA dated The Commission directs the parties to make necessary amendments in the PPA dated within one month and submit to the Commission within next one month for approval. The petition is disposed off. (I. B. Pandey) (Meenakshi Singh) (Desh Deepak Verma) Member Member Chairman Dated: Page 5 of 5