BIHAR ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION Vidyut Bhawan-II, J.L. Nehru Marg, Patna 800 021. Case No. 39/2016 IN THE MATTER OF:- PETITION UNDER SECTION 142 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION PASSED IN CASE NO. 23/2015 DATED 13.08.2015 AND CASE NO. 08/2016 Dated 15.07.2016 FOR PROVIDING OPEN ACCESS. AND IN THE MATTER OF: SHREE CEMENT LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE: BANGUR NAGAR, BEAWAR- 305901, RAJASTHAN, WORKS: BIADA, NEAR JASOIYA MORE, DISTRICT AURANGABAD, BIHAR (Hereinafter Referred To As "SCL", 'The Petitioner' or 'The Company') Vs.. Petitioner STATE LOAD DISPATCH CENTRE, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA- 800001 (hereinafter referred to as 'SLDC', "The Respondent-1) AND BIHAR STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED, 4 TH FLOOR, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-800001 (hereinafter referred to as BSPTCL; The Respondent-2). Respondents Present : 1. Shri S. K. Negi - Chairman 2. Shri Rajeev Amit - Member 3. Shri R. K. Choudhary - Member Appearance: 1 Shri Amarjeet Singh, Sr. General Manager On behalf of M/s Shree 2 Shri Nitesh Kothari, Dy. Manager, Cement Ltd 3 Shri Atul Kharkwal, DGM. 4 Shri Bhashkar Sharma, Director On behalf of BSPTCL 5 Shri G.K. Choubey, EC (System & Operation 6 Shri Devendra Kumar Singh, ESE (SLDC) On behalf of SLDC 7 Shri Rakesh, ESE/Telecom On behalf of BSP(H)CL 8 Shri Gautam Kumar Chaubey, EC (System & Operation Date of hearing: 18.11.2016, 02.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 Date of Order-19.01.2017 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 claiming non-compliance of "BERC (Terms and conditions for open access) Regulations, 2006 and noncompliance of the orders of Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission passed in Case No. 23/2015 on 13.08.2015 and
Case No. 08/2016 on 15.07.2016 by Respondent (1) The BSPTCL and Respondent (2) CE (O&M), BSPTCL Incharge of SLDC. 2. Petitioner s Submission: Petitioner M/s Shree Cement Limited is engaged in manufacturing of cement and generation of electricity and is having its cement manufacturing units in Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh. Its power generation units are located in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. 2.1 Petitioner has commissioned in June 2014 a 2 MTPA capacity cement grinding plant at BIADA, Aurangabad in Bihar. The Capacity of the above plant has been increased by 1.6 MTPA in June 2016 and currently stands at 3.6 MTPA. The company's cement plant is the largest cement plant in Bihar. The Cement plant has a contract demand of 20.5 MVA with SBPDCL. Company has a dedicated feeder at the 132KV GSS of BSPTCL at Aurangabad. The company is currently expanding its capacity at Aurangabad plant from 3.6 MTPA to 5.6 MTPA which shall further increase its contract demand with the state discom. Looking at the large power requirement and sensitivity of plants viability to cost of power, company has to use a judicious mix of open access and discom power for viable operations of its plants. 2.2 As per provisions under BERC (Terms and conditions for open access) Regulations, 2006 amended from time to time, the company had filed its application with the office of (CE)- Transmission O&M-BSPTCL (who was also in charge for SLDC functions as in Bihar SLDC is a part of BSPTCL) seeking issuance of NOC so as to ensure procurement of power under Open Access. 2.3 Petitioner submits that initially the respondents had turned a blind eye to the NOC applications and but when the Commission vide its order dated 13.08.2015 in Case No. 23/2015 directed the Respondent -1 and Respondent -2 to provide Open Access facility,the respondent issued NOC for the month of September, 2015. Respondent had issued the NOC for 10MW which was within the contract demand of 13.5 MVA as applied for and the same was issued for full 24 hours duration for the period 1 st Sept. to 30 th Sept. 2015. 2.4 Petitioner has further said that after the apply of the term of above NOC ; the respondents stopped issuing fresh NOC for open access. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition again in Case No 08/2016 before Commission under section 142 of Electricity Act, 2003. In its order dated 15.07.2016 in case no. 08/2016, the Commission observed that respondents had deliberately contravened the provisions under13(2) of the BERC Regulations,2006 and directed BSPTCL/SLDC to provide NOC
for availing open access facility to the petitioner within the stipulated time as per undertaking given by the BSPTCL in the letter no.98 dated 27.06.2015. 2.5 Subsequently, BSPTCL issued a NOC for 10MW to Shree Cement Ltd for the period 15.07.2016 to 31.07.2016. However, against the application for NOC for full 24 hrs per day, the NOC was issued only for 2 hrs per day (2 PM to 4 PM) for the period 15.07.2016 to 31.07.2016. The Petitioner accepted this NOC so that at least the power purchase from IEX could be started at Aurangabad plant and necessary increase in period of NOC might be offered by Respondent in subsequent months. 2.6 As required the petitioner again filed an application with the respondent seeking monthly NOC for the month of August 2016 for 20 MW as the newly added cement capacity had stabilized. It has been pointed out that the quantum of NOC applied for was well within the approved contract demand (20.5) maintained with SBPDCL. 2.7 However, the Respondent again granted NOC for 10 MW of power, that too far two hours daily (2 PM to 4 PM). Thus, the respondent not only denied open access of electricity for the full 24 hours daily but also did not offer NOC for the full applied quantum. The issue was discussed with BSTPCL officials and also wrote letters highlighting non compliance of orders of the Commission in view of the fact that the NOC sought was for 20 MW against the contract demand of 20.5 MVA. However, the respondents did not response to the petitioner on this application. 2.8 Petitioner filed an application again seeking monthly NOC for the month of September 2016. But, the NOC issued by the respondent continued to remain for 10 MW and 2 hr daily duration (against the regulation of 20 MW for 24 hr daily). In response to regular follow up by the petitioner, the respondent replied that the NOC of 10 MW for 2 hr daily had been issued as per corridor/margin available in current s ystem. The petitioner asserted that such a denial of Open Access/allowing Open Access only for limited quantum and limited period against the regulations and orders passed by the Commission, petitioner has further stated that the respondent's denial of open access is also against the provision of Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016.Para 5.1 of this policy, the petition maintained that the Govt. of Bihar has allowed open access for purchase of power in the State and he has quoted Clause 5.2.8(d) of the policy which reads as below: "(d) Open Access Policy: The State Government shall allow power under the Open Access Policy as per the Electricity Act, 2003. This shall allow large users of power -typically
having connected load of 1 megawatt (MW) and above -to buy cheaper power from the open market. It would help industry buy power at competitive rates and be competitive in the market". The refer according to the petitioner, the res pondent, are not but only disobey the orders of Commission but also not acting as per Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016. 2.9 Petitioner further submitted that the Commission had notified the necessary regulations allowing open access for consumers intending to purchase power on the power exchanges (collective transactions). The application for grant of NOC for open access is well supported with the state regulatory framework. The Commission had already studied the facts of the case and accordingly disposed of our earlier petition (Case No. 23/2015) by its order dated 13.08.2015 and petition Case no 08/2016 by its order dated 15.07.2016 directing BSPTCL to comply with its order and grant Open Access. 2.10. Finally, petitioner has prayed to direct BSPTCL and (CE) Transmission O&M-BSPTCL (who is In-charge of SLDC operations of BSPTCL) to immediately issue monthly NOCs for 20MW power and issue any other order or impart any other direction under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Respondent issued NOC for short term open access only for the month of Sept. 2015 on 31.08.2015 and thereafter stopped issuing NOC from Oct. 2015 onwards stating technical constraints which has already been deliberated and settled by the Commission. Even the issue related to power of SLDC related to curtailment has been discussed in earlier petitions wherein it was submitted that the Regulations have already provided for curtailment of scheduled open access power to meet transmission constraints if and as and when they emerge. Once again it is emphasized that contingency situations emerge on a real time basis and the nodal agency has been empowered by the regulations to take appropriate curtailment actions as and when required. Regarding Respondents point regarding Open Access and Contract Demand; it is submitted that the Contract Demand has been allotted only after all technical studies and thus it has been used only as an indicator to show that there are no technical constraints as long as our total drawl (open access and Discom supplies) stays within our approved contract demand of 20.5 MVA. The matter is again being raised by the Respondent to non-comply with the orders of the Commission which has already ordered and recorded in para 6.1 of order dated 15.07.2016.
3 Reply of Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited (BSPTCL) :- Reply on the issues raised by the petitioner for its petition and rejoinder petition. Chief Engineer (system Operation), BSPTCL has submitted the following vide letter no.204 dated 22.11.2016:- It is submitted that as per the undertaking and commitment made vide letter No. 98 dated 27.06.2016, "No Objection Certificate" for grant of Short Term Open Access in PX-1 Format was issued to M/s Shree Cement Ltd. vide letter No. 100 dated 27.06.2016 and it has been made operational since 15.07.2016 as per the roadmap provided to the Commission. The procedure is still continuing. The quantum and period of Short Term Open Access has been allowed as per the corridor available even without taking in to account the N-1 contingency criteria set in the Central Regulatory Commission (Measures to relieve congestion n real time operation) Regulation 2009. Short Term Open Access is provided as per Clause 8(2) of the Bihar Electricity Regulations Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2006. The above clause clearly states that STOA is to be provided in the margin available due to inbuilt spare transmission/distribution capacity created to cater to future load growth. As such, there is no binding on BSPTCL to create margin to provide STOA. Further, safety of the grid system is not to be put at risk. In order to safeguard the system load of SBPDCL is being curtailed regularly. As such, providing STOA in such period will prevent SLDC to curtail load of SBPDCL as per clause 11(3)of the Regulations,2006 under curtailment priority. Preventing SLDC to curtail load in case of congestion will lead to System Collapse, which is not desirable. As far as the claim of the petitioner, STOA on contract demand, it is to state that contract demand is binding on SBPDCL as a consumer and SBPDCL can provide power to any consumer as per the contract demand after curtailing other consumer in case of congestion in the system, but there is no provision in Regulations to provide STOA on contract demand. However, STOA has the last priority as per Clause 11(1) of Bihar Electricity Regulations Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005 under Allotment Priority. CE (System Operation),BSPTCL has prayed that Short Term Open Access has been provided as per the available corridor and made operational to M/s Shree Cement since 15.07.2016 and it is still continuing and thus Order of the Commission has been complied. 4. Rejoinder of the petitioner dated 28.11.2016:- Petitioner has made following submission in the rejoinder:- Respondent has again attempted to link denial of open access with technical constraints. The matter of technical constraints/margin/other
contingencies in system were also discussed earlier in Case no 23/2015 and case no 08/2016 5. Reply of BSPTCL dated 23.12.2016: Respondent BSPTCL has further submitted the following: 1. For assessment of corridor for providing short term open access BSPTCL will follow CERC (Measures to relieve congestion in real time operation) Regulations 2009. As per the above Regulations Total Transfer capability (TTC) is defined as the amount of electric power that can be transferred reliably over the inter control area transmission system under a given set of operating considering the effect of occurrence of the worst credible contingency. Considering N- 1contingency, TTC Available in the flow gate of Bihar Cement Plant is 70 MW. 2. Further, Transmission Reliability Margin (TRM) is defined as the amount of margin kept in the total transfer capability necessary to ensure that the interconnected transmission network is secure under the reasonable range of uncertainties in system conditions. In this transmission network two major traction loads of Sone Nagar TSS and Japla TSS are connected which has fluctuating load of 20 MW. As such, considering the above TRM, Available Transfer Capability will be 50 MW. As such, curtailment of power of Bihar Cement Plant (BCP) has to be made whenever load in the flow gate exceeds 50 MW on real time basis. If Bihar Cement Plant fails to curtail the load, BSPTCL will be forced to switch off the power of the BCP from Aurangabad GSS. 3. This transmission network has to be kept reliably secure to ensure uninterrupted power supply to two major traction loads of Sone Nagar TSS and Japla TSS. 4. M/s Shree Cement Ltd. will be solely responsible for the loss of scheduled STOA power due to curtailment of load in case of condition mentioned above. 5. As petitioner has demanded for conditional NOC for provision of STOA power for 20 MW round the clock, the firm has to make an agreement agreeing conditions mentioned above. Respondent has further prayed that Short Term Open Access has been provided as per the available corridor and made operational to M/s Shree Cement since 15.07.2016 and it is still continuing. As such, BSPTCL has complied the order of the Commission. Prevailing load on 132 KV Sone Nagar (New)-Sone Nagar (old) line is generally more than 50 MW, therefore, margin for Short Term Open Access to M/s Shree Cement Ltd. is not available. Therefore, BSPTCL be permitted for not allowing Short Term Open Access to M/s Shree Cement Ltd. 6. Hearings: Matter was heard on 18.11.2016, 02.12.2016 and finally on 20.12.2016. After hearing the case was reserved for order and the parties were directed to file written notes of argument by 06.01.2017.
BSPTCL submitted its written note on 23.12.2016. Whereas the, petitioner did not submitted any written note. 7. Views and Findings of the Commission: Commission having heard the parties at length, examined the petition & rejoinder filed by the petitioner and reply & submission to the rejoinder filed by the respondents and also having perused order dated 13.08.2015 in case no. 23/2015 and order dated 15.07.2016 in case no. 23/2015 of the Commission, relevant regulations of this commission as well as CERC Regulations, the Commission observes as under:- 1. M/s Shree Cement Ltd is engaged in manufacturing of Cement in different States of the Country including Bihar. The petitioner had an EHT connection with SBPDCL for a contracted load of 12.50 MVA till mid of 2015 connected through a dedicated feeder of 132 KV GSS of BSPTCL Aurangabad. Subsequently, the petitioner has been increasing the capacity of its plant continuously resulting in to increase in the demand of electricity. Consequently, the contract demand of the petitioner was increased from 12.50 MVA to 13.50 MVA in 2015 and 20.5 MVA in 2016 by the SBPDCL on the application of the petitioner. 2. As per the provisions of BERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005 amended from time to time the petitioner had initially submitted its application to the CE (O&M), BSPTCL cum-incharge of SLDC seeking NOC for grant of Short Term Open Access for purchase of 10 MW Power from power exchange in 2014. However, such request of NOC for Open-Access was denied by the CE (O&M) BSPTCL vide his letter no. 70 dated 02.02.2015 on the ground of nonavailability of corridor. 3. Subsequent upon denial of such NOC, the petitioner filed a petition before the Commission u/s 86(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with BERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005 seeking issue of directions to the respondent (BSPTCL/SLDC) to grant NOC for STOA. 4. The Commission having heard the parties at length specially on the issue of 'non-availability of corridor' directed the BSPTCL/SLDC to provide NOC to the petitioner for availing Open-Access facility within 15 days time vide its order dated 13.08.2015. The relevant excerpts of the order is reproduced below: "6.2. In the present case of M/s Shree cement the total power consumption of the petitioner i.e. through discom source and open access at any time shall be within the limit of its sanctioned load. Petitioner has applied for open access for 10 MW load which is not more than sanctioned contract demand or revised contract demand with SBPDCL. If Open-Access is allowed the total power
consumption of the petitioner (i.e. sum of power supplied by the discom and power procured from power exchange) at any time shall be within the limit of its contract demand and therefore, this can not be a reason to deny grant of NOC for Open-Access to the petitioner. In view of the observations made in forgoing paragraph, Commission direct BSPTCL/SLDC to provide NOC for availing Open-Access facility to the petitioner within 15 days time" 5. Accordingly, the respondent issued NOC for full 10 MW (which was within the contract demand of 13.5 MVA) as applied for and the same was issued for full 24 hours duration for the period 1 st Sept. to 30 th Sept. 2015 and thereafter stopped issuing further NOC from Oct, 2015 onwards on the plea of non-availability of corridor which had already been settled by the Commission in its order dated 13.08.2015 in case no. 23/2015. 6. Consequent upon non-issuance of NOC for further period by the respondent, the petitioner filed a petition before the Commission u/s 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Commission after admitting the case no. 08/2016 observed in its order dated 15.07.2016 that respondents ha d deliberately contravened the provisions under regulation 13(2) of BERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations 2005 and violated the order of the Commission. The relevant excerpts of the order is as under:- "6.2. In the light of the above order of the Commission Respondent issued NOC for short term open access only for the month of Sept 2015 on 31.08.2015 and thereafter stopped issuing NOC from Oct, 2015 onwards citing technical constraints which has already been deliberated and settled by the Commission. Incidentally, SBPDCL has approved extension of contract demand from 13.5 MVA to 20.5 MVA. The Commission opines that had there been any technical constraint in the Transmission corridor, the extension of contract demand would not have been permitted by SBPDCL. Therefore, the Commission observes that respondents have deliberately contravened the provisions under Regulations 13(2) of BERC (Terms and conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005 and violated the order of the Commission passed on 13.08.2015 in case no. 23/2015 and liable for penalization u/s 142 of the Act". 7. However, the respondent CE (System Operation), BSPTCL submitted a written undertaking vide his letter no. 98 dated 27.06.2016 for the issue of NOC to the petitioner Shree Cement Ltd. w.e.f. 15.07.2016. Considering such undertaking
Commission dropped the proceeding u/s 142 of the Electricity Act. 8. As a follow up to this undertaking, the r espondent issued NOC for 10 MW to the petitioner Shree Cement Ltd. for the period 15.07.2016 to 31.07.2016. However, against the application for NOC for full 24 hrs. on daily basis, the respondent issued NOC for 2 hrs (2PM-4PM) only on daily basis for the aforesaid period. 9. As newly added capacity has stabilized, the petitioner has been submitting application to the respondent seeking NOC for 24 hrs for 20 MW power which is well within the contract demand of 20.5 MVA from August 2016 onwards. However, the respondent has continued to issue NOC for only 10 MW for 2 hrs (2PM-4PM) citing the same reason of nonavailability of corridor. 10. Commission also observes that Govt. of Bihar has notified 'Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 which enunciates the open access policy to promote Industrialization in Bihar. The relevant excerpts of the policy is reproduced below: "(d) Open Access Policy: The State Government shall allow power under the Open Access Policy as per the Electricity Act, 2003. This shall allow large users of power-typically having connected load of 1 megawatt (MW) and above to buy cheaper power from open market. It would help industry buy power at competitive rates and be competitive in the market." 11. BERC (Terms and conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005 provides under clause 8 (3) that the State Transmission Utility and distribution licensees shall at all times endeavour to provide Open Access to their system and shall always equip their system to meet the future demand for Open Access and create sufficient capacity in the system to provide Open Access and thereby competition. In view of the facts and circumstances elaborated above, the Commission finds that there is hardly any issue left to be resolved. All the issues raised in the instant case has already been heard and resolved by the Commission in its earlier orders issued in case no. 23/2015 and 08/2016. The respondent is obligated to adhere the provisions laid down in BERC (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005, Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 and comply with the orders of the Commission passed on 13.08.2015 in Case no. 23/2015 and 15.07.2016 in case no. 08/2016 in its true spirit. The Commission re-iterates its views that as the contract demand of the petitioner has been sanctioned for 20.5 MVA based on the availability of corridor margin and since the Open Access power sought by the petitioner is well
within the contracted load, there should not normally be any constraint in availability of corridor margin on RTC basis except in case of congestion in real time operation. In case of congestion, clause 11(3) of BERC (Terms and conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2005 can be invoked, This provision is reproduced below:- "When because of system constraints or otherwise, if becomes necessary to curtail the Open Access service of the customers, the Short-Term Open Access customers shall be curtailed first followed by the Long-Term Open Access customers. The Open Access to distribution licensee and generating companies shall however be the last to be curtailed." Provided that within a category, the Open Access customers shall have equal curtail/most priority and shall be curtailed on pro-rata basis." 8. Therefore Commission directs SLDC/BSPTCL to strictly comply with the order of the Commission passed on 15.07.2016 in case no. 08/2016 and issue NOC within 30 days for short term Open-Access to the petitioner Shree Cement Ltd. on RTC basis for the quantum of Power sought by the petitioner subject to its limit to contract demand and in accordance with stipulation of the regulations as stated above, failing which Commission shall initiate proceeding u/s 142 of the Electricity Act. Sd/- (R. K. Choudhary) Member Sd/- (S. K. Negi) Chairman Sd/- (Rajeev Amit) Member