BEFORE THE CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT RAIPUR

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT RAIPUR Review Petition. No. of 2014 Against Order in Petition. No. 07 of 2014 In the Matter of: Review of CSERC Tariff Order for dt in Petition No 07 of 2014 under section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, In the Matter of: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur Petitioner INDEX Annex Date Description Page Review Petition with affidavit P Relevant extract of Tariff Order to be reviewed P CSERC Order in Petition No 5 of 2010 P CSERC Order in Petition No 23 of 2011 P CSERC Order in Petition No 7 of 2012 P PPA with JSPL for short term power purchase P Supplementary PPA with JSPL for short term power P PPA with JSPL for short term power purchase P PPA with JSPL for short term power purchase P-9 Form R-4 P Letter forwarding PPA copies P-11 PPA for NTPC Mauda OIC for CSPDCL

2 BEFORE THE CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AT RAIPUR Review Petition. No. of 2014 Against Order in Petition. No. 07 of 2014 In the Matter of: Review of CSERC Tariff Order for dt in Petition No 07 of 2014 under section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, In the Matter of: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Daganiya, Raipur Petitioner REVIEW PETITION u/s 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 Being aggrieved by the Common Order dated passed by the Hon ble Commission in Petition No. 07 of 2014, the Petitioner herein begs to file this petition for the review of the said Common Order, in so far as it concerns the Petitioner, on the following, among other,

3 GROUNDS Short Term Power Purchase Costs for FY and The Hon ble Commission has erroneously restricted the power purchase rate for the short term power purchased from JSPL during FY and to only the minimum effective rate of Rs 1.50 per unit contrary to the Hon ble Commssion s own orders and without any notice or opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause against the same. 2. The Hon ble Commission had passed an order dated in suo motu petition No 23 of 2011 holding that the CSPDCL may procure power from CPPs/IPPs at an agreed base rate up to a maximum ceiling rate of Rs 3.10 per kwh during non-peak hours and up to 5% more during peak hours, and that the terms and conditions otherwise specified in the order dated in suo motu Petition No 05 of 2010 shall remain applicable for short term power purchase during In the order dated in suo motu Petition No 07 of 2012, the Hon ble Commission has specified maximum ceiling rate of Rs 3.10 per kwh during non-peak hours and Rs 3.25 during peak hours, and that the terms and conditions otherwise specified in the order dated in suo motu Petition No 05 of 2010 shall remain applicable for short term power purchase during also. 3. In the order dated , the Hon ble Commission had itself clearly provided for the full rate for supplies made at an LF of 80% and above, and further for the adjustment of the pricing when the supply is at an LF

4 of less than 80% with a minimum of Rs 1.50 per unit. The Hon ble Commission had therein recognized that the power from the CPPs would be fluctuating in nature and specifically provided for that contingency by specifying adjustments to the purchase price. 4. The Petitioner had entered into short term power purchase agreements with JSPL and also other CPPs/IPPs on terms in accordance with the aforesaid orders of the Hon ble Commission and also in accordance with the original draft approved by the Hon ble Commission for such short term power purchases duly incorporating changes as per the orders of the Hon ble Commission from time to time. The short term power purchases were made accordingly and the payments were made as provided for in the PPAs which were in accordance with the aforesaid orders of the Hon ble Commission. The PPAs are binding upon the parties. There cannot be a retroactive view on the PPA after payments have been made a long time back. 5. In the order sought to be reviewed the Hon ble Commission has taken the short term power purchases from JSPL specifically from the Form R- 4 filed by the Petitioner ignoring the other similarly placed short term power suppliers therein. The Hon ble Commission has referred to a load curve of injection pattern of only JSPL. That information, and the inferences sought to drawn therefrom and the consequences considered thereupon, were never put to the Petitioner at any time. The Petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of being heard thereon. The Hon ble Commission has extracted only the contentions of JSPL recorded in the Hon ble Tribunal s judgment dated in Appeal No 89/2012 in

5 which the Petitioner herein was not even a party. That, and the inferences sought to be drawn therefrom and the consequences considered thereupon, were never put to the Petitioner at any time. The Petitioner was never afforded any opportunity of being heard thereon. The Hon ble Commission has considered non-firm power in a manner contrary to the consideration and provisions of the Hon ble Commissions s own earlier orders on the basis of which PPAs were entered into. 6. The Hon ble Commission s observations that the order dated was for supply based on load factor for stable power, and that the load factor based tariffs were determined to care of outages of generating plants, and the inferences sought to be drawn therefrom are not correct and contrary to the Hon ble Commission s orders. The Hon ble Commission had specifically provided for 80% as the minimum LF for applying the base rate considering also the outages, and the Hon ble Commission further provided for adjusting the rate according to the actual LF subject to the minimum of Rs 1.50 for all contingencies. 7. The Hon ble Commission has taken such view only in respect of short term power purchases from JSPL. Several short term purchases, also reported in the Form R-4, follow the same pattern. In fact, the Hon ble Commission has always considered short term supplies from CPPs as likely to fluctuate. 8. The Hon ble Commission s imputing of negligence on the part of the Petitioner, and the penalization of the Petitioner thereupon, is without

6 any notice or hearing being given to the Petitioner before making such adverse observations and consequences. The principles of natural justice have not been observed. The effect of the decision is to penalize the Petitioner for alleged negligence without giving the Petitioner any opportunity of being heard. The Petitioner submits that the observations and the disallowance imposed upon the Petitioner are unwarranted and unjustified. 9. Because the Hon ble Commission s decision in this respect is contrary to the Hon ble Commission s own order on the terms permissible for short term power purchase, and because the Hon ble Commission has not given the Petitioner any opportunity to be heard on the matter, the order of the Hon ble Commission requires to be reviewed as there is an error apparent on the face of record and on the grounds of natural justice and in the interests of justice. Disallowance of Delayed Payment Surcharge to CSPGCL 10. The Hon ble Commission has disallowed the delayed payment surcharge paid to CSPGCL during and which was incurred in special circumstances. 11. The Hon ble Commission failed to see that the Petitioner was not allowed to recover its entire ARR and that the Hon ble Commission itself had created a regulatory asset of Rs 343 cr for FY and Rs 828 cr for FY The Hon ble Commission ought to have seen

7 that, being starved of such funds by Regulatory order, the Petitioner was seriously incapacitated from making payments to the CSPGCL on time. Thereby the delayed payment surcharge became inevitable as a consequence. 12. The decision of the Hon ble Commission requires to be reviewed as the disallowance of a direct consequence of the Hon ble Commission s tariff order is an error apparent from the record and also in the interest of justice. Disallowanace of share of gains for reduction of distribution loss 13. The Hon ble Commission has erroneously disallowed the Petitioner s share of gains for achieving a distribution loss of 31.30% and 28.89% against the targets of 32% and 30% respectively for FY and FY The Hon ble Commission failed to see that the Petitioner was entitled to a share of the gain as per Clause 5.9(c) of MYT Regulation 2010 and the same could not be denied on the ground that there were also defective meters and therefore some error in computing the losses is possible. The decision of the Hon ble Commission is contrary to the Regulations. 15. The Hon ble Commission has considered and approved the actual distribution loss at 31.30% and 28.89%. In doing so the Hon ble Commission has also considered and taken into account the estimated

8 effect of the defective meters. Having determined and approved the distribution loss, the Hon ble Commission ought to have followed the same for all consequences and given effect to the provision of the Regulation. 16. It is therefore submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Commission requires to be reviewed as the same is contrary to the Regulation and is an error apparent from the face of record and also in the interest of justice. Direction with regard to routing of power from JPL 4x660 MW only through Raigarh-Tamnar 220kV DC line 17. The Hon ble Commission has directed routing of power from JPL 4x660 MW only through Raigarh-Tamnar 220kV DC line and that otherwise the inter-state transmission charges paid shall not be allowed. 18. The re-routing as directed would not, in any case, avoid the inter-state transmission charges. The re-routing would require evacuation through the inter-connector line from the JPL-II 4 x 660 MW bus to the JPL 4x250 bus and then through the 400/220 kv ICT to the CSPTCL 220 kv Raigarh-Tamnar line. Considering the transmission line and substation elements of the transmission system of JPL that are considered by the CERC as part of the integrated ISTS, the inter-state transmission charges will still have to be paid for re-routing also in the presently available transmission infrastructure.

9 19. The Petitioner s energy is injected at the JPL bus. That injection point is fixed by the PPA. The Petitioner can only determine and specify the delivery point. The Hon ble Commission will need to also consider whether the actual routing of power through specified lines can at all be specified by the purchaser and whether there is any way of ensuring that particular power is transmitted exclusively by particular lines or routes. It does not appear that the inter-state transmission charges can be avoided unless the STU establishes direct connectivity at the 400 kv bus of the JPL at the generating station; and such an issue would be only within the purview of the STU and not the Petitioner. 20. The Hon ble Commission had not brought any such issue during the course of the proceedings and the Petitioner was never afforded any opputunity to be heard on the issue. 21. It is therefore necessary that the Hon ble Commission reviews its decision and direction as the re-routing directed would not achieve the objective and there is clearly serious misconception and error apparent from record and in the interest of justice. Direction not to sell surplus power at less than Rs The Hon ble Commission has directed the Petitioner not to sell surplus power at less than Rs 3.65 per unit. It was further directed that, in case the surplus power cannot be sold at a price of Rs 3.65 or more, the

10 generation from other sources tied up under PPAs should be backed down. 23. The Hon ble Commission had not put any such issue during the course of the proceedings and the Petitioner was given no opportunity to be heard on the matter. 24. The matter needs consideration of several aspects. The merit order is drawn up on the basis of the ascending order of variable costs for the long term power purchases which have provisions for payment of fixed costs and variable costs. The generation from renewable sources and also short term power purchase arrangements, including through power exchanges, cannot be backed down. The fixed cost is a sunk cost and will be payable even if the station is asked to back down. Only the variable cost is saved. Therefore, if surplus energy is sold at a price more than the variable cost of such sources which can be asked to back down in terms of the PPA, the sale is beneficial. The issue therefore requires re-consideration on material and relevant matters. It is also necessary to consider the situations where a station is asked to back down for CSPDCL commercial considerations but such stations are directed to maintain their generations by the RLDC/SLDC on considerations of grid security. 25. As several important issues arise which have not been taken into consideration and the Petitioner has not been heard, the decision of the Hon ble Commission requires to be reviewed.

11 Power Purchase from NTPC Mouda 26. The Hon ble Commission has disapproved the power purchase from NTPC Mauda and has directed that the allocated capacity from this station to be surrendered. The Hon ble Commission has also observed that no PPA was approved by the Hon ble Commission for this station and no application for approval was made. It is submitted that the Hon ble Commission s decision and observations are erroneous from material on record and require to be reviewed. 27. The Petitioner has submitted the PPA for the NTPC Mouda station to the Hon ble Commission along with other long term PPAs with PSU & CPSU stations as far back as in 2011 under cover of the Petitioner s letter dated It is submitted that the PPAs for NTPC power were not subjected to specific proceedings for approval of PPAs earlier, but the Hon ble Commission has been approving power purchases from such stations in the various tariff orders from time to time. The specific approval in the tariff order is tantamount to approval of the purchases, and that is how it has always been considered by all parties including the Hon ble Commission. The Hon ble Commission has specifically approved power purchase from the NTPC Mauda Station for FY , and in Table 266 of the Tariff Order dated along with the other NTPC stations. It is therefore unreasonable for the Hon ble Commission to disapprove power purchases from NTPC Mauda (which had already been authorized) on the ground that the PPA has not been specifically approved; while also at

12 the same time approving authorized purchases from other NTPC stations whose PPAs are similarly placed. 28. The Petitioner is willing to take steps to terminate the PPAs with NTPC Mauda subject to legal issues and feasibility. However all consequential costs and effects of the termination, including legal implications, has to be allowed as a pass through. 29. The Petitioner was never given any opportunity to be heard on the issue. 30. It is therefore necessary that the Hon ble Commission review the decision and direction. O&M expenses for FY and FY The Hon ble Commission has incorrectly considered the efficiency gain / loss for O&M expenses of FY and FY contrary to the material on record and contrary to the provisions of the MYT Regulations The figure of cr appears erroneous and it is also incorrect to consider it a normative figure. In the MYT Order dated the Hon ble Commission has approved cr as the O&M approved on the basis of the final true up for FY That was not a normative for FY It was the approved final tru-up figure for FY It is therefore incorrect to arrive at the normatives for FY

13 and FY on the basis of the actual approved true up figure for FY by erroneously considering that as a normative. 33. In the MYT Order dated , the Hon ble Commission has determined and fixed the norms (at Table 217) for FY , and at 711 cr, cr and cr respectively following the MYT Regulations. Those figures fixed as aforesaid are to be considered as the normatives for the relevant year and the efficiency gains are to be construed and determined accordingly. The Hon ble Commission has erroneously considered an actual approved expenditure as a normative or a basis for the normative for subsequent years; and this is an error apparent from the face of the record. The Hon ble Commission cannot reset norms in true-up on the basis of actual expenditure and thereby reduce the provisions for sharing of gains to nought. 34. It is therefore necessary that the Hon ble Commission review the determination of the gains and losses and the consequent sharing of the same in accordance with Clause 5.9 of the MYT Regulation The Petitioner reserves the right to make such further submissions, grounds, documents or pleadings during the course of the proceedings. Limitation & Fees 36. The copy of the Order dated , forwarded under cover of Commission s letter dated was received by the counsel for

14 the Petitioner on ; and accordingly the Review petition is filed within time. 37. The prescribed fees of Rs 1,00,000/- is deposited herewith. Prayer 38. For the above reasons, and for such are the reasons that may be urged in the course of the proceedings and/or during hearing, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to review the common order dated passed by the Hon ble Commission in Petition No 7 of 2014 and to allow the review petition in terms of the grounds and submissions aforesaid and hereafter; and to pass such further or other orders as the Hon ble Commission considers fit and/or expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Raipur OIC for CSPDCL

15