9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whole and as SAIL-BSP is an intra-State entity under CSEB, the same shall become applicable on its schedule." 2. The petitioner has submitted that in reaching the above conclusion, the Commission has not considered the following salient aspects which were available on record: (a) The Commission has not taken into consideration that the petitioner is not the user of any segment or element or node of intra-State Transmission System. The injection of power drawn by the petitioner is at a separate line which is a dedicated transmission line to the petitioner's facilities and is totally independent of the power injected in the inter-State Transmission System. The quantum of power injected into the dedicated transmission line are separately recorded and separate scheduling is being shown which has been acknowledged by the Commission in para 20 of the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for sharing of the losses for supply of power received from the generating station through the dedicated transmission line. (b) The petitioner is a consumer of CSEB/CSPDCL and has entered into an agreement on 26.10.2009 for a contract demand of 225 MVA and is paying Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tricity Grid Code) Regulations, 2010, and entire ex-bus generation was scheduled by WRLDC. This scheduling included full allocation to Chhattisgarh State control area which comprises of allocation to Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) and to Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP). With the above, 220 kV NSPCL, BSP lines became the interconnecting lines between ISTS grid and Chhattisgarh State network. Also the contention by the petitioner that the 220 kV inter connection between NSPCL and BSP are radial lines is totally incorrect. BSP is connected with NSPCL (which is further connected to Raipur (POWERGRID) and with CSPTCL at Khedamara 400 kV S/S (STU S/S). Further, Khedamara 400 kV S/S of CSPTCL is connected with Raipur 400 kV S/S of POWERGRID through Khedamara-Raipur 400 kV line. By virtue of these inter links the inter-connection loses the status of radial connectivity with NSPCL. The statement by the petitioner that BSP is having contracted supply agreement with CSPDCL clearly shows that the petitioner BSP is an embedded entity of CSPDCL and any power scheduled from NSPCL by WRLDC will be scheduled through CSPDCL only and necessary scheduling losses will be applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterated the submissions made in the review petition. Learned counsel submitted that the Commission has not considered the contract demand of SAIL-BSP from CSPDCL which shows that in case of tripping or outage of NSPCL, the petitioner draws power from the system of CSPTCL and not from the ISTS. Learned counsel further submitted that even when there is outage of the dedicated transmission line, the petitioner has never sought scheduling from ISTS. Both these factors show that the dedicated transmission line is not part of the meshed network and therefore, transmission losses cannot be levied on the petitioner. 7. We have considered the submissions of SAIL-BSP and WRLDC. According to SAIL-BSP, the following conclusions in the impugned order are wrong and are not based on materials on record:- (a) The dedicated transmission line connecting NSPCL with SAIL-BSP is being used as ISTS line. (b) WRLDC has demonstrated on the basis of actual power flow under three scenarios that ISTS lines are being used to carry power to SAIL-BSP. (c) The schedule of SAIL-BSP (through CSEB) is not dependent on availability of NSPCL SAIL-BSP line. Once scheduled, SAIL-BSP can draw power from meshed I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a on WRLDC website, separate scheduling is being shown for SAIL-BSP under heading SAIL-BSP-CSEB. In view of the above discussion, we hold that WRLDC has allocated losses as per the Sharing Regulations and the procedure issued thereunder." 10. The petitioner has submitted that the supply of power through the dedicated transmission line to CSPDCL is also not correct and contention of WRLDC can be considered as being some inadvertent flow of power. The petitioner has relied on the Commission`s order dated 8.6.2013 in Petition No. 189/MP/2012 and has submitted that present case needs to be consistent with the said order dated 8.6.2013. WRLDC has submitted that in para 23 of the order dated 8.6.2013 in Petition No.189/MP/2012, the Commission has held that transmission charges and losses are applicable on schedule of energy and not on actual energy flow. WRLDC has submitted that the same principles has been adopted while scheduling NSPCL power to its beneficiaries i.e. transmission charges and losses are applicable on the schedule of energy and not on actual energy flow. We are in agreement with the submission of WRLDC. 11. In the present case, SAIL-BSP is a State embedded entity whose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
