Cerc DC
Cerc DC
Cerc DC
NEW DELHI
Coram:
Vs
Petition No.43/2003
In the matter of
1
11. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
12. Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd
13. Punjab state Electricity Board
14. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board
15. Chattisgarh State Electricity Board
16. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd
17. Maharashtra State Electricity Board
18. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd
19. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
20. Karnataka Power Trans. Corp. Ltd
21. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
22. Assam State Electricity Board
23. Gujarat Electricity Board,
24. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
25. Power Development Department, J&K
26. Power Department, Chandigarh
27. Kerala State Electricity Board
28. Electricity Department, Govt. of Pondicherry
29. Dept. of Power, Govt. of Sikkim, Gangtok
30. Electricity Department, Govt. of Goa
31. Electricity Department, Admn of Daman & Diu
32. Electricity Department, Admn of Dadra Nagar Haveli
33. Western Regional Electricity Board
34. Southern Regional Electricity Board
35. Eastern Regional Electricity Board
36. Northern Regional Electricity Board
37. North Eastern Regional Electricity Board …. Respondents
2
18. Er. V.A. Kumar, UPPCL
19. Shri K.K. Gar, GM(Comml.), NTPC
20. Shri R. Day, NTPC
21. Shri M.S. Chawla, AGM, NTPC
22. Shri S.S. Mendiratta, NTPC
23. Shri M.K.V. Rama Rao, NTPC
24. Shri M.D. Roy, NEEPCO
25. Shri D. Khandelwal, MPSEB
26. Shri Akhtar Hussain, NEEPCO
27. Shri V. Venkanna, NEEPCO
28. Shri V.K. Gupta, PSEB
29. Shri R.S. Sharma, NTPC
30. Shri S.N. Goel, NTPC
31. Shri K. Gopalakrishnan, KSEB
32. Shri R. Balachandran, KSEB
33. Shri M. Saxena, NTPC
34. Shri M.K. Mitra, CEA
35. Shri Ranjana Gupta, NTPC
36. Shri V.K. Agarwal, NRLDC
37. Shri P.K. Agrawal, NRLDC
38. Shri S.R. Narasimhan, NRLDC
39. Shri S.K. Samui, NTPC
40. Shri S.K. Johar, NTPC
41. Shri T.R. Sohal, NTPC
42. Shri A. Dua, NTPC
43. Shri S. K. Aggarwal, NTPC
44. Shri C.K. Sahajeevani, HVPN
45. Shri D.K. Salpeku, NTPC
46. Shri E. Surendra, NTPC
47. Shri K.V. Balakrishnan, Advocate, NTPC
48. Shri M.G. Ramachandran, NTPC
49. Shri H.H. Sharma, ASEB
50. Shri R.K. Arora, HVPN
51. Shri R.G. Yadav, PGCIL
52. Shri V. Mittal, PGCIL
53. Shri C.K. Mandol, NTPC
54. Shri D.D. Chopra, Advocate, UPPCL
55. Shri S.K. Sharma, NTPC
ORDER
(DATE OF HEARING: 22.10.2003)
The Commission had notified the terms and conditions for determination of
tariff on 26.3.2001 under CERC (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2001.
3
These regulations are applicable for the period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004.
station as and when asked by the Regional Load Despatch Centre of the region in
demonstrate the declared capability, the capacity charges due to the generator
shall be reduced as a measure of penalty. The quantum of penalty for the first
to two days’ fixed charges. For the second mis-declaration, the penalty prescribed
is equivalent to fixed charges for four days and for subsequent mis-declaration the
Commission. Note below Clause 2.18 further provides that in case it is observed
that the declaration of its capability by the generator is on lower side and the
actual generation is more than the declared capability, UI charges due to the
3. The petitions have been filed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) and
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) for relaxation of the provisions
of note below Clause 2.18. In view of the commonality of the issues raised in
4
these two petitions, these were heard together and are being disposed of through
2.18, the generator is denied UI charges when it helps the grid and increases
generation above its declared capability during low frequency. It is stated that due
to inherent factors like variation in quality of coal, coal flow, control system
NTPC has demonstrated through the data annexed to the petition that its
generation, attributable to operating conditions and were beyond its control. It has
been submitted that such variations should be treated as normal and should not
generator. It is further stated that to avoid any negative UI, that is, UI charges
payable by the generator in case generation falls below the schedule, generators
argued that in view of the note below Clause 2.18, neither energy charges nor UI
charges are admissible to the generator for generation above schedule, which is
more of the nature of penalty. According to NTPC, due to inherent design margin
higher output than the rated capacity, at least for short periods. In view of NTPC, it
is in the interest of grid to exploit this extra capability and there should not be any
5
declared capability during low frequency conditions. NTPC has, therefore, prayed
”In case it is observed that the declaration of its capability by the generator
is on lower side and the actual generation is more than 102% of DC, then
UI charges due to the generator on account of generation up to 102% of
DC shall be paid and UI charges for generation beyond 102% of DC shall
be reduced to zero and the amount shall be credited towards UI account of
beneficiaries in the ratio of their capacity share in the station. “
5. The prayer made by NTPC in substance means that the generator should
6. NLC in its petition has also pointed out the practical difficulties in
application of note below Clause 2.18 and has prayed the Commission to issue
necessary orders to treat the normal variations of load above declared capability
as UI receivable by the generator. In other words, the prayer of NLC is that there
noticed above, the terms and conditions of tariff notified on 26.3.2001 are
6
is almost over since only about one month is left. Therefore, it may not be
notification at this stage. The Commission has already circulated draft regulations
on terms and conditions of tariff to be applicable from 1.4.2004. The issue raised
on behalf of NTPC and NLC will be addressed while finalising the terms and
conditions for the period from 1.4.2004 and onwards. We may point out that
hearing on the draft terms and conditions of tariff is fixed for 9th and 10th March
2004. The central power generating utilities, SEBs, etc. may respond to the issue
9. NTPC in its petition has raised an additional issue. It has prayed for a
permission to NTPC and/or its wholly owned subsidiary company, NTPC Vidyut
beneficiaries, at a rate agreed with other buyers. NTPC has also suggested the
other utilities.
10. The prayer made does not directly flow out of the substantive issue raised
petition duly supported by necessary details. However, before parting with this
Act, a generating company may supply electricity to any licensee and may,
subject to regulations made under sub-section (2) of Section 42, supply electricity
7
to any consumer. It has been separately held by the Commission that NVVNL is
11. With the above observations, Petition No. 24/2003 and 43/2003 stand
disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.N. SINHA) (ASHOK BASU)
MEMBER CHAIRMAN