2014 (8) TMI 1195 - Commission - Indian Laws

Rectification of Mistake - errors apparent on the face of the record - sufficient reason present or not - HELD THAT - In the present case SAIL-BSP is a State embedded entity whose schedule is prepared by Chhattisgarh SLDC. However the scheduling of NSPCL being an ISGS is done by WRLDC. Therefore WRLDC prepares schedule for whole Chhattisgarh and Chhattisgarh SLDC in turn prepares schedule for SAIL-BSP. Therefore WRLDC applies zonal charges and losses as per Sharing Regulations. Further as per implemented schedule available at SLDC Chhattisgarh web site the drawal schedule of BSP is prepared considering CSPDCL as buyer of power from NSPCL and path of their power is shown as transmission system of WR and CSPTCL. NSPCL-BSP-SAIL dedicated transmission lines are connecting two entities viz. NSPCL and SAIL-BSP in two different control areas coordinated respectively by WRLDC and SLDC Chhattisgarh. If the petitioner s contention is to be upheld then NSPCL may have to dedicate one unit purely as captive plant to cater to the captive load of SAIL-BSP and it needs to be fully disconnected from the other unit having long term allocation to other beneficiaries. In that case WRLDC will schedule only one unit of NSPCL and the other unit along with SAIL-BSP will be with the Chhattisgarh SLDC control area - there is no error of fact or law apparent on the face of record. Review petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the petitioner to share transmission losses.
2. Consideration of dedicated transmission lines.
3. Petitioner's contractual agreements and power drawal.
4. Application of transmission charges and losses.
5. Consistency with previous Commission orders.
6. Scope of review versus appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the petitioner to share transmission losses:
The Commission concluded that the petitioner, an intra-State entity of CSEB, is liable to share transmission losses under the Sharing Regulations. The estimated zonal transmission losses are applied to the net drawl schedule prepared for the regional entity CSEB, and as the petitioner is an intra-State entity under CSEB, the same is applicable to its schedule.

2. Consideration of dedicated transmission lines:
The petitioner argued that it does not use any segment of the intra-State Transmission System and that the power drawn is through a dedicated transmission line, separate from the inter-State Transmission System. The Commission, however, found that the dedicated transmission line connecting NSPCL with the petitioner is being used as an ISTS line. WRLDC demonstrated through power flow scenarios that ISTS lines are used to carry power to the petitioner, making the petitioner liable for transmission losses.

3. Petitioner's contractual agreements and power drawal:
The petitioner highlighted its agreement with CSEB/CSPDCL for a contract demand of 225 MVA and its monthly payment to ensure power security. It also claimed that it never drew power in excess of what was generated by NSPCL for its captive consumption. The Commission noted that the petitioner is an embedded entity within the Chhattisgarh control area, and any power scheduled from NSPCL by WRLDC is scheduled through CSPDCL, with necessary scheduling losses applied.

4. Application of transmission charges and losses:
The petitioner contended that the supply of power through the dedicated transmission line should not attract inter-State transmission charges and losses. WRLDC countered that transmission charges and losses are applied to the scheduled energy, not the actual energy flow, as per the Sharing Regulations. The Commission agreed with WRLDC, stating that the petitioner's schedule is prepared by Chhattisgarh SLDC, and WRLDC applies zonal charges and losses accordingly.

5. Consistency with previous Commission orders:
The petitioner referenced previous Commission orders (Petition No. 189/MP/2012 and Petition No. 95/MP/2013) to argue for consistency in the decision. The Commission clarified that the principles applied in those cases, where transmission charges and losses are applicable to scheduled energy, were consistent with the present case.

6. Scope of review versus appeal:
The Commission emphasized that the petitioner was raising points on merit, which fall outside the scope of a review and within the scope of an appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Parsion Devi and Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors, the Commission reiterated that a review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion:
The Commission found no error of fact or law apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition, reiterating that the petitioner's arguments were more suitable for an appeal rather than a review.